Source: news.err.ee Source: phys.

org
Source: thisiseco.co.uk

Public Perception and Attitude

Towards Waste Incineration

Source:National Toxics Network

 Introduction

Perception and Attitude Towards Waste Incineration

NIMBY Syndrome

Outline
Factors Affecting Public Acceptance of Waste Incineration

Enhancing Public Acceptance Towards Waste Incineration

Projects

Impact of Waste Incineration on Waste Diversion

 Introduction
Introduction
❖ MSW is expected to grow from 2.01 billion tons in 2016 to 3.40
billion tons by 2050
❖ Demand for environmentally sound management of municipal
solid waste has significantly increased

Source: WBG, What a Waste 2.0, 2018

 Introduction

➢ Developed countries adopted

hierarchical approach to
effectively manage their solid
waste
➢ Landfilling - common current
management practice worldwide;
often considered to be the worst
option
➢ Waste Incineration - offers
effective solutions to deal with
the MSW surge and global energy
and environmental issues
 Introduction

Source: J. Song et al., PESTEL analysis of the development of the waste-to-energy incineration industry in China, 2017
 Perception and Attitude Towards WTE Incineration

Findings Literature
49.9% of the respondents preferred WTE over landfill Ren, Che, Yang, and Tao (2016)
and composting (Shanghai, China)
81% of the respondents preferred WTE Incineration Baxter et al. (2016)
over non-WTE incinerator and WTE and non WTE
landfill (Ontario, Canada)
Over 70% respondents support waste incinerators Huang, Ning, Zhang, & Fei
(Jiangsu, China) (2015)
Higher level of support for WTE incineration compared Achillas et al. (2011)
to landfill (Greece)
 NIMBY Syndrome

• Geographical location shows a

significant influence on public
acceptance of WTE incineration
projects
• Greater percentage of respondents
disagreed with siting of WTE
incinerator near residential area
(NIMBY)

Source: Huang et al.

Factors that Affect Public Acceptance of WTE Incinerators

Public perceived risk

Public trust

Perceived fairness/justice

“Different values” and “attitude toward need”

Demographic characteristics
 Factors that Affect Public Acceptance of WTE Incinerators

Source: Liu et al. (2018)

 Factors that Affect Public Acceptance of WTE Incinerators

• Trust was positively associated with public acceptance, both directly and
indirectly through perceived risk.
• Enhancing trust in authorities and reducing the local residents’ perceived risk
- the most logical and reasonable way to improve public acceptance

Source: Liu et al. (2018)

Enhancing Public Acceptance Towards WTE Incineration Projects

Comprehensive EIA with public participation

Variety of compensation arrangements

Establishment of a more experienced operator

Transparency and information disclosure

Effective risk communication

Range of community engagement approaches

 Impact of Waste Incineration on Waste Diversion

• WTE facilities threatens waste

diversion
• 14% agreed that they would be less
inclined to divert recyclable/
compostable materials if they knew
materials went to a WTE landfill or
incinerator.
 References
Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Banias, G., Kafetzopoulos, G., & Karagiannidis, A. (2011). Social acceptance for the development of a waste-to-energy plant in an
urban area. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(9-10), 857-863.
Baxter, J., Ho, Y., Rollins, Y., & Maclaren, V. (2016). Attitudes toward waste to energy facilities and impacts on diversion in Ontario, Canada. Waste management, 50, 75-85.
Chung, J. B., Kim, H.K. (2009). Competition, economic benefits, trust, and risk perception in siting a potentially hazardous facility. Landscape and Urban Planning(91), 8-16.
Dijkgraaf, E., & Vollebergh, H. R. (2004). Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods. Ecological Economics, 50(3-4), 233-247.
Federica Cucchiella, I. D. A., Paolo Rosa. (2016). URBAN WASTE TO ENERGY (WTE) PLANTS: A SOCIAL ANALYSIS. JP Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer.
Guerrero, L. A., Maas, G., & Hogland, W. (2013). Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste management, 33(1), 220-232.
Huang, Y., Ning, Y., Zhang, T., & Fei, Y. (2015). Public acceptance of waste incineration power plants in China: Comparative case studies. Habitat International, 47, 11-19.
Jinbo Songa, Y. S., Lulu Jina. (2017). PESTEL analysis of the development of the waste-to-energy incineration industry in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal
homepage:, 80, 276–289.
Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., & Van Woerden, F. (2018). What a waste 2.0: a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050: World Bank Publications.
Kollikkathara N, F. H., Stern E. (2009). A purview of waste management evolution: special emphasis on USA. Waste management(2009), 974–985.
Kumar, A., & Samadder, S. R. (2017). A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste management, 69, 407-422.
Liu, Y., Ge, Y., Xia, B., Cui, C., Jiang, X., & Skitmore, M. (2019). Enhancing public acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration projects: Lessons learned from a case study in
China. Sustainable cities and society, 48, 101582.
Liu, Y., Sun, C., Xia, B., Cui, C., & Coffey, V. (2018). Impact of community engagement on public acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration projects: Empirical evidence
from China. Waste management, 76, 431-442.
Mah, D. N.-Y., Hills, P., Tao, J. (2014). Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong. Energ. Policy(73), 368–390.
Miranda, M. L., & Hale, B. (1997). Waste not, want not: the private and social costs of waste-to-energy production. Energy Policy, 25(6), 587-600.
Ren, X., Che, Y., Yang, K., & Tao, Y. (2016). Risk perception and public acceptance toward a highly protested Waste-to-Energy facility. Waste management, 48, 528-539.
Rootes, C. (2009a). Environmental movements, waste and waste infrastructure: an introduction. Environmental Politics, 18(6), 817–834.
Ross, V. L., Fielding, K.S., Louis, W.R. (2014). Social trust, risk perceptions and public acceptance of recycled water: testing a social-psychological model. J. Environ. Manage.(137),
61–68.
Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis(20), 195–204.
Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Mertz, C., Neil, N., Purchase, I.F. (1997). Evaluating chemical risks: results of a survey of the British toxicology society. Hum. Exp. Toxicol., 16((6)), 289–
304.
Upreti, B. R., Van der Horst, D. (2004). National renewable energy policy and local opposition in the UK: the failed development of a biomass electricity plant. Biomass
Bioenergy(26), 61–69.
Xu, G. L. Y. (2013). Anti-incinerator campaigns and the evolution of protest politics in China. Environmental Politics, 22(5), 832-848.
Zheng Wan, J. C., Brian Craig. (2015). Lessons learned from Huizhou, China's unsuccessful waste-to-energy incinerator project: Assessment and policy recommendations. Utilities
Policy, 33, 63e68.