Waste Management 19 (1999) 417±425
www.elsevier.nl/locate/wasman
Social aspects of public waste management in Switzerland
W. Joos, V. Carabias*, H. Winistoerfer, A. Stuecheli
Department of Ecology, ZHW, Zurich University of Applied Sciences Winterthur, Postfach 805, CH-8401 Winterthur, Switzerland
Accepted 17 May 1999
Abstract
It is becoming increasingly evident that a waste management program, and especially a waste treatment technique, which ignores
social aspects, is doomed to failure. Aspects concerning the problems of public acceptance, public participation in planning and
implementation, consumer behaviour and changing value systems are no less important than the technical or economic aspects in
waste management research and decision-making. As part of the Integrated Research Project ``Waste'', Swiss Priority Program
Environment (SPPE) 1996±1999 (funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation), this sub-project focuses on the results from
two main areas. 1. Results of the three-round written Delphi-Expertquestioning ``Contributions to the development of waste management in Switzerland'' show that decision transparency, interregional cooperation, information policy and public participation
are important factors with regard to the public acceptance of waste management in Switzerland. 2. The much discussed problem
area of public acceptance of waste policies is directly linked to the concept of Social Compatibility, which is identi®ed as an essential
component of sustainable and successful waste management. As an additional aspect, the signi®cance of mediation as a participatory process for public acceptance will be investigated. Public dialogues on concrete waste management projects not accepted by
parts of the population, will therefore be initiated, monitored and evaluated. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Waste management; Public acceptance; Public participation; Delphi-Expertquestioning; Social compatibility
1. Introduction to Swiss waste management
The goal of the Swiss waste management policy is to
bring about a substantial increase in the recovery of
waste for recycling, and a maximum reduction of soil,
air and water pollution Ð or at least to reduce such
pollution to a tolerable level Ð by treating the wastes
that accrue. Wherever feasible, Switzerland endeavours
to treat waste within its own borders. The principles set
out by the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests
and Landscape in the Guidelines on Swiss Waste Management published in 1986 [1] are still proving to be
valuable guides for Swiss waste management policy.
Such principles include prevention of waste at source,
reduction of pollutants both in the production processes
and ®nished goods, reduction of waste by improving
recovery, and environmentally compatible treatment of
the remaining waste within Switzerland.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +41-52-267-76-74; fax: +41-52-26774-73.
E-mail address: [email protected] (V. Carabias)
In the short term, improved waste treatment is the most
e€ective way of relieving the burden on the environment.
End-of-pipe measures at an old waste incineration plant,
for example, can reduce air pollution several times over.
Environmentally compatible treatment of waste therefore
was, and still is, given special emphasis. Treatment is of
key importance because Switzerland wants either to
recover waste or treat it in such a way that in the longer
term it only causes insigni®cant, and therefore tolerable,
pollution. Because untreated municipal waste in land®ll
sites forms gases over a period of decades and pollutes the
in®ltrating water over a period of centuries, Switzerland
intends to stop the disposal of untreated municipal waste
and other combustible waste in land®ll sites after 1 January 2000 [2]. This Swiss ruling is in line with stipulations
in the neighbouring countries of Germany and France.
Thermal techniques continue to be the principal means of
treating mixed municipal waste. Incineration in conventional waste incinerators or treatment with novel techniques yield residues whose future behaviour is far easier to
estimate than that of untreated mixed waste. At the same
time, thermal treatment allows large quantities of energy
to be recovered [3].
0956-053X/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0963-9969(99)00087-3
418
W. Joos et al. / Waste Management 19 (1999) 417±425
In 1996, a total of 3.14 million tonnes (441 kg per
capita) of combustible waste accrued (excluding special
wastes), consisting of 2.51 million tonnes (352 kg per
capita) of mixed municipal waste, 0.50 million tonnes
(71 kg per capita) of combustible building and demolition waste, 0.06 million tonnes (8 kg per capita) of sewage sludge and 0.07 million tonnes (10 kg per capita) of
industrial wastes [4]. The increasing quantities of used
materials that were separately collected, which in 1996
amounted to 1.77 million tonnes (around 250 kg per
capita), together with intensi®ed e€orts to avoid waste,
led in 1996 to a further decline in the volume delivered
to waste incineration plants and tips. Compared to the
survey 2 years ago, the total quantity of incinerable
waste disposed of in incineration plants diminished by
4.5%. Close on 41% of municipal waste in the broad
sense, i.e. including separately collected used material, is
recovered. Besides better public information and the
expanded collection infrastructure, the success of
recovery is also due to the introduction of bin-liner
(refuse-bag) charges commensurate with volume.
Recently, however, the growing cost of recovering used
materials has been causing ®nancial headaches [3].
The 1996 total of 3.14 million tonnes is compared
with an overall annual capacity of 2.91 million tonnes in
waste incinerators and other facilities (sludge incineration plants, cement works). Additional volume of new
capacity (1±2 plants) thus still needs to be created [3].
The situation is complicated by the fact that in individual regions such as eastern Switzerland there are
already waste incinerators with spare capacity (overcapacity), while in other areas large quantities of waste
end up untreated in land®ll sites. The Confederation's
aim is not just to provide sucient capacity in the
longer term but to spread it more evenly in geographical
terms thereby reducing the necessity of transporting
wastes at high cost over long distances. Improved cooperation between the individual plants, and optimized
collection and transport systems will continue to be
essential if costs are to be saved at source [3].
2. Research within the integrated project ``waste''
The situation in Switzerland is generally characterized
by the fact that material ¯ows are in the process of
change. The causes are manifold, and we shall mention
only some of them [5]:
. The widespread introduction of refuse-bag charges
has had its e€ects, which is also encouraging consumers to become more directly involved with the
problem of waste, for example in e€orts to reduce
excessive product packaging.
. The e€orts made by manufacturers of consumer products to reduce the amount of packaging material,
and to recycle directly secondary or transportation
packaging has so far been successful.
. The separate collection of used paper, various
types of glass, batteries, PET bottles, green waste
etc. is well established. The relative success of these
schemes derives on the one hand from the genuine
desire of broad sections of the population to do
something for the environment, but is certainly
also related to the fact that most households are
not yet charged for this type of waste disposal
(indirect in¯uence of refuse-bag charges).
. The substitution of waste wood and old tyres, etc., for
fossil fuels in the cement industry is an example of
the way private industry is beginning to utilize more
and more waste in production processes Ð as far as
current technological, economic and ecological
factors will allow.
The consequences of this development are signi®cant.
Since everything is still in a considerable state of ¯ux,
major insecurities have, for instance, arisen on the
waste-wood and used-paper markets, and these are
re¯ected in corresponding price instabilities. However,
the major impact comes from the separation of waste: in
going di€erent ways today than they did 10 years ago,
present-day waste ¯ows have caused essential changes in
the quantity and quality of material reaching the incineration plants for processing. This does not simply
cause operational problems. At a cost of approximately
250 million Swiss francs per 120 thousand tonnes per
year plant and correspondingly long lead times to completion, even a non-specialist in waste management can
see how dicult it has become to plan such plants.
Therefore, it is not surprising that opinions di€er as to
whether current planning will have allowed for too many,
too few or just about the right amount of incineration
plants in 10 years time.
Since the avoidance and reduction of waste have only
been minority interests over the past few decades, we are
today faced with a residue problem that can only be
tackled in the short term with end-of-pipe solutions. It is,
therefore, all the more important that the current debate
about future strategies also considers the long-term
aspects of the problem.
That is why the objectives of the Integrated Project
``Waste'' are concentrated on the following three subjects:
. Overall assessment of waste utilization (subject A).
. Thermal processes (subject B).
. Characterization of residues with regard to usability
(subject C).
Subject A is concerned with the current state of the
knowledge both inside and outside the project; by marshalling, modelling and processing such information,
scenarios for solving present and future problems will
be established.
W. Joos et al. / Waste Management 19 (1999) 417±425
Within subject A, the sub-project ``Social Aspects of
Public Waste Management in Switzerland'' marks the
intersection of waste/utilization technology and society.
It increases awareness of di€erent concerns, interests
and expectations.
This sub-project emphasizes two main areas:
. Delphi-Questioning contributing to the development
of waste management in Switzerland.
. Investigations into the Social Compatibility of
waste management measures.
3. Delphi-Expertquestioning
This iterative Delphi-Questioning [6±8] of experts on
waste is intended to supply an overview of visions and
scenarios of the future of waste management with
emphasis on its social implications. It is based on the
following, interconnected areas: society, technology,
ecology, economics and politics.
3.1. Methods
The Delphi-Questioning is an interactive idea identi®cation and prognosis method, which systematically raises the insights and future estimations of selected
experts. This method is based on the use of surveys and
discussion. At the same time, however, its anonymous
nature is designed to eliminate any dominant tendencies
emerging within the groups being questioned [9]. A
Delphi sequence is carried out by interrogating a group
of experts by means of a series of questionnaires
designed by the Delphi-Team. These questionnaires
were evaluated in a pre-test by our research partners.
Each successive questionnaire is a ``round'' (see Fig. 1).
However, the questionnaires not only ask questions, but
they also provide the group members with information
about the degree of group consensus, and the arguments
presented by the experts for and against various positions.
After the questionnaire is returned, the Delphi-Team
419
analyzes and summarizes the results and, based upon
the anonymous results, develops a new questionnaire
for the respondent group [10]. Thus, through DelphiQuestioning each participant is actively confronted with
the opinions of other experts. The Delphi method is a
structured means of group communications that tends
to overcome the shortcomings of traditional meetings.
For this the experts involved are consulted several times
for renewed judgement formation of the anonymous
survey data. In this way they can assess their views in
the light of the other expert opinions Ð which are given
by the Delphi-Team Ð and correct strongly deviating
positions if necessary or, in justi®ed cases, adhere to
their original view.
What must be avoided with other questioning methods, for instance the in¯uence of other opinions, is in
fact an integral part of the Delphi method: non-standard presumptions over future developments are to be
corrected; the development of the expert group standard
represents the ®nal result [8].
Questioning over several rounds results in either a
convergence, or a justi®able divergence of opinion. This
in turn enables objectively based and well thought out
scenarios to be formulated, and trends identi®ed. The
Delphi-Team has limited itself to three rounds of questioning (see Fig. 1), because the dynamic waste management in Switzerland Ð as con®rmed by the WasteExperts in the ®rst round Ð is currently undergoing a
reorientation phase, and, therefore, three rounds should
suce for the necessary exchange of information to take
place among the experts.
By formulating the broadest possible spectrum of
questions, the ®rst Delphi-Questioning round aimed at
reaching a consensus of opinion among the WasteExperts regarding the central points of the `long-distance discussion'. The respective arguments upon which
the Waste-Experts based their answers enabled the Delphi-Team to establish the future direction of the entire
investigation.
The results of the Delphi-Questioning, which re¯ect a
concentrated exchange of ideas between the experts,
Fig. 1. Structure of the interactive and iterative Delphi-Questioning.
420
W. Joos et al. / Waste Management 19 (1999) 417±425
should be utilized as a planning tool in the political
decision-making process. Therefore, the results will be
made available to decision-makers in government, business and politics. The Waste-Experts selected and invited to participate were the most important agents from
the various sectors of waste management in Switzerland: public authorities and government executives,
local action groups, legislators, disposal facilities
operators, planners, recycling companies, suppliers of
technology, environmental and consumer NGOs (nongovernmental organisations), representatives of business
groups, and scientists specializing in waste problems.
The consistently high number of expert participants
during the three rounds of questioning re¯ects, on the
one hand, the actual information content of the questionnaire, and on the other, the desire among the various
expert sectors themselves for a more vigorous dialogue.
Only three additional Waste-Experts withdrew during
the third round, making a response rate of over 90% in
each round (for a view of these statistics see Fig. 2).
3.2. Selected results
Wherever types of responses show a strong correlation to the sectors that the experts are drawn from, the
correlation is expressly mentioned or visually presented.
A selection of surprising, interesting and pioneering
results gleaned from the Delphi-Questioning will be
presented in the following sections. Evaluation of the
three rounds yields the following results:
3.2.1. Situation and development of Swiss waste
management
Most experts characterize the current, general waste
management situation in Switzerland as being in a phase
of re-orientation. Public authorities and business representatives tend to judge developments as positive, citizen
representatives as negative.
On average, the consensus among the experts is that
the quantity of waste to be incinerated will, in future,
stagnate or slightly decrease, both in the medium term (5
years) as well as the long term (20 years); here, however,
there are diverging opinions between the various expert
sectors (see Fig. 3).
A weighting of the factors in¯uencing this quantity of
waste to be incinerated shows the anticipated slight
reduction in quantity to be caused mainly by increasing
disposal costs and an increase in the practice of collecting di€erent types of waste separately. Somewhat less
importance is attributed, as a rule, to the factors of
increased use of deposit payments (as on bottles or batteries), higher and higher disposal fees (as on rubbish
sacks or those which are pre-collected on various kinds
of consumer goods, e.g. refrigerators) and ®nally a
compulsory taking back of products by their producers.
Opinions as to the importance of an ecological tax
reform vary widely according to expert-sector, with
environment and consumer NGOs giving it much more
weight than, for example, business representatives. (It is
here, however, unclear whether this di€erence of opinion relates to whether such tax reform will soon be
instituted, or whether, if instituted, its impact would be
more than minimal.) Finally, new developments such as
the ecological design of products or product sharing
(use) instead of product ownership are unanimously
regarded as insigni®cant.
The main cause of the opposite trend of a future
increase in waste to be incinerated is seen by all experts
to be the new regulation [2] Ð due to come into e€ect in
the year 2000 Ð prohibiting the land deposit of waste
Fig. 2. Expert participation in the Delphi-Questioning about the development of Swiss waste management (date: 1.7.98).
W. Joos et al. / Waste Management 19 (1999) 417±425
421
Fig. 3. Estimate by the expert sectors of the development of the quantity of the waste which can be burned in Switzerland.
which could be incinerated. On the other hand, opinion is
severely divided regarding the e€ect on waste quantity of
the planned regulation requiring full amortisation of
existing incineration capacity (which is in fact overcapacity). While the NGOs see this as the most important
factor tending to increase quantity, public authorities,
government executives and business representatives
regard its e€ect as negligible. The environmental awareness
of the public is seen as having only a medium-strong e€ect
on the amount of rubbish to be burned.
The environmental consciousness and behaviour of the
population is greatly in¯uenced by the following: trade
and commerce, industry and producers, school, family and
education. The behaviour of each individual is also considered of major importance. On the other hand, the
media, authorities and consumer organizations are held
to be of moderate importance, whereas science and
research as well as politicians and parliamentarians of
little importance.
3.2.2. Problems of public acceptance regarding publiclyoperated disposal facilities
Except for the scientists specializing in waste, on
average, the experts have a sceptical attitude towards
cantonal (regional) plans for dumps or disposal sites (of
non-burnable waste). For one thing, the quality of this
planning is seen to di€er greatly from region to region.
However, the main reasons for scepticism are inadequate transparency, insucient information, little willingness for dialogue, as well as poor coordination
between regions spanning more than one canton, and
between the cantons themselves.
In light of the scepticism we discovered, regarding
regional plans for land®lls and other disposal sites, it is
essential that the cantons strengthen their information
and public relations activities, increase ®nancial transparency and carry out dialogue with the public and other
cantons.
Estimates of the degree of public acceptance of waste
management measures vary widely between expert sectors: government ocials and business people taking the
public acceptance of waste management as given, recycling companies and suppliers of technology seeing a
very low degree of acceptance. The following acceptance
problems predominate, and are listed according to the
weight attached to them by the experts in the second
round of questioning.
1. Locating a disposal facility in the near vicinity.
2. Growing costs and fees for waste disposal.
3. Facility-related health risks and environmental
damage.
4. Personal time and e€ort required to collect di€erent types of waste separately.
Adequately informing the public and involving them
in the decision-making process, as well as reasonable
charges for waste-disposal are identi®ed as the most
important factors concerning the social compatibility of
a waste-disposal plant project.
An appropriate means of ensuring this social compatibility is regarded to be the public acceptance dialogue
(in the sense of a participatory process [11±15]) to arrive
at a consensus. Consensus-building seeks to improve the
quality of public participation in decisions by: (1) e€ective empowerment of the public; (2) a fair decision; and
(3) active support of the ®nal decision as being the best
that can be achieved in the circumstances [16].
422
W. Joos et al. / Waste Management 19 (1999) 417±425
The overwhelming majority of experts (86%) from
each professional group agrees in the second round that
the use of the acceptance dialogue as a tool should be
increased in the future.
Those most directly a€ected (citizen representatives,
planners, suppliers of technology and operators of disposal plants) showed the least enthusiasm for the
acceptance dialogue. There are several possible explanations for this. In the case of citizen representatives, for
example, they fear the population a€ected may be
exploited, or in some way duped into mock participation.
Plant planners and operators, on the other hand, may
fear the uncertainties connected with the commissioning
of a new waste-disposal plant.
Insucient use of the participation process is perceived by the experts to be due to the inadequate state
of information concerning the acceptance dialogue, as
well as the reluctance of the authorities to participate in
it. Acceptance problems often emerged because dialogues between the groups in question were initiated too
late. To plan a project in the absence of critical voices
often appears to be the easiest option.
3.2.3. Measures for improving Swiss waste management
A majority of the experts is of the opinion that environmentally responsible behaviour can be promoted above
all by means of ®nancial incentive systems. The e€ectiveness of such incentive systems was clearly con®rmed
during the second round of questioning. To encourage
an increase in the return of valuable waste materials
and/or problematic waste-products such as batteries,
deposit/return charges usually provide a more e€ective
solution than integrating disposal charges into the
actual price. However, administrative and logistical
expenditure involved both enforcing a deposit system
and preventing its abuse, should be in direct proportion
to the desired ecological use.
In various contexts experts emphasize the e€ectiveness of ®nancial incentives as well as voluntary agreements among producers, which are both seen to be
superior to command-and-control tools and (non-binding) appeals and exhortations. A majority of the experts
ascertain that ®nancial incentives do e€ectively alter
environmentally relevant consumer and producer behaviour. Steps are, therefore, necessary in this direction,
such as deposits and pre-collected disposal fees. In this
connection a major focus has to be upon voluntary
producers' agreements.
All the experts agree that under certain circumstances
the major distributors should become increasingly
involved in the appropriate, separate disposal and recycling of products and materials. This aspect assumes even
more importance amongst the experts, who consider
that major distributors, recycling and commerce can
greatly in¯uence public environmental consciousness.
Experts agree that by far the most important condition
for trade and commerce acceptance is to ensure that all the
materials collected separately are recycled. Furthermore,
major distributors should not be disadvantaged by competition because of the provision of such additional services.
The return and disposal of waste products and matrials
should be used by them as a feasable sales argument.
In the third round of questioning, 92% of the experts
recommend to the major distributors and trade organizations, that under certain circumstances (ensured recycling, no competition disadvantages for the distributors,
feasable sales argument for the return and disposal of
waste) they should agree to commit themselves to the
disposal and recycling of consumer goods.
Individual waste incineration plants show in reality high
total costs for certain types of waste services. More
transparent cost calculations would reveal reduction
potential in the total costs of waste incineration plants.
Many experts felt that savings could be made in the personnel and logistical areas, as well as in the cost of supraregional collaboration. Waste disposal from built-up
areas should not be ®rst and foremost pro®t orientated,
but guaranteed safe disposal should take precedence.
With the exception of the scientists specializing in
wastes and the planners, in the second round of questioning all the expert sectors (57% of all experts) supported the opinion that no new waste incineration plant
should be built, rather those existing should be used to full
capacity. In the ®nal round of questioning, the percentage of experts in agreement rose to 62. In this round, not
only the planners, but also the authorities and economic
representatives refused the preference for using existing
waste incineration plants to full capacity. Contrary to
their attitude in the second round, however, the scientists now supported the view that no more waste incineration plants should be built, and reviewed their
previous second round critical stance. They maintain
that planning should be in the hands of the Federal
Government, and building permission should only be
granted after the need for a new plant has been fully
proved. Some experts support the non-construction of
new waste incineration plants not only in favour of more
ecient use of existing ones, but also in favour of the
intelligent recycling of waste materials within industry.
Separate collection of `organic or other easily degradable waste', `plastics' and `electronics scrap' should be
encouraged.
Most experts regard the achievement of a truly circular or steady-state economy Ð where used goods are
almost totally disassembled and their parts, or at least
their materials, re-used Ð to be desirable yet utopian.
Both ``globalization'', i.e. the great distances between
place of production and place of consumption, as well
as the low prices of raw materials are seen as blocking
the road to this goal. Higher current priority should be
given to making products more durable, i.e. striving for
product longevity.
W. Joos et al. / Waste Management 19 (1999) 417±425
To promote such a reorientation of consumer behaviour, scienti®c research into the selling of bene®ts, rather
than material possessions should be strongly encouraged.
Those industries which take steps to increase product
longevity, voluntarily operate a repair service and use
resources sparingly should be supported.
The automobile industry is seen to be one of the industries already progressing toward this circular production/
consumption process, because cars are especially materialintensive products [17]. Likewise conducive to such a high
achievable rate of disassembly and re-use are buildings,
household equipment and electronic goods.
When asked how they thought producers could be
induced to make goods more environmentally compatible,
more than half the experts once again ®rst and foremost
mentioned ®nancial incentives, such as an ecological tax
reform or (pre-collected) disposal fees. Further instruments could be: the compulsory taking-back of one's
own products, including their proper disposal, as well as
eco-labels (labels indicating that the product is environmentally friendly) for products meeting certain standards (see Fig. 4). Products with relatively low
environmental impact should be encouraged through
thorough product life-cycle assessment and appropriate
labelling. Command-and-control methods for problematic products should not at all be dismissed, for example
the aforementioned obligation for producers to take
back and dispose of their own products.
4. The social compatibility of waste management
The often-discussed acceptance problems of waste management [costs, illegal dumps and locating disposal facilities (not in my backyard, NIMBY)] can be subsumed
423
under the concept of social compatibility. Until the early
1990s this concept was controversial in the scienti®c
discussion [18,19] but since the Rio conference of 1992
social compatibility or amicability has, alongside environmental and economic compatibility, become a universally accepted third dimension of sustainability. In
the direct-democratic system of Switzerland one way to
the social compatibility of waste management policies
and facilities could be analysing the results of polls on
proposed projects.
In this context the concept must be based on the
public having the right to participate in decision-making, which, however, entails the following problems for
any planned facility.
a. Public or democratic sovereignty in such issues
presupposes a certain level of specialized knowledge which is, in fact, often lacking.
b. Direct consultation of the voting public can only
ask for a `yes' or a `no' position on the proposal.
This is inadequate when the question deals with
the design or exact placement of the particular
proposed facilities, or when it is a question of how
much risk and/or pollution load the public will
accept. Even where the voting law allows more
than two variants, this is still too restricted for
such complex issues.
c. Certain real constraints, of course, also limit the
number and type of any decisions falling within
the realm of possibility. In this ®eld one such
constraint, at least in the short term, is that existing production and consumption processes lead
inexorably to a certain amount of waste, which
must somehow be treated and/or disposed of.
Should democratic participation lead, for example,
Fig. 4. Most frequently mentioned methods for the improvement of ecological product quality.
424
W. Joos et al. / Waste Management 19 (1999) 417±425
to the outlawing of all new disposal facilities, then this
is neither constructive nor legal. Thus, one cantonal
grass roots initiative which would have forbidden all
hazardous waste disposal sites was declared invalid
due to its con¯icting with overriding Swiss laws.
In order to include social compatibility in planning
processes, a tool similar to the environmental impact
assessment is being developed. In contrast to the subjective evaluation method with which the acceptance of
those directly a€ected is estimated, our proposed
method de®nes objective criteria (e.g. discrimination,
education and training, impact on inhabited areas,
income distribution, information/communication, participation, transparency, risks for the population)
according to which social compatibility can be evaluated. Therefore, the subjects are the intended as well as
the unintended, the positive as well as the negative
impacts on the ful®llment of human needs and the
cohabitation of human beings, with the accent lying on
psychic, social and cultural needs.
The user choses various evaluation criteria and
assigns individual aspects of the process for assessment
to classes A (highly relevant social problems), B (medium relevance) or C (low relevance). The Social Compatibility Analysis (SCA) is based on the premise that a
small number of A components contribute in a major
way to a problem, whilst a much greater number of C
components contribute in only a minor way. All those
components of medium relevance are assigned to class
B. Since A components are highly relevant to a problem, they are the main focus for improvements. The
results achieved in this way re¯ect the subjective assessment of the user, or the consensus of a user group. Such
an instrument is therefore suitable for use in acceptance
dialogues as means of visualizing the di€erent evaluations and standpoints of various interest groups, thus
providing a common basis for discussion and solution
®nding.
From the legal point of view a distinction must be
made between a test of social compatibility, where the
degree of acceptance by the public is empirically established (the public as object), and the participatory possibilities with which the public can advise or de®nitively
decide on speci®c issues (the public as subject). Swiss
law presently recognizes a number of participatory
rights of the public concerning technical facilities like
incinerators or roads. However, where these participatory procedures exist on the local level Ð mainly in the
area of development planning Ð decisions at cantonal
or federal levels can at times supersede them.
Thus, the basic participatory problems are: the public's lack of specialized knowledge; the reduction to yes
or no in the voting system; that a certain amount of
waste simply must be dealt with; NIMBY or ``OK, but
only in your backyard''; the unavoidable fact that
future generations are not here to help determine things
that will a€ect them. Newer processes like mediation
can help to solve these problems. Especially since these
already-established participatory processes often do not
consider the long-term social e€ects of today's decisions, the wisest course seems to be an institutionalizing
of social compatibility assessments.
5. Conclusions
On the basis of our research, within the Delphi-Questioning, the following criteria must be applied for
assuring social compatibility of a waste management
program.
. Accessibility of information, transparency of decision-making and decision-execution.
. Ensurance of participation rights for the a€ected
public (within a direct-democratic framework);
here the interests of future generations have to be
considered.
. Individual and collective interests, as well as local
and regional interests, must be weighed against
each other, and where possible reconciled. Where
con¯icting, mediation processes or other con¯ict
resolution methods must be carried out.
. Basic life opportunities (work, recreation, risk
avoidance, needs for food, water and warmth)
must be justly available to all.
The environmentally responsible behaviour of people
must be promoted above all by means of ®nancial
incentive and educational systems.
The concrete and long term implementation of the
results of the Delphi-Questioning in the political and
economic arenas has to be undertaken by all those
involved. In addition, the results should also serve to
stimulate critical analysis of the goals in question not
only on the part of the Federal Government, but also at
the level of Canton, Local Council and plant operator.
Mediation processes in the waste disposal ®eld of
Switzerland have not been desirable in the past because
of the changed political and economic situation Ð
mainly the completion of development planning work
and the decrease in the amounts of waste to be incinerated and deposited. In addition to the results of the Delphi-Questioning public acceptance dialogues [20,21] (as
participatory processes) will be initiated and scienti®cally
evaluated during the coming years.
Studies of waste management in many di€erent
regions of Europe together with European partner
groups are high on the agenda, in the hope of achieving
supra-regional coordination and good avenues for an
exchange of experience.
In this process we want to develop the social±scienti®c
aspects and operationalize them as assessment tools. An
W. Joos et al. / Waste Management 19 (1999) 417±425
empirical assessment of all the problems surrounding
public acceptance, i.e. social compatibility, is the ultimate
goal.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Swiss
National Science Foundation and the Zurich University
of Applied Sciences Winterthur for their ®nancial support as well as the editors of Waste Management Journal
for their interest in publishing this text. Thanks go to the
entire investigative Delphi-Team and to the selected
Experts from the various sectors of waste management
for their contributions to the Delphi-Questioning. Many
of the merits of the text are due to the input of the two
anonymous reviewers whose comments, criticism, and
suggestions led to major revisions of the manuscript.
References
[1] SAEFL. Guidelines on Swiss waste management. Bern: Swiss
Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL),
1986.
[2] SAEFL. Technical ordinance on waste. Bern: Swiss Agency for
the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), 1990.
[3] SFSO, SAEFL. The Environment in Switzerland 1997. Bern:
Swiss Federal Statistical Oce (SFSO), Swiss Agency for the
Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), 1997.
[4] SAEFL. Waste statistics 1996. Bern: Swiss Agency for the
Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), 1998.
[5] Kesselring P. The integrated project. ``Waste'' of the Swiss
priority program environment (SPPE). SPPE Ð Newsletter
Panorama 6/7, Bern, 1996.
[6] Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the
Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science
1963;9:458±67.
425
[7] Seeger T. Die Delphi-Methode Ð Expertenbefragungen zwischen
Prognose und Gruppenmeinungsbildungsprozessen. Freiburg:
Hochschulverlag, 1979.
[8] Atteslander P. Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993.
[9] Dalkey N. An experimental study of group opinion. Futures
1969;1:408±26.
[10] Linstone HA, Turo€ M. The Delphi method. London: AddisonWesley Publishing Company, Inc, 1975.
[11] Renn O, Kastenholz H, Schild P, Wilhelm U. Abfallpolitik im
kooperativen Diskurs, BuÈrgerbeteiligung bei der Standortsuche
fuÈr eine Deponie im Kanton AargauuÈrich. Z: vdf, 1998.
[12] Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O. Public participation in impact
assessment: a social learning perspective. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 1995;19:443±63.
[13] Petts J, Eduljee G. Environmental impact assessment for waste
treatment and disposal facilities. Chichester: John Wiley and
Sons, 1994.
[14] Habermas J. Theory of communicative action, vol. 1: reason and
the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1983.
[15] Petts J. The public±expert interface in local waste management
decisions: expertise, credibility and process. Public Understand
Sci 1997;6:359±81.
[16] Petts J. Waste management strategy development: a case study of
community involvement and consensus-building in Hampshire.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
1995;38:519±36.
[17] Gardner G, Sampat P. Mind over matter: recasting the role of
materials in our lives. Worldwatch Paper 144, Washington, DC:
Worldwatch Institute, 1998.
[18] Meier B. SozialvertraÈglichkeit, Deutung und Kritik einer neuen
Leitidee, BeitraÈge zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik. Institut der
deutschen Wirtschaft 1988;6:13€.
[19] Leistritz FL, Ekstrom BL. Social impact assessment and management. New York: Garland Publishing, 1986.
[20] Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P, editors. Fairness and competence in citizen participation, evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,
1995.
[21] Knoepfel P. LoÈsung von Umweltkon¯ikten durch Verhandlung,
Beispiele aus dem In-und Ausland. Basel: Helbing and Lichtenhahn, 1995.