No abstract

Public aversion to plans by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to remediate radionuclide-contaminated sites under its jurisdiction is due in large part to three factors: a lack of confidence in the ability of the DOE to manage these sites; the perception that the department pays insufficient attention to public health, the environment, and options for future land use; and previous DOE failure to elicit public opinions about the management and remediation of these sites. By eliciting public attitudes toward the remediation of one set of DOE sites in a large metropolitan area, this case study tries to gauge the relationship between public concerns about the site and attitudes regarding proposed remediation strategies. It also seeks to ascertain if and how the public wants to participate in the selection of remediation strategies.Considerable research has been done on public perceptions of the risks associated with hazardous and radionuclide-contaminated sites (1-3). However, few studies have related these risk perceptions to public views toward remediation strategies. For example, do members of the affected public who view the site as a health risk prefer a certain type of remediation strategy?The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in St. Louis, Missouri, provides a unique opportunity to explore these issues. Recently at this site, controversy has emerged over proposed remediation strategies that could leave considerable amounts of contaminated materials within the community. As a result of public opposition to these plans, the DOE has decided to elicit public input into the process of selecting a remediation strategy so that the strategy that is chosen is durable and politically acceptable.

/ More than three dozen states and communities in the United States have undertaken comparative risk projects to establish environmental priorities and, thus, to address their most important environmental problems. This trend has been supported by a growing consensus among subnational governments that they are increasingly encumbered with prescriptive, top-down environmental regulations and policies without regard to the policies' efficacy, benefit, or cost. Despite the rising use of comparative risk projects, few studies have systematically analyzed and compared them. The purpose of our research was to fill this void. Weexamined key elements of comparative risk projects including how they were administered; how they involved the public; how they characterized, ranked, and prioritized risks; whether and how they implemented ranking results; and whether and how they evaluated project results. The research team reviewed project reports and independent studies and undertook a survey of risk project participants. Results showed that while many priority-setting projects have successfully identified environmental problems and characterized and ranked their risks, few have developed risk-management strategies. Successes to date include increasing environmental awareness among participants; building consensus and establishing collaboration among diverse stakeholders; and establishing novel means of public involvement. However, no project that we evaluated has, as yet, documented achievement of a system for developing and implementing environmental priorities in order to mitigate their most significant environmental problems. Further, it may be difficult to know if and when this objective is met unless projects establish mechanisms for evaluating their results, a project element that was often missing or limited in scope. We also discuss the challenges to developing implementable risk-management strategies and conclude by citing future research needs. KEY WORDS: Comparative risk assessment; Environmental priorities; Risk-ranking

Nationwide, landscape irrigation accounts for more than 7 billion gallons of water per day. But up to 50 percent of this water is wasted due to overwatering, poor irrigation system design, evaporation, or other factors. Additionally, excessive or poorly timed fertilizer application can cause pollution runoff and deterioration of surface and ground water. This 8-page fact sheet presents a quick overview of the Yards and Neighborhoods program that educates homeowners about nine core principles for landscape management. Written by Tatiana Borisova, Katie Giacalone, Ruth Anne Hanahan, and Esen Momol, and published by the UF Department of Food and Resource Economics, August 2011. (UF/IFAS Photo Thomas Wright) FE892/FE892: Quick Overview of Extension Programs to Educate Homeowners about Environmentally Friendly Landscape Practices in Florida, South Carolina, and Tennessee (ufl.edu)