Review Paper on Perception and Attitude Towards

Waste Incineration

November 2019
 Perception and Attitude Towards Waste Incineration

Abstract

Waste incineration provides an effective solution for efficient and effective MSW disposal. However,
it faces considerably strong oppositions from local community globally due to potential hazards to
environment and health. This study brings together literatures on perception and attitudes towards
waste incineration. An exploratory literature review was conducted, and the findings showed that
several scientific studies have resulted to a positive response towards waste incineration. Waste to
Energy (WTE) incineration is preferred over landfill (with or without WTE facility) and composting.
Public acceptance towards WTE incineration is influenced by (1) public perceived risk; (2) public
trust; (3) perceived fairness/justice; (4) “different values” and “attitude toward need”; and, (5)
demographic characteristics. Enhancing trust in authorities such as local government and operators, as
well as reducing the local residents’ perceived risk, is the most logical and reasonable way to improve
public acceptance towards WTE incineration projects.
 Review Paper
Attitude and Perception Towards WTE Incineration

1. Introduction

Waste generation is a natural product of urbanization, economic development, and population growth.
In 2016, an estimated of 2.01 billion tons of municipal solid waste were generated and this number is
expected to grow to 3.40 billion tons by 2050 (Kaza, Yao, Bhada-Tata, & Van Woerden, 2018).
Because of the increasing generation of waste and the burden posed on municipal budget, solid waste
management became a challenge to the authorities of both small and large cities’ in developing
countries (Guerrero, Maas, & Hogland, 2013).

Over the last decades, a demand for environmentally sound management of municipal solid waste has
significantly increased. However, a single waste management option cannot provide a holistic
solution for all different kinds of wastes generated and populations with different characteristics,
customs and habits (Kollikkathara N, 2009). Developed countries have adopted a hierarchical
approach to effectively manage their solid waste. First, wastes should be reduced, otherwise recycled
or reused; next, recovered through digestion or composting; incinerated with energy recovery; and,
the least preferred option, landfilled (Dijkgraaf & Vollebergh, 2004). Landfilling - a common current
management practice in many areas worldwide (Kaza et al., 2018) - is often considered to be the
worst option because it consumes a lot of space and runs a high risk of leakages to air, water and soil
(Miranda & Hale, 1997). As an alternative, thermal treatment technologies were adopted for an
efficient waste management scheme. Waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration offers effective solutions to
deal with the MSW surge and global energy and environmental issues, because the utilization of
MSW as a renewable energy source can unlock the usable energy stored in MSW to displace fossil
fuel (Kumar & Samadder, 2017). Despite this, however, WTE incineration facilities face considerably
strong opposition from the local communities in which they are situated because of such potential
hazards as smell and dioxin release (Achillas et al., 2011; Baxter, Ho, Rollins, & Maclaren, 2016).

There is considerable policy debate about waste incineration and surprisingly little social scientific
research on WTE attitudes. This paper brings together literatures on perception and attitudes towards
waste incineration.

2. Methodology

An exploratory literature review was conducted for this paper. The ScienceDirect database, the widest
search engine for peer-reviewed scientific literature, was searched using keywords – attitudes,
perception, waste incineration – that were directly derived from the research topic. The most relevant
and recent literatures were identified. In total, 23 scientific journal articles and one (1) book were
considered in this literature review

3. Perception and Attitude Towards WTE Incineration

In China alone, Jinbo Songa (2017) recorded 18 public opposition events caused by WTE incinerators
(Table 1). However, some scientific researches have shown that WTE is more preferred treatment for
MSW as compared with landfill and composting (Table 2). In Shanghai, China, for example, Ren,
Che, Yang, and Tao (2016) found that 49.9% of the respondents preferred WTE over landfill and
composting. In Greece, Achillas et al. (2011) also found a higher level of support for WTE
incineration compared to landfill. They measured whether residents of Thessaloniki, a large city with
an acute waste crisis, felt traditional landfill (LF) was considered a better solution than WTE

1|Page
 Review Paper
Attitude and Perception Towards WTE Incineration

incineration in terms of: cost, public health, aesthetic nuisance, land degradation and energy recovery.
Among the parameters, only cost favored landfill. Similarly, Baxter et al. (2016) found that residents
of Ontario, Canada prefers WTE over non-WTE solutions for end of stream discards, with WTE
incineration most preferred and landfill least preferred. Residents support for WTE incineration was
high (81%) when measured as a forced choice preference over landfill or incineration without WTE.
However, the 81% ‘‘preference” for WTE incineration was almost halved to 43% when residents
were asked if they would ‘‘vote in favor” of a local facility and dropped to less than half of the
preference measure, to 36%, when measured as a 4-item index of support (vote in favor, live near,
manage own waste, key element of waste management).

Table 1 Public opposition events in China caused by WTE incineration (2007-2016)

Time Place Main Events

Jun. 200 7 Beijing The Liulitun WTE incineration plant was strongly resisted by the public and then stopped by
the MEP.
Jun. 2008 Wuhan The Chenjiachong WTE incineration plant was blocked by surrounding residents, and some
of Hankou's MSW was forced to detour to the Jiangxa landfill plant, which is 130 km away
from the waste transfer station. Because of the long journey, someMSW cannot be cleaned
up and transported in a timely manner.
Feb. 2009 Nanjing More than five thousand residents jointly opposed the construction of the Nanjing
Tianjingwa WTE incineration plant.
Mar. 2009 Beijing Thousands of people in the Chaoyang district of Beijing launched a petition against the
construction of the Gaoantun WTE incineration plant.
Apr. 2009 Shanghai Surrounding residents of the Shanghai Hongqiao WTE incineration plant protested and hung
banners at the gate of the plant, stating “Unite and fight against the worsening living
environment”.
Apr. 2009 Zhengzhou Surrounding residents of a WTE incineration plant blocked MSW trunks, which resulted in
confusion and a 35-metre long MSW pile on the road.
May. 2009 Shenzhen Hundreds of residents gathered to protest the construction of the Baigehu WTE incineration
project
Aug. 2009 Beijing People organized a motorcade to protest the construction of the Asuwei WTE incineration
plant.
Oct. 2009 Jiangsu Ten thousand local residents in Wujiang engaged in street protests against the operation of a
WTE incineration plant.
Nov. 2009 Guangzhou Thousands of surrounding residents launched a petition against the Panyu WTE incineration
plant.
Jan. 2010 Guangzhou The Likeng WTE incineration plant exploded, and 5 people were injured.
Dec. 2010 Shanghai The Jiangqiao WTE incineration plant exploded; 2 people were killed and 5 injured.
May 2014 Hangzhou Thousands of residents blocked Provincial Highway 02 to protest the construction of the
Yuhang Zhongtai WTE incineration plant.
Sep. 2014 Huizhou Thousands of residents gathered to protest the construction of the Guangdong Boluo WTE
incineration project.
Apr 2016 Haiyan The public gathered at the gate of the Haiyan government and at the intersection of East and
West Avenue due to their objections to the Haiyan WTE incineration plant.
Jun 2016 Xiantao Local residents in Xiantao gathered to protest the construction of the WTE incineration plant.
Jul. 2016 Zhaoqing More than one thousand people in Lubu town gathered in front of the town government to
protest the construction of a WTE incineration project.
Oct. 2016 Xian Residents in Gaoling staged a large-scale demonstration against the construction of a WTE
incineration plant.
Source: Jinbo Songa (2017)

2|Page
 Review Paper
Attitude and Perception Towards WTE Incineration

Table 2 List of Studies on Public Acceptance towards WTE Incineration

Findings Literature
About 49.9% of the respondents preferred WTE over landfill and composting Ren, Che, Yang, and Tao (2016)
(Shanghai, China)
About 81% of the respondents preferred WTE Incineration over non-WTE Baxter et al. (2016)
incinerator and WTE and non WTE landfill (Ontario, Canada)
More than 50% of respondents are available towards the construction of a WTE Cucchiella et. Al (2016)
plant (Lombardia, Italy)
Over 70% respondents support waste incinerators (Jiangsu, China) Huang, Ning, Zhang, & Fei (2015)
Higher level of support for WTE incineration compared to landfill (Greece) Achillas et al. (2011)

3.1 NIMBY Syndrome

Geographical location shows a significant influence on public acceptance of WTE incineration

projects (Liu, Sun, Xia, Cui, & Coffey, 2018). People living within 3 km from the WTE incinerators
showed a significantly lower acceptance level than residents living further away than 3 km. Also, in
Jiangsu Province in China, where two (2) WTE incinerator projects were located, over 70%
respondents, although support waste incinerators in general, hope that the project will not sit in the
vicinity of their residential areas (Huang, Ning, Zhang, & Fei, 2015). This ‘Not in my backyard
(NIMBY)’ syndrome was also clearly demonstrated in the study of Achillas et al. (2011) and Federica
Cucchiella (2016) where greater percentage of respondents disagreed with siting of WTE incinerator
near residential area. On contrary, support for a WTE incinerator was positively (and significantly)
associated by Baxter et al. (2016) with living within 10 km of a WTE incineration facility (50%
support) compared to those who do not live near a WTE incinerator (33% support) or don’t know if
they do (17% support). Also, Ren et al. (2016) found that in WTE incineration is most preferred
treatment for MSW regardless of distance.

Huang et al. (2015) found that concern of environmental pollution is the dominating cause for
NIMBY syndromes. Baxter et al. (2016) also identified environmental pollution/damage as one of the
variables that predict lack of support to WTE incinerators. Improving road condition, adopting
stringent standard of the odor emission and strict monitor the power plant operation closely would
help to alleviate environmental concern (Huang et al., 2015).

3.2 Factors that Affect Public Acceptance of WTE Incinerators

Public acceptance is important in siting WTE incineration. Liu et al. (2018) listed down various
factors that affects public acceptance of WTE incineration from different literatures: (1) public
perceived risk; (2) public trust; (3) perceived fairness/justice; (4) “different values” and “attitude
toward need”; and, (5) demographic characteristics.

3.2.1 Public Perceived Risk

Perceived risk is an intuitive judgment, influenced by various factors such as the knowledge,
experiences and the value judgment of an individual, and is usually different between experts and the
public, especially in the case of new, unfamiliar, or potentially hazardous technologies (Slovic, 1997).
Perceived risk and the level of potential hazardous risk perceived determines the level of public
acceptance. It is influenced by the opinion about the defects of WTE, the education level, the previous

3|Page
 Review Paper
Attitude and Perception Towards WTE Incineration

experience of stench, and gender (Ren et al., 2016). Emissions of air pollutants and resulting public
health issues seem to play the most critical role towards social acceptance of WTE incineration
(Achillas et al., 2011). Higher level of acceptance is associated with lower level of perceived risk.

3.2.2 Public Trust

Siegrist (2000) defined ‘Trust’ as a willingness to rely on those who have the responsibility for
making decisions and taking actions related to the management of technology and policy
implementation. It is a complex concept because of its multiple actor, and multi-faceted, nature (Mah,
2014).

Public acceptance of many potentially hazardous facilities (e.g. nuclear technologies, WTE
incineration plants, and the chemical industry) is positively affected by local residents’ trust in local
governments and authorities (Chung, 2009; Ross, 2014; Upreti, 2004). Specific for WTE projects,
trust is positively associated with the public acceptance, both directly and indirectly through perceived
risk (Liu et al., 2018).

3.2.3 Perceived Fairness/Justice

Higher level of acceptance is associated with higher level of perceived fairness/justice. The survey
conducted in Thessaloniki in Greece revealed a positive attitude towards WTE incinerators. However,
the when the public sees what is happening in practice, when the public authorities and industry are
not playing fair they get upset (Achillas et al., 2011).

3.2.4 Perceived Economic Benefit

In the study conducted by Achillas et al. (2011), higher level of acceptance was not associated with
higher level of perceived economic benefit. Compensating the local communities for risks imposed
does not add towards public acceptance of the WTE alternative.

3.2.5 Competition

Higher level of acceptance is associated with higher level of competition (Chung, 2009).

3.2.6 Demographic Characteristics

Liu et al. (2018) found out that acceptance differences towards WTE incineration projects exist
among respondents possessing various demographic characteristics. Acceptance level was lower
among people over the age of 35. One cited reason of this is that the perceived severity of potential
risk is relatively higher among the older, lower educated people (Huang et al., 2015). Another
possible reason is education level of respondents (Liu et al., 2018). Approximately 50% of
respondents under the age of 35 at least have a bachelor’s degree while this figure is 10.64% among
people over the age of 35 in the current study. In relation to gender, the study of Liu et al. (2018) did
not support the findings of previous studies (Gustafson 1998; Harris and Jenkins, 2006) that men
accept potential environmental risks more easily than women.

4|Page
 Review Paper
Attitude and Perception Towards WTE Incineration

3.2.7 Relationship of Community Engagement, Perceived Risk, Public Trust and

Public Acceptance

Liu et al. (2018) determined the relationships between community engagement, perceived risk, trust
and public acceptance towards WTE incineration projects. Trust was positively associated with public
acceptance, both directly and indirectly through perceived risk. Enhancing trust in authorities such as
local government and operators, as well as reducing the local residents’ perceived risk, is the most
logical and reasonable way to improve public acceptance towards WTE incineration projects.
Moreover, improving public trust can enhance public acceptance towards incinerator more efficiently
than reducing perceived risk

3.3 Enhancing Public Acceptance Towards WTE Incineration Projects

Protests against waste-to-energy incinerators are distinctive enough to achieve recognition as a special
category of NIMBY movements (Rootes, 2009a). In China, some of the protest campaigns have led to
cancellation or indefinite postponement of government-supported projects at particular sites such as in
in Beijing, Guangzhou, and Wujiang (Xu, 2013). Another unsuccessful WTE incinerator project was
Huizhou WTE incinerator project. The lack of openness and transparency in government decision-
making and supervision exacerbates the severity of NIMBY concerns and lead to Huizhou's
unsuccessful WTE incinerator project (Zheng Wan, 2015). Similarly, the Yuhang Jiufeng WTE plant
met a strong public resistance due to traditional technical-based, closed Decide-Announce-Defend
(DAD) decision-making approach. The DAD decision-making approach lead to protests and anti-
incinerator campaigns pursued by the residents which eventually escalated to a mass incident. The
local government then announced in a press briefing that Jiufeng Plant would be suspended in
advance of a normative and legal re-decision-making process. After the re-decision-making process,
Jiufeng Plant was regarded as first waste-to-energy incineration project to truly overcome an
opposition issue in China (Liu et al., 2019).

The democratic publicly involved approach played an important role in the successful re-decision-
making of the Jiufeng plant. The local government established a special working group to take
responsibility for the site selection and decision-making process of the Jiufeng Plant. The strategies
and measures adopted by the working group to lower the perceived risk of the residents and enhance
public acceptance of the plant were as follows: (1) Comprehensive EIA with public participation, (2)
Variety of compensation arrangements, (3) Establishment of a more experienced operator, (4)
Transparency and information disclosure, (5) Effective risk communication, and (6) Range of
community engagement approaches (Liu et al., 2019). In addition, Jinbo Songa (2017) suggested that
improving existing policies and regulations can alleviate the public's concerns.

3.4 Impact of WTE Incineration on Waste Diversion

WTE facilities threatens waste diversion. In a study conducted by Baxter et al. (2016), 14% of the
respondents agreed that they would be less inclined to divert recyclable/compostable materials if they
knew materials went to a WTE landfill or incinerator. These findings about intentions suggest that
diversion rates may be at risk of falling once WTE is installed. A close consideration of ways to
increase or preserve high diversion rates diversion rates if a WTE will be included in the waste
management system. Places like Flanders, Belgium, as cited by Baxter et al. (2016), suggest hard
(legislated) targets are the best way sustain high diversion alongside WTE.

5|Page
 Review Paper
Attitude and Perception Towards WTE Incineration

4. Conclusion

Waste incineration provides an effective solution for efficient and effective MSW disposal. It has a
minimal land requirement and has significant impact in terms of reducing solid mass. However, it
faces considerably strong oppositions from local community globally due to potential hazards to
environment and health. Though media messages about WTE incineration often center on concerns
and opposition, several studies have resulted to a positive response towards WTE incineration. Also,
WTE incineration is preferred over landfill (with or without WTE facility) and composting. Public
acceptance is greatly influenced by geographical location. NIMBY syndrome was clearly
demonstrated in some of the studies and the dominating cause for this syndrome is the concern of
environmental pollution. Enhancing trust in authorities such as local government and operators, as
well as reducing the local residents’ perceived risk, is the most logical and reasonable way to improve
public acceptance towards WTE incineration projects. One effective way to enhance public trust and
lower perceived risk is through community engagement.

More studies on public perception and attitude towards WTE incineration is needed especially in
countries like Philippines where waste incineration is prohibited by law. More effort should be made
in future studies to explore the specific mechanism that demonstrate how regional diversity and stage
differences can separately influence public acceptance towards WTE incineration projects. Further
study can also provide greater insight into the factors affecting trust, perceived risk and even
community engagement. Also, diversion behavior using WTE incineration as a predictor variable
should be modelled. It would also be interesting to include waste management practices other than
incineration and landfill, such as waste reduction/re-use and energy recovery from organic waste
digestion (e.g., greenbin facilities) in future researches.

6|Page
 Review Paper
Attitude and Perception Towards WTE Incineration

5. 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.

7|Page