BIOSOLIDS IN BC’S SOUTHERN INTERIOR: A CASE
STUDY ON PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS

By

SARAH WHITEHOUSE
B.Sc., Thompson Rivers University 2011

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
Master of Science
in
Environmental Science

Thompson Rivers University
Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada,
November 2018

Thesis Examining Committee
Lauchlan Fraser (PhD), Thesis Supervisor and Professor in Natural Resource Sciences and
Biological Sciences, Thompson Rivers University
Gunilla Oberg (PhD), External Examiner and Professor in the Institute of Resources,
Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia.
Peter Tsigaris (PhD), Committee Member and Professor in Business and Economics,
Thompson Rivers University
Joel Wood (PhD), Committee Member and Assistant Professor in Business and Economics,
Thompson Rivers University

ii

ABSTRACT
The land application of biosolids continues to be subject to questions and concerns. There
exists a difference between public perceptions of biosolids and the promotion of the safety
and sustainability of current waste management practices that convert sewage sludge to
biosolids. Within the Southern Interior of British Columbia, there is opposition amongst a
segment of the population regarding the land application of biosolids. Through a mail-out
survey, the communities of Kamloops, Merritt and Princeton were assessed to gain a better
understanding of public perceptions of biosolids risks and factors which influence public
attitudes towards biosolids management. Two thousand surveys were distributed
proportionately between the communities. Response rates for Kamloops and Merritt were 22
and 24 percent respectively. Surprisingly no responses were received from Princeton.
Kamloops and Merritt generally identified differing risk perceptions around the management
of biosolids, where Kamloops was found to be more accepting in their overall perceptions.
This is a likely result of Merritt residents’ recent experience with application sites and
proximity to biosolids projects, and the associated local media attention. Results from
Kamloops highlighted there is general support to find a productive use of biosolids, but a
lack of the overall trust necessary for a biosolids project to receive stable community support.
Further to this, respondents were asked about their willingness to pay for alternative biosolids
management practices. These results can be used as a surrogate for willingness to pay to
divert biosolids from land application, thus indirectly estimating the perceived external cost
of applying biosolids to land. The results indicate that in Kamloops there may be no
perceived external costs but in the neighboring city of Merritt there are.

Key words: community engagement, public opinion survey, biosolids management,
contingent valuation

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. vi
Dedication ............................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ viii
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... viii
Glossary of Terms ..................................................................................................................... x
References .......................................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Introduction and Relevance ................................................................................................... 1
Biosolids ............................................................................................................................ 2
Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................................... 2
Public Perception ............................................................................................................... 5
Local Opposition ............................................................................................................. 12
Thesis Research Objectives ............................................................................................. 14
References ........................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 2 Public Risk Perception of Biosolids and Factors Influencing Public attitudes ...... 17
Introduction and Relevance ................................................................................................. 17
Methods ............................................................................................................................... 20
Sample Selection and Survey Delivery ........................................................................... 20
Survey Design.................................................................................................................. 21
Human Ethics Approval .................................................................................................. 23
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 23
Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................ 26
General Knowledge, Attitudes and Actions .................................................................... 28
Thoughts and Feelings ..................................................................................................... 29
Obtaining Community Support ....................................................................................... 40
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 44
References ........................................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 3 Assessing the Benefits of Alternative Uses of Biosolids Using Willingness to Pay
................................................................................................................................................. 49
Introduction and Relevance ................................................................................................. 49

iv

Methods ............................................................................................................................... 51
Sample Selection and Survey Delivery ........................................................................... 51
Survey Design.................................................................................................................. 51
Contingent Valuation and Empirical Analysis ................................................................ 52
Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................ 57
Factors Determining the Likelihood of a Nonprotest Response...................................... 59
Determinants of Willingness to Pay ................................................................................ 60
Willingness to Pay ........................................................................................................... 61
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 63
References ........................................................................................................................... 64
Chapter 4 Research Summary and Management Implications ............................................... 67
Research Summary.............................................................................................................. 68
General Knowledge and Attitudes ................................................................................... 68
Willingness to Pay for Alternative Biosolids Management Practices ............................. 70
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 71
Management Implications for Biosolids Management ....................................................... 72
References ........................................................................................................................... 73
Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 75
Appendix A: Survey ............................................................................................................ 75
Appendix B: Reminder Card ............................................................................................... 83
Appendix C: Survey Results, ‘Biosolids: Community Engagement and Risk Perception’ Kamloops ............................................................................................................................ 84
SECTION 1: About Yourself .......................................................................................... 84
SECTION 2: General Questions...................................................................................... 87
SECTION 3: Your Thoughts on Biosolids ...................................................................... 92
SECTION 4: Biosolids Management .............................................................................. 93
Appendix D: Survey Results, ‘Biosolids: Community Engagement and Risk Perception’ Merritt.................................................................................................................................. 94
SECTION 1: About Yourself .......................................................................................... 94
SECTION 2: General Questions...................................................................................... 97
SECTION 3: Your Thoughts on Biosolids .................................................................... 102
SECTION 4: Biosolids Management ............................................................................ 103
Appendix E: Attitude Statement – Ordered Logit Tables: Cumulative Dataset ............... 104

v

Appendix F: Attitude Statements – Kamloops Neutrality Data Tables ............................ 106
Appendix G: Attitude Statements – Merritt Neutrality Data Tables ................................. 110
Appendix H: Attitude Statement – Test for Equality of Means ........................................ 115
Appendix I: Willingness to Pay Data Tables .................................................................... 127

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Lauchlan Fraser for his guidance and patience over
the course of this project, your unwavering support has been invaluable. I would like to
extend this appreciation to the rest of my advisory committee: Mr. Peter Martell (Teck
Highland Valley Copper Partnership), Dr. Peter Tsigaris, and Dr. Joel Wood. Your time and
feedback has been instrumental to the success of this project.
I would like to especially thank Dr. Peter Tsigaris for his mentorship – for inspiring me to
pursue my Master’s degree and for his encouragement and dedication to both myself and this
project.
I would also like to acknowledge and thank my colleagues from the Fraser Lab, Thompson
Rivers University – Mathew Coghill and Sierra Rae, for their support on the extensive
amount of data entry and meticulous organization of survey responses.
This project was funded in part by Metro Vancouver, Thompson Rivers University’s
Sustainability Department, and the British Columbia Technical and Research Committee on
Reclamation, without their financial support this research would not have been possible.

vii

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my friends and family,
Thank-you all for your genuine interest and endless support during this process.
Most importantly, thank you to my parents for your dedication to my success and instilling in
me a passion for learning and an infinite love for this vast world that surrounds us.

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Summary of key events and headlines communicated in local media relating to
biosolids within the TNRD. .....................................................................................................13
Figure 1-1 Summary of key events communicated in local media. .........................................13
Figure 2-1 Age Distribution: Census Data versus Survey Data. .............................................27
Figure 2-2. Visual depiction of responses to "What comes to mind when you think of
biosolids?"................................................................................................................................28
Figure 2-3 Community support conceptual framework. ..........................................................41
Figure 3-1 Section 4: Biosolids Management, willingness to pay questions ..........................52
Figure 3-2 Nonprotest response distribution – Kamloops and Merritt. ...................................61

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-2 Composition criteria for class A and class B biosolids in British Columbia as
defined by the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (BC 2002) .............................................4
Table 2-1 Independent variable for logistic regression of influencing factors of thoughts and
feelings on biosolids. ...............................................................................................................24
Table 2-2 Community response rates based on 423 surveys. ..................................................26
Table 2-3. Before receiving this survey, how familiar were you with the term biosolids? ....28
Table 2-4. Overview of thoughts and feelings questions variables and assigned sentiment and
social capital indicator. ............................................................................................................31
Table 2-5 Section 3 Kamloops-Only Order Logit – Legitimacy: Positively Framed
Statements ................................................................................................................................35
Table 2-6 Section 3 Kamloops-Only Order Logit – Legitimacy: Negatively Framed
Statements ................................................................................................................................35
Table 2-7 Section 3 Kamloops-Only Order Logit – Trust: Positively Framed Statements .....36
Table 2-8 Section 3 Kamloops-Only Order Logit – Trust: Negatively Framed Statements ...36
Table 2-9 Section 3 Merritt-Only Order Logit – Legitimacy: Positively Framed Statements 37
Table 2-10 Section 3 Merritt-Only Order Logit – Legitimacy: Negatively Framed
Statements ................................................................................................................................37
Table 2-11 Section 3 Merritt-Only Order Logit – Trust: Positively Framed Statements ........38

ix

Table 2-12 Section 3 Merritt-Only Order Logit – Trust: Negatively Framed Statements.......38
Table 3-1. Variables used in the Tobit 2-step Procedure ........................................................54
Table 3-3 Willingness to Pay Responses .................................................................................58
Table 3-2 Community response rates based on 423 surveys. .................................................58
Table 3-4 Selection Equation (Probit model with nonprotest as dependent variable) .............59
Table 3-5 Tobit model with Willingness to Pay as the Dependent Variable. ..........................60
Table 3-6 2-Step Tobit Procedure – WTP estimate. ................................................................62

x

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Anchoring: In behavioral economics, anchoring is an effect where initial exposure to a
number serves as a reference point, influencing subsequent judgments about value (Samson,
Loewenstein, and Sutherland 2014).
Biosolids: The Organic Matter Recycling Regulation defines biosolids as stabilized
municipal sewage sludge resulting from a municipal waste water treatment process or
septage treatment process which has been sufficiently treated to reduce pathogen densities
and vector attraction to allow the sludge to be beneficially recycled in accordance with the
requirements of applicable regulation. (BC MOE 2002a). These nutrient-rich organic
materials, once treated, can be applied as fertilizer to improve and maintain productive soils
and stimulate plant growth (CCME 2012; McCarthy and Loyo-Rosales 2015).
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME): CCME is the
intergovernmental forum for collective action on environmental issues of national and
international concern. The Council is composed of the environment ministers from the
federal, provincial and territorial governments of Canada. The goal if the CCME is to achieve
positive environmental results on Canada-wide issues (CCME 2014).
Contingent Valuation: A method commonly used by economists for valuations of nonmarket goods. Contingent valuation enables the researcher to directly observe the
relationship between an economic decision and particular non-market goods (Carson 2000).
Dichotomous choice: Elicitation method for contingent valuation surveys, where
respondents are asked, "would you pay $B" for a specified proposal. There is only one bid
options, which can be accepted or rejected (Boyle 2003).
Environmental goods: Generally non-market goods, includes clean air, clean water,
biodiversity, etc (Tietenberg and Lewis 2009).
External cost: A cost that occurs when a transaction imposes a cost on an unrelated third
party. If there are external costs in consuming a good, the social cost will be greater than the
private cost (Tietenberg and Lewis 2009).

xi

Framing: Wording presented in a way that highlights the positive or negative aspects of the
same decision, resulting in changes in their relative attractiveness (Samson, Loewenstein, and
Sutherland 2014).
Gray literature: Material that is made public but not subject to the traditional academic
peer‐review processes (i.e. newspaper articles or working papers).
Heckman Correction: A common econometrics statistical method that offers a two-step
statistical approach to correct for selection bias (Greene 2012).
Land application: The application to land, after biosolids treatment or composting, of Class
A biosolids, Class B biosolids or Class B compost (BC MOE 2002a).
Legitimacy: Perception that the company/project offers benefit to the perceiver [as related to
social licence to operate] (Boutilier and Thomson 2011).
Likert scale: A technique for the measurement of attitudes, utilizing a scale that presents an
equal number of positive and negative responses (Likert 1932).
Logistic regression: A widely used statistical model that uses the natural logarithm of an
odds ratio to determine the distribution of a dichotomous outcome (Greene 2012).
Loss aversion: The concept that the pain of losing is psychologically about twice as
powerful as the pleasure of gaining. This can explain differences in risk-seeking versus
aversion (Samson, Loewenstein, and Sutherland 2014).
Non-Market Goods: Goods and services that are not traded in markets. Their economic
value (i.e. how much people would be willing to pay for them) is not revealed in market
prices (Tietenberg and Lewis 2009).
Nonresponse bias: Bias that results when respondents differ in meaningful ways from
nonrespondents (i.e. the survey respondents disproportionately possess certain traits which
affect the outcome) (Dillman 1991).
Ordered logistic regression: An extension of the logistic model for ordinal dependent
variables (Greene 2012).

xii

Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR): Regulation under BC’s Environmental
Management Act and Health Act. The OMRR governs the construction and operation of
compost facilities, and the production, distribution, storage, sale and use of biosolids and
compost in BC (BC MOE 2002b).
Payment card: Elicitation method for contingent valuation surveys, where respondents are
asked to select the highest amount they are willing to pay for a specified proposal from a
number of possible bids (Carson 2000).
Probit Model: A statistical regression model based on probability theory to determine the
distribution of a dichotomous outcome (Greene 2012).
Protest response: Responses registered by respondents who may actually place a higher- or
lower-than-average value on the proposal in question but refuse to pay on the basis of
political or ethical reasons (Halstead, Luloff, and Stevens 1992).
Satterthwaite-Welch t-test: Statistical tool used to test the hypothesis that two populations
have equal means. An adaptation of the t-test that is more reliable when the two samples
have unequal variances and unequal sample sizes.
Selection bias: Bias that results by the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in
such a way that proper randomization is not achieved (Heckman 1976).
Social capital: The links, shared values and understandings in society that enable individuals
and groups to trust each other and to work together (Keely 2007).
Social License to Operate (SLO): The ongoing acceptability of a company and its local
operations as perceived by the community (Boutilier and Thomson 2011).
Stakeholder: Those who could be affected by the actions of a proponent or who could have
an effect on the proponent (Boutilier and Thomson 2011).
Tobit model: A censored regression model that estimates linear relationships between
variables when there is either left- or right-censoring in the dependent variable (Greene
2012).

xiii

Trust: Willingness to be vulnerable to risk or loss through actions of another (Boutilier and
Thomson 2011).
Voluntary Response bias: Bias that occurs when survey respondents are self-selected
volunteers. The resulting sample tends to over-represent individuals who have strong
opinions (Kanuk and Berenson 1975).
Willingness to pay: The maximum amount of money a person is willing to pay to acquire a
good or service that they consider desirable. The goal is to convert well-being into monetary
costs to assess them against the costs of current or planned management practises (Tietenberg
and Lewis 2009).
Yea saying: In contingent valuation, when a respondent says yes to an amount even though
the respondents willingness to pay is less than the amount asked about (Carson 2000).

References
BC MOE. 2002a. Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. BC regulations.
BC MOE. 2002b. Organic Matter Recycling Regulations & Guidelines. [accessed 2018 Oct
27]. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management/food-and-organicwaste/regulations-guidelines
Boutilier RG, Thomson I. 2011. Modeling and Measuring the Social License to Operate:
Fruits of a Dialogue Between Theory and Practice. In: Internation Mine Management
Conference. Queensland.
Boyle KJ. 2003. Contingent Valuation in Practice. Champ PA, Brown TC, Boyle KJ, editors.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2012. Canada-wide Approach for the
Management of Wastewater Biosolids, version PN 1477.
Carson RT. 2000. Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environmental Science and
Technology 34:1413–1418.
CCME. 2014. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment: About. [accessed 2018 Oct

xiv

27]. https://www.ccme.ca/en/about/index.html
Dillman DA. 1991. The Design And Administration Of Mail Surveys. Annual Review of
Sociology 17:225–249.
Greene WH. 2012. Econometric analysis. 7th ed. Battista D, editor. Essex, England: Pearson
Education Limited.
Halstead J, Luloff A, Stevens T. 1992. Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21:160–169.
Heckman JJ. 1976. The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample
Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models. Annals
of Economic and Social Measurement 5:475–492.
Kanuk L, Berenson C. 1975. Mail Surveys and Response Rates : A Literature Review.
Journal of Marketing Research:440–454.
Keely B. 2007. OECD Insights: Human Capital. Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development. [accessed 2018 Oct 27]. https://www.oecd.org/
Likert R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 22:55.
McCarthy L, Loyo-Rosales JE. 2015. Risks Associated with Application of Municipal
Biosolids to Agricultural Lands in a Canadian Context - Literature Review. Canadian
Municipal Water Consortium, Canadian Water Network.
Samson A, Loewenstein G, Sutherland R. 2014. The Behavioural Economics Guide 2014.
First Edit. Samson A, editor.
Tietenberg T, Lewis L. 2009. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. 8th ed.
Battista D, editor. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

1

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
Introduction and Relevance
As human population continues to rise and population concentration in urban areas continues
to increase, there is a growing need to move to sustainable waste management practices, such
as the treatment and reuse of municipal waste. Biosolids are produced from the nutrient-rich
solids that are a by-product of wastewater treatment. These solids have been separated from
the liquids during the wastewater treatment process and then treated to kill potentially
harmful bacteria.
In Canada, The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) encourage the
beneficial use of municipal biosolids, while maintaining protection of the environment and
human health. Beneficial management includes practices such as composting, agricultural
land application and combustion for energy. However, in some municipalities, biosolids are
disposed of in landfills or incinerated without energy capture rather than being used in a
beneficial manner (CCME 2012). As well, some municipalities release wastewater or
associated byproducts into the ocean (McCarthy and Loyo-Rosales 2015). In Canada
biosolids are often used as a soil amendment for improving soils and plant growth (CCME
2012; McCarthy and Loyo-Rosales 2015).
Using biosolids as a soil amendment offers advantages such as improving the quality of
degraded soils through enabling increased plant productivity and improved soil carbon
storage capacity (Robinson et al. 2012) as well as reducing the amount of material otherwise
destined for landfilling or incineration and the greenhouse gas generation associated with
these practices. Among the public there is a negative perception about biosolids used as a soil
amendment (Beecher et al. 2004; Robinson et al. 2012; McCarthy and Loyo-Rosales 2015).
These negative views seem to arise from concerns of potential contaminants in biosolids
which include inorganic contaminants (e.g., metals and trace elements), organic contaminants
(e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, pharmaceuticals, and surfactants) and pathogens
(e.g., bacteria, viruses, and parasites), as well as complaints regarding the odor (National
Research Council 2002). In order to establish socially acceptable sustainable waste

2

management practices, it is necessary to assess public knowledge and attitudes regarding
biosolids reuse.
Biosolids
In the early 1990’s, the Water Environment Federation (WEF), held a contest to develop a
term that differentiated treated and tested sewage sludge from raw un-treated sludge. The
term “biosolids” was the result of this contest and now is widely used around the world
(NEBRA 2008).
The CCME, which approved the Canada-wide Approach for the Management of Wastewater
Biosolids in 2012, defines municipal biosolids as organic-based products which are produced
from the treatment of municipal sludge. Municipal biosolids are further defined as
“municipal sludge which has been treated to meet jurisdictional standards, guidelines or
requirements including the reduction of pathogens and vector attraction.”
The Organic Matter Recycling Regulation of British Columbia (2002), which regulates
biosolids in BC, defines biosolids as “stabilized municipal sewage sludge resulting from a
municipal waste water treatment process or septage treatment process which has been
sufficiently treated to reduce pathogen densities and vector attraction to allow the sludge to
be beneficially recycled in accordance with the requirements of this regulation.”
There are treatment processes, strict standards, and quality controls in place aimed to ensure
the safety of biosolids application (National Research Council 2002). Biosolids can be
produced through a variety of methods, including anaerobic or aerobic digestion, alkaline
stabilization, dewatering and composting. Once treated, biosolids have reduced volatile
organic compounds, odour, and pathogens (BC 2002; CCME 2012).
Regulatory Framework
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
As defined on the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) website, the
CCME is an inter-governmental forum for collective action on environmental issues of
national and international concern. In 2009 the CCME endorsed “The Canada-wide Strategy
for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent.” This strategy sets out a framework
to manage discharges from Canada-wide wastewater facilities, providing a path to achieve a

3

Canada-wide approach for the land application of biosolids. The strategy merely provides a
framework for biosolids management, and thus bears no legal status. Provincial and
Territorial governments are responsible for the adoption and enforcement of regulations for
biosolids management (CCME 2012).
After two rounds of public consultation, the Ministers approved the Canada-wide Approach
for the Management of Wastewater Biosolids in 2012. The standards set out by the strategy
were informed by a scientific literature review, a review of Canadian legislative frameworks,
and baseline data on biosolids in Canada, and are intended to increase protection for human
health and the environment across Canada. This information is intended to provide a firm
knowledge base to inform science-based decisions relating to wastewater management and
allow for the implementation of uniform approaches to beneficial uses of biosolids in
Canada. (CCME 2012).
Regulation of Biosolids in British Columbia
In British Columbia (B.C.), biosolids are regulated under the Organic Matter Recycling
Regulation (OMRR), developed in 2002 under the authority of the Environmental
Management Act and the Health Act. The regulation is designed to be protective of human
health and the environment, and as indicated above, defines biosolids as stabilized municipal
sewage sludge resulting from a municipal waste water treatment process or septage treatment
process which has been sufficiently treated to reduce pathogen densities and vector attraction
to allow the sludge to be beneficially recycled (BC MOE 2002).
The OMRR outlines a series of requirements municipal wastewater products must meet in
order to be considered biosolids, which can be found in schedules 1 through 6 of the
regulation. Biosolids can be classified under the OMRR as either Class A or Class B
biosolids, depending on the quality criteria met (Table 1-2). The regulation limits final land
use, site access, application methodology and monitoring requirements depending on the
class. The regulation places the responsibility of evaluating sites for land application and
minimizing the opportunity for adverse impacts on human health and the environment on a
qualified professional.

4
Table 1-1 Composition criteria for class A and class B biosolids in British Columbia as defined by the Organic Matter
Recycling Regulation (BC 2002)

Due to growing concerns over the land application of biosolids, the Provincial government of
BC announced on June 17, 2015 that a technical working group would conduct a scientific
review of biosolids. The scientific review included two key components: (1) a review of
scientific and academic literature on biosolids land applications and (2) a soil sampling
project. On April 4, 2016 the Province announced it would undertake a review of the Organic
Matter Recycling Regulation to ensure it remains protective of human health and the
environment. Subsequent amendments to the OMRR, based on engagement and information
received from the review, were anticipated to be made in 2017 (BC MOE 2016). At the time
of this thesis, although the amendment is still pending, the province did release their
intentions paper in October 2018. The intentions paper outlines the proposed changes to the
OMRR and seeks for comments and feedback from all interested parties on the proposed
changes. Prior to the 2018 intentions paper, as series of intention papers for consultation were

5

published in 2006, 2011 and 2016 with a summary of public comment subsequently
published.
Public Perception
The amount of sewage sludge generated annually continues to rise, increasing the nation’s
dependence on effective wastewater treatment and management. Despite this reliance, the
overall public awareness of what biosolids are and how they may be used remains low
(Beecher et al. 2004; Robinson et al. 2012; Youngquist et al. 2015; McCarthy and LoyoRosales 2015). There are treatment processes, strict standards, and quality controls in place to
ensure the safety of biosolids application, however a negative perception exists amongst the
public regarding the use of biosolids (National Research Council 2002; Beecher et al. 2004;
McCarthy and Loyo-Rosales 2015). These negative views include concerns of potential
contaminants in biosolids which broadly include inorganic contaminants (e.g., metals and
trace elements), organic contaminants (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins,
pharmaceuticals, and surfactants) and pathogens (e.g., bacteria, viruses, and parasites), as
well as complaints regarding the odor (National Research Council 2002; Beecher et al. 2004;
Robinson et al. 2012; Youngquist et al. 2015)
Risk management decisions can be highly subject to community opposition based on the
public perceptions of an associated risk. One of the central themes of risk management is
“How safe is safe enough?” There is an extensive body of literature on risk perception
research, where key themes highlight the fundamental role distrust plays in conflicts that
emerge over risk management decisions (Fischhoff, Slovic, and Lichtenstein 1978; Slovic
1993). Trust, as Slovic (1993) suggests, is easier to destroy than to create. These
idiosyncrasies of human psychology are reflected in the following:
1. Negative (trust-destroying) events are more visible than positive (trust-building)
events;
2. Negative (trust-destroying) events are more impactful than positive (trust-building)
events;
3. Sources of bad news (trust-destroying) tend to be seen as more credible than sources
of good news (trust-building); and
4. Distrust, once initiated, tends to reinforce and perpetuate distrust.

6

Our reliance on sense of sight, taste, and smell to detect unsafe circumstances has been
referred to as “initiative toxicology.” The sciences of toxicology and risk assessment were
largely created to better assess potential dangers, recognizing our senses are not always an
adequate measure. There are however, large differences between the risk perceptions of the
general public and toxicologists, in addition to differences that exist between toxicologists
working in difference sectors. Overall, technical experts tend to perceive far lower risk and
exhibit more favourable attitudes towards chemicals than the general lay public (Slovic 1993;
Neil, Malmfors, and Slovic 1994; Slovic et al. 1995).
In general, assessing public perceptions of risk demonstrated that higher risks were perceived
to be more acceptable for activities that were seen as beneficial and/or where the risks were
entered into voluntarily (Slovic 1993). When considering public risk perceptions, despite the
fact that the general public may lack certain information about the hazard, their concerns
reflect legitimate concerns which need to be acknowledged (Slovic 1987). Ongoing
successful risk management requires the understanding of complex psychological, social,
cultural, and political forces (Slovic 1993).
In order to better understand public risk perceptions towards land applied biosolids, Beecher
et al. (2004), in collaboration with the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF),
published the report “Public Perception of Biosolids Recycling: Developing Public
Participation and Earning Trust,” which includes the results of their 2002 Biosolids Public
Knowledge and Perception Survey as well as an extensive literature review on public
perceptions of biosolids recycling in both Canada and the United States. The report outlines
the most significant technical issues about biosolids recycling, listed in order of significance
as:
•

Trace metals and chemicals (“pollutants”);

•

Pathogens (human-disease-causing organisms);

•

Odours and other air quality concerns;

•

Oversight and enforcements;

•

Surface water and groundwater quality;

•

Soil and food quality;

•

Transportation and trucking;

7

•

Economic viability;

•

Changes in demographics and changing expectations; and

•

Emerging issues and uncertainty.

Biosolids continue to be subject to questions and concerns. Concerns are raised about
anything that might be disposed of down the drain that may potentially impact biosolids
quality. Biosolids managers have expressed particular frustration around the concept of
“perception is reality.” Social science research has indicated there exists a considerable gap
in risk perception between the technical “experts” and the lay public, highlighting that people
who regard themselves as “expert” tend to perceive a lower risk about that topic, whereas
non-experts will perceive a higher risk. Risk is further enhanced by factors such as dread,
potential for catastrophe, and uncertainty (Beecher et al. 2004; Beecher et al. 2005).
The 2002 Biosolids Public Knowledge and Perception Survey was designed to test a series of
hypotheses about the influence of lifestyle choices, life experiences, and demographic
characteristics on the public’s level of comfort with biosolids recycling. The survey was
administered nationwide and consisted of over 1000 phone interviews with American
homeowners and home renters. Respondents indicated that 42% of them had heard of
biosolids, but only 14% were close in their definition of biosolids and of those definitions
only 3% could accurately define them. This supports the view that the general knowledge
about the term is weak. Once those individuals who were unclear on the definition of
biosolids were told the correct definition by the interviewer, there was little difference
between individuals who could already clearly define biosolids and those who couldn’t when
ask how likely they would be to use biosolids on their own property.
Widespread support for sewage treatment plants (93%) was observed across a broad range of
factors including age, gender, religion, personal habits, agricultural experience, and
knowledge of the sewage treatment process. Despite 63% of respondents reacting positively
to the definition “the solid matter removed from sewage that has been treated and tested so it
can be recycled as a fertilizer,” 57% of people responded that they would not apply biosolids
to their own yard. Factors reducing level of concern with biosolids use included contact by a
biosolids manager in advance of use and knowing that the biosolids applied near their home
have been independently reviewed and certified each year. Alternatively, biosolids that

8

originated from a large city or contained industrial waste, greatly increased public concern.
About one third of the population indicated their level of concern would be reduced by
scientists saying there was negligible risk. Equally, about one third of the population
indicated their level of concern would increase based on scientific testimony. This suggests
some public uncertainty regarding the scientific community. Despite the apparent
ambivalence to scientific testimony, the survey identified that certain categories of people
such as academics and government officials tend to be more trusted when speaking to a
biosolids management program. This is because communication from perceived
“middlemen” or contractors can be perceived to be profit-motivated, resulting in public
distrust.
When presented with a series of statements both in support of and against the use of
biosolids, the strongest argument in support of biosolids recycling is that it returns nutrients
to the soil, and the strongest argument against biosolids recycling is the argument that “not
enough is known” followed by “poor government oversight.” Odour and health impacts were
only considered to be the strongest argument against biosolids recycling by 6% and 13%
respectively. Beecher et al. (2004, 2005) identified that one of the most important findings of
the 2002 survey was that the public mind is a relatively blank slate regarding the knowledge
of biosolids and suggested that the public’s perception of biosolids may be significantly
influenced by their first introduction to the topic.
Building off of this, Eggers et al. (2011) produced the report “A strategic Risk
Communications Process for Outreach and Dialogue on Biosolids Land Application” in
collaboration with WERF, which included community stakeholder case studies intended to
support the development of communications tools for biosolids professionals. The case
studies included a sample of 48 individuals in four communities (Tulsa, Oklahoma;
Lunenberg, Tidewater and Fauquier County, Virginia (VA)), in addition to six interviews
conducted with officials from the VA Department of Health.
In Tulsa, Biosolids operations began back in 1986, where a high level of support from the
farming and ranching communities was reported to exist. Tidewater County had an
established biosolids program and experienced minimal local opposition to biosolids land
application. Despite Fauquier County also having a long history of biosolids application,

9

there existed some local opposition to land application projects within the community.
Lunenberg County was reported to be relatively new to biosolids land application programs
(<5 yrs).
Stakeholders were divided into near neighbours, landowners and the VA Department of
Health officials. Near neighbours were defined as individuals who reside in or own property
within one mile of current or potential biosolids land application projects (includes Tulsa and
VA). Landowners were defined as individuals who offer their property for biosolids land
application (Tulsa only). The VA Department of Health officials were defined as individuals
who work for the department and would view safety as a top priority and potentially be a
source of information on biosolids safety (VA only).
It was found that those who were more familiar with biosolids land application were more in
favour of the practice – this included Tulsa landowners and VA Department of Health
officials. Those who were against or undecided with regards to biosolids land application
expressed a lack of confidence in the decision-makers and regulations, and the “newness” of
biosolids. Participants cited that the most important considerations in decisions regarding
biosolids land application sites were the quality and oversight of regulations, the safety of
biosolids, and the impact on neighbours and the community.
Landowners were found to weigh the benefits of biosolids over the risks and costs (i.e., land
owners reported odour to be "short-lived" and "worth it”). Similarly, neighbours and VA
Department of Health officials who reported to be in favor of biosolids demonstrated a
similar trend. Alternatively, neighbours who were against or undecided with regards to
biosolids land application weighted their assessments more against dreaded consequences,
potential risks to children, and involuntary exposure. These case studies continued to support
the critical role of trust, perceived benefits and perceived sense of control and fairness on an
individual’s judgments, consistent with existing risk perception studies (Eggers et al. 2011).
More recent risk perception studies focused on specific aspects of biosolids recycling have
been completed by Robinson et al. (2012), Lowman et al. (2013), Mason-Renton et al.
(2016), and Youngquist et al. (2015). Robinson et al. (2012) conducted a study in southeastern USA assessing attitudes and risk perceptions of two communities that utilize the land
application of biosolids as part of their waste management strategies. Amelia County, VA

10

has been outspoken against biosolids recycling, whereas Knoxville, TN expressed few
concerns over the practice. A phone survey was conducted with 311 randomly selected
residents within the two regions. The two communities identified similar risk perceptions
around the management of biosolids, highlighting dissatisfaction with the level of
stakeholder involvement in decision-making processes concerning biosolids. Overall
perception included views that the health and safety risk does not outweigh the benefits of
biosolids recycling, where female respondents perceived significantly greater health and
safety risks than males. Amelia County respondents also expressed that they felt that
biosolids were inadequately treated for land application and that the odours resulting from
biosolids application were a health risk.
Lowman et al. (2013) conducted in-depth interviews with neighbours of land application
sites across North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and noted similar themes of
inadequate community involvement in decision-making processes regarding biosolids
management and the perception of biosolids application having a negative impact on their
health. Over half of the respondents expressed concern for the environment, highlighting
incidents of biosolids spills, lack of signage at land application sites, and contaminated runoff
into surface waters. The interviews further delve into mental and social wellbeing and
environmental justice components. Over half the respondents expressed frustration over the
lack of engagement regarding the biosolids application site in their neighbourhood, lack of
regulatory oversight and enforcement, lack of response from public officials over reported
concerns and health impacts. Respondents reported feelings of misery, fear, anxiety,
insecurity and helplessness. In additional to this, 17 of the 34 respondents indicated that the
biosolids application sites are owned by individuals or entities who do not live in the
community, leading to the feeling that these rural communities are being used unfairly as a
dumping ground for city waste. The similarities across participant response for these states
highlighted both environmental and health concerns further emphasizing the importance of
meaningful community involvement (Lowman et al. 2013).
Alternatively, Mason-Renton et al. (2016) examined how a proposed biosolids processing
facility in rural Ontario resulted in several residents expressing strong concerns over health
impacts and impacts to the therapeutic nature of their landscapes, and hostile community
conflict. This study investigated residents’ perceptions in a state of uncertainty as opposed to

11

perceptions of an established facility. The concept of therapeutic landscapes includes the idea
that an individual’s sense of place and attachments contribute to overall wellbeing and good
health, highlighting impacts to residents’ feelings of safety and security within their
community. The research included 23 residents within the township of Southgate, Ontario,
who participated in in-depth interviews on the proposed biosolids processing facility. Key
concerns expressed included the vulnerability of children to potential environmental
contaminants, loss of the ability to enjoy sitting outdoors and to relax in their natural
surroundings due to the smell from the facility, and negative impacts on overall wellbeing
due to fears of potential risks (Mason-renton and Luginaah 2016).
Highlighting the challenges of community involvement, Youngquist et al. (2015) completed
a case study in a collaborative effort with Washington State University exploring community
engagement strategies around waste management in the town of La Conner in Skagit County,
Washington. La Conner has a population around 900 people, with the surrounding area
reaching approximately 118,000 people. This includes the Swinomish Indian Tribal
Community, directly across the channel from La Conner, home to approximately 800 First
Nations. An increase in acceptance of outside septage to the wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) lead to increased odour complains within the community, in addition to growing
concerns over compost management and storage at the WWTP. Data collection took place
over 32 months by engaging in participant observation in addition to a mail-out survey to 374
Skagit County households.
Project researchers made themselves available through participation in town council
meetings. Despite this effort, curiosity and/or concern for the research project was very
limited. This lack of engagement from community suggests that waste is either somethings
that most people do not see as a pressing issue, or that they do not want to think about it.
However, it was found that increased visibility of waste management issues within the La
Conner community led to more interest in and knowledge about the topic. Survey response
rates for La Conner respondents was 52% compared with 32% for Skagit County respondents
as a whole. The survey proved to be a valuable tool not only for learning more about
opinions and attitudes, but also served as a way to increase respondents’ knowledge and
interest in waste management.

12

Further to the “perception is reality” frustration discussed by Beecher et al. (2004, 2005),
Youngquist et al. (2015) suggest that members of the public want to test and challenge
experts, and that technical experts may lack the social and communicative skills necessary to
effectively address their concerns. This would require experts to understand that members of
the public may frame risk more broadly and that opposition may not be solely due to
ignorance. They suggest there is a need for a robust process that provides an opportunity for
residents to participate in conversations and problem solving about subjects that impacts their
homes and families. As suggested, such a process requires local government and institutional
support, strong leadership, facilitation skills, and community members with both the desire
and the resources to participate (Youngquist et al. 2015).
In general, the body of research suggest that there is a general distrust around the safety of
biosolids recycling stimulated by unknowns and “what if’s,” this is in combination with the
growing views of a profit-motive believed to be associated with biosolids management
programs (Beecher et al. 2004) and lack of faith in regulatory oversight (Beecher et al. 2005;
Mason-renton and Luginaah 2016).
Local Opposition
Biosolids management is a recent topic of interest within the Thompson-Nicola interior
region of BC. To address public concerns, there is a need to better understand the public’s
perception around the use of biosolids as a fertilizer and how the people would like to see
biosolids managed, as well as a need to recognize how to most effectively address pressing
topics regarding biosolids management.
Gray literature is material that is made public but not subject to the traditional academic peer‐review
processes (i.e. newspaper articles); this material is considered a valuable resource for understanding
the public perceptions and concerns for controversial matters (Beecher et al. 2004). Considering grey
literature is of particular significance when evaluating the recent opposition against biosolids present
within the Thompson-Nicola interior region of BC. A timeline of significant events with regards

to the opposition in the Thompson-Nicola Interior Region can be found below in Figure 1.
Concerns with the land application of biosolids within the Thompson-Nicola interior region
of BC appear to go back to 2008 where concerns expressed are similar to the ones currently
being communicated. There has been a strong, steady opposition by some groups (e.g.,

13

Aug-15
Suzuki Foundation testing finds
toxicity in local biosolids
Apr-15
5 FN Chiefs declare
moratorium on biosolids

Feb-16
South Cariboo FN Chief calls
for biosolids moratorium

Jun-15
Scientific Review
established
Mar-15
Roadblock protesting
biosolids deliveries

1/1/2015
12/1/2014

4/1/2015

Jan-15
Merritt residents angry about
'sewage sludge' dumping

Apr-16
FN Chiefs pull out
of biosolids review

Feb-16
Biosolids truck
rollover

10/1/2015

1/1/2016

Oct-16
Results from the Scientific
May-16
Review - BC MOE
Perceptions Survey
Distributed

4/1/2016

Sep-15
TNRD restricts the sale
of biosolid compost

May-15
Sit in on BC legislature lawn
Apr-15
FN Protesters being sued
by involved companies

7/1/2016

10/1/2016

4/1/2017

7/1/2017

10/1/2017

1/1/2018

Feb-17
Interior Scientific Forum
Nov-17
on Biosolids
Stench from biosolids in rural BC
Sep-16
community raises concerns
Biosolids info session
cancelled due to protesters

4/1/2018

7/1/2018
7/31/2018

Jun-18
TNRD Biosolids Workshop

May-18
Biosolids dilemma leads to formation of
city, neighbourhood groups

May 16
Kamloops storm runoff
- contamination concerns

Jan-16
Residents pay to protect drinking
water from biosolids plan

Jul-15
Kamloops residents say biosolids dust
impairing their quality of life

1/1/2017

Mar-18
City of Kamloops approves creation
of biosolids stakeholder group

Apr-16
Province to
review OMRR

Feb-16
Biosolids Protest
in Clinton BC

Aug-15
Kamloops residents
Protest

May-18
Workers prevented from accessing dam by
angry landowner due to views on biosolids

Apr 16
Residents feel abandoned
in biosolids battle

Oct-15
FN Chiefs agree to move
biosolids research forward

7/1/2015

Mar-17
City Kamloops has 2 years worth
of Biosolids stored, city is looking for solutions

Sep-17
Central Okanagan communities buy
their way out of sewage sludge controversy

Apr-16
More Kamloops residents blame
biosolids for health woes

Figure 1-1 Summary of key events and headlines communicated in local media relating to biosolids within the TNRD.

14

Friends of the Nicola Valley) to the land application of biosolids in this area since late 2014.
In Sunshine Valley Estates just east of Merritt, BC biosolids from the central Okanagan were
destined for land application on a site just above the housing development and close to their
drinking water intake. As outlined in the local newspaper, the Merritt Herald, residents
expressed concern over harm to their air quality, contamination of their drinking water
source, and decreased property value (Potestio 2014 Dec 11). In December 2014, the First
Nations Chiefs of the Nicola Valley submitted a letter to the Ministry of Environment
demanding that all current biosolids applications cease and no new projects proceed until the
Crown and ministry regulators establish
Organic Matter Recycling Regulation to ensure it remains protective of human health and the
environment April 4th, 2016. Subsequent amendments to the OMRR, based on engagement
and information received from the review, were anticipated to be made in 2017 (BC MOE
2016). At the time of this thesis, although the amendment is still pending, province did
release their intentions paper October 2018. The intentions paper outlines the proposed
changes to the OMRR and seeks comments and feedback from all interested parties on the
proposed changes. During this period, community members have had rallies and protests to
block biosolids from coming into the Nicola Valley, as well as banding together to buy land
from proposed biosolids projects to prevent land application sites near their homes and
drinking water source (Strachan 2015).
Thesis Research Objectives
This research project aims to better understand public risk perceptions, factors which
influence willingness to accept biosolids recycling, and level of knowledge regarding
wastewater management and the land application of biosolids. Further to this, we will
estimate the perceived external cost of the land application of biosolids, within select
communities within the interior of BC.
This research will serve as a tool to understand public attitudes and address key concerns
regarding the use of biosolids as a fertilizer, including how residents of the Thompson-Nicola
and Princeton regions would like to see biosolids managed. This research aims to offer policy

15

makers, regulators, and biosolids management tools to support the implementation of
publicly successful biosolids management programs.

References
BC MOE. 2002. Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. BC regulations.
Beecher N, Connell B, Epstein E, Filtz J, Goldstein N, Lono M. 2004. Public Perception of
Biosolids Recycling: Developing Public Participation and Earning Trust. Alexandria, VA.
Beecher N, Harrison E, Goldstein N, Mcdaniel M, Field P, Susskind L. 2005. Risk
Perception, Risk Communication, and Stakeholder Involvement for Biosolids Management
and Research. Journal of Environmenal Quality 34:122–128.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2012. Canada-wide Approach for the
Management of Wastewater Biosolids, version PN 1477.
Eggers S, Thorne S, Butte G, Sousa K. 2011. A Strategic Risk Communications Process for
Outreach and Dialogue on Biosolids Land Application. Water Environment Research
Foundation.
Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. 1978. How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric
Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences:127–152.
Lowman A, McDonald MA, Wing S, Muhammad N. 2013. Land Application of Treated
Sewage Sludge: Community Health and Environmental Justice. Environmental Health
Perspectives 121:537–543.
Mason-renton S, Luginaah I. 2016. Health & Place Interfering with therapeutic tranquility:
Debates surrounding biosolid waste processing in rural Ontario. Health & Place 41:42–49.
McCarthy L, Loyo-Rosales JE. 2015. Risks Associated with Application of Municipal
Biosolids to Agricultural Lands in a Canadian Context - Literature Review. Canadian
Municipal Water Consortium, Canadian Water Network.
National Research Council. 2002. Biosolids applied to land: Advancing standard practices.
Crossgrove RE, editor. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

16

NEBRA. 2008. Information Update: Official Usage of the Term “ Biosolids .”
Neil N, Malmfors T, Slovic P. 1994. Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of
Chemical Risks. Toxicologic Pathology 22:198–201.
Potestio M. 2014 Dec 11. Concern over biosolids spreading. Merritt Herald:1–3.
Robinson KG, Robinson CH, Raup L a., Markum TR. 2012. Public attitudes and risk
perception toward land application of biosolids within the south-eastern United States.
Journal of Environmental Management 98:29–36.
Slovic P. 1987. Perception of Risk. Science 236:280–285.
Slovic P. 1993. Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Analysis 13:675–682.
Slovic P, Malmfors T, Krewski D, Mertz CK, Neil N. 1995. Intuitive Toxicology II: Expert
and Lay Judgments of Chemical. Risk Analysis 11:683–696.
Strachan B. 2015. Homeowners near Merritt, B.C. buy land to keep human biosolids away.
CBC News.
The Herald. 2016. Nicola Chiefs pull out of biosolids review. Merrit Herald.
Youngquist CP, Goldberger JR, Doyle J, Jones SS. 2015. Public involvement in waste
management research and decision-making : A case study. Regional Science Policy &
Practice 7:103–161.

17

Chapter 2 PUBLIC RISK PERCEPTION OF BIOSOLIDS AND FACTORS
INFLUENCING PUBLIC ATTITUDES
Introduction and Relevance
The amount of sewage sludge generated annually continues to rise, increasing the nation’s
dependence on effective wastewater treatment and management. Despite this reliance, the
overall public awareness of what biosolids are and how they may be used remains low
(Beecher et al. 2004; Robinson et al. 2012; Youngquist et al. 2015; McCarthy and LoyoRosales 2015). There are treatment processes, strict standards, and quality controls in place
intended to ensure the safety of biosolids application, however a negative perception exists
amongst the public regarding the use of biosolids (National Research Council 2002; Beecher
et al. 2004; McCarthy and Loyo-Rosales 2015). These negative views include concerns of
potential contaminants in biosolids such as inorganic contaminants (e.g., metals and trace
elements), organic contaminants (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, pharmaceuticals,
and surfactants) and pathogens (e.g., bacteria, viruses, and parasites), as well as complaints
regarding the odor (National Research Council 2002; Beecher et al. 2004; Robinson et al.
2012; Youngquist et al. 2015)
In Canada, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) encourage the
beneficial use of municipal biosolids, while maintaining protection of the environment and
human health. Beneficial management includes practices such as composting, agricultural
land application and combustion for energy. However, in some municipalities, biosolids are
disposed of in landfills or incinerated without energy capture rather than being used in a
beneficial manner (CCME 2012). In BC, and across Canada, biosolids are often used as a soil
amendment for improving soils and plant growth (CCME 2012; McCarthy and Loyo-Rosales
2015). Using biosolids as a soil amendment offers advantages such as improving the quality
of degraded soils through enabling increased plant productivity and improved soil carbon
storage capacity (Robinson et al. 2012; Hong 2013) as well as reducing the amount of
material otherwise destined for landfilling or incineration and the greenhouse gas generation
associated with these practices. As of recent, biosolids management is a significant topic

18

within the Thompson-Nicola interior region of BC. To address public concerns, there is a
need to better understand the public’s perception of biosolids as well as how people would
prefer to see biosolids managed.
Gray literature is material that is made public but not subject to the traditional academic peer‐
review processes (i.e. newspaper articles); this material is considered a valuable resource for
understanding the public perceptions and concerns for controversial matters (Beecher et al.
2004). Considering grey literature is of particular significance when evaluating the recent
opposition against biosolids present within the Thompson-Nicola interior region of BC.
Concerns with biosolids management practices within the Thompson-Nicola interior region
of BC appear to go back to 2008 where concerns expressed are similar to the ones currently
being communicated today. There has been a strong, steady opposition by some groups in
this area since late 2014. In Sunshine Valley Estates just east of Merritt, BC biosolids from
the central Okanagan were destined for land application on a site just above the housing
development and close to their drinking water intake. As outlined in the local newspaper, the
Merritt Herald, residents expressed concern over harm to their air quality, contamination of
their drinking water source, and decreased property value (Potestio 2014 Dec 11). After
expressed local opposition, on December 2014 the First Nations Chiefs of the Nicola Valley
submitted a letter to the Ministry of Environment demanding that all current biosolids
applications cease and no new projects proceed until the Crown and ministry regulators
establish a meaningful dialogue. As a result, a moratorium was placed on the use of biosolids
in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District on April 23rd, 2015 (Potestio 2015 Apr 28).
On June 17th, 2015, the provincial government of B.C. announced that a technical working
group would conduct a scientific review of biosolids to address the growing concerns over
the land application of biosolids. However, the five band chiefs of the Nicola Valley First
Nations walked away from the government-sponsored scientific review in April 2016 after
feelings that First Nations participation in the study was limited to “observer” status (The
Herald 2016). Further to this, on April 4th, 2016 the Province announced it would undertake
a review of the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR), which set outs the
requirements related to the production, distribution, storage, sale and use or land application
of biosolids. This is intended to ensure the regulation remains protective of human health and

19

the environment. Subsequent amendments to the OMRR, based on engagement and
information received from the review, were anticipated to be made in 2017 (BC MOE 2016).
At the time of this paper, although the amendment is still pending, province did release their
intentions paper October 2018. The intentions paper outlines the proposed changes to the
OMRR and seeks for comments and feedback from all interested parties on the proposed
changes. Prior to the 2018 intentions paper, as series of intention papers for consultation were
published in 2006, 2011 and 2016 with a summary of public comment subsequently
published. During this period, community members have had rallies and protests to block
biosolids from coming into the Nicola Valley, as well as banding together to buy land from
proposed biosolids projects to prevent land application sites near their homes and drinking
water source (Strachan 2015).
The practise of the land application of biosolids continues to be subject to questions and
concerns. Concerns are raised about anything that might be disposed of down the drain that
may potentially impact biosolids quality. The concept of “perception is reality” is a challenge
that biosolids managers are faced with overcoming. There are however, processes for
engaging concerned or impacted communities and other stakeholders to understand and
review options regarding potentially controversial natural resource projects. One of these
approaches is the “beyond compliance” approach of seeking proactive community support
from stakeholders through meaningful early engagement. The proactive approach considers
concerns that may otherwise lead to project delays or prohibitions, as well as alignment with
local community interests (Moffat and Zhang 2014). As an explanation to why a proponent
may go beyond compliance, Lunch-Wood and Williamson (2018) propose five factors that
that potentially drive social interest: (1) Environmental impacts of product and process, (2)
Customer power, (3) Customer interest, (4) Corporate/brand visibility and (5) Community
pressure. They suggest at least two of these factors must be salient to drive a beyond
compliance approach (Lynch-wood and Williamson 2018). This paper assesses community
risk-perceptions of biosolids management in Kamloops and Merritt against the overarching
concepts of Social License to Operate (SLO) as a framework to understand how to most
effectively address the gap between the public perception of biosolids and the promotion of
the safety and sustainability of current waste management practices. Although we use the

20

overarching concepts of SLO, we refer to this as “obtaining community support.” This is to
better reflect that obtaining and maintaining community support is an evolving process,
which requires ongoing meaningful engagement. This research should aid policy makers,
regulators, and biosolids management in developing and implementing publicly successful
biosolids management programs providing a stakeholder-centric approach around potentially
controversial natural resource projects.

Methods
Sample Selection and Survey Delivery
A mail-out survey was distributed to Kamloops, Merritt, and Princeton, BC, to determine the
factors that influence public attitudes and risk perception towards the use of biosolids.
Although, online surveys may be advantageous given that they pose savings in both time and
cost, they present challenges due to limiting access, difficulties in assuring anonymity and
confidentiality, potential technical problems, and reportedly low response rates (Sax,
Gilmartin, and Bryant 2003; Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2014). A mail-out surveys was
chosen as the best approach for survey delivery based on a number of factors, including the
importance of maintaining anonymity of respondents given the controversial nature of the
topic, sample selection that will be representative of the broad community (i.e. not limited to
having internet access), reducing voluntary response bias (as presented by an open-source
URL), and elimination of the potential bias presented by an interviewer in phone surveys
(both through survey delivery and lack of anonymity). It is worth noting that mail-out
surveys have demonstrated challenges in obtaining adequate response rates for certain
groups, particularly of interest the younger population who may not use the mail system
readily (Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2014).
MailWorks, a third-party mailing service, was employed for random sample selection and
survey distribution. Canadian consumer lists, available at https://infogroup.infocanada.ca/,
were utilized for Kamloops, Merritt, and Princeton to select random samples within each
community. MailWorks rented the lists, ensuring the most up-to-date lists available were
rented increasing the representativeness of the sample. The survey ‘Biosolids: Community
Engagement and Risk Perception’ administered by TRU was delivered by MailWorks© on
May 20, 2016 to 2000 randomly selected households in three municipalities: Kamloops,

21

Merritt and Princeton. A proportional distribution for survey mail outs was used based on the
Statistics Canada 2011 census data for population, resulting in Kamloops receiving 1761,
Merritt 173 and Princeton 66 surveys.
Nonresponse bias

The greater the response rate, the more accurately the survey data will estimate the views of
the population sampled. However, we can only consider findings representative of the
population if the views of those who responded to the survey do not differ significantly from
those who did not respond. Nonresponse bias means that the individuals chosen within the
sample population are unwilling or unable to participate in the survey and results produced
from respondents potentially differ from that of the nonrespondents (Kanuk and Berenson
1975; Sanchez 1992; Sax, Gilmartin, and Bryant 2003; Dillman et al. 2009). Many strategies,
as described by Dillman (1991), Dillman et al. (2014), Kanuk and Berenson (1975), and
Sanchez (1992) were employed to reduce nonresponse survey error.

To reduce nonresponse bias, the surveys and cover letters distributed were mailed out in
envelopes containing a postage-paid return envelope stamped with postage and return
address. The cover letter included a description of the study’s social usefulness, highlighting
that biosolids are of high public interest locally, aiming to further increase response. A
reminder postcard was mailed 14 days after the initial distribution of the survey. The cover
letter and post card also contained direct contact information (phone number and email
address) of the researcher as shown in Appendices I and II.
Survey Design
The survey was designed in a manner consistent to survey methodology as deigned by
professionals in the field (Dillman 1991; Sanchez 1992; Dillman, Smyth, and Christian
2014). This research was followed up with face to face interviews to allow for more in-depth
discussion of the interview questions and the key concerns presented in a separate study. The
survey design included an introductory statement about the study and a brief explanation
about biosolids. The explanation was kept brief in order to best establish the baseline
knowledge of the respondent. The survey was composed of four key sections:

22



Section one included sociodemographic information;



Section two was about general knowledge, attitudes and actions on environmental
issues including climate change, waste management, water pollution, and soil
degradation;



Section three included a series of attitude statements to assess attitude and risk
perception towards biosolids management. The attitude statements will capture
individual perceptions about biosolids and allow us to determine how heavily
influenced emotions are by familiarity with biosolids risks and management;



Section four posed a willingness to pay section to measure the benefits of alternative
uses of biosolids in dollar value at the individual level, which can then be aggregated
to the community level;



A fifth blank section was included for respondent comments and feedback.

Anonymity

It is generally assumed that offering respondents anonymity encourages a high level of
voluntary response; however where response is mandatory, assuring anonymity provides the
respondent comfort in answering candidly, and minimizing the number of invalid responses.
This assumes that there are questions which, if answered candidly, would place respondents
in a position of fear (Kanuk and Berenson 1975; Sax, Gilmartin, and Bryant 2003). Since
biosolids have been such a controversial topic locally, through pilots of the draft survey, the
point has been made that there are certain people, based on their jobs or social commitments,
who may not feel they can be honest if their name is attached to the survey.

Other means of increasing response rates, for example providing incentives, were considered;
however, the use of incentives (i.e., being entered for a draw for a gift card) as well as
personalizing the cover letter both pose the challenge of maintaining respondent anonymity.
Survey Language

The survey was constructed to include language that:


Does not lead the respondents to a specific response;



Does not provide too much information up front, which could potentially bias the
respondents attitudes; and

23



Incudes language suitable for the general public.

The final draft survey was piloted to a selected group of individuals aimed to cover a range
of those in favour of and against the recycling of biosolids, as well as both experts and nonexperts. The final survey was re-designed based on feedback from the pilot.
Human Ethics Approval
Permission from the TRU Human Ethics Committee was required prior to making contact
with potential survey respondents. Survey distribution and data handling was managed in a
fashion approved by TRU’s Research Ethics Board. Approval was received March 2016, File
#: 101107.
Data Analysis
For the purpose of this chapter, we will be focussing on Sections one, two and three. Section
one captured general sociodemographic information, inclusive of gender, age, income,
education level, if children live at home and description of residence (urban/rural). Given the
importance of demographics to this research, this section was placed in the beginning to
promote completeness of responses (Teclaw, Price, and Osatuke 2012). The second section
was designed to assess respondents’ level of concern with prominent social issues, selfranked level of familiarity with biosolids and factors that influence level of comfort with
biosolids management practices. Additionally, this section was designed to capture
trustworthy sources of information, as perceived by the public, as well as evaluate
respondents most preferred options for learning more. Section three included a series of
attitude statements designed to assess attitude and risk perception towards biosolids
management. These attitude statements were framed in alternating positive and negative
statements and ranked on a 5 point Likert scale: 1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neutral;
4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree. Section three responses were analyzed against the
sociodemographic information collected in section one, in addition to respondents’ selfidentified familiarity with biosolids and level of concern for select social issues. This enabled
us to assess how heavily emotions are by influenced familiarity with biosolids risks and

24
Table 2-1 Independent variable for logistic regression of influencing factors of thoughts and feelings on biosolids.

Variable
Gender

Name
Gender

Description
Gender of the Respondent (1 = Male, 0 = Female)

Age
(base case: Age 18-50)

Age5064

Respondents who are of the age of 50-64 years old (1 =
Yes, 0 = No)

Age65+

Respondents who are of the age of 65 years or older (1 =
Yes, 0 = No)

Children

Child

Respondents who have children currently living at home
(1= Yes, 0 = No)

Education
(base case: highest level of
education some college or
trade school graduate)

EduPTC

Respondents whose highest level of education is some
college or trade school (1 = Yes, 0 = No)

EduGTC

Respondents whose highest level of education is college
or trade school graduate (1 = Yes, 0 = No)

EduUni

Respondents whose highest level of education is
university graduate (bachelors degree) (1 = Yes, 0 = No)

Environmentalist

Enviro

Location
(base case: residents live in
Kamloops)

Community

Respondents opinion of how applicable the term
"Environmentalist" applies to them (1 = Strongly
Disagree, 5 = Strongly Disagree)
Respondents whose residence was located in Merritt (1 =
Yes, 0 = No)

Rural Residence
(base case: Urban/Suburban)

RuralNF

Respondents who live in non-farm rural area (1 = Yes, 0
= No)

RuralAg

Respondents who live in rural agriculture area (1 = Yes,
0 = No)
Respondents who's home is connected to a municipal
sewer system (1=Yes, 0=No)

Home sewage system
(base case: septic tank or
other/don't know)

MuniSewer

Community Biosolids
Management

BioMngt

Respondents who know how Biosolids are managed in
their community ( 1 = Yes, 0 = No)

Income
(base case: respondents for
whom annual household
income was less than $50,000)

Inc50100

Respondents for whom annual household income was in
the range $50,000 to $100,000 (1 = Yes, 0 = No)

Inc100+

Respondents for whom annual household income was
$100,001 or more (1 = Yes, 0 = No)

Aboriginal

Aboriginal

Waste Management

WasteMngt

Respondents who identify as Aboriginal (1 = Yes, 0 =
No)
Respondents level of concern regarding Waste
Management (1 = Not Concerned, 5 = Very Concerned)

Biosolids Familiarity

BioEd

Respondents opinion of how familiar they were with the
term "Biosolids" prior to receiving the survey (1 = Not
Familiar, 5 = Extremely Familiar)

25

management. Section four was designed as a separate assessment for alternative uses of
biosolids management discussed in Chapter 3.
Descriptive statistics were generated for all questions. All statistical analysis of the survey
data was performed using IHS MarKit EViews (version 10). In order to assess how emotions
are influenced by familiarity with biosolids risks and management, ordered logistic
regressions were run for the cumulative dataset. Table 2-1 provides details on these
explanatory variables. It was found however, that whether respondents were from Kamloops
or Merritt was a significant variable in 75% of the results. Consequentially, the two datasets
were considered as separate and individual ordered logistic regressions were run for each
community. The raw results and initial analysis can be found in Appendices III-V. Where
limited responses were obtained for a specific independent variable, categories were
combined to preserve degrees of freedom.

Simple t-tests were run to test for neutrality, where mean responses of the attitude statements
were assessed against a neutral response of 3. Further to that, Satterthwaite-Welch t-test’s
were performed to assess the mean responses between Kamloops and Merritt for all twelve
attitude statements to determine if the communities demonstrated significantly different
attitudes.

As a method to understand the most predominant thoughts surrounding biosolids, a visual
depiction of responses to the questions “What comes to mind when you think of biosolids?”
was created using the online tool, WordleTM. This tool generates word clouds where greater
prominence is given to words that appear more frequently in the text provided. All text from
responses to the question was included, only edited for spelling corrections. The word cloud
was formatted to exclude common English words (i.e. “the” or “and”).
Simple t-tests were run to test for neutrality, where mean responses of the attitude statements
were assessed against a neutral response of 3. Further to that, Satterthwaite-Welch t-test’s
were performed to assess the mean responses between Kamloops and Merritt for all twelve
attitude statements to determine if the communities demonstrated significantly different
attitudes.

26

As a method to understand the most predominant thoughts surrounding biosolids, a visual
depiction of responses to the questions “What comes to mind when you think of biosolids?”
was created using the online tool, WordleTM. This tool generates word clouds where greater
prominence is given to words that appear more frequently in the text provided. All text from
responses to the question was included, only edited for spelling corrections. The word cloud
was formatted to exclude common English words (i.e. “the” or “and”).

Results and Discussion
Kamloops and Merritt were selected for this survey based on the recent salience of the topic
of biosolids within the Thompson Nicola Regional District. Community groups originating in
the Merritt area had voiced numerous concerns regarding the land application of biosolids in
their area; this opposition led to protests and roadblocks, and ultimately a regional
moratorium enacted by local First Nations Chiefs. Kamloops, although having experienced
some opposition within the community, had experienced relatively few concerns from the
broad community at the time of this survey. Alternatively, Princeton had historically been
involved in successful land application projects throughout the 1990’s and early 2000’s, but
have not been otherwise involved in land application projects since. According to the 2016
Canadian census the population of Kamloops, Merritt and Prince were 90,280, 5,321 and
2,828 respectively.
A total of 423 surveys were returned

Table 2-2 Community response rates based on 423 surveys.

Number
Mailed

Number
Returned

Community
Response Rate

Kamloops

1761

382

22%

Merritt

173

41

24%

Princeton

66

0

0%

Community

(including 2 blank) for a 22% return
rate. Some surveys were only
partially completed but still
contained usable data for some
questions, this information was

included in the results. A total of 421 surveys were used in the final analysis. Response rates
for Kamloops and Merritt were 22 and 24 percent respectively; no survey responses were
received from Princeton (Table 2-2). The lack of survey response from Princeton suggests
that this may not be a significant topic within the community, Princeton is not further
discussed in this paper.

27

When assessing the survey response data against the 2016 Census data for Kamloops and
Merritt (Age, Income, Education, and Gender), it was found that was generally a good
representation of income and education but for both communities there was
disproportionately high response rate for ages 50+ (Figure 2-1) as well as a
disproportionately high response from males in Kamloops. In general, Kamloops and Merritt
identified differing risk perceptions around the management of biosolids where Kamloops
respondents demonstrated more neutral-accepting perceptions relative to Merritt respondents.

Figure 2-1 Age Distribution: Census Data versus Survey Data.

28

General Knowledge,
Attitudes and Actions
When asked “What comes to
mind when you think of
biosolids?” respondents
demonstrated general familiarity
with the term (Figure 2-2). This
aligns with the individual
community responses reporting
average familiarity to be within
the range of “Somewhat
Familiar” to “Moderately
Familiar,” as demonstrate below

Figure 2-2. Visual depiction of responses to "What comes to mind
when you think of biosolids?"

in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3. Before receiving this survey, how familiar were you with
the term biosolids?

Kamloops Merritt
How do you feel about Waste
Management? (1 = Not Concerned; 5 =
Very Concerned)

For the ordered logistic regression
analysis carried out to assess the
twelve attitude statements, two
questions asked in the general

Not Concerned

4.7 %

0.0 %

Slightly Concerned

11.9 %

5.0 %

questions section were considered

Somewhat Concerned

41.1 % 27.5 %

along with the sociodemographic

Moderately Concerned

27.2 % 30.0 %

variables as independent variables.

Very Concerned

15.1 % 37.5 %
3.5

Not Familiar

8.8 %

Slightly Familiar

16.0 % 10.0 %

concern for waste management goes

Somewhat Familiar

27.4 % 17.5 %

beyond the management of

Moderately Familiar

39.1 % 60.0 %

Extremely Familiar

8.8 % 10.0 %

average

4.0

The first one assessed the

average
Before receiving this survey, how
familiar were you with the term
“biosolids”? (1 = Not Familiar; 5 = Very
Familiar)

respondents’ level of concern
regarding waste management. This

3.2

2.5 %

3.7

question was included because

wastewater residuals, as such this can
be considered an independent factor.

29

Second, respondents were asked to identify their level of familiarity with the term biosolids
prior to receiving the survey. These results are presented in Table 2-3. Both communities
reported being somewhat to moderately concerned with waste management and somewhat to
moderately familiar with Biosolids. However in general, Merritt respondents reported
stronger responses to both questions.
T-tests were performed to determine the difference between the two survey populations.
Merritt respondents were determined to be significantly more concerned with waste
management than Kamloops respondents (p=0.0058). Merritt respondents also reported to be
significantly more familiar with the term biosolids (p=0.0201). This is a likely result of
Merritt residents’ recent experience with application sites and proximity to biosolids projects,
and the associated local media attention.

Thoughts and Feelings
In order to assess how emotions are influenced by a respondents’ familiarity with biosolids
risks and management, the responses to the attitude statements were analyzed against the
sociodemographic information, respondents self-ranked familiarity with biosolids and level
of concern regarding waste management.
Table 2-4 identifies the series of attitude statements, in the order which they were presented
in the survey. The sentiment of the statement is also listed, in addition to the assigned
community support factor. These factors ultimately represent the key inputs necessary to
receive social support on potentially controversial natural resource projects. Sentiment was
based on tone of the statement being positively or negatively framed and was used to
determine how explanatory variables may respond to this framing. Community support
factors were based on the following definitions as defined by Boutilier and Thompson in
their conceptual model of social license to operate (Boutilier and Thomson 2011):


Legitimacy: Perception that the company/project offers benefit to the perceiver.



Trust: Willingness to be vulnerable to risk or loss through actions of another.

Attitudes regarding the land application of biosolids were assessed for each community using
a 5-point Likert scale, average responses are also reported in Table 2-4. The Likert scale

30

presents an equal number of positive and negative responses (Likert 1932), a mean response
>3 indicates agreement with the statement and a mean response <3 indicates a disagreements
with the statement. Neutral responses (mean = 3) suggests indifference, lack of comfort with
personal level of knowledge, or a perceived lack of information on the topic.
Legitimacy

Kamloops respondents perceived greater value in the land application of biosolids relative to
Merritt respondents. Kamloops respondents were more likely to agree with the positively
framed questions and disagree with the negatively framed question. This is the reverse for
responses from Merritt residents. Kamloops respondents generally agreed with the statement,
“Biosolids are a valuable resource that should be used as a fertilizer,” this is in contrast to
Merritt respondents who reported a general disagreement with the statement. These responses
were paralleled for the statements, “Using biosolids as a fertilizer is better than incineration
or landfilling” and “Using biosolids as a fertilizer in our community will bring economic
benefits.” Conversely, Kamloops respondents were less likely to agree with this statement
“The risks to public health of using biosolids as a fertilizer outweigh the benefits,” where
Merritt respondents more likely to agree with the statement. Of the twelve attitude
statements, Kamloops most strongly agreed with the statement, “Using biosolids as a
fertilizer is better than incineration or landfilling,” suggesting the community supports
productive uses of biosolids.
Legitimacy - Positive Statements

Results from the logistic regression for the Kamloops dataset indicate that the level of
familiarity with the term biosolids significantly influences the responses to question S3Q1:
“Biosolids are a valuable resource that should be used as a fertilizer”, where those who were
more familiar with the term biosolids were more likely to agree that biosolids are a valuable
resource (p=0.0005). Interestingly, although Merritt respondents reported being more
familiar with the term biosolids, familiarity was not a significant variable for the Merritt
dataset. The one marginally significant variable reported for S3Q1 for Merritt respondents
was level of concern with waste management. It was found that those who were more
concerned with waste management were less likely to agree with the statement (p=0.0826).

31
Table 2-4. Overview of thoughts and feelings questions variables and assigned sentiment and social capital indicator.
Deviation
from Neutral–
Kamloops
Response
0.62
(0.0000)

Deviation from
Neutral–
Merritt
Response
-0.51
(0.0276)

t-Test Comparison of
Means - Kamloops
and Merritt responses
(p-value)
0.0000

Trust

0.81
(0.0000)

0.85
(0.0000)

0.8138

Positive

Legitimacy

0.83
(0.0000)

-0.32
(0.1760)

0.0000

4. The use of biosolids as a fertilizer makes me
concerned about my surrounding environment

Negative

Trust

0.25
(0.0000)

0.95
(0.0000)

0.0005

S3Q5

5. Biosolids receive adequate treatment at the wastewater
treatment plant to protect public health

Positive

Trust

0.25
(0.0000)

-0.49
(0.0292)

0.0017

S3Q6

6. My family would be at a higher health risk if my
neighbours applied biosolids to their land

Negative

Trust

-0.15
(0.0101)

0.56
(0.0056)

0.0008

S3Q7

7. My family would be at a higher health risk if my
neighbours applied animal manure to their land

Negative

Trust

-0.66
(0.0000)

-0.75
(0.0000)

0.5909

S3Q8

8. I trust government regulatory agencies to monitor the
safe use of biosolids

Positive

Trust

-0.12
(0.0556)

-0.41
(0.0000)

0.0395

S3Q9

9. The odor emitted by biosolids is harmful to my health
when breathed

Negative

Trust

-0.05
(0.3569)

0.46
(0.0183)

0.0117

S3Q10

10. The risks to public health of using biosolids as a
fertilizer outweigh the benefits

Negative

Legitimacy

-0.38
(0.0000)

0.56
(0.0088)

0.0001

S3Q11

11. Using biosolids as a fertilizer in our community will
bring economic benefits

Positive

Legitimacy

0.14
(0.0046)

-0.63
(0.0004)

0.0000

S3Q12

12. Even if used properly, biosolids can still lead to land
or water contamination

Negative

Trust

0.19
(0.0013)

0.49
(0.0234)

0.1718

Variable

Description

Sentiment

Community
Support Factor

S3Q1

1. Biosolids are a valuable resource that should be used
as a fertilizer

Positive

Legitimacy

S3Q2

2. Not enough is known about biosolids

Negative

S3Q3

3. Using biosolids as a fertilizer is better than
incineration or landfilling

S3Q4

Note: Community responses were ranked on a Likert scale of 1-5 (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Disagree) and are reported as mean response deviation from neutral
(neutral response =3). P-value of test for neutrality (mu=3.0) are given in parenthesis.

32

For the Kamloops respondents, additional significant variables reported within the 95%
confidence interval included those who identified as living on rural agricultural land
(p=0.025) and those whose wastewater is managed by a municipal sewer system (p=0.0362)
to be more likely to agree with the statement. This may suggest the general public is more
trusting than perhaps those who are on septic systems and thus have the potential to be more
impacted by land application projects. This assumes that those of the “general population”
are towards the urban/suburban center and that those on septic system are in rural areas,
where land application projects are more likely to take place.
Female Merritt respondents were significantly less likely to agree with the statement, “Using
biosolids as a fertilizer is better than incineration or landfilling” than males (p= 0.0308). This
is consistent with the findings of Robison et al, where women were found to perceive higher
health and safety risks regarding biosolids projects (Robinson et al. 2012). Those who were
concerned with waste management (p= 0.0267) or have a completed a college diploma or
trades school (p=0.0360) were also less likely to agree with the statement. Alternatively, for
Kamloops respondents neither gender nor familiarity were significant factors. Those who
were university graduates (p=0.0154) or earned an annual household income over $100,000
(p=0.0183) were more likely to agree with the statement.
Legitimacy - Negative Statements
For Kamloops respondents, income was found to be the most significant variable (p=0.0544)
regarding the statement “The risks to public health of using biosolids as a fertilizer outweigh
the benefits.” Those who earned an annual household income that ranged from $50,000$100,000, were less likely to agree with this statement. Age (p=0.0547), gender (p=0.0544)
and education (p=0.0711) were also found to be marginally significant variables, where
Kamloops respondents who are 65+ years old, female, or whose highest level of education is
the completion of some college or trades school, were more likely to agree with the
statement. An additional marginally significant variable highlighted that the more familiar
Kamloops respondents were with the term biosolids, the more likely they were to disagree
with this statement (p=0.0722). This is important when considering the role familiarity may
play. Similarly, for Merritt respondents gender (p=0.0108), level of education (0.0285) and
level of concern about waste management (p=0.0082) were found to be significant. Those
who are from Merritt and are female, have completed college or trade school or are

33

concerned about waste management were more likely to agree with this statement. The
significance of gender continues to support the notion that women perceive higher health and
safety risks for biosolids projects.
Trust

Kamloops respondents displayed a higher level of trust regarding the land application of
biosolids when compared to Merritt respondents. Kamloops respondents were generally more
likely to agree with the positively framed questions and disagree with the negatively framed
question than Merritt respondents. T-tests were performed to determine the difference
between the attitudes of the two survey populations, interestingly three of the twelve
statements were not found to be statistically different, all of which were negatively framed.
Both communities reported to equally disagree with the statement, “My family would be at a
higher health risk if my neighbours applied animal manure to their land” (p=0.5909). When
assessing these responses against responses to the statement, “My family would be at a
higher health risk if my neighbours applied biosolids to their land,” Merritt respondents’
agreement with this statement indicates that residents perceive a higher health risk when
exposed to biosolids when compared to manure. This was not paralleled by Kamloops
respondents, where although responses were generally in stronger disagreement to the
statement regarding manure, weak disagreement with the biosolids exposure statement
supports that the community may not identify a distinction between the health and safety
risks from biosolids and manure exposure. Surprisingly, responses to the statements, “Not
enough is known about biosolids” and “Even if used properly, biosolids can still lead to land
or water contamination” were not considered to statistically differ between communities,
reporting p-values of 0.8138 and 0.1718 respectively. “Not enough is known about biosolids”
was also found to be the statement both Kamloops and Merritt reported the second strongest
response to, with means of 3.81 and 3.85 respectively. This suggests that respondents may
have an overall lack of comfort with their personal level of knowledge or that there is a
perceived lack of information on the topic.
Merritt respondents most strongly responded to the statement, “The use of biosolids as a
fertilizer makes me concerned about my surrounding environment,” and although Merritt
respondents were significantly more likely to agree, Kamloops respondents also generally

34

agreed with this statement. Similarly, both communities disagreed with the statement, “I trust
government regulatory agencies to monitor the safe use of biosolids,” however Merritt
respondents had a significantly stronger response than Kamloops respondents (p= 0.0192).
Although Kamloops was found to be generally more trusting regarding biosolids perceptions,
agreement from both communities with the statements “Not enough is known about
biosolids” and “Even if used properly, biosolids can still lead to land or water contamination”
and disagreement with “I trust government regulatory agencies to monitor the safe use of
biosolids” demonstrate a general lack of trust in the current regulatory structure and scientific
knowledgebase overall.
Trust - Positive Statements

For Kamloops respondents, there was only one significant variable identified for the
statement, “Biosolids receive adequate treatment at the wastewater treatment plant to protect
public health.” It was found that those who identified as living on rural agricultural land were
significantly more likely to agree with the statement (p=0.0029). In contrast to this, Merritt
respondents who were female (p=0.0241), had completed college, trade school (p=0.0081) or
a university degree (p=0.0386), or were concerned about waste management (p=0.0074)
were less likely to agree the statement.
Interestingly, responses to “I trust government regulatory agencies to monitor the safe use of
biosolids” reported conflicting results between the communities despite the aligned distrust
in government oversight. Kamloops respondents who identified as living on rural agricultural
land (p=0.0269) or who had completed a university degree or higher (p=0.0023) were
significantly more likely to agree with the statement, this is in stark contrast with Merritt
respondents where education was also found to be a significant variable, however those who
completed a university degree or higher were more likely to disagree (p=0.0407) with the
statement. Respondents who were concerned about waste management were also
significantly more likely to disagree for both Kamloops (p=0.0536) and Merritt (p=0.0041).
Kamloops responses from those who identified as living on rural agricultural land remain
consistent, supporting the assumption that people with agricultural experience are more likely

35
Table 2-5 Section 3 Kamloops-Only Order Logit – Legitimacy: Positively Framed Statements
Statement
Gender
ID

Age5064 Age65+

Child

EduPTC

EduGTC EduUni

Enviro

RuralNF RuralAg

MuniSewer

BioMngt

Inc50100 Inc100+

WasteAboriginal Mngt

BioEd

S3Q1

0.094
(0.237)

0.171
(0.308)

0.508
(0.369)

0.166
(0.265)

-0.372
(0.356)

-0.594*
(0.322)

0.427
(0.314)

0.278*
(0.166)

1.053*
(0.610)

2.514**
(1.121)

1.131**
(0.540)

0.016
(0.241)

-0.507
(0.320)

0.124
(0.366)

0.086
(0.865)

-0.139
(0.102)

0.397***
(0.115)

S3Q3

-0.083
(0.239)

0.038
(0.320)

0.264
(0.378)

-0.038
(0.273)

0.392
(0.368)

-0.218
(0.327)

0.775**
(0.320)

0.167
(0.167)

0.506
(0.594)

1.032
(1.009)

0.509
(0.523)

0.003
(0.246)

-0.123
(0.316)

0.867**
(0.367)

-0.393
(0.858)

0.014
(0.104)

0.059
(0.116)

S3Q11

-0.289
(0.239)

0.491
(0.314)

0.543
(0.381)

0.311
(0.272)

0.330
(0.371)

-0.059
(0.325)

-0.111
(0.312)

0.124
(0.165)

0.640
(0.584)

1.504
(1.065)

0.168
(0.534)

-0.220
(0.240)

0.114
(0.319)

0.589
(0.366)

-0.444
(0.789)

0.058
(0.102)

-0.048
(0.113)

Note: Logistic regression coefficients in log-odds units. Standard errors are given in parenthesis. *** p <0.01; ** p<.05; * p<0.10.
Description of independent variables can be found in Table 2-1; Attitude statement details can be found in Table 2-4.

Table 2-6 Section 3 Kamloops-Only Order Logit – Legitimacy: Negatively Framed Statements
Statement
ID

Gender Age5064 Age65+

Child

EduPTC

EduGTC EduUni

Enviro

RuralNF RuralAg

MuniSewer

BioMngt

Inc50100 Inc100+

S3Q10

-0.449* 0.365
(0.233) (0.302)

0.226
(0.255)

0.624*
(0.346)

0.338
(0.311)

-0.227
(0.163)

-0.292
(0.564)

-0.474
(0.515)

0.029
(0.239)

0.631**
(0.319)

0.707*
(0.368)

-0.478
(0.305)

-1.032
(1.014)

Note: Logistic regression coefficients in log-odds units. Standard errors are given in parenthesis. *** p <0.01; ** p<.05; * p<0.10.
Description of independent variables can be found in Table 2-1; Attitude statement details can be found in Table 2-4.

0.188
(0.360)

Aboriginal

WasteBioEd
Mngt

0.335
(0.752)

0.136 -0.204**
(0.100) (0.113)

36
Table 2-7 Section 3 Kamloops-Only Order Logit – Trust: Positively Framed Statements
Statement
Gender
ID

Age5064 Age65+

Child

EduPTC EduGTC EduUni

Enviro

RuralNF RuralAg

MuniSewer

BioMngt

Inc50100

Inc100+

Aboriginal

WasteMngt

BioEd

S3Q5

-0.381
(0.238)

0.010
(0.306)

0.321
(0.371)

-0.137
(0.263)

0.549
(0.362)

-0.084
(0.326)

0.333
(0.307)

-0.075
(0.163)

0.131
(0.593)

3.037***
(1.019)

0.563
(0.557)

0.154
(0.240)

-0.360
(0.326)

-0.012
(0.372)

-0.130
(0.898)

-0.106
(0.102)

0.053
(0.112)

S3Q8

-0.055
(0.230)

0.200
(0.302)

0.256
(0.375)

-0.028
(0.266)

0.199
(0.350)

0.326
(0.309)

0.931***
(0.305)

-0.164
(0.160)

-0.467
(0.581)

2.092**
(0.945)

0.132
(0.508)

0.151
(0.233)

-0.301
(0.316)

0.211
(0.358)

0.531
(0.746)

-0.195*
(0.101)

0.013
(0.109)

Inc50100 Inc100+

Aboriginal

WasteMngt

BioEd

Note: Logistic regression coefficients in log-odds units. Standard errors are given in parenthesis. *** p <0.01; ** p<.05; * p<0.10.
Description of independent variables can be found in Table 2-1; Attitude statement details can be found in Table 2-4.

Table 2-8 Section 3 Kamloops-Only Order Logit – Trust: Negatively Framed Statements
EduPTC

EduGTC EduUni

Enviro

RuralNF RuralAg

MuniSewer

-0.384 -0.450*
(0.375) (0.267)

-0.035
(0.355)

-0.487
(0.319)

-0.275
(0.310)

-0.044
(0.171)

0.853
(0.659)

-1.975*
(1.024)

-1.627*** -0.093
(0.600)
(0.240)

0.067
(0.306)

-0.127
(0.349)

0.490
(0.855)

0.363*** -0.176
(0.104)
(0.116)

0.237
(0.299)

0.531
0.151
(0.368) (0.258)

-0.024
(0.352)

-0.141
(0.312)

-0.352
(0.298)

-0.279*
(0.163)

-1.173** -1.690*
(0.578)
(1.024)

-1.126** -0.126
(0.507)
(0.236)

0.084
(0.311)

-0.281
(0.354)

0.329
(0.796)

0.379*** -0.002
(0.101)
(0.111)

0.177
(0.231)

0.385
(0.299)

0.479
0.180
(0.357) (0.254)

0.341
(0.343)

0.795**
(0.312)

-0.037
(0.302)

-0.329** -0.697
(0.164)
(0.604)

-2.039** -1.316** -0.175
(1.030)
(0.530)
(0.237)

0.338
(0.312)

-0.079
(0.351)

-0.020
(0.747)

0.379*** -0.178
(0.101)
(0.111)

S3Q7

0.298
(0.233)

0.542*
(0.310)

0.916** 0.460*
(0.373) (0.266)

0.564
(0.351)

0.317
(0.308)

0.487
(0.304)

-0.094
(0.162)

-1.022*
(0.611)

-0.077
(1.024)

0.091
(0.511)

-0.069
(0.234)

-0.329
(0.315)

-0.271
(0.355)

-0.962
(0.862)

0.359*** -0.146
(0.102)
(0.109)

S3Q9

-0.238
(0.235)

0.204
(0.299)

0.601
-0.340
(0.370) (0.262)

0.088
(0.355)

-0.003
(0.317)

-0.496
(0.306)

-0.182
(0.174)

-0.015
(0.600)

-2.496** -0.152
(1.054)
(0.490)

-0.151
(0.239)

0.033
(0.312)

-0.171
(0.354)

0.200
(0.810)

0.241**
(0.105)

-0.133
(0.109)

S3Q12

0.086
(0.229)

-0.315
(0.299)

0.127
-0.082
(0.364) (0.261)

0.030
(0.348)

0.556*
(0.308)

0.106
(0.299)

-0.275*
(0.162)

-0.297
(0.565)

-2.504** -1.065** -0.315
(1.019)
(0.512)
(0.240)

-0.006
(0.311)

-0.528
(0.355)

0.737
(0.789)

0.224**
(0.098)

-0.085
(0.110)

Statement
ID

Gender

S3Q2

-1.033*** -0.447
(0.242) (0.317)

S3Q4

-0.374
(0.231)

S3Q6

Age5064 Age65+ Child

Note: Logistic regression coefficients in log-odds units. Standard errors are given in parenthesis. *** p <0.01; ** p<.05; * p<0.10.
Description of independent variables can be found in Table 2-1; Attitude statement details can be found in Table 2-4.

BioMngt

37
Table 2-9 Section 3 Merritt-Only Order Logit – Legitimacy: Positively Framed Statements
Statement
ID

MuniSewer

BioMngt

Inc50100 Inc100+

NA1

0.905
(2.107)

-1.283
(0.881)

-0.967
(0.802)

NA1

NA1

-0.836* -0.007
(0.482) (0.458)

-1.711
(1.350)

NA1

-2.566
(2.118)

0.032
(0.839)

-0.787
(0.726)

NA1

NA1

-0.885* -0.287
(0.475) (0.434)

0.705
(1.215)

NA1

1.823
(1.820)

-0.462
(0.824)

0.342
(0.742)

NA1

NA1

-0.579
(0.426)

0.029
(0.406)

MuniSewer

BioMngt

Inc50100 Inc100+

WasteAboriginal Mngt

BioEd

1.553
(1.942)

0.178
(0.870)

-0.257
(0.746)

Gender Age5064 Age65+

Child

EduPTC

EduGTC EduUni

Enviro

RuralNF RuralAg

S3Q1

0.993
1.713
(0.953) (1.374)

0.232
(1.837)

NA1

NA1

-1.007
(1.046)

-0.353
(0.972)

-0.058
(0.500)

-0.197
(1.442)

S3Q3

2.040** 0.401
(0.944) (1.264)

-2.624
(1.865)

NA1

NA1

-2.037*
(1.096)

-0.276
(0.922)

-0.156
(0.492)

S3Q11

0.872
1.938
(0.826 ) (1.330)

1.486
(1.751)

NA1

NA1

-1.078
(1.005)

-1.909** -0.410
(0.880)
(0.480)

WasteAboriginal Mngt

BioEd

Note: Logistic regression coefficients in log-odds units. Standard errors are given in parenthesis. *** p <0.01; ** p<.05; * p<0.10
1
Variables did not cover enough respondents in the Merritt dataset.
Description of independent variables can be found in Table 2-1; Attitude statement details can be found in Table 2-4.

Table 2-10 Section 3 Merritt-Only Order Logit – Legitimacy: Negatively Framed Statements
Statement ID Gender Age5064 Age65+

Child

EduPTC

EduGTC EduUni

Enviro

RuralNF RuralAg

-2.425** -0.709
(0.951) (1.418)

NA1

NA1

2.549**
(1.164)

0.741
(0.919)

-0.305
(0.503)

0.277
(1.359)

S3Q10

1.905
(1.957)

NA1

Note: Logistic regression coefficients in log-odds units. Standard errors are given in parenthesis. *** p <0.01; ** p<.05; * p<0.10
1
Variables did not cover enough respondents in the Merritt dataset.
Description of independent variables can be found in Table 2-1; Attitude statement details can be found in Table 2-4.

NA1

NA1

1.370*** -0.142
(0.519)
(0.431)

38
Table 2-11 Section 3 Merritt-Only Order Logit – Trust: Positively Framed Statements
Statement
ID

Gender Age5064 Age65+

Child

EduPTC

EduGTC EduUni

Enviro

S3Q5

1.969** 0.743
(0.873) (1.380)

-0.966
(1.827)

NA1

NA1

-3.176*** -1.976** 1.043*
(1.200)
(0.955)
(0.534)

-1.297
(1.266)

S3Q8

0.813
0.665
(0.831) (1.256)

-0.392
(1.727)

NA1

NA1

-2.022*
(1.127)

-2.030** 0.637
(0.992)
(0.505)

-0.913
(1.245)

MuniSewer

BioMngt

Inc50100 Inc100+

NA1

0.694
(1.827)

-0.315
(0.812)

0.437
(0.783)

NA1

NA1

-1.379*** 0.198
(0.515)
(0.410)

NA1

0.299
(1.797)

0.797
(0.871)

1.216*
(0.726)

NA1

NA1

-1.508*** -0.040
(0.526)
(0.447)

MuniSewer

BioMngt

Inc50100 Inc100+

RuralNF RuralAg

WasteAboriginal Mngt

BioEd

Note: Logistic regression coefficients in log-odds units. Standard errors are given in parenthesis. *** p <0.01; ** p<.05; * p<0.10
1
Variables did not cover enough respondents in the Merritt dataset.
Description of independent variables can be found in Table 2-1; Attitude statement details can be found in Table 2-4.

Table 2-12 Section 3 Merritt-Only Order Logit – Trust: Negatively Framed Statements
Statement ID Gender Age5064 Age65+

Child

EduPTC

EduGTC EduUni

Enviro

RuralNF RuralAg

WasteAboriginal Mngt

BioEd

S3Q2

0.419 2.508**
(0.738) (0.982)

NA1

NA1

NA1

0.052
(0.994)

-2.932*** -1.861*** 3.402**
(1.024)
(0.570)
(1.433)

NA1

2.585
(1.788)

1.622*
(0.859)

-2.552*** NA1
(0..944)

NA1

1.5067** -0.2319
(0.5116) (0.456)

S3Q4

-1.482 0.569
(0.927) (1.324)

1.209
(1.802)

NA1

NA1

1.576
(1.115)

0.109
(1.052)

-0.803
(0.501)

1.303
(1.334)

NA1

1.168
(1.852)

-0.203
(0.870)

-0.854
(0.837)

NA1

NA1

1.472*** 0.421
(0.500)
(0.436)

S3Q6

-0.951 0.864
(0.802) (1.309)

0.513
(1.670)

NA1

NA1

1.882*
(0.974)

0.722
(0.876)

-0.879*
(0.463)

0.773
(1.198)

NA1

-0.885
(1.710)

-0.017
(0.770)

-0.493
(0.726)

NA1

NA1

0.929**
(0.416)

-0.541
(0.415)

S3Q7

-2.053** 1.673
(1.005) (1.460)

6.287*** NA1
(2.138)

NA1

1.107
(1.145)

0.739
(0.849)

-0.266
(0.566)

2.063
(1.640)

NA1

6.778*** -0.644
(2.479)
(0.875)

0.454
(0.804)

NA1

NA1

-0.393
(0.507)

0.517
(0.462)

S3Q9

-2.036** -1.103
(0.932) (1.317)

-0.143
(1.805)

NA1

NA1

-1.256
(1.068)

-0.189
(0.921)

-0.359
(0.484)

-0.552
(1.552)

NA1

-1.667
(1.967)

0.410
(0.879)

-0.391
(0.718)

NA1

NA1

1.376*** -0.076
(0.484)
(0.417)

S3Q12

-1.400 1.350
(0.863) (1.156)

2.398
(1.631)

NA1

NA1

1.393
(0.953)

0.767
(0.834)

-0.459
(0.462)

2.513
(1.437)

NA1

1.669
(2.025)

-0.374
(0.785)

-0.738*
(0.694)

NA1

NA1

0.334
(0.393)

Note: Logistic regression coefficients in log-odds units. Standard errors are given in parenthesis. *** p <0.01; ** p<.05; * p<0.10
1
Variables did not cover enough respondents in the Merritt dataset.
Description of independent variables can be found in Table 2-1; Attitude statement details can be found in Table 2-4.

0.044
(0.414)

39

to understand and accept the practice of land application of biosolids as reported in the 2002
survey completed by Beecher et al (2004).
Trust - Negative Statements

Interestingly, for all statements identified as negative and informing trust, Kamloops
respondents who identified as being concerned about waste management were significantly
more likely to agree. For the Kamloops data, this trend is only observed with these negative
statements and potentially implies the concept of loss aversion, where it is found that people
tend to experience loss twice as painful as they experience gains and thus try to avoid a loss
more than try to pursue a similar gain (Samson, Loewenstein, and Sutherland 2014). As
described above, trust requires being vulnerable to risk or loss through actions of another,
and framing statements in a way that poses potential harm to human health or contamination
of the environment may warrant a stronger emotional response than a reciprocal positive
statement.
Consistent with both positively and negatively framed statements, Merritt respondents who
identified as being concerned about waste management were also significantly more likely to
agree with the majority of the attitude statements identified as negative and informing trust,
suggesting that Merritt respondents concern for waste management may be closely tied to the
community’s recent experience with application sites and proximity to biosolids projects and
the associated local media attention. This supports the notion presented by Beecher et al.
(2004) that public’s mind is a relatively blank slate regarding the knowledge of biosolids and
that the public’s perception may be significantly influenced by their first introduction to the
topic. When considering broad public awareness regarding biosolids is low (Beecher et al.
2004; Robinson et al. 2012; Youngquist et al. 2015; McCarthy and Loyo-Rosales 2015),
community outrage and the resulting media attention has the potential to be the first
introduction to general community members on the topic.
Further to that, in alignment with the above results, Kamloops respondents who identified as
living on rural agricultural land are significantly more likely to disagree with these negatively
framed statements. This continues to support the notion that people with agricultural
experience are more likely to understand and accept the practice of land application of
biosolids. The statement, “My family would be at a higher health risk if my neighbours

40

applied animal manure to their land,” is the one exception where Kamloops respondents on
rural agricultural land was not identified as significant. This statement however, was included
as a control to assess how respondents perceive animal manure compared to biosolids.
Consistent with above, Merritt respondents who are female were significantly more likely to
agree with the statement.
Gender was also found to be a significant variable for Kamloops respondents regarding the
statement “Not enough is known about biosolids,” where females were significantly more
likely to agree with the statement than males (p<0.0000). This continues to support the idea
that women perceive higher health and safety risks. Additionally, it was found that those
whose wastewater is managed by a municipal sewer system and are from Kamloops are
significantly more likely to disagree with the majority of the negative trust related statements.
This also supports the idea that the general public is more trusting than perhaps those who are
on septic systems (assumed to be in rural areas) and may have the potential to me more
impacted by biosolids land application projects.
Obtaining Community Support
To assess these results in context of social approval, we use the community support
conceptual framework displayed in Figure 2-3. This framework highlights that not only does
the community provide the necessary ongoing support as typically seen in SLO models
(Boutilier and Thomson 2011; Hall et al. 2015; Thomson 2016; Gehman, Lefsrud, and Fast
2017), but also that the company/project seeks to obtain this support. Ultimately, it’s
important to consider that the minimum requirements demanded by the community must not
exceed the maximum that the proponent is willing to supply in order to move the project
forward successfully. Common challenges often experienced in attempting to establish
ongoing community support is public risk perceptions and transparency on risk management.
It is found that risks associated with health, safety and environment can be difficult to
effectively engage on because of the generally low level of public trust (Lincoln 2015).
Further to this challenge, proponents are now faced with social media, where a potential
vocal minority are offered a platform to publicly voice their differing expectations to a broad

41

audience (Gehman, Lefsrud, and Fast 2017). This proves to be important when taking into
account the suggestion that public perception may be significantly influenced by their first
introduction to the topic (Beecher et al. 2004). Social media could potentially make or a
break a project if not engaged on proactively.
When considering the roles of legitimacy and trust, it is suggested that legitimacy is
necessary for acceptance, but trust is required for approval (Boutilier and Thomson 2011;
Goven et al. 2012; Lincoln 2015). Boutilier and Thomson (2011) propose that legitimacy is a
necessary but not sufficient condition for trust and that a weak community support may be

Legal License
to Operate

Government
monitoring and
enforcement

Government
Regulation/ approval
process
Free Prior and
Informed Consent

First Nations

Firm

Community

(Social Capital)

Trust

Legitimacy

Demand to
Obtain Community
Support

Support Supplied by
Community

Ongoing
Community
Support

Figure 2-3 Community support conceptual framework.

Non-First
Nations

42

obtained with only legitimacy but this has the potential to fall through as stakeholders
continue to take in new information. This is reflected in the three levels of community
acceptance they propose: (1) Acceptance – basic level, where acceptance is considered a
tentative willingness for the project to proceed; (2) Approval – established credibility, where
stakeholder support is resistant to ideas projected by critics; and (3) Identification – full
legitimacy and trust, where the community sees its future tied to the future of the project
(shared interests) (Boutilier and Thomson 2011; Boutilier, Black, and Thomson 2012). It is
worth considering that the basic level, “Acceptance,” may be more appropriately termed
“Acquiescence,” as non-opposition does not necessarily imply acceptance.
Further to this, Hall et al. (2015) suggest that there is evidence to support that a social gap
between public support for the general goal of more “sustainable” practices and the level of
local support for specific projects. While the general public remains favourable to the idea of
new technologies, host communities are not as supportive, thus there may be socio-political
acceptance and market acceptance, but community acceptance is still lacking (Hall et al.
2015). This proposed social gap is supported by Kamloops and Merritt responses to this
survey, where it is observed that the community that is reportedly less impacted by biosolids
projects, Kamloops, is more supportive of biosolids projects than Merritt, where the topic of
biosolids has become a rather controversial issue.
Additionally, it’s important to consider the legal license as an input into “Social Capital,”
where when community members lose faith in the regulatory structure, increased pressure is
placed on the project proponent to make up for this gap. This is one of the drivers of the
beyond compliance approach, where expectations must be managed and the challenges of
“perception is risk” are presented.
Kamloops respondents provide a good example of what Boutilier and Thomson (2011) and
Thomson (2012) refer to as the basic level of community acceptance. Kamloops respondents
prove to be supportive of productive uses of biosolids, however response means for
statements regarding trust don’t stray too far from “Neutral,” suggesting that these views may
be easily reassessed as new information is received. This is demonstrated by Kamloops
residents’ responses to the statement “The odor emitted by biosolids is harmful to my health
when breathed” (p=0.3569) and “I trust government regulatory agencies to monitor the safe

43

use of biosolids” (p=0.0556), where responses were not found to significantly differ from
neutral or where they were only marginally significantly different from neutral. This is
further supported by the perceived lack of knowledge about biosolids.
The opposition exhibited by Merritt residents demonstrates a clear lack of acceptance for
biosolids land application projects. Merritt respondents generally perceived the land
application of biosolids to offer unsuitable risk and a low level of value. As proposed above,
without legitimacy, the project will not even make it to the basic level of community
acceptance.
In the case of Kamloops, where there’s the potential that legitimacy is somewhat established,
weak project acceptance may be provided. Trust however, cannot be discounted. If trust is
not established, there is a high probability of opposition within the host community. As a
driver to go beyond compliance, Morrison (2014) proposes that two of the five following
factors are salient, (1) Environmental impacts of firms product and process, (2) Customer
power, (3) Customer interest, (4) Corporate/brand visibility and (5) Community pressure. In
the case of biosolids in BC’s southern interior, these factors can be paralleled to (1)
Environmental impacts of land application projects, (2) Host community power, (3) Host
community interest, (4) Project visibility, and (5) Host community pressure.
Perceived environmental impacts related to biosolids projects can very quickly escalate, and
although the BC government indicates that the OMRR is designed to be protective of human
health and the environment there exists a general distrust in the government’s oversight on
land application projects to be safely practiced. Further to that, it was demonstrated that the
communities feel that not enough is known about biosolids. Combining this with project
visibility, where complaints about odours and reports of environmental spills bring negative
attention to the project, weak community support may be obtained but could quickly
deteriorate as community members begin to seek more information.
If a host community has a strong negative experience, community interest and community
pressure will continue to grow as projects continue to be proposed. And in the case of
biosolids, where most developed nations are highly dependent on effective wastewater
treatment, something must be done with the residuals. It is said that it takes a lot to get the
public to care, but once they care it can be hard to shift that perception (Sandman 1993).

44

Again, this is significant when considering the potential for perceptions to be significantly
influenced by an individual’s first introduction to the topic. This emphasizes the risk that
biosolids managers take when choosing not to proactively engage with the host community
on projects, particularly within this region.
Host community power, interest and pressure are of particular interest with respect to this
region. Within Kamloops and the broader Thompson Nicola Regional District (TNRD),
workshops and working groups have recently been established to assess biosolids
management options (Rothenburger 2018 May 4; Rothenburger 2018 May 25). While the
TNRD has committed to assessing options to eliminate land application within the region, the
Kamloops working group members have committed to an approach that will consider the
economic, environmental and social impacts of different management options and establish a
long term plan for the city’s biosolids – this approach doesn’t exclude the possibility of
continued land application. These approaches are generally supported by the outcomes of this
research, where the Lower Nicola Region of the TNRD has placed increasing pressure on all
levels of government to move away from the practice of biosolids land application. Although
pressure is growing in Kamloops, the opportunity to conduct more proactive engagement on
different management practices still exists.

Conclusions
This research supports the notion that this beyond compliance approach is valuable for any
potentially controversial natural resource project, such as with biosolids land application
projects. The findings of this survey can be used to assist with designing stakeholder-centric
engagement around potentially controversial natural resource projects. Although expectations
of each community will differ, several general conclusions can be drawn to support
addressing risk perceptions associated with management and regulation:


Merritt residents who, in general, reported to be more familiar with biosolids and
subsequent related issues within their community, demonstrated significantly stronger
attitudes opposing land application practices than the reportedly less familiar
Kamloops residents.

45



Kamloops respondents who were generally more familiar with the term biosolids
demonstrated significantly stronger attitudes towards support of the value biosolids
offers as a fertilizer.



Kamloops residents who reported to be more concerned with waste management,
demonstrated significantly stronger attitudes against biosolids land application when
attitude statements are negatively framed.



While Merritt respondents reported significantly greater perceived health risks from
exposure to biosolids than animal manure, Kamloops respondents generally disagreed
that biosolids exposure would lead to increased health risks.



Kamloops residents who reported to live on rural agricultural land had significantly
stronger attitudes towards acceptance of biosolids land application practices.



Women were found to generally perceive significantly higher health and safety risks,
this was particularly emphasized within the Merritt community where attitudes may
be emotionally influenced.



Based on the current knowledge base, neither community perceives there to be a
strong enough body of knowledge on biosolids.



There is a general lack of trust in the government oversight for land application
projects to ensure the safety of human health and the environment.



Kamloops respondents support the general idea of recycling biosolids but lack the
necessary overall trust for a biosolids project to receive stable social acceptance.



Merritt respondents reported that the benefits of biosolids do not outweigh the
perceived health and safety risks and that biosolids do not offer value as a fertilizer
highlighting lack of overall community acceptance.

References
Beecher N, Connell B, Epstein E, Filtz J, Goldstein N, Lono M. 2004. Public Perception of
Biosolids Recycling: Developing Public Participation and Earning Trust. Water Environment
Research Foundation.
Boutilier RG, Black LD, Thomson I. 2012. From Metaphor to Management Tool – How the
Social License to Operate can Stabilise the Socio-Political Environment for Business. In:
International Mine Management 2012 Proceedings. Mebourne: Australia Institue of Mining

46

and Metallurgy. p. 227–237.
Boutilier RG, Thomson I. 2011. Modeling and Measuring the Social License to Operate:
Fruits of a Dialogue Between Theory and Practice. In: Internation Mine Management
Conference. Queensland.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2012. Canada-wide Approach for the
Management of Wastewater Biosolids, version PN 1477.
Dillman DA. 1991. The Design And Administration Of Mail Surveys. Annual Review of
Sociology 17:225–249.
Dillman DA, Phelps G, Tortora R, Swift K, Kohrell J, Berck J, Messer BL. 2009. Response
rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail , telephone , interactive
voice response ( IVR ) and the Internet q. Social Science Research 38:1–18.
Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. 2014. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode
Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Fourth. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Gehman J, Lefsrud LM, Fast S. 2017. Social license to operate : Legitimacy by another
name ? Canadian Public Administration 60:293–317.
Goven J, Langer ERL, Baker V, Ataria J, Leckie A. 2012. Community engagement in the
management of biosolids: lessons from four New Zealand studies. Journal of environmental
management 103:154–64.
Hall N, Lacey J, Carr-cornish S, Dowd A. 2015. Social licence to operate : understanding
how a concept has been translated into practice in energy industries. Journal of Cleaner
Production 86:301–310.
Hong J. 2013. Public Perception of Biosolids.
Kanuk L, Berenson C. 1975. Mail Surveys and Response Rates : A Literature Review.
Journal of Marketing Research:440–454.
Likert R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 22:55.
Lincoln A. 2015. Rethinking Social Licence to Operate – A Concept in Search of Definition
and Boundaries. Business Council of BC: Environment and Energy Bulletin 7:1–10.

47

Lynch-wood G, Williamson D. 2018. The Social Licence as a Form of Regulation for Small
and Medium Enterprises. Journal of Law and Society 34:321–341.
McCarthy L, Loyo-Rosales JE. 2015. Risks Associated with Application of Municipal
Biosolids to Agricultural Lands in a Canadian Context - Literature Review. Canadian
Municipal Water Consortium, Canadian Water Network.
Moffat K, Zhang A. 2014. The paths to social licence to operate : An integrative model
explaining community acceptance of mining. Resources Policy 39:61–70.
National Research Council. 2002. Biosolids applied to land: Advancing standard practices.
Crossgrove RE, editor. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Potestio M. 2014 Dec 11. Concern over biosolids spreading. Merritt Herald:1–3.
Potestio M. 2015 Apr 28. Chiefs issue self-imposed ban on biosolids. Merrit Herald.
Robinson KG, Robinson CH, Raup L a., Markum TR. 2012. Public attitudes and risk
perception toward land application of biosolids within the south-eastern United States.
Journal of Environmental Management 98:29–36.
Rothenburger M. 2018 May 4. BIOSOLIDS – Kamloops sets up committee on ‘management
options.’ ArmchairMayor.ca.
Rothenburger M. 2018 May 25. TNRD – All-day session to look at alternatives to putting
biosolids on land. ArmchairMayor.ca.
Samson A, Loewenstein G, Sutherland R. 2014. The Behavioural Economics Guide 2014.
First Edit. Samson A, editor.
Sanchez ME. 1992. Effects of Questionnaire Design on the Quality of Survey Data. The
Public Opinion Quarterly 56:206–217.
Sandman PM. 1993. Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk
Communication. 1st ed. Fairfax, Virginia: American Industrial Hygiene Association.
Sax LJ, Gilmartin SK, Bryant AN. 2003. Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in
web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education 44:409–433.

48

Strachan B. 2015. Homeowners near Merritt, B.C. buy land to keep human biosolids away.
CBC News.
Teclaw R, Price MC, Osatuke K. 2012. Demographic Question Placement: Effect on Item
Response Rates and Means of a Veterans Health Administration Survey. Journal of Business
and Psychology 27:281–290.
The Herald. 2016. Nicola Chiefs pull out of biosolids review. Merrit Herald.
Thomson GC. 2016. Management of socio-political risk arising from corporate transitions :
the Mt. Milligan experience. University of British Columbia.
Youngquist CP, Goldberger JR, Doyle J, Jones SS. 2015. Public involvement in waste
management research and decision-making : A case study. Regional Science Policy &
Practice 7:103–161.

49

Chapter 3 ASSESSING THE BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE USES OF
BIOSOLIDS USING WILLINGNESS TO PAY
Introduction and Relevance
Within the Southern Interior of British Columbia (BC), there has been a growing resistance
to biosolids land application projects. Biosolids, the nutrient-rich solids that are a by-product
of wastewater treatment, have resulted in many community complaints within the Southern
Interior region particularly centered on land application projects. In BC, biosolids are often
used as a soil amendment for improving soils and plant growth (CCME 2012; McCarthy and
Loyo-Rosales 2015). The opposition to land application projects within select community
groups has resulted in increased pressures on government and biosolids managers to
implement socially acceptable projects in a growingly contentious culture.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) encourages the beneficial
use of municipal biosolids, while maintaining protection of the environment and human
health. Beneficial management includes practices such as composting, agricultural land
application and combustion for energy. While biosolids land application projects continue to
be subject to questions and concerns, not only do we need to understand how to most
effectively address the differences between the public perception of biosolids and the
promotion of the safety and sustainability of current waste management practices, but
consideration needs to be given to alternate beneficial use practices and the resulting social
implications.
Social science literature has demonstrated the important role social trust plays in societal
judgments about technological risks and benefits, and subsequent views on acceptability of
technologies (Slovic 1987; Slovic 1993; Beecher et al. 2005; Wu, Wolsink, and Bu 2007;
Eggers et al. 2011). Biosolids managers have expressed particular frustration around the
concept of “perception is reality,” where concerns are raised about anything that might be
disposed of down the drain that may potentially impact biosolids quality (Beecher et al.
2004). Social science research has indicated there exists a considerable gap in risk perception
between the technical “experts” and the lay public, highlighting that people who regard

50

themselves as “expert” tend to perceive a lower risk about that topic, whereas non-experts
will perceive a higher risk (Neil, Malmfors, and Slovic 1994; Slovic et al. 1995; Beecher et
al. 2004; Beecher et al. 2005). It is worth considering that public risk perceptions may also
act as a surrogate for other social-political concerns (Slovic 1987).
There have been a limited number of surveys conducted to understand biosolids management
preferences in communities with minimal engagement on biosolids issues. One of the key
studies on this topic is the 2002 Biosolids Public Knowledge and Perception Survey, where it
was reported that one of the most important findings of the survey is that the public mind is a
relatively blank slate regarding the knowledge of biosolids suggesting that the public’s
perception of biosolids may be significantly influenced by their first introduction to the topic
(Beecher et al. 2004). This is significant given the low level of public awareness regarding
biosolids management. Highlighting the influence community opposition can have, Robinson
et al. (2012) conducted a study in south-eastern USA assessing attitudes and risk perceptions
of two communities that utilize the land application of biosolids as part of their waste
management strategies, Amelia County and Knoxville, Tennessee. It was found that the
Amelia County residents, who had reported many community complaints, responded with
stronger attitudes against biosolids land application than Knoxville residents. Highlighting
some of the challenges in effective community engagement, Younquist et al. (2015) found
that there was a lack of overall community participation when exploring community
engagement strategies around biosolids management in the town of La Conner in Skagit
County, Washington, suggesting that biosolids management may be a topic people do not see
as a relevant issue.
Estimating the external costs of the land application of biosolids is difficult because of the
non-market nature of environmental goods, such as clean air or clean water. External costs of
land applied biosolids could include the cost of the number of community concerns presented
in Chapter 1, such as the cost of impacts on an individual’s ability to enjoy their surrounding
environment or reduced property value resulting from proximity to land application projects.
Economists often use the contingent valuation method (CVM) for valuations of these nonmarket goods. CVM enables the researcher to directly observe the relationship between an
economic decision and particular non-market goods (Carson 2000).

51

Through this research we attempt to measure the benefits of alternative uses of biosolids in
dollar values at the individual level, which can then be aggregated to the community level.
By using CVM, we determine the willingness to pay (WTP) of local residents to support a
proposal to use biosolids generated from their own community as a fuel for energy
production as an alternative to using it for land application projects.
Willingness to pay for alternative biosolids management practices can be used as a surrogate
for willingness to pay to divert biosolids from land application. Thus this research estimates
indirectly the perceived external cost of land applied biosolids. Additionally, by proposing an
alternative method of biosolids management, it is reinforced that biosolids are a product that
communities need to effectively manage long-term. This research aims to offer policy
makers, regulators, and biosolids management tools for valuing changes in biosolids
management practices, ultimately supporting the implementation of publicly successful
biosolids management programs.

Methods
Sample Selection and Survey Delivery
Please see discussion on sample selection and survey delivery in Chapter 2.
Survey Design
For detailed discussion on survey design, please see Chapter 2.
For the purpose of this chapter, I focus on results from sections one, two and four. Section
one captured general sociodemographic information, inclusive of gender, age, income,
education level, and description of residence (urban/rural). Given the importance of
demographics to this research, this section was placed in the beginning to promote
completeness of responses (Teclaw, Price, and Osatuke 2012). A subsection of the data from
section two was used for to construct estimates of WTP, this included respondents level of
familiarity with biosolids, level of comfort regarding the use of biosolids as a fertilizer within

52

their community, and level of concern regarding waste management as potential explanatory
variables.

Figure 3-1 Section 4: Biosolids Management, willingness to pay questions

Section four was designed as an assessment for alternative uses of biosolids management.
Respondents were asked if they would support a proposal to use biosolids generated from
their own community as a fuel for energy production as an alternative to using it as a
fertilizer if it meant that there would be a municipal tax increase (Figure 3-1). Using
contingent valuation methodology (CVM), we attempt to measure the benefits of alternative
uses of biosolids in dollar value at the individual level, which can then be aggregated to the
community level.
Contingent Valuation and Empirical Analysis
Due to the opposition to the land application of biosolids experience within the region, in
section 4 we attempt to assess an alternative use of biosolids management using CVM.
Contingent valuation is a common survey method used to place monetary values on goods
and services not bought or sold in the market place (Carson 2000; Boyle 2003; Androkovich
et al. 2008). There are three classifications of elicitation methods in the design of CVM:
open-ended, payment card, and dichotomous choice. At the basic level, dichotomous choice

53

represents a two cell payment card (yes or no to the proposed dollar value), while open-ended
CVM has an infinite number of cells (no restriction on the dollar value reported). Using
dichotomous choice CVM, a participant would be presented a proposal and asked whether or
not they will support the proposal if it meant they had to pay a set dollar value, whereas
open-ended CVM would present the same proposal but directly ask participants how much
they are willing to pay, not leading them to any specific dollar amount. It is well documented
that mean WTP from dichotomous choice CVM generally exceeds that from open-ended
approaches (Boyle 2003; Androkovich et al. 2008). There are arguments made against all
three question formats, open-ended CVM are hard to answer but dichotomous choice CVM
pose a “take it or leave it” approach telling us limited information about the distribution.
Dichotomous choice CVM is known to be subject to bias resulting from yea saying, where
respondents may say yes to an amount even though the their true willingness to pay is less
than the amount asked about, and anchoring, where the proposed dollar amount may serve as
a reference point and influence respondents subsequent judgments about value. Similarly,
payment card CVM results in potential biases from anchoring (i.e. range and end point bias)
(Carson 2000; Boyle 2003; Androkovich et al. 2008).
Given the relatively low public awareness on biosolids management practices, payment card
CVM was selected to promote survey response and to gain information about the broad
distribution. Respondents were asked if they would support a proposal to use biosolids
generated from their own community as a fuel for energy production as an alternative to
using it as a fertilizer if it meant that there would be a municipal tax increase. Bid options
were presented at $10, $20, $50, $100, ≥$200. If respondents were not willing to pay, they
were asked to select one of the following reasons: (1) Taxes are already too high; (2) It is not
fair to expect my household to have to pay; (3) I cannot afford a tax increase; (4) I do not
oppose land application; (5) Biosolids are a waste product that should be landfilled.
Respondents that identified they felt biosolids were “a waste product that should be
landfilled,” were then asked about supporting an alternate proposal to landfill biosolids if it
meant that there would be a municipal tax increase. This second component was filled out by
many respondents unnecessarily, as such, the landfill component was not assessed and is not
further discussed in this report. Descriptive statistics were generated for all questions.

54
Table 3-1. Variables used in the Tobit 2-step Procedure
Variable
Gender

Name
Gender

Age
(base case: Age 18-34)

Age3549
Age5064
Age65+

Description
Gender of the Respondent (1 = Male, 0 =
Female)
Respondents who are of the age of 35-49 years
old (1 = Yes, 0 = No)
Respondents who are of the age of 50-64 years
old (1 = Yes, 0 = No)
Respondents who are of the age of 65 years or
older (1 = Yes, 0 = No)

Children

Child

Respondents who have children currently
living at home (1= Yes, 0 = No)

Education
(base case: highest level of
education attained college or
trade school graduate)

EduUni

Respondents whose highest level of education
is university (bachelors degree) (1 = Yes, 0 =
No)
Respondents whose highest level of education
is post graduate studies (1 = Yes, 0 = No)

Environmentalist

Enviro

Respondents opinion of how applicable the
term "Environmentalist" applies to them (1 =
Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree)

Location
(base case: residents live in
Merritt)

Kam

Respondents whose residence was located in
Kamloops (1 = Yes, 0 = No)

Community Biosolids
Management

BioMngt

Respondents who know how Biosolids are
managed in their community ( 1 = Yes, 0 = No)

Income
(base case: respondents for
whom annual household
income was less than
$75,000)

Inc75100

Respondents for whom annual household
income was in the range $75,000 to $100,000
(1 = Yes, 0 = No)

Inc100+

Biosolids Familiarity

BioEd

Waste Management

WasteMngt

Biosolids Fertilizer

Fertilizer

Respondents for whom annual household
income was $100,001 or more (1 = Yes, 0 =
No)
Respondents opinion of how familiar they were
with the term "Biosolids" prior to receiving the
survey (1 = Not Familiar, 5 = Extremely
Familiar)
Respondents level of concern regarding Waste
Management (1 = Not Concerned, 5 = Very
Concerned)
Respondents level of comfort regarding the use
of Biosolids as a fertilizer within their
community ( 1 = Very Uncomfortable, 5 =
Very Comfortable)

EduGrad

55

For an estimate of aggregate individual household willingness to pay, individual household
willingness to pay was related to explanatory variables in a manner that is consistent with
CVM, inclusive of income. StataSE 15 was used to construct our most conservative WTP
estimates.
Those who were not willing to pay and selected, “taxes are already too high” or “it is not fair
to expect my household to have to pay” were considered protest responses. These responses
are important to consider, as WTP data contains an inherent selectivity bias. In contingent
valuation surveys, there is typically a proportion of respondents who are not willing to pay to
support a proposal for some attribute of a particular environmental good; a respondents’
attitude toward paying for the good may manifest in protest responses as a reaction to higher
prices and/or methodological factors (i.e. tax increase). In addition to that, respondents
attitudes toward the behavior of paying for the public good in question, may contribute to the
decision to pay independent of other explanatory variables, such as the price of the
intervention, household income, or selected elicitation method the CV survey (Heckman
1976; Heckman 1979; Carson 2000). In order to correct the estimated WTP for selectivity
bias, we followed a two-step Heckman procedure. This included running a probit regression
to estimate the participation equation, from which we calculated the inverse mills ratio and
included this series as a variable in the WTP estimation to correct for selectivity bias. The
probit regression was run against explanatory variables reported Chapter 2 of this thesis, as
well as in previous related studies (e.g Beecher et al. 2004; Robinson et al 2012). This
included gender, community, education level, and level of comfort with biosolids as a
fertilizer (shown in Table 1).
The first step of the Heckman procedure is to estimate a model that determines the propensity
of the respondent to submit a non-protest response as a function of a set of socio-economic
variables. Namely,
𝑦𝑖∗ = 𝑥′𝑖 𝛽 + 𝜀𝑖
where 𝑦𝑖∗ is a latent variable which reflects the propensity of the respondent i to submit a nonprotest response and 𝑥′𝑖 is a 1xk vector of k independent variables of the ith observation, i=1
to n, that may influence an individual’s submission of a non-protest response and β is kx1

56

vector to be estimated which reflects the impact of changes in x on 𝑦𝑖∗ and 𝜀𝑖 is an identically
and independently distributed stochastic error term with mean zero. Since 𝑦𝑖∗ is
unobservable, we use a dummy variable to observe response as follows:
𝑦𝑖 = 1
𝑦𝑖 = 0

𝑖𝑓 𝑦𝑖∗ > 0
𝑖𝑓 𝑦𝑖∗ < 0

And estimate the relationship using the probit model:
prob(𝑦𝑖 = 1| 𝑥𝑖 ) = Φ (𝑥𝑖 ′𝛽)
Where prob indicates a probability function where the respondent either submits a nonprotest response (𝑦𝑖 = 1)

or a protest response (𝑦𝑖 = 0) and Φ is the cumulative

distribution function of the standard normal distribution. From the above participation
equation, we then calculated the inverse mills ratio, λi, using the following:
𝜆𝑖 =

𝜙(𝑥𝑖 ′𝛽⁄𝜎)
Φ(𝑥𝑖 ′𝛽⁄𝜎)

Where ϕ and Φ represent the probability density and distribution functions of the standard
normal distribution, and σ is the standard error. The inverse mill’s ratio is used as a control
variable in the willingness to pay equation to account for the selectivity bias. The next step is
to estimate the willingness to pay equation pay for alternative biosolids management
practices by including the inverse mills ratio. However, there is another problem in the
second stage that needs to be dealt with and that is censoring. Censoring in the data is present
due to the truncation at zero – it is worth considering that those who selected “I do not
oppose land application” or “Biosolids are a waste product that should be land filled” may
have a negative willingness to pay.
The willingness to pay variable is censored at zero not allowing negative willingness to pay
to be observed amongst the non-protest responses. If the survey allowed negative willingness
to pay to occur, the respondent could have responded to agree with the alternative use of
biosolids. Since the survey excluded such a possibility, negative values are not observed in
the sample and this leads to the censoring problem. Usage of the ordinary least squares
regression will lead to biased and inconsistent estimated coefficients, abstracting from the
moment from the selectivity problem, since the distribution of the error term is truncated and

57

thus depends on the parameters, the explanatory variables as well as the variance of the error
term. The censoring problem can be dealt with Tobit’s regression method. The Tobit model
can be represented by the following system and includes the inverse mills ratio to account for
the selectivity problem.
𝑤𝑡𝑝𝑖∗ = 𝑧𝑖′ 𝛾 + 𝜌𝜎𝜆𝑖 + 𝑢𝑖
with
𝑤𝑡𝑝𝑖 = 0 𝑖𝑓 𝑤𝑡𝑝𝑖∗ ≤ 0
𝑤𝑡𝑝𝑖 = 𝑤𝑡𝑝𝑖∗ 𝑖𝑓 𝑤𝑡𝑝𝑖∗ > 0

Where 𝑤𝑡𝑝𝑖∗ is the unobservable (latent) willingness to pay of the ith observation, 𝑧𝑖′ is a 1xg
vector on the g independent variables some of which can be the same as in the 𝑥𝑖′ which is
used in the probit regression, 𝛾 is a gx1 vector of parameters to be estimated, 𝑢𝑖 is a well
behaved (i.e., identically and independently distributed) random error term with mean zero
and constant variance, and 𝑤𝑡𝑝𝑖 is the ith observed value of willingness to pay.
Community was found to be a significant factor for both the participation equation and
willingness to pay, as such, WTP was estimated separately for the individual communities as
well as for the entire sample. This was done by using the variable means for the individual
community observations, as well as for the variable averages for the entire sample (not just
Tobit sample).
Results and Discussion
As discussed in Chapter 2, Kamloops and Merritt were selected for this survey based on the
recent significance of biosolids within the Thompson Nicola Regional District, and Princeton
due to the community’s previous experience with biosolids projects. A total of 423 surveys
were returned (including 2 blank) for a 22% return rate. Some surveys were only partially
completed but still contained usable data for some questions, this information was included
in the results. A total of 421 surveys were used in the final analysis. Response rates for
Kamloops and Merritt were 22 and 24 percent respectively; no survey responses were
received from Princeton (Table 3-2). The lack of survey response from Princeton suggests

58

that this may not be a significant topic within the community, Princeton is not further
discussed in this paper. In general, Kamloops and Merritt identified differing risk perceptions
Table 3-3 Community response rates based on 423 surveys.
Community

Number
Mailed

Number
Returned

Community
Response Rate

1761
173
66

382
41
0

22%
24%
0%

Kamloops
Merritt
Princeton

around the management of
biosolids. Kamloops respondents
were generally more accepting
toward the practice of land
application than Merritt
respondents.

Respondents were asked if they were willing to pay to support a proposal to use biosolids
generated from their own community as a fuel for energy production as an alternative to
using biosolids for land application projects if it meant that there would be a municipal tax
increase. Of the 423 respondents, 388 responded to the WTP questions, where 43.6% of
respondents (173) were willing to pay. These results are shown in Table 3-3. Of the
Table 3-2 Willingness to Pay Responses
Total
Count

%

Kamloops
Count

%

Merritt
Count

%

Total respondents willing to pay

173

43.6

153

42.3

20

54.1

Total respondents not willing to pay

224

56.4

209

57.7

17

45.9

75

35.7

72

34.4

7

41.2

b. It is not fair to expect my
household to have to
payP

15

7.1

15

7.2

2

11.8

c. I cannot afford a tax
increase

26

12.4

28

13.4

3

17.6

85

40.5

83

39.7

5

29.4

9

4.3

11

5.3

0

0.0

Respondents Not Willing to Pay –
Reasons:
a. Taxes are already too
highP

d. I do not oppose land
application
e. Biosolids are a waste
product that should be
landfilled
P

Denotes protest response.

59

respondents not willing to pay, 42.9% were considered protest responses. It’s also worth
noting that 40.5% of those not willing to pay identified as not opposing land application.
Communication from local community groups expressing opposition to biosolids land
application practices identified using biosolids to generate energy as a preferred management
practice. The BC MOE have indicated that all practices that transform biosolids to an energy
product – incineration (low-grade coal), pyrolysis (bio-oil or py-gas), and gasification
(syngas), are net-negative with regards to economics (BC MOE 2016). These survey results
help support if there exists an interest from the surveyed communities to support the
increased cost of these alternative management practices in order to divert biosolids from
land application.
Factors Determining the Likelihood of a Nonprotest Response
The results reported in Table 3-4 indicate that respondents who reported as being concerned
about waste management were more likely to submit a nonprotest response. This suggests
concern for waste management may be directly
linked with an individual’s concern with biosolids

Table 3-4 Selection Equation (Probit model
with nonprotest as dependent variable)

management, and those who express interest in
alternative biosolids management practices are
more likely to submit a nonprotest response.

Variables

Probit
Estimated Coefficients

Gender

-0.206
(0.156)

WasteMngt

0.144**
(0.0646)

EduUni

0.605***
(0.199)

EduGrad

0.429*
(0.233)

Fertilizer

0.152***
(0.0589)

Constant

-0.289
(0.331)

significant variable. Those who reported having a

Observations

369

bachelor’s degree or graduate degree, were more

Standard errors in parentheses;
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Alternatively, those who expressed comfort with
using biosolids within their community as a
fertilizer are more likely to submit a nonprotest
response. This may be reflected in the proportion
of respondents who indicated “I do not oppose
land application” as an explanation to why they
were unwilling to support the alternative to
biosolids land application proposal.
Additionally, education level was found to be a

60

likely to submit a nonprotest response. This finding is consistent with contingent valuation
studies (Halstead, Luloff, and Stevens 1992).
Determinants of Willingness to Pay
For comparative purposes, factors determining willingness to pay were estimated using the
Tobit model for both the 2-step procedure and the standard Tobit regression. The 2-step
procedure involved generating the Inverse Mills Ratio (IMR) series from the participation
equation, and running the Tobit model including IMR variable to correct for selection bias.
Table 3-5 Tobit model with Willingness to Pay as
the Dependent Variable.

The IMR was not found to be a significant

WTP-Tobit
(2-Step)

WTP-Tobit
(standard)

not significant within this dataset. This is

Gender

-9.151
(8.177)

-7.981
(7.887)

WasteMngt

13.72***
(3.825)

13.03***
(3.605)

Inc75100

18.99**
(9.119)

17.49**
(8.898)

Inc100+

19.56*
(10.06)

19.13*
(9.982)

willingness to pay. This is consistent with

Kam

-30.39**
(13.52)

-32.81**
(12.28)

expected result was the influence of the

BioEd

-3.325
(3.694)

-3.989
(3.653)

21.75
(29.11)

-

-12.83
(30.12)

1.485
(23.05)

Variables

variable, suggesting that selection bias is

supported by the minimal difference

MillsRatio
Constant
Observations

between the estimated coefficients of the
two regressions.
As expected, an increase in household
income resulted in an increase in

contingent valuation studies. Another

waste management variable. As level of
concern for waste management increased,
willingness to pay increased. This supports
that concern for waste management is
directly related to concern for biosolids
management.

261

Standard errors in parentheses;
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Community was found to be a significant
determinant of willingness to pay, where

Kamloops respondents were willing to pay significantly less than Merritt respondents. This is
a likely result of Merritt residents’ recent experience with application sites and proximity to
biosolids projects, and the associated local media attention. This is in alignment with the

61

Figure 3-2 Nonprotest response distribution – Kamloops and Merritt.

results discussed in chapter 2, where Merritt respondents demonstrated significantly stronger
attitudes opposing land application practices than Kamloops residents.
Willingness to Pay
Of the nonprotest responses, 173 (43.6%) were willing to accept some increase in their
households’ yearly income taxes to support a proposal to use biosolids generated from their
own community as a fuel for energy production as an alternative to using biosolids for land
application projects (distribution of nonprotest responses shown in Figure 3-2). Due to the
significance of community in determining willingness to pay, estimates were generated based
on individual communities. The raw mean annual household willingness to pay for
nonprotest respondents for Kamloops and Merritt was Can$25.55 and Can$60.38,
respectively. These estimates are the least conservative, not accounting for selection bias or
truncation at $0.
A second more conservative estimate of household willingness to pay was obtained by
including protest responses with a willingness to pay of zero. This resulted in mean annual
household willingness to pay for Kamloops and Merritt respondents of Can$19.13 and
Can$41.32, respectively.
A final, and even more conservative, estimate of willingness to pay was based on the 2-step
Tobit procedure outlined above. An estimate of expected individual community household
willingness to pay was generated by substituting the mean values of the explanatory variables

62

for each community. This resulted in mean annual household willingness to pay for
Kamloops and Merritt respondents of Can$5.46 and Can$40.20, respectively (Table 3-6). For
comparative purposes we included the
Table 3-6 2-Step Tobit Procedure – WTP estimate.
WTP
Kamloops

Coefficient
5.46

95% Confidence
Interval
-3.19

14.11

40.20***

15.32

65.09

10.90***

community. Kamloops household

to not significantly differ from Cad$0
once corrected for truncation at zero

(12.63)
Combined

highlighting the significant influence of

willingness to pay was ultimately found

(4.39)
Merritt

combined sample estimate of Can$10.90,

2.849

(4.09)
Standard errors in parentheses; *** p<0.01,
** p<0.05, * p<0.1

18.95

(95% confidence interval spans Cad$0).
This indicates that there are some
individuals that may have a negative
willingness to pay.

It is worth considering that although aggregated household willingness to pay within the
community of Merritt does not generate a large enough increase in tax revenue to offset a
transition in biosolids management as proposed (2,275 households at $40.20 per household =
Cad$91,455 annual tax revenue), respondents were willing to accept a 21% increase in
annual tax rates related to municipal sewer systems (when compared against single family
residential dwelling sanitary sewer rates) (City of Merritt 2016). Comparatively, a significant
increase.
Willingness to pay for alternative biosolids management practices can be used as a surrogate
for willingness to pay to divert biosolids from land application. Thus this research indirectly
estimates the external cost of applying biosolids to land application. Assuming that an
individual will not accept what is viewed as an unnecessary tax rate increase, those who
support the proposed biosolids energy project may view the land application of biosolids as
an undesirable practise – while 40.5% of those not willing to pay (22.3% of total
respondents) identified themselves as “not opposing land application,” it can be anticipated
that the 43.6% of total respondents supporting the proposal would prefer to see biosolids
managed in a manner alternative to land application. The intent of this research is not to
specify one management practise as better than another, but rather to highlight there are

63

perceived external costs within select communities resulting from the current management
systems in place that are not well accounted for.
It is also worth noting that, although research suggests that there may be no significant
external costs experienced by the Kamloops-area respondents (willingness to pay not
significantly different from Cad$0), there are individuals within the Kamloops area that have
demonstrated a strong opposition to land applied biosolids. If opposition continues to grow,
there’s potential for this attention to be community member’s first introduction to the topic.
This is an important point when considering relatively low public awareness about biosolids
management and the significant influence first introductions to a topic can have. Without
increasing public engagement and education, the distribution could quite readily shift.
Conclusions
By using contingent valuation methodology, we determined the willingness to pay of local
residents to support a proposal to use biosolids generated from their own community as a fuel
for energy production as an alternative to using it for land application projects if it meant that
there would be a municipal tax increase. These results can be used to support whether there
exists an interest from the surveyed communities to support the increased cost of these
alternative management practices in order to divert biosolids from land application projects
Factors underlying public support for willingness to pay for alternative biosolids
management practices were consistent with contingent valuation studies on other topics,
where those with higher education were less likely to submit a protest response and those
with higher a household income were willing to pay more. Consistent with our overall
findings from the “Biosolids: Community Engagement and Risk Perception” survey, level of
concern for waste management and community significantly influenced willingness to pay.
Those who were concerned about waste management were willing to pay more to support
alternative biosolids management strategies, suggesting concern for waste management is
directly linked to concern for biosolids management. Merritt respondents demonstrated
stronger attitudes opposing the land application of biosolids than Kamloops respondents,
where Merritt respondents demonstrated a willingness to pay of Can$40.20 per household

64

and Kamloops respondents demonstrated a willingness to pay that was not significantly
different from Can$0.
It is important to consider that willingness to pay for alternative biosolids management
practices can be used as a surrogate for willingness to pay to divert biosolids from land
application. As such, this research indirectly estimates the perceived external cost of applying
biosolids to land application. It finds that in Kamloops there may be no perceived external
costs but in the neighboring city of Merritt there are.
References
Androkovich R, Desjardins I, Tarzwell G, Tsigaris P. 2008. Land Preservation in British
Columbia: An Empirical Analysis of the Factors Underlying Public Support and Willingness
to Pay. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40:999–1013.
BC MOE. 2016. BC Minitry of Environment. [accessed 2017 Jan 7].
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016ENV0017-000513
Beecher N, Connell B, Epstein E, Filtz J, Goldstein N, Lono M. 2004. Public Perception of
Biosolids Recycling: Developing Public Participation and Earning Trust. Water Environment
Research Foundation.
Beecher N, Harrison E, Goldstein N, Mcdaniel M, Field P, Susskind L. 2005. Risk
Perception, Risk Communication, and Stakeholder Involvement for Biosolids Management
and Research. Journal of Environmenal Quality 34:122–128.
Boyle KJ. 2003. Contingent Valuation in Practice. Champ PA, Brown TC, Boyle KJ, editors.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2012. Canada-wide Approach for the
Management of Wastewater Biosolids, version PN 1477.
Carson RT. 2000. Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environmental Science and
Technology 34:1413–1418.
City of Merritt. 2016. City of Merritt: Bylaw Number 2176, Schedule B.
Eggers S, Thorne S, Butte G, Sousa K. 2011. A Strategic Risk Communications Process for

65

Outreach and Dialogue on Biosolids Land Application. Water Environment Research
Foundation.
Halstead J, Luloff A, Stevens T. 1992. Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21:160–169.
Heckman JJ. 1976. The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample
Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models. Annals
of Economic and Social Measurement 5:475–492.
Heckman JJ. 1979. Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica 47:153–
161.
McCarthy L, Loyo-Rosales JE. 2015. Risks Associated with Application of Municipal
Biosolids to Agricultural Lands in a Canadian Context - Literature Review. Canadian
Municipal Water Consortium, Canadian Water Network.
Neil N, Malmfors T, Slovic P. 1994. Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of
Chemical Risks. Toxicologic Pathology 22:198–201.
Robinson KG, Robinson CH, Raup L a., Markum TR. 2012. Public attitudes and risk
perception toward land application of biosolids within the south-eastern United States.
Journal of Environmental Management 98:29–36.
Slovic P. 1987. Perception of Risk. Science 236:280–285.
Slovic P. 1993. Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Analysis 13:675–682.
Slovic P, Malmfors T, Krewski D, Mertz CK, Neil N. 1995. Intuitive Toxicology II: Expert
and Lay Judgments of Chemical. Risk Analysis 11:683–696.
Teclaw R, Price MC, Osatuke K. 2012. Demographic Question Placement: Effect on Item
Response Rates and Means of a Veterans Health Administration Survey. Journal of Business
and Psychology 27:281–290.
Wu R, Wolsink M, Bu MJ. 2007. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation : An
introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35:2683–2691.
Youngquist CP, Goldberger JR, Doyle J, Jones SS. 2015. Public involvement in waste

66

management research and decision-making : A case study. Regional Science Policy &
Practice 7:103–161.

67

Chapter 4 RESEARCH SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT
IMPLICATIONS
As our global population continues to grow, discussions on the need to move towards
sustainable waste management are going to continue to come to the forefront. Being that
wastewater residuals are an unavoidable aspect of modern day society, these conversations
need to consider topics such as biosolids management. Sustainable solutions need to establish
not only economically feasible and environmentally sound practices, but practices that are
socially just. In order to do that, we need to understand how much people know about the
topic, existing perceptions and what impacts an individual’s attitudes.
Information sharing, both at the local- and global-scale, is going to continue to play a large
role in individual perceptions. Modern day information sharing platforms via internetenabled technology (News Websites, YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter)
allows for unmediated conversations between an array of widespread individuals at an almost
instantaneous rate. When it comes to social media, anyone can share information, criticize
issues, and connect with like-minded individuals (Beecher et al. 2004; Gehman, Lefsrud, and
Fast 2017). This proves to be important when considering the generally low level of public
awareness regarding biosolids management and that public perception may be significantly
influenced by their first introduction to the topic (Beecher et al. 2004).
Social science literature has demonstrated the important role social trust plays in societal
judgments about technological risks and benefits, and subsequent views on acceptability of
technologies (Slovic 1987; Slovic 1993; Beecher et al. 2005; Wu, Wolsink, and Bu 2007).
Biosolids managers have expressed particular frustration around the concept of “perception is
reality,” where concerns are raised about anything that might be disposed of down the drain
that may potentially impact biosolids quality (Beecher et al. 2004).
There exists processes for engaging concerned or impacted communities and other
stakeholders to understand and review options regarding potentially controversial natural
resource projects, but there must be a determinant to trigger proponents to pursue this
proactive measure. Understanding the role that social media, and more broadly, the internet
plays in the dissemination of information will prove to be critical for achieving wide-spread
acceptance of such projects. Proponents for biosolids land application projects will need to

68

recognize the potential for community outrage given the public’s lack of understanding of
biosolids management, and more broadly, their disconnection and perhaps general lack of
interest on how wastewater is managed.
The overarching goal of this research was to understand how to effectively address the gap
between the public perception of biosolids and the promotion of the safety and sustainability
of current waste management practices, aiming to support socially accepted biosolids
management programs. This included understanding factors that influence
acceptance/opposition of current biosolids management practices and identifying the
perceived external costs of biosolids land application projects.

Research Summary
General Knowledge and Attitudes
This research assessed the community risk perceptions of biosolids management in
Kamloops and Merritt against the overarching concepts of Social License to Operate (SLO)
as a framework to understand how to most effectively address the difference between the
public perceptions of biosolids and the promotion of the safety and sustainability of current
waste management practices. The outcomes of this research support the notion that the
“beyond compliance” approach may be valuable for any potentially controversial natural
resource project, such as with biosolids land application projects.
The communities of Kamloops and Merritt are relatively close together, less than 100 km, so
it can be assumed that community members are exposed to a similar level of media coverage
on the topic of biosolids management. Despite the proximity of Kamloops and Merritt, clear
differences were demonstrated between the individual communities regarding level of
familiarity and acceptance for biosolids land application projects. As previously discussed,
this was an anticipated result of Merritt residents’ recent experience with application sites
and proximity to biosolids projects, and the associated local media attention. An additional
consideration is that biosolids management is a topic people do not want to think about or do
not see as a concern (Youngquist et al. 2015), and that achieving effective community input
on the matter can be challenging.

69

In general Merritt residents reported to be more familiar with biosolids and subsequent
related issues within their community than Kamloops respondents, and demonstrated
significantly stronger attitudes opposing land application practices. Although familiarity with
biosolids was not found to be a significant variable for Merritt respondents, Kamloops
respondents that did report a higher level of familiarity with the term demonstrated
significantly stronger attitudes towards support of the value biosolids offers as a fertilizer.
Interestingly, it was found that Kamloops respondents who reported to be more concerned
with waste management, demonstrated significantly stronger attitudes against biosolids land
application when attitude statements were negatively framed. This was not consistent with
Merritt respondents, where respondents from Merritt who identified as being concerned
about waste management generally disagreed with positively framed statements and agreed
with negatively framed statements. This suggested that for the Merritt respondents, waste
management was likely directly related to concern for biosolids management. Although this
relationship of waste management and biosolids management would exist for Kamloops
respondents too, the pattern demonstrated with the negatively framed statements suggested
the concept of risk aversion.
When comparing risk perceptions against well accepted fertilizers such as animal manure,
Merritt reported significantly greater perceived health risks from exposure to biosolids than
animal manure. This was not paralleled by Kamloops respondents, who generally disagreed
that biosolids exposure would lead to increased health risks.
In alignment with the findings from the 2002 survey completed by Beecher et al. (2004),
Kamloops respondents demonstrated that individuals with agricultural experience are more
likely to understand and accept the practice of land application of biosolids. Although Merritt
respondents didn’t demonstrate the same outcomes, it can be assumed this is due to Merritt
residents’ recent experience with application sites and proximity to biosolids projects.
Additionally, women were found to generally perceive significantly higher health and safety
risks. These findings were particularly emphasized within the Merritt community where
attitudes may be more strongly emotionally influenced as a result of residents’ recent
experience with application sites and proximity to biosolids projects. These results are
consistent with the findings of similar studies (Robinson et al. 2012).

70

Based on the current knowledge base, neither community perceived there to be a strong
enough body of knowledge on biosolids. Further to this, there is a general lack of trust in the
government oversight for land application projects to ensure the safety of human health and
the environment. Assessing these results against the factors necessary to obtain community
support, Kamloops respondents generally support the idea of recycling biosolids but lack the
necessary overall trust for a biosolids project to receive stable social acceptance, while
Merritt respondents reported that the benefits of biosolids do not outweigh the perceived
health and safety risks and that biosolids do not offer value as a fertilizer highlighting lack of
overall community acceptance.
Willingness to Pay for Alternative Biosolids Management Practices
Respondents were asked if they were willing to pay of local residents to support a proposal to
use biosolids generated from their own community as a fuel for energy production as an
alternative to using it for land application projects if it meant that there would be a municipal
tax increase. Of the 423 survey respondents, 388 responded to the WTP questions, where
43.6% of respondents (173) were willing to pay. Of the respondents not willing to pay,
42.8% were considered protest responses and 40.5% identified as not opposing land
application. Additionally, 12.4% of the respondents not willing to pay indicated they could
not afford a tax increase and 4.3% indicated that they felt biosolids are a waste product that
should be landfilled.
Factors underlying public support for willingness to pay for alternative biosolids
management practices were consistent with contingent valuation studies, where those with a
higher education were less likely to submit a protest response and those with higher a
household income were willing to pay more. Findings were also consistent with the “General
Knowledge and Attitudes” outcomes from the “Biosolids: Community Engagement and Risk
Perception” survey; level of concern for waste management and community significantly
influenced willingness to pay. Those who were concerned about waste management were
willing to pay more to support alternative biosolids management strategies, suggesting
concern for waste management is directly linked to concern for biosolids management.
Merritt respondents demonstrated stronger attitudes opposing the land application of
biosolids than Kamloops respondents. Once corrected for censoring and selectivity bias,

71

Merritt respondents demonstrated a willingness to pay of Can$40.20 per household and
Kamloops respondents demonstrated a willingness to pay that was not significantly different
from Can$0.
It is important to consider that willingness to pay for alternative biosolids management
practices can be used as a surrogate for willingness to pay to divert biosolids from land
application. Thus this research indirectly estimates the external cost of applying biosolids to
land application. It finds that in Kamloops there may be no external costs but in the
neighboring city of Merritt there are.

Limitations
Limitations of the study were that cultural groups may not have been evenly distributed
within the survey region, and thus may not be equally represented in these results. In
particular, survey respondents did not reflect the demographics in the region, where
indigenous community members were underrepresented in this dataset. It is also worth noting
that this study focused on the general public perceptions of biosolids management and not
perceptions of the specifically impacted community groups. Although this provides a good
baseline for understanding the current state of knowledge, it may be of too broad focus to
identify the key factors that resulted in the strong opposition experienced within the Lower
Nicola Valley.
Additional limitations include that the Kamloops sample had a significantly larger dataset
than Merritt, where conclusions could be drawn for Kamloops that couldn’t be compared
against Merritt due to limitations in survey sample size. Princeton and Merritt response may
have been larger is more surveys were sent out. Additionally, for both Kamloops and Merritt
respondents, the 18-34 age group was not well represented within the dataset. This may have
been a result of using a mail-out survey as the survey instrument.
Finally, additional limitations of the study may also be that it was conducted in one region,
and conclusions may not be applicable to areas outside the survey area.

72

Management Implications for Biosolids Management
The relatively low level of public awareness on wastewater and biosolids management,
suggests that there exists a disconnection amongst the general public with what happens once
the toilet is flushed or the sink drains. This disconnection may result in a lack of
responsibility for our decisions regarding household wastewater (i.e. what we put down the
sink/what we flush down the toilet) and promotes aversion to considering biosolids land
application options for fear that they may ultimately make their way back to us (through food
we eat, air we breathe, or water we drink). While there is a need to ensure biosolids are
applied in an environmentally sound and socially just manner, there is a need to redevelop a
connection to our contributions to wastewater and their subsequent impacts.
Survey results suggest the need for public education programs that clearly outline the
potential risks and benefits associated with the land application of biosolids, including the
economic implications. To complement these public education programs, there is a need for
studies to be undertaken by trusted sources that consider the concerns of stakeholders. This is
best carried out proactively, where strong relationships can be built. These proactive
measures will provide community members the tools to assess the relative benefits and risks,
and comfort with their personal level of knowledge to decide on their position regarding
biosolids management practices.
Further to this, survey results suggest community members can be strongly influenced by the
information presented by the media. It is important that news outlets place a high priory on
presenting as accurate and unbiased information as possible. It is also important to consider
that proactive engagement will enable stakeholder support that is more resistant to ideas
projected by critics, helping reduce the impact of potentially negative the media attention.
While acknowledging the reuse of wastewater residuals has the potential to contribute to
improved management of our natural resources, care must be taken to minimize
environmental harm and risks to human health. It can be challenging to assess the benefits
and risks of biosolids reuse from a monetary perspective for decision making purposes.
Economics strongly influence decision making from a business standpoint. Economic
analysis such a contingent valuation can offer the information needed to support public

73

policy in a manner that enables the internalization of external costs to better inform true costs
of biosolids management decisions. There may be circumstances that once the external costs
are factored in, the preferred management practice may change despite the lack of total cost
recovery.
Ultimately, the sustainable management of wastewater residuals should not be treating this
by-product as a waste for disposal. Consideration needs to be given to how and where we can
utilize this resource in an environmentally sound and socially just manner. An imperative
step to this should be through reestablishment of our connection to the decisions we make
that impact our waste-streams, where first and foremost we should be looking at how source
reduction initiatives can support successful biosolids management programs.

References
Beecher N, Connell B, Epstein E, Filtz J, Goldstein N, Lono M. 2004. Public Perception of
Biosolids Recycling: Developing Public Participation and Earning Trust. Water Environment
Research Foundation.
Beecher N, Harrison E, Goldstein N, Mcdaniel M, Field P, Susskind L. 2005. Risk
Perception, Risk Communication, and Stakeholder Involvement for Biosolids Management
and Research. Journal of Environmenal Quality 34:122–128.
Gehman J, Lefsrud LM, Fast S. 2017. Social license to operate : Legitimacy by another
name ? Canadian Public Administration 60:293–317.
Robinson KG, Robinson CH, Raup L a., Markum TR. 2012. Public attitudes and risk
perception toward land application of biosolids within the south-eastern United States.
Journal of Environmental Management 98:29–36.
Slovic P. 1987. Perception of Risk. Science 236:280–285.
Slovic P. 1993. Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Analysis 13:675–682.
Wu R, Wolsink M, Bu MJ. 2007. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation : An
introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35:2683–2691.
Youngquist CP, Goldberger JR, Doyle J, Jones SS. 2015. Public involvement in waste

74

management research and decision-making : A case study. Regional Science Policy &
Practice 7:103–161.

75

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Survey

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

Appendix B: Reminder Card

84

Appendix C: Survey Results, ‘Biosolids: Community Engagement and Risk
Perception’ - Kamloops

SECTION 1: About Yourself
1. What is your gender?
Response option
Female
Male
Total

Frequency
143
234
377

2. Please indicate your age:
Response option
18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older
Total

Frequency
2
9
61
161
147
380

3. Do you have children currently living at home?
Response option
Yes
No
Total

Frequency
128
233
379

4. What is the highest level of education that you have attained?
Response option
Some high school or less
High school diploma or equivalent
Some college or trade school
College or trade school graduate
University graduate (bachelor’s degree)
Post graduate studies
Total

Frequency
23
55
60
92
94
52
377

85
5. How much would you agree the term environmentalist applies to you?
Response option
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Mean

Frequency
3
16
142
182
36
379
3.61

6. What community do you live in? [KAMLOOPS ONLY RESULTS]
Response option
Kamloops
Merritt
Princeton
Total

Frequency
382
41
0
423

7. Which of the options listed below best describe your residence?
Response option
Urban
Suburban
Non-farm Rural
Rural Agriculture
Total

Frequency
206
150
21
6
382

8. Do you know where your home sewage goes?
Response option
Septic tank
Municipal sewer system
Other
Don’t know
Total

Frequency
26
347
6
3
381

9. Do you know how the biosolids from your community are managed?
Response option
Yes
No
Total

Frequency
150
221
371

86
10. Please indicate your total annual pre-tax household income:
Response option
<$25,000
$25,000-$49,999
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$100,000
>$100,000
Total

Frequency
15
61
71
84
113
345

11. Do you identify yourself as Aboriginal?
Response option
Yes
No
Total

Frequency
5
373
378

87

SECTION 2: General Questions
1. How do you feel about the following issues?
Statement
Q1
Climate change
Q2
Health Care
Q3
The state of the economy
Q4
Waste Management
147

Not
Concerned
24
5
12
23

Slightly
Concerned
43
14
23
58

Somewhat
Concerned
73
38
115
201

Moderately
Concerned
105
115
138
133

2. Before receiving this survey, how familiar were you with the term “biosolids”?
Response option
Not Familiar
Slightly Familiar
Somewhat Familiar
Moderately Familiar
Extremely Familiar
Total
Mean

Frequency
33
60
103
147
33
376
3.23

3. What comes to mind when you think of biosolids?
*Results available upon request.

4. Have you ever participated in the following regarding biosolids in your community?

Very
Concerned
131
201
124
74

Total

Average

376
374
374
372

3.73
4.31
3.91
3.48

88

Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

Statement
Written a letter to a local paper or local politician in favour of biosolids
Written a letter to a local paper or local politician against biosolids
Joined a group in support of biosolids
Joined a group opposing biosolids

Yes
0
0
3
1

No
377
377
374
376

Total
377
377
377
377

5. If you were seeking information about biosolids, how trustworthy do you feel the following sources of information would be?
Statement

Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5

Not
Trustworthy

BC Government
Environmental Organizations
(e.g., David Suzuki Foundation)
Friends or Neigbours
Local Media
University Scientists

Unsure

Moderately
Trustworthy

55

Slightly
Trustworth
y
61

76

154

Very
Trustworth
y
26

33
68
43
5

63
81
116
25

58
163
106
44

139
55
103
173

80
5
5
126

6. How would you like to learn more about biosolids? (listed in decreasing order of priority)
# Respondents
189
180
135
111
95
45
28
16

Outreach Activity
Local Media (e.g., TV, radio, newspapers)
Information pamphlet received in the mail
Public open house in your community
Public Meeting with scientists
Regional Government websites
Not interested
Other
Personal visit from a biosolids manager

7. How would you feel about biosolids being used as a fertilizer in your community?

Total

Mean

373
373

3.09
3.46

372
374
376

2.59
2.76
4.03

89
Response option
Very Uncomfortable
Somewhat Uncomfortable
Don’t know
Somewhat Comfortable
Very Comfortable
Total
Mean

Frequency
35
46
84
141
65
371
3.41

8. How do you feel about the following in regards to the use of biosolids as a fertilizer?
Statement
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

Your Health
Your property value
Odors
Environmental Impact

Not
Concerned
74
98
46
66

Slightly
Concerned
78
67
86
60

Somewhat
Concerned
85
74
60
61

Moderately
Concerned
66
76
83
89

Very
Concerned
64
49
90
85

Total

Mean

367
364
365
361

2.91
2.76
3.23
3.19

9. How appropriate do you feel the following uses of biosolids would be?
Statement
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

Growing animal feeds such as
hay
Fertilizing forests for timber
production
Fertilizing home vegetable
gardens
Making topsoil for Public parks,
playgrounds, and athletic fields
Statement

Not
Appropriate

Slightly
Appropriate

Somewhat
Appropriate

Moderately
Appropriate

Extremely
Appropriate

Total

Mean

63

38

68

107

93

369

3.35

18

29

41

114

170

372

4.05

167

47

71

55

30

370

2.28

89

71

78

82

52

372

2.83

Not
Appropriate

Slightly
Appropriate

Somewhat
Appropriate

Moderately
Appropriate

Extremely
Appropriate

Total

Mean

90
Q5

Q6

Making topsoil for areas such as
municipal flower gardens and
highway meridians
Restoring plant growth in areas
damaged by mining or
construction

36

44

67

106

119

372

3.61

13

20

46

90

203

372

4.21

Total

Mean

374
373
375
373

1.74
2.80
3.01
1.67

10. How would you feel about using the following products for your lawn, flower garden or farm?
Statement
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

Animal Manures
Biosolids
Chemical fertilizer
Mushroom Compost

Not
Concerned
229
71
70
240

Slightly
Concerned
68
100
82
61

Somewhat
Concerned
33
84
77
38

Moderately
Concerned
32
68
68
23

11. Which of these do you think is the strongest argument for using biosolids as a fertilizer?
Response option
Cost-effective alternative fertilizer
Diverts waste from landfills that are costly to operate and have limited capacity
Reduces dependency on chemical fertilizers
Recycles nutrients and organic matter back into the soil
Sustainable disposal of a waste product
I don’t feel there is any favourable argument
Total

12. Would it change how you feel about biosolids being used near your home if:

Frequency
13
51
44
100
111
44
356

Very
Concerned
12
50
78
11

91
Statement

Q1

Q2

Q3
Q4
Q5

A biosolids manager contacted
you in advance to discuss the
nearby use of biosolids
Biosolids were more strictly
regulated or controlled by the
government
The biosolids came from a larger
city such as Vancouver
The biosolids came from sources
free of industrial waste
The biosolids came from your
own community

Greatly
Increase
Comfort
43

Somewhat
Increase
Comfort
123

Greatly
Increase
Concern
17

Total

Mean

155

Somewhat
Increase
Concern
28

366

2.60

71

155

100

24

19

369

2.36

3

9

130

102

129

373

3.92

74

121

112

44

24

375

2.53

39

97

184

30

22

372

2.73

No Change

92

SECTION 3: Your Thoughts on Biosolids
Frequency response to question statements relating to respondents thoughts on biosolids, including Pearson Chi-Square with p-value for each
statement.
Statement
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8
Q9
Q10

Q11
Q12

Biosolids are a valuable resource that
should be used as fertilizer
Not enough is known about biosolids
Using biosolids as a fertilizer is better
than incineration or landfilling
The use of biosolids as a fertilizer makes
me concerned about my surrounding
environment
Biosolids receive adequate treatment at
the wastewater treatment plant to protect
public health
My family would be at a higher health
risk if my neighbours applied biosolids
to their land
My family would be at a higher health
risk if my neighbours applied animal
manure to their land
I trust government regulatory agencies
to monitor the safe use of biosolids
The odor emitted by biosolids is harmful
to my health when breathed
The risks to public health of using
biosolids as a fertilizer outweigh the
benefits
Using biosolids as a fertilizer in our
community will bring economic benefits
Even if used properly, biosolids can still
lead to land or water contamination

Strongly
Disagree
25

Somewhat
Disagree
32

Neutral

Strongl
y Agree
76

Total

Mean

79

Somewh
at Agree
161

373

3.62

14
25

34
25

77
43

134
174

115
104

374
371

3.81
3.83

36

61

100

125

51

373

3.25

27

48

132

134

31

372

3.25

50

91

131

66

34

372

2.85

91

129

99

42

12

373

2.34

62

95

74

111

31

373

2.88

44

77

142

73

36

372

2.95

66

113

120

44

29

372

2.62

31

38

170

115

19

373

3.14

31

71

117

108

48

375

3.19

93

SECTION 4: Biosolids Management
1. a. Would you support a proposal to use biosolids generated by your own community as fuel for energy production (for example,
gasification and/or pyrolysis) instead of using it as a fertilizer if it meant there would be a yearly municipal tax increase? (please keep in
mind that any increase in taxes will leave less money for other household expenses)
Response option
Yes
No
Total

Frequency
152
206
357

b. If yes, what is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay on an annual basis?
Response option
$10
$25
$50
$100
≥$200
Total

Frequency
42
40
37
31
2
152

c. If no, please select the reason below:
Response option
Taxes are already too high
It is not fair to expect my household to have to pay
I cannot afford a tax increase
I do not oppose land application
Biosolids are a waste product that should be landfilled
Total

Frequency
68
13
23
80
9
193*

*some respondents selected multiple options, this data was not used in the WTP estimate

94

Appendix D: Survey Results, ‘Biosolids: Community Engagement and Risk
Perception’ - Merritt

SECTION 1: About Yourself
2. What is your gender?
Response option
Female
Male
Total

Frequency
23
17
40

12. Please indicate your age:
Response option
18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older
Total

Frequency
1
1
2
21
16
41

13. Do you have children currently living at home?
Response option
Yes
No
Total

Frequency
8
32
40

14. What is the highest level of education that you have attained?
Response option
Some high school or less
High school diploma or equivalent
Some college or trade school
College or trade school graduate
University graduate (bachelor’s degree)
Post graduate studies
Total

Frequency
3
6
9
11
9
4
42

15. How much would you agree the term environmentalist applies to you?

95
Response option
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Mean

Frequency
0
5
18
14
4
41

16. What community do you live in? [MERRITT ONLY RESULTS]
Response option
Kamloops
Merritt
Princeton
Total

Frequency
382
41
0
423

17. Which of the options listed below best describe your residence?
Response option
Urban
Suburban
Non-farm Rural
Rural Agriculture
Total

Frequency
26
7
5
3
41

18. Do you know where your home sewage goes?
Response option
Septic tank
Municipal sewer system
Other
Don’t know
Total

Frequency
4
36
0
1
41

19. Do you know how the biosolids from your community are managed?
Response option
Yes
No
Total

Frequency
21
14
35

20. Please indicate your total annual pre-tax household income:
Response option

Frequency

96
<$25,000
$25,000-$49,999
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$100,000
>$100,000
Total

3
10
6
7
10
36

21. Do you identify yourself as Aboriginal?
Response option
Yes
No
Total

Frequency
4
34
38

97

SECTION 2: General Questions
13. How do you feel about the following issues?
Statement
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

Climate change
Health Care
The state of the economy
Waste Management

Not
Concerned
2
0
1
0

Slightly
Concerned
7
1
3
2

Somewhat
Concerned
8
4
8
11

Moderately
Concerned
7
7
5
12

14. Before receiving this survey, how familiar were you with the term “biosolids”?
Response option
Not Familiar
Slightly Familiar
Somewhat Familiar
Moderately Familiar
Extremely Familiar
Total
Mean

Frequency
1
4
7
24
4
40
3.65

15. What comes to mind when you think of biosolids?
*Results available upon request.

16. Have you ever participated in the following regarding biosolids in your community?

Very
Concerned
16
28
23
15

Total

Average

40
40
40
40

3.70
4.55
4.15
4.00

98

Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

Statement
Written a letter to a local paper or local politician in favour of biosolids
Written a letter to a local paper or local politician against biosolids
Joined a group in support of biosolids
Joined a group opposing biosolids

Yes
2
3
1
6

No
38
37
39
34

Total
40
40
40
40

17. If you were seeking information about biosolids, how trustworthy do you feel the following sources of information would be?
Statement

Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5

Not
Trustworthy

BC Government
Environmental Organizations
(e.g., David Suzuki Foundation)
Friends or Neigbours
Local Media
University Scientists

Unsure

Moderately
Trustworthy

11

Slightly
Trustworth
y
9

Total

Mean

6

Very
Trustworth
y
3

11

40

2.53

9

3

9

10

9

40

3.18

2
9
0

8
10
5

23
13
7

5
7
16

2
1
12

40
40
40

2.93
2.53
3.88

18. How would you like to learn more about biosolids? (listed in decreasing order of priority)
# Respondents
16
15
11
9
5
4
3
3

Outreach Activity
Public Meeting with scientists
Information pamphlet received in the mail
Local Media (e.g., TV, radio, newspapers)
Public open house in your community
Not interested
Regional Government websites
Other
Personal visit from a biosolids manager

19. How would you feel about biosolids being used as a fertilizer in your community?

99
Response option
Very Uncomfortable
Somewhat Uncomfortable
Don’t know
Somewhat Comfortable
Very Comfortable
Total
Mean

Frequency
11
15
3
9
16
39
2.26

20. How do you feel about the following in regards to the use of biosolids as a fertilizer?
Statement
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

Your Health
Your property value
Odors
Environmental Impact

Not
Concerned
4
6
3
3

Slightly
Concerned
4
4
4
3

Somewhat
Concerned
4
5
5
7

Moderately
Concerned
7
8
8
9

Very
Concerned
20
16
19
17

Total

Mean

39
39
39
39

3.90
3.62
3.92
3.87

21. How appropriate do you feel the following uses of biosolids would be?
Statement
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

Growing animal feeds such as
hay
Fertilizing forests for timber
production
Fertilizing home vegetable
gardens
Making topsoil for Public parks,
playgrounds, and athletic fields
Statement

Not
Appropriate

Slightly
Appropriate

Somewhat
Appropriate

Moderately
Appropriate

Extremely
Appropriate

Total

Mean

24

0

3

8

4

39

2.18

12

4

4

11

8

39

2.97

26

2

3

5

3

39

1.90

20

5

6

6

3

40

2.18

Not
Appropriate

Slightly
Appropriate

Somewhat
Appropriate

Moderately
Appropriate

Extremely
Appropriate

Total

Mean

100
Q5

Q6

Making topsoil for areas such as
municipal flower gardens and
highway meridians
Restoring plant growth in areas
damaged by mining or
construction

14

4

6

7

9

40

2.83

11

4

7

7

11

40

3.08

Total

Mean

40
40
40
39

1.68
3.93
3.00
1.79

22. How would you feel about using the following products for your lawn, flower garden or farm?
Statement
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

Animal Manures
Biosolids
Chemical fertilizer
Mushroom Compost

Not
Concerned
25
4
7
22

Slightly
Concerned
7
5
8
9

Somewhat
Concerned
6
2
12
4

Moderately
Concerned
0
8
4
2

23. Which of these do you think is the strongest argument for using biosolids as a fertilizer?
Response option
Cost-effective alternative fertilizer
Diverts waste from landfills that are costly to operate and have limited capacity
Reduces dependency on chemical fertilizers
Recycles nutrients and organic matter back into the soil
Sustainable disposal of a waste product
I don’t feel there is any favourable argument
Total

24. Would it change how you feel about biosolids being used near your home if:

Frequency
0
6
2
7
8
19
42

Very
Concerned
2
21
9
2

101
Statement

Q1

Q2

Q3
Q4
Q5

A biosolids manager contacted
you in advance to discuss the
nearby use of biosolids
Biosolids were more strictly
regulated or controlled by the
government
The biosolids came from a larger
city such as Vancouver
The biosolids came from sources
free of industrial waste
The biosolids came from your
own community

Greatly
Increase
Comfort

Somewhat
Increase
Comfort

Somewhat
Increase
Concern

Greatly
Increase
Concern

Total

Mean

No Change

0

12

16

4

9

41

3.24

6

12

13

5

4

40

2.73

0

1

12

5

23

41

4.22

2

12

14

3

9

40

3.13

4

13

14

5

5

41

2.85

102

SECTION 3: Your Thoughts on Biosolids
Frequency response to question statements relating to respondents thoughts on biosolids, including Pearson Chi-Square with p-value for each
statement.
Statement
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8
Q9
Q10

Q11
Q12

Biosolids are a valuable resource that
should be used as fertilizer
Not enough is known about biosolids
Using biosolids as a fertilizer is better
than incineration or landfilling
The use of biosolids as a fertilizer makes
me concerned about my surrounding
environment
Biosolids receive adequate treatment at
the wastewater treatment plant to protect
public health
My family would be at a higher health
risk if my neighbours applied biosolids
to their land
My family would be at a higher health
risk if my neighbours applied animal
manure to their land
I trust government regulatory agencies
to monitor the safe use of biosolids
The odor emitted by biosolids is harmful
to my health when breathed
The risks to public health of using
biosolids as a fertilizer outweigh the
benefits
Using biosolids as a fertilizer in our
community will bring economic benefits
Even if used properly, biosolids can still
lead to land or water contamination

Strongly
Disagree

Somewhat
Disagree

Neutral

Somewh
at Agree

Strongl
y Agree

Total

Mean

17

3

8

10

3

41

2.49

1

7

5

12

16

41

3.85

15

3

7

12

4

41

2.68

1

4

9

9

18

41

3.95

14

7

9

7

4

41

2.51

3

4

13

9

12

41

3.56

11

13

12

3

1

40

2.25

16

8

6

7

4

41

2.39

2

7

13

8

11

41

3.46

3

6

11

7

14

41

3.56

12

7

17

5

0

41

2.37

5

4

9

12

11

41

3.49

103

SECTION 4: Biosolids Management
2. a. Would you support a proposal to use biosolids generated by your own community as fuel for energy production (for example,
gasification and/or pyrolysis) instead of using it as a fertilizer if it meant there would be a yearly municipal tax increase? (please keep in
mind that any increase in taxes will leave less money for other household expenses)
Response option
Yes
No
Total

Frequency
21
18
39

b. If yes, what is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay on an annual basis?
Response option
$10
$25
$50
$100
≥$200
Total

Frequency
2
4
7
3
4
20

c. If no, please select the reason below:
Response option
Taxes are already too high
It is not fair to expect my household to have to pay
I cannot afford a tax increase
I do not oppose land application
Biosolids are a waste product that should be landfilled
Total

Frequency
7
2
3
5
0
16*

*some respondents selected multiple options, this data was not used in the WTP estimate

104

Appendix E: Attitude Statement – Ordered Logit Tables: Cumulative Dataset

Table AE a. Ordered Logit – Positively Framed Questions – cumulative dataset
MuniSewer

WasteMngt

BioEd

-0.393
(0.753)

-0.157
(0.099)

0.403***
(0.110)

0.650*
(0.340)

-0.843
(0.750)

0.004
(0.101)

0.056
(0.111)

-0.354
(0.302)

-0.200
(0.341)

-0.740
(0.763)

-0.138
(0.099)

0.099
(0.107)

0.059
(0.220)

-0.091
(0.291)

0.215
(0.328)

0.007
(0.667)

-0.216** 0.055
(0.098)
(0.104)

-0.267
(0.227)

0.056
(0.296)

0.381
(0.337)

-1.050
(0.711)

0.038
(0.099)

Gender

Age5064 Age65+ Child

EduPTC EduGTC EdiUni

Enviro Community RuralNF RuralAg

S3Q1

0.129
(0.226)

0.257
(0.296)

0.340
(0.350)

0.147
(0.255)

-0.358
(0.339)

-0.596*
(0.307)

0.396
(0.299)

0.193
(0.155)

-2.324*** 0.800
(0.417) (0.529)

2.497** 1.175** -0.088
(1.032) (0.511) (0.228)

-0.560*
(0.300)

-0.035
(0.341)

S3Q3

0.007
(0.227)

0.108
(0.307)

0.083
(0.361)

-0.032
(0.262)

0.380
(0.350)

-0.263
(0.312)

0.717** 0.101
(0.303) (0.156)

-1.922*** 0.216
(0.400) (0.512)

1.966** 0.576
(0.944) (0.498)

-0.105
(0.232)

-0.169
(0.294)

S3Q5

-0.225
(0.225)

0.041
(0.293)

0.177
(0.351)

-0.115
(0.252)

0.391
(0.342)

-0.214
(0.311)

0.134
(0.291)

0.006
(0.153)

-1.552*** -0.119
(0.427) (0.497)

3.114*** 0.651
(0.901) (0.512)

-0.014
(0.225)

S3Q8

-0.037
(0.218)

0.249
(0.291)

0.218
(0.355)

0.080
(0.257)

-0.007
(0.330)

0.185
(0.296)

0.606** -0.104
(0.289) (0.150)

-0.817** -0.662
(0.398) (0.506)

1.966** 0.260
(0.833) (0.483)

S3Q11

-0.193
(0.228)

0.537*
(0.303)

0.442
(0.365)

0.317
(0.261)

0.269
(0.352)

-0.109
(0.313)

-0.172
(0.296)

-1.670*** 0.454
(0.384) (0.502)

1.973** 0.328
(0.918) (0.508)

0.106
(0.155)

Bio-Mngt Inc50100 Inc100+ Aboriginal

-0.053
(0.108)

Note: Logistic regression coefficients for independent variables for feelings about biosolids in log-odds units. Standard errors are given in parenthesis. *** Significantly different at the 1% level. **
Significantly different at the 5% level. * Significantly different at the 10% level.

105
Table AE b. Ordered Logit – Negatively Framed Questions – cumulative dataset
Gender

Age5064 Age65+ Child

EduPTC EduGTC EdiUni

Enviro Community RuralNF RuralAg

Bio-Mngt Inc50100 Inc100+ Aboriginal

WasteMngt

BioEd

S3Q2

-0.913*** -0.303
(0.229) (0.303)

-0.320
(0.358)

-0.346
(0.257)

0.019
(0.336)

-0.316
(0.304)

-0.242
(0.293)

-0.187
(0.158)

0.791
(0.555)

-2.290*** -1.403** 0.104
(0.888) (0.557) (0.225)

-0.041
(0.285)

-0.208
(0.324)

0.068
(0.735)

0.392*** -0.189*
(0.101) (0.111)

S3Q4

-0.408*
(0.222)

0.204
(0.289)

0.480
(0.352)

0.185
(0.250)

0.161
(0.334)

-0.027
(0.298)

-0.259
(0.283)

-0.304** 0.956** -0.710
(0.153) (0.386) (0.509)

-2.090** -1.057** -0.081
(0.875) (0.483) (0.223)

-0.009
(0.290)

-0.340
(0.329)

0.692
(0.719)

0.416*** -0.006
(0.099) (0.106)

S3Q6

0.128
(0.221)

0.399
(0.288)

0.466
(0.340)

0.213
(0.247)

0.507
(0.329)

0.921*** 0.118
(0.300) (0.288)

-0.395*** 1.226*** -0.188
(0.153) (0.387) (0.517)

-2.430*** -1.253** -0.132
(0.914) (0.503) (0.223)

0.248
(0.291)

-0.108
(0.325)

0.397
(0.682)

0.391*** -0.196*
(0.098) (0.107)

S3Q7

0.149
(0.223)

0.497*
(0.300)

1.079*** 0.420
(0.359) (0.258)

0.474
(0.336)

0.200
(0.296)

0.450
(0.290)

-0.150
(0.152)

0.007
(0.385)

-0.889
(0.943)

S3Q9

-0.312
(0.224)

0.097
(0.290)

0.451
(0.353)

0.117
(0.336)

-0.152
(0.303)

-0.535*
(0.291)

-0.187
(0.161)

S3Q10

-0.554** 0.267
(0.223) (0.292)

0.765** 0.192
(0.353) (0.248)

0.711** 0.446
(0.329) (0.297)

-0.392
(0.288)

-0.221
(0.153)

S3Q12

0.031
(0.218)

0.248
(0.347)

0.044
(0.329)

0.210
(0.285)

-0.302** 0.296
(0.153) (0.393)

-0.244
(0.288)

-0.301
(0.253)

-0.087
(0.253)

0.578*
(0.296)

-0.517
(0.406)

MuniSewer

-0.452
(0.516)

0.288
(0.486)

-0.004
(0.222)

-0.158
(0.295)

0.019
(0.329)

-1.501* 0.328*** -0.138
(0.775) (0.099) (0.105)

0.838** 0.146
(0.378) (0.529)

-2.028** -0.337
(0.866) (0.469)

-0.167
(0.225)

-0.250
(0.291)

-0.507
(0.328)

0.771
(0.740)

0.272*** -0.085
(0.101) (0.105)

1.622*** -0.370
(0.392) (0.494)

-1.481*
(0.880)

-0.468
(0.488)

0.216
(0.225)

0.521*
(0.295)

0.269
(0.333)

0.073
(0.711)

0.162*
(0.098)

-3.271*** -0.919*
(0.965) (0.491)

-0.253
(0.225)

-0.031
(0.288)

-0.376
(0.328)

1.204*
(0.707)

0.200** -0.101
(0.095) (0.105)

0.281
(0.512)

-0.231**
(0.109)

Note: Logistic regression coefficients for independent variables for feelings about biosolids in log-odds units. Standard errors are given in parenthesis. *** Significantly different at the 1% level. **
Significantly different at the 5% level. * Significantly different at the 10% level.

106

Appendix F: Attitude Statements – Kamloops Neutrality Data Tables

Table AF- 1 Kamloops Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q1

Hypothesis Testing for KS3Q1
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:41
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 373
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.619303
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.104659
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
10.82753
0

Table AF- 2 Kamloops Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q2

Hypothesis Testing for KS3Q2
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:42
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 374
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.807487
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.086277
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
14.37575
0

Table AF- 3 Kamloops Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q3

Hypothesis Testing for KS3Q3
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:42
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 371
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.827493
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.116171
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
14.27976
0

107
Table AF- 4 Kamloops Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q4

Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:43
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 373
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.252011
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.171240
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
4.15554
0

Table AF- 5 Kamloops Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q5

Hypothesis Testing for KS3Q5
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:43
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 372
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.252688
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.025612
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
4.751967
0

Table AF- 6 Kamloops Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q6

Hypothesis Testing for KS3Q6
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:43
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 372
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 2.846774
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.142497
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
-2.58671
0.0101

108
Table AF- 7 Kamloops Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q7

Hypothesis Testing for KS3Q7
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:44
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 373
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 2.343164
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.065181
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
-11.9094
0

Table AF- 8 Kamloops Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q8

Hypothesis Testing for KS3Q8
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:44
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 373
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 2.876676
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.240368
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
-1.92023
0.0556

Table AF- 9 Kamloops Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q9

Hypothesis Testing for KS3Q9
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:44
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 372
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 2.946237
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.124254
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
-0.92235
0.3569

109
Table AF- 10 Kamloops Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q10

Hypothesis Testing for KS3Q10
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:45
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 372
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 2.615591
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.139856
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
-6.50451
0

Table AF- 11 Kamloops Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q11

Hypothesis Testing for KS3Q11
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:45
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 373
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.142091
Sample Std. Dev. = 0.963681
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
2.847661
0.0046

Table AF- 12 Kamloops Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q12

Hypothesis Testing for KS3Q12
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:45
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 375
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.189333
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.134719
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
3.231131
0.0013

110

Appendix G: Attitude Statements – Merritt Neutrality Data Tables

Table AG- 1 Merritt Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q1

Hypothesis Testing for MS3Q1
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:46
Sample (adjusted): 1 41
Included observations: 41 after adjustments
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 2.487805
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.433910
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
-2.28721
0.0276

Table AG- 2 Merritt Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q2

Hypothesis Testing for MS3Q2
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:47
Sample (adjusted): 1 41
Included observations: 41 after adjustments
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.853659
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.195010
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
4.574089
0

Table AG- 3 Merritt Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q3

Hypothesis Testing for MS3Q3
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:47
Sample (adjusted): 1 41
Included observations: 41 after adjustments
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 2.682927
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.473754
Method

Value

Probability

111

t-statistic

-1.37761

0.176

Table AG- 4 Merritt Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q4

Hypothesis Testing for MS3Q4
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:48
Sample (adjusted): 1 41
Included observations: 41 after adjustments
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.951220
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.139105
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
5.346983
0

Table AG- 5 Merritt Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q5

Hypothesis Testing for MS3Q5
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:48
Sample (adjusted): 1 41
Included observations: 41 after adjustments
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 2.512195
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.380615
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
-2.26238
0.0292

Table AG- 6 Merritt Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q6

Hypothesis Testing for MS3Q6
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:48
Sample (adjusted): 1 41
Included observations: 41 after adjustments
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.560976
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.225740
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
2.930471
0.0056

112

113
Table AG- 7 Merritt Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q7

Hypothesis Testing for MS3Q7
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:49
Sample (adjusted): 1 41
Included observations: 40 after adjustments
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 2.250000
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.031553
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
-4.59832
0

Table AG- 8 Merritt Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q8

Hypothesis Testing for MS3Q8
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:49
Sample (adjusted): 1 41
Included observations: 41 after adjustments
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 2.390244
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.412056
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
-2.76501
0.0086

Table AG- 9 Merritt Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q9

Hypothesis Testing for MS3Q9
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:49
Sample (adjusted): 1 41
Included observations: 41 after adjustments
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.463415
Sample Std. Dev. = 1.206183
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
2.460075
0.0183

114
Table AG- 10 Merritt Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q10

Hypothesis Testing for MS3Q10
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:49
Sample (adjusted): 1 41
Included observations: 41 after adjustments
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.560976
Sample Std. Dev. =
1.304775
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
2.752961
0.0088

Table AG- 11 Merritt Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q11

Hypothesis Testing for MS3Q11
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:50
Sample (adjusted): 1 41
Included observations: 41 after adjustments
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 2.365854
Sample Std. Dev. =
1.042979
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
-3.89319
0.0004

Table AG- 12 Merritt Neutrality hypothesis testing S3Q12

Hypothesis Testing for MS3Q12
Date: 05/29/18 Time: 19:50
Sample (adjusted): 1 41
Included observations: 41 after adjustments
Test of Hypothesis: Mean = 3.000000
Sample Mean = 3.487805
Sample Std. Dev. =
1.325178
Method
t-statistic

Value
Probability
2.357023
0.0234

115

Appendix H: Attitude Statement – Test for Equality of Means

Table AH- 1 Test for equality of means S3Q1

Test for Equality of Means Between Series
Date: 05/16/18 Time: 19:41
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 382
Method

df

t-test
Satterthwaite-Welch ttest*
Anova F-test
Welch F-test*

Value

Probability

412

6.028251

0.0000

45.36835
(1, 412)
(1,
45.3684)

4.895544
36.33981

0.0000
0.0000

23.96635

0.0000

*Test allows for unequal cell variances
Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

df

Sum of
Sq.

Mean Sq.

Between
Within

1
412

47.29334
536.1849

47.29334
1.30142

Total

413

583.4783

1.41278

Category Statistics
Variable
KS3Q1
MS3Q1
All

Std. Err.
Count
Mean
Std. Dev. of Mean
373
3.619303 1.104659
0.057197
41
2.487805
1.43391
0.223939
414
3.507246 1.188604
0.058417

116
Table AH- 2 Test for equality of means S3Q2

Test for Equality of Means Between Series
Date: 05/16/18 Time: 19:42
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 382
Method

df

t-test
Satterthwaite-Welch ttest*
Anova F-test
Welch F-test*

Value

Probability

413

0.255779

0.7982

47.53309
(1, 413)
(1,
47.5331)

0.236902
0.065423

0.8138
0.7982

0.056123

0.8138

*Test allows for unequal cell variances
Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

df

Sum of
Sq.

Mean Sq.

Between
Within

1
413

0.07877
497.261

0.07877
1.204022

Total

414

497.3398

1.201304

Category Statistics
Variable
MS3Q2
KS3Q2
All

Std. Err.
Count
Mean
Std. Dev. of Mean
41
3.853659
1.19501
0.186629
374
3.807487 1.086277
0.05617
415
3.812048
1.09604
0.053802

117
Table AH- 3 Test for equality of means S3Q3

Test for Equality of Means Between Series
Date: 05/16/18 Time: 19:42
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 382
Method

df

t-test
Satterthwaite-Welch ttest*
Anova F-test
Welch F-test*

Value

Probability

410 6.016408

0.0000

45.21229 4.822382
(1, 410)
36.19717
(1, 45.2123) 23.25537

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

*Test allows for unequal cell variances
Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

Sum of
Sq.

df

Mean Sq.

Between
Within

1 48.36627
410 547.8376

48.36627
1.336189

Total

411 596.2039

1.450618

Category Statistics
Variable
KS3Q3
MS3Q3
All

Count
Mean
371
3.827493
41
2.682927
412
3.713592

Std. Dev.
1.116171
1.473754
1.204416

Std. Err.
of Mean
0.057949
0.230162
0.059337

118
Table AH- 4 Test for equality of means S3Q4

Test for Equality of Means Between Series
Date: 05/16/18 Time: 19:43
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 382
Method

df

t-test
Satterthwaite-Welch ttest*
Anova F-test
Welch F-test*

Value
412

Probability

-3.6379

0.0003

49.76463 -3.72017
(1, 412)
13.23433
(1, 49.7646) 13.83963

0.0005
0.0003
0.0005

*Test allows for unequal cell variances
Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

df

Sum of
Sq.

Mean Sq.

Between
Within

1 18.05952
412 562.2134

18.05952
1.364596

Total

413 580.2729

1.405019

Count
Mean
Std. Dev.
373
3.252011 1.17124
41
3.95122 1.139105
414
3.321256 1.185335

Std. Err.
of Mean
0.060645
0.177898
0.058256

Category Statistics
Variable
KS3Q4
MS3Q4
All

119
Table AH- 5 Test for equality of means S3Q5

Test for Equality of Means Between Series
Date: 05/16/18 Time: 19:43
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 382
Method

df

t-test
Satterthwaite-Welch ttest*
Anova F-test
Welch F-test*

Value

Probability

411

4.22385

0.0000

44.9958
(1, 411)
(1,
44.9958)

3.33441
17.84091

0.0017
0.0000

11.11829

0.0017

*Test allows for unequal cell variances
Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

df

Sum of
Sq.

Mean Sq.

Between
Within

1
411

20.24971
466.4912

20.24971
1.135015

Total

412

486.7409

1.18141

Category Statistics
Variable
KS3Q5
MS3Q5
All

Std. Err.
Count
Mean
Std. Dev. of Mean
372
3.252688 1.025612
0.053175
41
2.512195 1.380615
0.215616
413
3.179177 1.086927
0.053484

120
Table AH- 6 Test for equality of means S3Q6

Test for Equality of Means Between Series
Date: 05/16/18 Time: 19:44
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 382
Method

df

t-test
Satterthwaite-Welch ttest*
Anova F-test
Welch F-test*

Value

Probability

411

-3.77125

0.0002

47.97959
(1, 411)
(1,
47.9796)

-3.56417
14.22233

0.0008
0.0002

12.70327

0.0008

*Test allows for unequal cell variances
Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

df

Sum of
Sq.

Mean Sq.

Between
Within

1
411

18.83728
544.3637

18.83728
1.324486

Total

412

563.201

1.366993

Category Statistics
Variable
KS3Q6
MS3Q6
All

Std. Err.
Count
Mean
Std. Dev. of Mean
372
2.846774 1.142497
0.059236
41
3.560976
1.22574
0.191428
413
2.917676 1.169185
0.057532

121
Table AH- 7 Test for equality of means S3Q7

Test for Equality of Means Between Series
Date: 05/16/18 Time: 19:44
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 382
Method

df

t-test
Satterthwaite-Welch ttest*
Anova F-test
Welch F-test*

Value

Probability

411

-0.52725

0.5983

48.36247
(1, 411)
(1,
48.3625)

-0.5411
0.277992

0.5909
0.5983

0.292785

0.5909

*Test allows for unequal cell variances
Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

df

Sum of
Sq.

Mean Sq.

Between
Within

1
411

0.313553
463.5751

0.313553
1.12792

Total

412

463.8886

1.125943

Category Statistics
Variable
MS3Q7
KS3Q7
All

Std. Err.
Count
Mean
Std. Dev. of Mean
40
2.25 1.031553
0.163103
373
2.343164 1.065181
0.055153
413
2.33414 1.061105
0.052214

122
Table AH- 8 Test for equality of means S3Q8

Test for Equality of Means Between Series
Date: 05/16/18 Time: 19:45
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 382
Method

df

t-test
Satterthwaite-Welch ttest*
Anova F-test
Welch F-test*

Value

Probability

412

2.349985

0.0192

47.03656
(1, 412)
(1,
47.0366)

2.117795
5.522431

0.0395
0.0192

4.485058

0.0395

*Test allows for unequal cell variances
Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

df

Sum of
Sq.

Mean Sq.

Between
Within

1
412

8.740496
652.0832

8.740496
1.582726

Total

413

660.8237

1.600057

Category Statistics
Variable
KS3Q8
MS3Q8
All

Std. Err.
Count
Mean
Std. Dev. of Mean
373
2.876676 1.240368
0.064224
41
2.390244 1.412056
0.220526
414
2.828502 1.264934
0.062168

123
Table AH- 9 Test for equality of means S3Q9

Test for Equality of Means Between Series
Date: 05/16/18 Time: 19:45
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 382
Method

df

t-test
Satterthwaite-Welch ttest*
Anova F-test
Welch F-test*

Value
411

Probability

-2.7752

0.0058

47.97939 -2.62279
(1, 411)
7.70175
(1, 47.9794) 6.879004

0.0117
0.0058
0.0117

*Test allows for unequal cell variances
Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

Sum of
Sq.

df

Mean Sq.

Between
Within

1 9.877726
411 527.1199

9.877726
1.28253

Total

412 536.9976

1.303392

Category Statistics
Variable
KS3Q9
MS3Q9
All

Count
Mean
372
2.946237
41
3.463415
413
2.997579

Std. Dev.
1.124254
1.206183
1.141662

Std. Err.
of Mean
0.05829
0.188374
0.056178

124
Table AH- 10 Test for equality of means S3Q10

Test for Equality of Means Between Series
Date: 05/16/18 Time: 19:46
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 382
Method

df

t-test
Satterthwaite-Welch ttest*
Anova F-test
Welch F-test*

Value
411

Probability

-4.96576

0.0000

46.97631 -4.45581
(1, 411)
24.65881
(1, 46.9763) 19.85427

0.0001
0.0000
0.0001

*Test allows for unequal cell variances
Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

Sum of
Sq.

df

Mean Sq.

Between
Within

1 33.00604
411 550.1271

33.00604
1.338509

Total

412 583.1332

1.415372

Category Statistics
Variable
KS3Q10
MS3Q10
All

Count
Mean
372
2.615591
41
3.560976
413
2.709443

Std. Dev.
1.139856
1.304775
1.189694

Std. Err.
of Mean
0.059099
0.203772
0.058541

125
Table AH- 11 Test for equality of means S3Q11

Test for Equality of Means Between Series
Date: 05/16/18 Time: 19:46
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 382
Method

df

t-test
Satterthwaite-Welch ttest*
Anova F-test
Welch F-test*

Value

Probability

412

-4.8554

0.0000

47.81421
(1, 412)
(1,
47.8142)

-4.55653
23.57491

0.0000
0.0000

20.76195

0.0000

*Test allows for unequal cell variances
Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

df

Sum of
Sq.

Mean Sq.

Between
Within

1
412

22.25777
388.9814

22.25777
0.94413

Total

413

411.2391

0.995736

Category Statistics
Variable
MS3Q11
KS3Q11
All

Std. Err.
Count
Mean
Std. Dev. of Mean
41
2.365854 1.042979
0.162886
373
3.142091 0.963681
0.049897
414
3.065217 0.997866
0.049042

126
Table AH- 12 Test for equality of means S3Q12

Test for Equality of Means Between Series
Date: 05/16/18 Time: 19:46
Sample: 1 382
Included observations: 382
Method

df

t-test
Satterthwaite-Welch ttest*
Anova F-test
Welch F-test*

Value

Probability

414

-1.57171

0.1168

46.63813
(1, 414)
(1,
46.6381)

-1.38764
2.470275

0.1718
0.1168

1.925535

0.1718

*Test allows for unequal cell variances
Analysis of Variance

Source of Variation

df

Sum of
Sq.

Mean Sq.

Between
Within

1
414

3.292514
551.8012

3.292514
1.332853

Total

415

555.0938

1.337575

Category Statistics
Variable
KS3Q12
MS3Q12
All

Std. Err.
Count
Mean
Std. Dev. of Mean
375
3.189333 1.134719
0.058597
41
3.487805 1.325178
0.206958
416
3.21875 1.156536
0.056704

127

Appendix I: Willingness to Pay Data Tables

Table AI- 1 Selection Equation - Nonprotest Response, Probit Regression

Iteration 0:
Iteration 1:
Iteration 2:
Iteration 3:

log likelihood = -199.14992
log likelihood = -186.59898
log likelihood = -186.50269
log likelihood = -186.50269

Probit regression

Log likelihood = -186.50269

nonprotest
s1q1
s2q1d
s1q4e
s1q4f
s2q7
_cons

Number of obs =
369
LR chi2(5) = 5.29
Prob > chi2 = 0.0001
Pseudo R2 = 0.0635

Coef.

Std. Err.

z

-0.2061972
0.1436782
0.6051517
0.4290473
0.1517111
-0.2893257

0.1556002
0.0645983
0.1989633
0.2328449
0.0588775
0.3313582

-1.33
2.22
3.04
1.84
2.58
-0.87

P>|z|
0.185
0.026
0.002
0.065
0.01
0.383

[95% Conf. Interval]
-0.5111679
0.0170678
0.2151908
-0.0273202
0.0363134
-0.9387757

0.0987736
0.2702886
0.9951127
0.8854148
0.2671088
0.3601244

128
Table AI- 2 Willingness to Pay Estimation - Tobit Model

Grid node 0: log likelihood = -951.50768
Fitting full model:
Iteration 0:
Iteration 1:
Iteration 2:
Iteration 3:
Iteration 4:

log likelihood = -951.50768
log likelihood = -919.34785
log likelihood = -915.36508
log likelihood = -915.29855
log likelihood = -915.29846

Tobit regression
Limits: lower = 0
upper = +inf

Number of obs = 259
Uncensored = 154
Left-censored = 105
Right-censored = 0

Log likelihood = -915.29846

LR chi2(7) = 5.57
Prob > chi2 = 0.0006
Pseudo R2 = 0.0138

wtp

Coef.

Std. Err.

t

P>|t|

s1q1
s2q1d
s1q10e
s1q10d
s1q6a
s2q2
mills
_cons

-9.150967
13.71817
18.99472
19.55886
-30.38838
-3.325457
21.75434
-12.83042

8.177462
3.825005
9.119074
10.05604
13.52186
3.69352
29.10942
30.1237

-1.12
3.59
2.08
1.94
-2.25
-0.9
0.75
-0.43

0.264
0
0.038
0.053
0.025
0.369
0.456
0.671

var(e.wtp)

3172.816

389.4481 2491.493

4040.453

* mills = exp(-.5*phat^2)/(sqrt(2*_pi)*normprob(phat))

[95% Conf. Interval]
-25.25584
6.185114
1.035406
-0.2457345
-57.01864
-10.59956
-35.5744
-72.15671

6.953909
21.25122
36.95402
39.36346
-3.758121
3.948643
79.08308
46.49586

129
Table AI- 3 Willingness to Pay Estimate - Variable averages for the entire sample

wtp
(1)

Coef.

Std. Err.

5.455428

4.392204

t

P>|t|
1.24

0.215

[95% Conf. Interval]
-3.194677

14.10553

Table AI- 4 Willingness to Pay Estimate - Variable averages for the Merritt data-set

wtp
(1)

Coef.

Std. Err.

40.2043

12.63411

t

P>|t|
3.18

0.002

[95% Conf. Interval]
15.32241

65.0862

Table AI- 5 Willingness to Pay Estimate - Variable averages for the Kamloops data-set

wtp
(1)

Coef.

Std. Err.

10.89968

4.087764

t

P>|t|
2.67

0.008

[95% Conf. Interval]
2.849148

18.95022