Getting Started
Feedback
Environmental StigmaFeedback
Environmental stigma can be the result of public perception of a site when environmental features are viewed as unsettling, disruptive, or undesirable. Stigma often surrounds such sites as petroleum processing sites, nuclear power plants, and high-voltage or transmission lines; transportation corridors for hazardous materials; junkyards and stockyards; sites with noxious odors; hazardous materials storage sites; and sites for the underground storage of petroleum products. Stigma may result from direct causes such as increased incidence of cancer, decreased environmental quality of the workplace as a result of air or noise pollution, or decreased market value of single-family residences located adjacent to a sanitary landfill.
Past contamination can cause stigma in many intangible ways, even if no residual contamination remains on the property. The unavoidable reality is that the public will attach a stigma to a property that has any history of industrial or commercial use and the market reacts to that public perception, even if the perception is unsubstantiated.
Although stigma is generally referred to as an intangible factor, it has very real consequences in the marketplace that affect a site’s revitalization potential. For example, stigma may cause lenders to finance less of the project cost to offset the increased risk created by uncertainty. Similarly, purchasers may demand price discounts above and beyond the estimated cleanup costs and other costs to account for the uncertainty of those costs. The decrease in the loan amount and discount in purchase price beyond other costs is referred to as a “risk premium.” However, the value of contaminated property should be expected to increase as uncertainty about cleanup costs and other costs decrease.
One technique used to facilitate change regarding a property’s stigma is to develop a new optimistic name for the site. For example, an abandoned steel factory in Germany was renamed “River Terrace Property.” Bringing community members to the site early in the revitalization process may help establish a positive perception as well as replacing negative perceptions with facts and data regarding the site. Furthermore, the dissemination of facts and information to the public through earnest community involvement efforts can also be essential in dispelling stigmas and perceptions.
Factors that can influence the degree to which a site becomes stigmatized are presented in the Factors of Stigma Exhibit.
|
Factor
|
Explanation
|
|---|---|
|
Responsibility
|
The degree to which the responsibility for the actual or perceived environmental impairment is placed with a specific responsible party.
|
|
Media exposure or risk amplification
|
The extent of media coverage of the stigmatizing event. The more exposure in the media, the greater the level of awareness, which has an influence on the behavior of the buyer.
|
|
Disruption
|
The extent to which a contaminating event may alter a person’s or a firm’s everyday activities.
|
|
Concealability
|
The concealment of a contaminating event. If contamination is concealed, it has a more dramatic impact on market behavior, and therefore, on value.
|
|
Aesthetic effect
|
The magnitude to which the natural environment, or some other physical feature, is defaced by the contamination.
|
|
Prognosis
|
The degree to which the revitalization site can be cleaned up is influenced by two prognosis factors. The first is severity and the second is persistence. How bad is the problem and how long will the contamination be present?
|
|
Peril
|
The extent to which human health or the health of the environment might be affected.
|
|
Fear
|
The stress that results because of the contamination. Even if a population’s physiological health is not affected, mental health can be affected by contamination.
|
Source: Elements of Redevelopment of Contaminated Sites, EPA, 2000
The strategy to address stigma are incorporated throughout the content and tools presented in smarte.org. They include site-specific and regional approaches to removing environmental stigma through a variety of means, some of which are listed below:
- Accurate and effective communication of current and future site risks with the the community and other stakeholders
- Economic tools to facilitate cleanup
- Effective cleanup to meet reuse objectives and to satisfy community and stakeholder needs
- Liability protection to stakeholders
- Long-term monitoring to demonstrate the protectiveness of implemented cleanup actions
- Putting under-utilized properties back to productive social and economic use within the community
- Regional (multi-site) cleanup plans and actions that raise area-wide property values and improve social systems
The following are some tips on facing barriers and challenges in the change process as offered by Washington State School Directors’ Association (2006):
- Expect resistance
- Explain the rationale for change
- Choose your opening moves carefully
- Provide a clear vision
- Seek opportunities to involve people
- Over-communicate
- Wear your commitment on your sleeve
- Get resistance out in the open
A force field analysis, a useful technique for looking at all the forces for and against a decision, provides a useful approach to preparing for and working with resistance to change. Suggested steps are as follows:
- Identify a solution
- Brainstorm restraining forces, as well as driving forces for implementation of the solution
- Evaluate both forces in terms of impact/changeability
- Develop strategies to remove or decrease restraining forces, starting with the easily changed, high-impact ones
- Develop strategies to strengthen driving forces, striving for win/win solutions
- Translate these strategies to action plans: Who? What? When? Where? How?
- Develop a plan to evaluate the effectiveness of your action plan, once implemented