Risk Perception, Federal Spending, and the Savannah River Site: Attitudes of Hunters and Fishermen

Abstract

This paper examines the attitudes of 285 hunters and fishermen from South Carolina about hunting and fishing, risk, environmental issues, and future land use of the Savannah River Site, We test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in hunting and fishing rates, attitudes toward the safety of fish and deer obtained from SRS, attitudes toward future land use at SRS, and perceptions of the severity of environmental problems as a function of how far respondents lived from the site. Respondents hunted or fished an average of over 40 days a year, and only half felt that the fish and deer from SRS were safe to eat. Willingness to expend federal funds was correlated with perceptions of the severity of the problem. Preferences for future land use at SRS fell into three categories: high (environmental research park, hunting, fishing, camping), medium (nuclear production, factories, preserve only), and low (nuclear waste storage, residential). There were no differences in hunting and fishing rates, ranking of the severity of environmental problems, and willingness to expend federal funds as a function of distance of residence from SRS, but attitudes toward future land use differed significantly as a function of location of residence. Those living close to SRS were more willing to have the site used for factories, residential, nuclear material production and to store nuclear wastes than those living farther from the site. Our data on recreational rates, attitudes toward future land use, and willingness to expend federal funds to solve environmental problems reiterate the importance of assessing stakeholder attitudes toward decisions regarding future land use at DOE sites.

Study of the future land use of a contaminated site: Preferences versus potential use

“…Industrial uses, including nu- clear reprocessing and current nuclear storage, were rated relatively low, and increased nuclear storage and building homes and factories were rated the lowest.These ratings are different from those expressed by people living around DOE's Savannah River Site in South Carolina (Burger, 2000a;Burger et al, 1997) and the Idaho Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho (Burger et al, 2000a, b). The key differences between the preferences expressed by people in this study and those living around SRS and INEEL are as follows: (1) people in Albuquerque did not rate NERP as the highest, while people living near the other sites did, (2) people at Albuquerque rated nonconsumptive uses the highest (hiking, camping, and birdwatching), while those at INEEL rated these much lower, although people interviewed at a Mayfest near SRS also rated these uses high, and (3) people at Albuquerque rated using it for a preserve in the middle, while those at INEEL rated it low.…”

“…There has been little attention devoted to the perceptions and risks of Hispanics, although considerable research has been devoted to blacks and American Indians in various places in the United States (Burger, 1998a(Burger, , b, 1999bBurger et al, 1997Burger et al, , 1999aFleming et al, 1995;Harris & Harper, 1998;Toth & Brown, 1997).This is surprising since Hispanic/Latino is a fast-growing segment of the population in many regions of the country, including the Southwest.Yet, by 2001 the proportion of Hispanics in America is expected to triple from 1990, to nearly 30 percent of the population (Huerta & Macario, 1999). Recently, the risks incurred by Hispanics with respect to fish consumption Kirk-Pflugh et al, 1999), and recreational rates (Burger, 2000b) have been examined.…”

“…Some questions might elicit a negative response that is general rather than being specific to Los Alamos. For example, continued nuclear reprocessing or increased nuclear storage may elicit a low rating, regardless of whether the question is about Los Alamos or any place else.The questionnaire was generally the same as that used at three events in South Carolina near the Savannah River Site (Burger et al, 1997) and at four other events in Idaho ). An interview typically required about 15 minutes.…”

Enhanced recreational opportunities at U.S. DOE sites: Economic evaluation of an alternative land‐use scenario at the Savannah river site

“…Local officials, community leaders, and residents have expressed an interest in seeing the development of more opportunities for outdoor recreation on the site and in the areas surrounding SRS (Burger, 1997(Burger, , 1998aBurger et al, 1997;in press b;Lowrie and Greenberg, 1997;SRS CAB, 1996). SRS attracts substantial numbers of people to the area already for hunting opportunities and for the scenic views of beautifully forested areas that have been preserved and enhanced by the U.S. Forest Service for half a century.…”

A framework for analysis of contamination on human and ecological receptors at DOE hazardous waste site buffer lands

“…Understanding stakeholder perceptions is key to building trust, to determining the best possible land use, and to designing a long-term stewardship program that the public supports. Managing ecosystems, and remediation on them, is a social process (Meffe & Viederman, 1995;Norgaard, 1992), and understanding the perceptions of elected officials and the public is a critical component (Lowrie & Greenberg, 1997).Over the past ten years, the Consortium for Risk Evaluation and Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) has been involved in assessing the views of a number of different stakeholders about various aspects of DOE operations and land use (Burger, 2000b(Burger, , 2001(Burger, , 2003a(Burger, , 2004(Burger, , 2005Burger et al, 1997bBurger et al, , 1998Burger et al, , 1999aBurger et al, , 1999bBurger et al, , 1999cGoldstein et al, 2000;Greenberg & Lowrie, 2001, 2002Williams et al, 1999). In addition to examining the perceptions and views of public officials, planners, and the general public, methods have been developed to assess the views of the public about ecological services, ecological resources, resource use (i.e., hunting and fishing rates), and future land use.…”