r... :1 .v... . 5.. . ..a|.......s .1 : :3: v.3.

 

._ .;%§. a §e§§§§y§§x§?% . ﬁgﬁgﬁwﬁg...” .. n a. . .iﬁéiggﬁﬁw . $93.. 233$.

. . , . 1.2.1:...

THEOS

1W9

ImmmIii‘iiﬁiilimiu‘liiiiﬂiﬁnmm

3 1293 01812 7203

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

RECLAIMING LANDFILLS FOR RECREATION:
A STUDY OF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS' ATTITUDES

presented by

Chia-Jen Liu

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Park, Recreation
and Tourism Resources

Ph ' D ' degree in

 

 

$16M

Major professor

Date ﬂag ’7’. M7?
é7 /’

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

. -_.~ —“ —

~ﬁw—r _

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1m Woes-p.14

 

RECLAIMIN G LANDF ILLS FOR RECREATION:
A STUDY OF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS‘ ATTITUDES

By

Chia-Jen Liu

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

1999

ABSTRACT

RECLAIMING LANDFILLS FOR RECREATION:
A STUDY OF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS' ATTITUDES

By

Chia-J en Liu

This study aimed to explore the local elected ofﬁcials' attitudes toward reclaiming
closed type II and type III landﬁlls for recreation uses and to identify the factors
inﬂuencing the local elected ofﬁcials' intentions to support landﬁll recreation reclamation
(LR). Data were collected by means of self-administered questionnaires in southern lower
Michigan. A conceptual framework based on the theory of planned behavior was applied
in developing the survey instrument. The reliability and validity of the newly developed
instrument were supported.

This study underlines the usefulness of using a social psychological theory for
increasing our understanding of the local elected ofﬁcials' behavioral intentions regarding
their attitudes toward landﬁll recreation reclamation in their communities. The results
suggest that the support of reclaiming closed landﬁlls for recreation uses in the study
areas should be facilitated if the local elected ofﬁcials‘ perceived positively toward LR
(perceived more beneﬁts than risks) and if they perceived support from community
referents. The regression of their behavioral intentions toward LR is considered to be a

joint function of two signiﬁcant predictors: (i) attitudes toward the act (Aact) -- perceived

consequences and preference evaluation, and (ii) subjective norms (SN) -- social pressure
from their communities. By applying the model, the local elected ofﬁcials' behavioral
intentions toward LR could be predicted using a small set of constructs developed in this
study. The model yielded an adjusted R2 of 0.55 (p < 0.001).

Furthermore, the Aact was found to be a more signiﬁcant predictor than was SN
for the prediction of behavioral intentions. Perceived behavior control did not contribute
to the prediction of behavioral intentions in this study. Subsequent analyses found that
perceived beneﬁts, one of two underlying components of the Aact, was a signiﬁcant
determinant of behavioral intentions. The perceived risk component did not contribute
substantially to the prediction of the behavioral intentions. A two-step threshold
assumption regarding beneﬁt versus risk was supported. Concerns about liability
resulting from landﬁll recreation reclamation, potential funding, the need of landﬁll end-

use preplanning, and end-use regulation were also discussed.

Capyright by
CHIA-JEN LIU
1999

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this dissertation reﬂects the concerns, support, and assistance
of many people throughout my graduate study at Michigan State University. It would be
impossible to acknowledge adequately all the people who have been inﬂuential in
completing this dissertation. However, I wish to express my gratitude to the members of
my Dissertation Committee -- Drs. James Bristor, Joseph Fridgen, J on Burley and
Professor Gaylan Rasmussen for their guidance in planning and implementing the
research.

I am grateful for the guidance, assistance, and support of Dr. James Bristor, my
dissertation committee chairman, and Dr. Joseph Fridgen. They contributed a lot in
polishing this dissertation, challenging my thinking and clarifying my writing time and
time again. Dr. Jon Burley advised me to look ever deeper into the logical ground of
research methods and data analysis which gave me a much better understanding of what
scientiﬁc inquire was all about.

I owe a great debt of gratitude to Professor Gaylan A. Rasmussen. He has always
been there to provide guidance, answer questions, discuss ideas, add intellectual insights,
offer encouragement, assistance, and ﬁ-iendship throughout my graduate study. I cannot
thank him adequately for that.

And I should acknowledge the contributions and inﬂuence of West Sherman,
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; and Drs. van der‘Smissen, Jim Mertes,
and Louis Twardzik. Special thanks are due to my colleagues for their comments in the

research methods and during the writing of this dissertation.

I have dedicated this dissertation to my family and especially to my wife,
Yu-Ying; my father, Mr. Kuo Liu; and my father-in-law, Mr. Tieh-Chih Hwang. The
understanding, support, and encouragement they have provided and the sacriﬁces they
have made during these years in Michigan are the main force to push me to complete this
dissertation. I hope their sacriﬁces will be rewarded many times over throughout many

years to come.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

Urban Sprawl, Recreation Need, and Landﬁll Recreation Reclamation ...................... 2

Urbanization and Community Recreation ............................................................. 2

Landﬁll Recreation Reclamation ........................................................................... 5

Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 9

Community Concerns Toward Recreation Uses of Closed Landﬁlls .................... 9

Local Decision Makers versus Community Residents ........................................ 13

Purposes and Objectives of the Study ........................................................................ l4

Signiﬁcance of the Study ............................................................................................ 15

Deﬁnitions, Limitations, and Delimitation ................................................................. 16

Overview of Study Approach ..................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................................ 20

Beliefs, Perceptions, and Attitudes ............................................................................. 20

Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behavior ................................... 25

Predicting Behavior from Intentions ................................................................... 25

Determinants of Behavior Intentions ................................................................... 26

The Applications of the Theory ........................................................................... 33

Sanitary Landﬁlls Development and Landﬁll Recreation Reclamation ..................... 35

Issues of Sanitary Landﬁll -- NIMBY Syndrome ............................................... 36

Issues of Landﬁll Redevelopment -- Landﬁll Recreation Reclamation .............. 38

Attitude Study related to Landﬁll Recreation Reclamation ........................................ 43

The Conceptual Framework for the Study .................................................................. 44

Research Hypotheses .................................................................................................. 48
CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................................................. 50

Sample Design ............................................................................................................ 50

Development of Instrument ........................................................................................ 57

Phase I -- Development of Items for Pilot Questionnaire ................................... 57

Phase II -- Pilot Questionnaire Formatting, Scaling, Testing and Revising ........ 58

Phase IH -- Questionnaire Form-98 Construction ............................................... 71

Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 73

Survey Administration ......................................................................................... 73

Data Processing .................................................................................................. 74

vii

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .............................................................................. 76
Assessment of Reliability and Validity ...................................................................... 76
Reliability Test .................................................................................................... 76
Validity Test ........................................................................................................ 91
Descriptive Analysis Of Three Determinants and Behavioral Intentions ................... 93
Analysis of Local Elected Ofﬁcials' Attitudes ............................................................ 95
Relations between Three Determinants and Behavioral Intentions ..................... 96
Differences in Social Attributes .......................................................................... 97
Relationship between Social Attributes and Behavior Intentions ....................... 99
Predicting Intentions .......................................................................................... 100
Beliefs Underlying the Two Predictors ............................................................. 106
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 117
Summary and Implications ....................................................................................... l 17
Discussions ............................................................................................................... 122
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................... 128
Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 130
APPENDICES
Appendix A. The Eliciting Questionnaire ................................................................ 135
Appendix B. The Pilot Questionnaire F orm-97 ........................................................ 137
Appendix C. ............................................................................................................. 142
Appendix D. The Revised Questionnaire Form-98 .................................................. 143
Appendix E. Descriptive Analyses of General Attributes of Respondents .............. 148
Appendix F. ................... ’ .......................................................................................... l 52
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 155

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Frequency of the Eliciting Survey related to Consequence Beliefs,
Normative Beliefs, and Control Beliefs. ............................................................... 59

Table 3-2. Example of Item Statement, Response Choice, and Scale Value for
Consequence Belief and Preference Evaluation .................................................... 60

Table 3-3. Example of Item Statement, Response Choice, and Scale Value for
Normative Belief and the Degree of Compliance. ................................................ 63

Table 3-4. Example of Item Statement, Response Choice, and Scale Value for

Control Belief and Important Factors in Decision-making. .................................. 64
Table 3-5. Example of Item Statement, Response Choice, and Scale Value for

Behavioral Intention .............................................................................................. 65
Table 3-6. Item-total Statistics for Pilot Survey .......................................................... 68
Table 3-7. Knowledge Differences Between Low and High Intention Groups ........... 70
Table 3-8. Example of Item Statement, Response Choice, and Scale Value for

Direct Measure of Aact, SN, and PBC .................................................................. 73
Table 4-1. Factor Loadings of the Consequence Beliefs Items ................................... 79
Table 4-2. Factor Loadings of the Preference Evaluations Items ................................ 79
Table 4-3. Factor Loadings of the Normative Beliefs Items ........................................ 80
Table 4-4. Factor Loadings of the Control Beliefs Items ............................................ 80
Table 4-5. Factor Loadings of the Direct Attitude Items ............................................. 81

Table 4-6. Summary Table for Item-total Statistics Analysis of the Behavior
Intentions, Aact, and Normative Belief Scales in Instrument Form 98 ................ 83

Table 4-7. Summary Table for Item-total Statistics Analysis of the Attitude
Belief Scale in Instrument Form 98 ...................................................................... 86

Table 4-8. Correlations between Item Scores and Total Scores for the Different
Dimension on the Consequence Belief Scale ........................................................ 87

ix

Table 4-9. Correlations between Item Scores and Total Scores for the Different
Dimension on the Consequence Belief Scale ........................................................ 87

Table 4-10. Summary Table for Item-total Statistics Analysis of the Control
Belief Scale in Instrument Form 98 ...................................................................... 89

Table 4-11. Correlations between Item Scores and Total Scores for the Different
Dimension on the Control Belief Scale ................................................................. 89

Table 4-12. Alpha Value of the Pilot Survey and the Main Survey ............................ 90

Table 4-13. Pearson Correlations Matrix of Indirect Measures, Direct Measures,
and Behavioral Intentions ...................................................................................... 92

Table 4-14. Summary of Mean, SD., and Potential Range for Indirect Measures, 5
Direct Measures, and Behavioral Intentions in the main Survey ......................... 93

Table 4-15. Differences of Behavioral Intentions between Different Population,
Ownership, Permit, and Awareness Groups .......................................................... 99

Table 4-16. Pearson Correlations Matrix among the Three Predictors ...................... 101

Table 4-17. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis with the Behavioral
Intentions Scores as the Criterion Variable and Aact, SN, and PBC
Scores as Predictor Variables .............................................................................. 102

Table 4-18. Coefﬁcient Table for Multiple Regression Analysis with Predictors
Aact and SN ........................................................................................................ 103

Table 4-19. Differences between the Low and the High Intention Groups in
Consequence Beliefs ........................................................................................... 107

Table 4-20. Differences between the Low and the High Intention Groups in
Preference Evaluations ........................................................................................ 108

Table 4-21. Mean Differences in Overall Perceived Beneﬁts and Overall
Perceived Risk between Different Intention Groups, and between Different
Awareness Groups ............................................................................................... l 12

Table 4-22. Coefﬁcient Table for Regression Analysis for Overall Perceived
Beneﬁts and Overall Perceived Risk ................................................................... 112

Table 4-23. Mean Differences between the Low and the High Intention Groups
in Perceived Support, Degree of Compliance, and Overall Effects .................... 115

APPENDIX C
Table 1. Summary of Mean, SD, Range, and Potential Range for the Three

Indirect Measures in Pilot Survey ....................................................................... 142
APPENDD( E
Table 1. Summary Table for Frequency Distribution of General Attributes of

the Local Elected Ofﬁcials .................................................................................. 149

Table 2. Summary Table for Frequencies of Agreement with the Issue of
Mega-landﬁll, Parkland Difﬁculty, and Need of Regulation by Local
Elected Ofﬁcials .................................................................................................. 151

APPENDIX F
Table l. Coefﬁcient Table for Multiple Regression Analysis in Testing Interaction 152

Table 2. Summary Table for Item-total Statistics Analysis of the Overall
Perceived Beneﬁts and Overall Perceived Risk .................................................. 152

Table 3. Percentages of Local Elected Ofﬁcials’ Degree of Compliance
with Referents ..................................................................................................... 153

Table 4. Percentages of Local Elected Ofﬁcials’ Normative Beliefs (Perceived
Support from Referents) ...................................................................................... 153

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. The Conceptual Framework of the Study ................................................. 47
Figure 3-1. The Study Area ......................................................................................... 54
Figure 4-1. Histogram of Local Elected Ofﬁcials’ Behavioral Intentions ................... 94
Figure 4-2. The Correlations between Indirect Measures, Direct Measures, and

Local Elected Ofﬁcials’ Behavioral Intentions to Support LR ............................. 98
Figure 4-3. Normal Probability Plot of Regression Standardized Residuals ............. 105
Figure 4-4. Histogram of Local Elected Ofﬁcials’ Perceived Risk ........................... 110
Figure 4-5. Histogram of Local Elected Ofﬁcials’ Perceived Beneﬁts ..................... 115

xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Resource recycling has become an important global concept in the 19905. In
addition to recycle reusable materials, recycling is being extended to include site reuse or
land reclamation. "Site Reuse, Redevelopment, and Reclamation" was the t0p
environmental issue for Michigan economic development, rated by the members of the
Michigan Economic Developers Association in 1994. Site reuse or recycling applies to
unsuitable land uses (landﬁlls, brownﬁelds and super-fund sites) that have been reused or
restored to more productive developments (Main, 1995). A national conference
emphasizing such a land use strategy was ﬁrst launched by the National Golf Foundation
(NGF) in 1995. The NGF conference, entitled “Landﬁll Golf Courses -- Suitable
Developments for Otherwise Unsuitable Sites”, was held in Charlotte, North Carolina,
using a series of educational seminars regarding closed landﬁlls and golf course
development.

Across the United States, a number of closed landﬁlls were developed with a
variety of recreational use, such as the Sanlando softball complex in Seminole County,
Florida (Mackey, 1996), and the golf course at Cave Creek Golf Course in Phoenix,
Arizona (Saunders, 1997). Other recreational facilities such as playgrounds, trails also
were built on closed landﬁlls. For example, Byxbee Park built in the City of Palo Alto,
California (1 Spot, 1997). These recreation facilities might not be as pleasant as those in a

natural setting, but they are a blessing for communities that are short of recreation space,

or in need of improving their living environmental quality.

However, the dilemma is that the concerns of potential risks also keep some
communities away from this landﬁll reclamation business. The city of Urbana completed
a study for its landﬁll post-closure recreation uses in 1985. Due to the concerns of costs
and potential risks to public users, according to the city environmental manager, the plan
was not implemented (Fletcher, 1997). Concerns of safety and criticism of previous
landﬁll use from surrounding residents also delayed a local park development in East
Lansing, Michigan (Gawenda, 1997). There could be more cities which have concerns
about the safety and health problems not yet revealed. The issue of whether reclaiming
closed landﬁlls for recreation use or not has been a controversial topic in community
recreation development. Thus, this study aims to examine local elected ofﬁcials’ attitudes
toward landﬁll recreation reclamation in southern lower Michigan, and their underlying

concerns regarding landﬁll recreation reclamation.

Urban Sprawl, Recreation Need, and Landﬁll Recreation Reclamation

Qrbgngg' tion and Community Mreag'gn

Michigan is a highly concentrated urbanized state with 80 percent of its people
living in the metropolitan areas of southern lower Michigan (Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, MDNR, 1991). However, Michigan's population is slowly moving
from central cities in metropolitan areas to non-metropolitan areas. This back to nature
attitude developed along with the population movement suggests an increasing desire for

open space and outdoor recreation opportunities in metropolitan areas as well as

non-metropolitan areas.

The MDNR estimated that local government managed about 114,000 acres of
recreation land in 1980 (MDNR, 1991). In the 1991-1996 Michigan Recreation Plan,
MDNR indicated these local lands are more intensively developed; they play an
extremely crucial role in local recreation. These local lands are close to home for most of
their users, and thus can be used during small blocks of leisure time, without high travel
cost, and by people with transportation limitations. However, this acreage is still too
small for meeting local recreation needs. In the report, MDNR (1991) also indicated, as
populations continue growing, the demand for open space and outdoor recreation
opportunities has also risen from the previous decade, and will continue into the future.
To meet this demand local governments have to obtain more recreation space for
residents' recreation needs. However, the competition of the scarcity of land among
housing, agricultural, industrial, and recreation uses has made it more difﬁcult to acquire
the land needed for recreation. Thus, MDNR has emphasized the acquisition of land for
public access in the southern half of the lower peninsula.

The need of land acquisition also reveals the rising land costs problem in southern
lower Michigan. Vacant land might be available in some urban communities, but land
costs may be too high to acquire land for recreation. Michigan communities have
extremely relied on the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Funds (MNRTF) for
community recreation land acquisition and development (MDNR, 1991). Over the past 15
years, the MNRTF and its predecessor fund have provided over $170 million in land
acquisition funding. Lands acquired have ranged from small parcels for neighborhood

parks to large tracts for wilderness recreation and preservation. However, not all

communities could receive funding support ﬁ'om MNRTF. For example, in 1996, the
MNRTF Board had received about 330 applications, requesting $68.9 million in grant
assistance for recreation land acquisition and development (MDNR, 1996). The amount
far exceeded the MNRTF's annual funding, approximately $20 million a year.

Without immediate access funding for land acquisition to accommodate growing
population needs for recreation, some communities have tried to utilize marginal land
such as riverfronts, ﬂoodplains, and wetlands to provide additional outdoor recreation
Opportunities for their citizens. Accordingly, landﬁlls located at each host community
may be a potential source to help fulﬁll community recreation needs.

One recent practice is to reclaim closed landﬁlls for recreation uses, which might
be inﬂuenced by land restoration concept. Restoration of a damaged landscape has been
practiced since the early 19003. Krohe (1993) stated, "Restore means salvaging damaged
sites for new economic use, converting strip mines into parks or pastures that had little to
do with the virgin land (p.72)." As landﬁll was initially introduced to solve the waste
problems, its end uses might also provide an opportunity for those communities with
increasing recreation needs to restore part of the damaged landscape in their communities
for recreation uses. Therefore, when compared with other alternatives of parkland supply
provision, the adoption of reclaiming landﬁll recreation may be a realistic alternative in V
certain situations. In addition, when considering the trends of urbanization, the scarcity of
park land, and the rising land costs, reclaiming landﬁll for recreation uses is a signiﬁcant

agenda that landscape or recreation planners will face in the foreseeable future.

Landﬁll Recreation Reclamation

Landﬁll recreation reclamation is not a totally new idea, dozens of communities in
the United States have reclaimed or restored closed landﬁlls in their communities during
the last decade. Reclamation cases could also be found in France and Canada. Back into
1863, when Paris established Parisian Park, this was probably the earliest of European
public parks that was built on the grounds of a waste disposal site (Engler, 1995). It was
not until 1961 that the ﬁrst landﬁll golf course, in Marine Park Brooklyn, New York, was
built in the United States (Saunders, 1997). Mitchell (1965) also documented a few
landﬁll recreation developments in the early 19605, which included a golf course in San
Diego, California; and a park in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

In 1969, the Project Garden Cities: Turtle Mound was planned to reclaim a
garbage dump as a park. The project was not built but had an inﬂuence on the waste
landscape (Matilsky, 1992). In 1970, Calverton-Fairland Local Park was built on top of a
reclaimed landﬁll in Silver Spring, Maryland (Garn, 1996). Later in 1976, Rundle Golf
Course, an 18 hole course, was constructed over the old Beverly landﬁll in the city of
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (Edmonton, 1997).

More recently the city of Palo Alto, California built Byxbee Park on top of a
closed landﬁll in 1991, which was nearly ten years after the master plan was developed.
The park has gathered much positive response from residents since then (I-Spot, 1997).

Until the present, recreation uses of closed landﬁlls have included reclaiming of
landﬁlls for playgrounds, ballﬁelds, ski slopes, coasting hills (Sorg & Hickman, 1968;
Brunner & Keller, 1972; Naber, 1987). Additional examples included soccer and baseball

ﬁelds, walking and bicycling paths, and amphitheaters in Salt Meadows Park in F airﬁeld,

Connecticut; in the Evanston metropolitan areas, Illinois; and in DeKorte Park, New
Jersey (Arent, 1989; Treadaway, 1989; Griswold, 1993). Several large tracts were
converted into golf courses, for instance, in St. Lucie and Orlando, Florida; in Charlotte,
North Carolina; in Phoenix, Arizona; and in Santa Clara and Spanish Bay, California
(Matthews, 1994; Noah, 1994; Saunders, 1997).

In Michigan, the city of Riverview has developed a ski slope and lately has
planned a golf driving practice range on a former tubing hill; while Lyon Township has
put a 120 acres community park on top of a landﬁll with the support of Browning Ferris
Industries (BFI) and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. These communities
have perceived beneﬁts generated from the waste sites, such as contemporary needs of

park and recreation uses, land redemption, and wildlife reserves.

wn vlmet—A entilfro iRvi' 'n

Along with the communities taking actions to reclaim their closed landﬁlls, other
community revitalization movements have been promoted across the United States. Such
are known as "Brownﬁelds Redevelopment." Brownﬁelds were deﬁned by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) as "abandoned, idled or underutilized
industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by
real or perceived environmental contamination" (Brownﬁelds, 1998). To help the
communities address environmental concerns associated with idled, underutilized or
abandoned industrial and commercial properties, EPA announced the Brownﬁelds
Economic Redevelopment Initiative (Brownﬁelds, 1998). The purpose of this Initiative is

to help put brownﬁelds facilities back to sustainable and beneﬁcial reuse. The restoration

movement also included redeveloping brownﬁelds for recreation uses. For instance, part
of the football ﬁeld in the Carolinas Stadium, North Carolina was built on a former state
Superfund site after it had remained dormant for nearly a decade (Lee and Haas, 1995).

Brownﬁelds redevelopment is also a priority for the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). As the MDEQ has indicated, brownﬁelds problems are
not limited to large cities in Michigan, as small towns and villages all over Michigan also
have suffered (Michigan’s commitment, 1997).

They, too, are discovering that the creative, cooperative efforts of state and

local resources can breathe new life into old abandoned properties. A

single project in a small municipality can have a tremendously positive

impact on new job creation, revitalizing the look of downtown areas and

bringing critical economic growth to the community (p.1).
The MDEQ has created a Brownﬁelds Coordination Team in its Environmental Response
Division, to help communities dealing with potential environmental contamination
properties that prevents redevelopment and potential job creation. Pilot programs are
already underway using funds from the federal Superfund program. Site Assessment
Grants and Site Reclamation Grants are two grant programs offered by the MDEQ for
investigation and remedy of contaminated property. These ﬁrnds are available to promote
economic development and property reuse. As of 1997, thirty-two grants for site
reclamation totaling nearly $20 million have been made to support revitalization in
Michigan Communities (Michigan’s commitment, 1997).

Landﬁll waste disposal areas may be classified as brownﬁelds, as Pontin (1998)
stated, especially if they are in or adjacent to an urban area. In Michigan, landﬁlls

recreation reclamation might be considered as brownﬁelds redevelopment if they meet

MDEQ's criteria (Norgbey, 1998). For instance, a proposed site reclamation project must

show such things as environmental beneﬁts, economic beneﬁts, utilization of existing
infrastructure, and utilization of public and private funding. An example in Michigan is
from the city of Gibraltar, which is in the process of reclaiming one of its existing
brownﬁeld sites as a golf course. MDEQ is currently evaluating their proposal for site
reclamation program grants. Another example in Massachusetts is a $65 million
brownﬁeld reclamation project near Boston (Reclamation project enjoys spoils of
Boston's big dig, 1998). The town of Milton and the city of Quincy will transform three
landﬁlls into a 470-acre recreation complex, including a 27-hole golf course, athletic
ﬁelds and hiking trails. The project will save Massachusetts more than $30 million to cap
and close the landﬁlls. Also the developer, the Quarry Hills Association, is projecting an
average proﬁt of $1.25 million per year.

In the State of Michigan, according to a 1997 database from the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, currently, approximately 100 active landﬁlls exist.
The acreage of these facilities varies from less than 30 acres to over 100 acres. As society
continues to rely on landﬁlls for waste disposal, landﬁll numbers will increase in the
future (Arrandale, 1993). It is critical to use these landﬁlls effectively after they are
closed. Their potential end uses might provide signiﬁcant land parcels available to
communities for recreation development if landﬁlls are planned and operated with future
reclamation in mind. Furthermore, a 30-year monitoring period by the owner is mandated
by the 1994 EPA's regulation, after a landﬁll is closed. A traditional landﬁll closure
design would protect the environment, but remain unproductive for at least 30 years.
Thus, it is important that a landﬁll end-use plan which allows enhancing land

productivity should be considered. The combination of potential funding sources and

assistance ﬁom both State and Federal govermnents will enable Michigan communities to
have very good opportunities in reclaiming their closed landﬁlls into more productive

0885.

Statement of the Problem

mm ' ne owar R ' ses f s Ln 111

Although agreement is fairly widespread over the physical feasibility studies of
landﬁll reclamation (Naber, 1987; Treadaway, 1989; Golden, 1994; Rux, 1995; Hurdzan,
1995), and a number of potential funding and assistance from both State and Federal
governments such as brownﬁelds redevelopment described previously; the concerns of
potential risks may have made some communities hesitate to adopt the new approach for
local park land expansion.

Even though the advantages of landﬁll reclamation do exist, that does not mean
disadvantages or risks are not involved. The reasons that keep some communities away
from the reclamation business might originate from previous perceptions of landﬁlls, the
public fear of the threats of contamination, and potential risks involve gas and ground
settlement problems resulting from landﬁll operation.

Before further diffusing the practice, the issue landscape architects and/or
recreation planners need to consider seriously is "What are the underlying factors that
make a difference in communities' support for and opposition toward landﬁll recreation
reclamation?" These underlying factors may be inﬂuenced by community perceptions and

social/political concerns, which are discussed below.

r 'v 1‘ ts v us Perceived Risk

In regard to the need of more recreation space as populations grow, especially in
metropolitan areas, landﬁll recreation reclamation may provide a potential land source for
future park and recreation development. The potential of this new source of supply is
signiﬁcant, since most urbanized areas have acres of landﬁll within their boundaries. The
implementation of reclaiming closed landﬁlls by municipalities or townships would not
only alleviate the park land shortage problem, but also greatly improve community
overall environmental quality, and boost the surrounding neighboring land value as well.
It may further mitigate the negative impacts generated from landﬁll operations. Thus, the
negative inﬂuences that caused the NIMBY syndrome could be reversed, and these idle
lands could then become useful resources providing social and economic beneﬁts to their
host communities.

Nevertheless, people generally view landﬁll operations from a negative
perspective (e.g., deteriorating environmental quality, jeopardizing public health). A host
community may develop exclusively a revulsion to the idea of landﬁll recreation
reclamation. It is due to the very notion of landﬁll may be considered dangerous and
unpleasant (Bauman and Kasperson, 1974). The reason for the hesitation is properly due
to the perceived risk that might occur in the ﬁeld such as ground settlement, gas
explosion, and water contamination that might cause potential safety or health hazards.
For example, methane generation may cause a potential explosion, if it is not
appropriately collected. The leachate, which was produced when solid waste decomposed
or broke down, may contaminate groundwater and negatively affect the community

drinking water system. For recreation users, the more direct impact is contact with

10

leachate on site, which would cause health concerns if they are not appropriately treated.
Organic settlement can later crack foundations and trail surfaces, or cause depressions in
the turf areas of golf course or sports ﬁelds.

Given the local ofﬁcials' responsibility of protecting public health and the
concerns of the uncertainty and liability involved in the landﬁll recreation reclamation,
the personal caution of local ofﬁcials, such as in the city of Urbana, Illinois is
understandable. These may be the potential factors that may affect people's acceptance of
the new strategy of park-recreation development. However, lack of evidence can show
that attitudes toward reclaiming closed landﬁlls for recreation uses were inﬂuenced by the
negative perceptions toward the landﬁlls operation. It would be useful to know how
people perceive these potential environmental hazards and to what degree they are

concerned.

0 ui S cil ndP liti alA ects

Most cases mentioned thus far which have dealt with landﬁll reclamation focused
primarily on physical feasibility, rather than evaluating social and/or political aspects. As
Saunders (1997) stated:

Though the beneﬁts of such a project seems obvious, the reality of

regional politics, the NIMBY factor, and volatile land value can all affect

the chances for success. It takes a concerted effort from both regulatory

agencies and planners to make these projects feasible (p.2).
Factors that might have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the acceptance of the landﬁll recreation
reclamation include community recreation demand, funding availability, support from

local government, community residents, interested groups, and landﬁll owners if landﬁll

is not owned by the local government.

11

It is critical for planners to understand whether a host community knows about the
positive aspects of the transformation of landﬁlls, and other negative repercussions. Then,
what are their attitudes toward the reclamation if they are aware of the reclamation
practices? In an attempt to reclaim landﬁlls, several concerns regarding awareness,
acceptance, and perceptions that could be derived from the land use practice are present
below.

Does a host community know about landﬁll reclamation for recreation
development? How does a host community perceive this kind of development? Are they
concerned about any safety issues related to landﬁll use for recreation? Does the
opposition, NIMBY fears, or negative images prevent a host community from using
recreation facilities developed on a closed landﬁll? Then, Does a host community accept
this kind of land reclamation practice?

In their study of wastewater reuse, Bauman and Kasperson (1974) stated, "If
careful analyses of the potential obstacles had been undertaken prior to the diffusion of
ﬂuoridation, the history of its public acceptance might be substantially different (p. 670)."
Thus, it is critical to the success of landﬁll recreation reclamation for a community to be
aware of any potential social/political obstacles.

To reveal any potential obstacle, an extensive literature review was conducted to
examine any related study presented in any conference, journals, or magazines. Only one
study, so far, was found relevant to residents and professionals' opinions of landﬁll
reclamation (Heumann, 1985). However, the study did not provide needed information to
explain the different decision in landﬁll recreation reclamation. There is ambiguity in

how these host communities perceive a landﬁll recreation reclamation project, and what

12

the potential obstacles are. The host communities' attitudes toward landﬁll recreation
reclamation are unknown. No study has been identiﬁed that addresses the attitudes of

how people support or oppose reclaiming landﬁlls into recreation uses.

1 e i i ers v us ' id

Given the long-standing public resistance to landﬁll siting and potential beneﬁts
which might provide to host communities, this study is mainly concerned with whether a
closed landﬁll should be restricted solely to remain an idle space, or lead to major
innovations in the provision of urban or rural park land supply for a host community.
Thus, two further questions need to be addressed. First, will local governments (decision-
makers and related ofﬁcials) support landﬁll recreation reclamation? Second, will
community residents (and interested groups) accept landﬁll recreation reclamation?
Decision-makers, related ofﬁcials, and community residents are considered the most
relevant groups for having a direct inﬂuence on future development of the landﬁll end
uses. The support of local ofﬁcials and community residents in reclaiming closed landﬁlls
will strongly inﬂuence the promotion of landﬁll recreation end uses. It will also have an
inﬂuence on ﬁrture landﬁll reclamation projects in other communities' opinion formation.
Consequently, if their decisions readily exclude closed landﬁll recreation reclamation as a
viable alternative, it will be difﬁcult to turn their landﬁll sites into community assets.
Landﬁll use then will be the end of these potentially signiﬁcant land parcels. However,
their perceptions of the potential role of landﬁll recreation reclamation will reﬂect their
underlying values and motives. Exploring factors that inﬂuence a host community's

attitude toward landﬁll recreation reclamation will provide further understanding of how

13

this alternative land use may take effect, and their willingness to accept or support the
practice will determine the success of landﬁll recreation end uses.

However, an investigation of both local elected ofﬁcials and community residents
is beyond the scope of this study. The present study then focuses on examining local
elected ofﬁcials' attitudes toward landﬁll recreation reclamation. Also the following
factors were considered. First, even though closed landﬁll recreation end uses have
greatly increased during the last decade, the adoption of closed landﬁll recreation end
uses as an alternative in the provision of municipal and township recreation system has
not been assessed carefully. Secondly, local elected ofﬁcials generally represent the level
of government closest and most responsible to the wishes of their citizens. Their attitudes
may reﬂect the opinion of community residents. Knowing the level of acceptance by local
elected ofﬁcials toward landﬁll recreation reclamation and their intention to support the

approach will help future landﬁll recreation practices.

Purposes and Objectives of the Study

As the number of sanitary landﬁlls continue to grow on the Michigan landscape,
local elected ofﬁcials' attitudes regarding landﬁll reclamation for recreation use in their
community are an integral part of community recreation decisions. Hence, the purpose of
this study is to examine local elected ofﬁcials' attitudes toward recreation uses of closed
landﬁlls. The study will examine whether local elected ofﬁcials support or oppose
potential reclamation projects in their community. The factors that affect their attitudes

toward landﬁll recreation reclamation will be investigated. Ajzen's theory of planned

14

behavior (1985) provides the theoretical basis for the study. According to Ajzen (1988),
attitude, in this case, is an overall evaluation judgment about the desirability of recreation
development on closed landﬁll. The sum of a set of beliefs then determines attitude
toward landﬁll recreation reclamation. Finally, attitude is assumed to inﬂuence various
actions depending on required efforts, possibility of success and payoffs. Three main
determinants in the theory, attitude toward the act, subjective norms, and perceived
behavior control, were adopted as an applicable structure to assess local elected ofﬁcials'
attitudes toward landﬁll recreation reclamation.

The research objectives of this study, therefore, include the following.

1. To explore the relationship between local elected ofﬁcials' perceptions and
behavioral intention in the context of landﬁll recreation reclamation.

2. To construct measures of three determinants (attitude toward the act, subjective
norms, and perceived behavior control) and behavior intention and test the relationship
that exists between three determinants and behavior intention to support landﬁll
recreation reclamation.

3. To examine the differences between local elected ofﬁcials' perceptions of
beneﬁts and perceptions of risks associated with recreation end uses of closed landﬁlls.

4. To explore any potential obstacles in landﬁll recreation reclamation.

Significance of the Study

In Michigan, most of existing landﬁlls will be closed within the next 15 years. By

the time they close, the locations of these sites properly become potential areas that are

15

suitable for recreation development. As available land disappears from metropolitan
areas, closed landﬁlls may only be the few open spaces remaining for park and recreation
development. Thus, a productive use of these closed landﬁlls is a situation in which no
one loses, and community residents, landﬁll companies, and government agencies
beneﬁt. It is also critical to use closed landﬁlls effectively as their numbers may increase
in the future since communities will continue to rely on landﬁlls for waste disposal.
However, local elected ofﬁcials' attitudes play an important role in the success of landﬁll
recreation reclamation. Therefore, the signiﬁcance of the study includes, but is not
limited to the following.

(1) To provide information about local elected ofﬁcials' attitudes and underlying
factors for future planning and management.

(2) To contribute to policy formation regarding productive use of land resources
by effectively reclaiming these potential idle lands for recreation uses.

(3) To facilitate future landﬁll recreation reclamation and make a more productive

use of the closed landﬁll resources.

Deﬁnitions, Limitations, and Delimitation

Deﬁnitions

Various terms used in this study are operationally deﬁned as follows:
1. Landﬁll recreation reclamation (LR)
Actions emphasize on preplanning and converting a sanitary landﬁll after it is

closed to support recreation uses without damaging the closed layer of the landﬁll.

16

2. Survey subjects -- local elected ofﬁcials

The study will survey local elected ofﬁcials. A local elected ofﬁcial in this study
refers to people serving in 1998 in each selected township or city level in southern lower
Michigan. It usually included a supervisor, clerk, treasurer, and several trustee or council
members ﬁom township board or city council.

3. Municipality and Community

In this study, municipality is referred to either as a city or a township which was
included in the current study. Community is referred to the municipality and people the
survey subject served.

4. Active landﬁll versus Closed landﬁll

Active landﬁllrefers to those sanitary landﬁlls currently operating or closed and
being monitored under EPA regulations and/or under Michigan Act 641 at the time this
research was conducted. It could be a type H landﬁll or a type III landﬁll. Closed landﬁll
in this study refers to a landﬁll which has reached its capacity and is no longer taking
waste.

5. Sanitary landﬁll, Type II Landﬁll and Type III Landﬁll

The following deﬁnitions are based on the deﬁnitions in the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Waste Management Division, Act 641 Rule 105:

Sanitary landﬁll means a type of disposal area consisting of l or more

landﬁll units and the active work areas associated with these units.

Sanitary landﬁlls shall be classiﬁed as one of the following types of

landﬁlls:

(i) A type II landﬁll, which is a municipal solid waste landﬁll and
includes a municipal solid waste incinerator ash landﬁll.
(ii) A type III landﬁll, which is any landﬁll that is not a municipal
solid waste landﬁll or hazardous waste landﬁll and includes both of the

following: (a) Construction and demolition waste landﬁlls, (b) Industrial
waste landﬁlls (p.l 1-13).

17

Where "Municipal solid waste landﬁll" or "Type II landﬁll" means:

A landﬁll which receives household waste, municipal solid waste,

incinerator ash or sewage sludge and which is not a land application unit,

surface irnpoundment, injection well, or waste pile. A municipal solid

waste landﬁll also may receive other types of solid waste, such as

commercial waste, non-hazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small

quantity generator waste, and industrial waste. Such a landﬁll may be

publicly or privately owned (p.10).

6. Superfund

The Superﬁmd was established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The statute was better known as the
Superﬁind since it taxed chemicals, petroleum products, and general corporate proﬁts to
ﬁnance the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Revesz and Stewart, 1995). The Act has
provided a mechanism to identify and rank sites contaminated by hazardous materials
such as a result of mining, petroleum reﬁning, manufacturing, and waste disposal, which

pose serious threats to human health and the environment (Portney and Probst, 1994).

Some of these superfund sites might be considered as brownﬁelds.

Limitations
Local elected ofﬁcials may have a different interpretation of recreation
development. They may refer recreation development to such facilities as golf courses,
playgrounds, neighborhood parks, and ball ﬁelds. The study may not reveal which type of
recreation development they have in mind. However, the study had asked about their
recreation development preference.
The scope of the study was limited to investigate local elected ofﬁcials in

southern lower Michigan. Thus, inference of the results must proceed cautiously.

l8

 

Delimitation
The study conﬁned itself to examining communities that host an active landﬁll,
including those in the stage of 30 years of monitoring in southern lower Michigan. It was
delimited to a township or municipality that has at least one sanitary landﬁll, either type
II or type III, currently operating or under monitoring in their district, either private or

government owned.

Overview of Study Approach

Theory of planned behavior from Aj zen (1985) provides a theoretical foundation
for the current study to reveal local elected ofﬁcials' attitudes. The study is presented in
ﬁve chapters. Speciﬁcally, Chapter Two reviews the literature relating to attitude
measurement methods, theoretic approach, and landﬁll recreation reclamation, with an
emphasis on developing a conceptual framework relative to the understanding and
predication of intention to support landﬁll recreation reclamation. Chapter Three outlines
the selection of the study population and the development of a survey instrument,
sampling procedures, and survey administration. Chapter Four presents the validity and
reliability of the measurement and the descriptive ﬁndings relative to the theory
components. Hypothesis tests were reported and discussed. Chapter Five is devoted to
assessing the usefulness of the conceptual framework for understanding and predicting
future landﬁll recreation reclamation. Finally, implications for further research are also

discussed.

19

 

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This Chapter contains a review of attitude related literature and presents the
theoretical foundation for the study. This study is mainly concerned with the attitudes of
local elected ofﬁcials toward closed landﬁll reclamation for recreation uses. Special
emphasis is placed on the discussion of the theory of planned behavior. Next, an
examination of landﬁll recreation reclamation (LR) and its relevant issues are presented.

In addition, literature related to environmental risk, and attitudes on land reclamation are V '

 

brieﬂy reviewed. Finally, the conceptual framework and hypotheses for this study are
presented. Also included in this chapter are reviews of major factors related to LR that

serve as the conceptual basis for the formation of the survey instrument.

Beliefs, Perceptions, and Attitudes

A large number of attitude theories have been proposed over the last ﬁfty years to
explain how and why people hold certain attitudes and the related phenomena of attitude
and belief change. In their book "Attitudes and Persuasion", Petty and Cacioppo (1981)
have grouped the various attitude theories into seven major approaches. These are the
conditioning and modeling approach, the message-learning approach, the judgmental
approach, the motivational approach, the attributional approach, the combinatory

approach, and the self-persuasion approach. Each of these approaches emphasizes

20

different prospects and processes to explain the change of attitude and belief. For

example, the combinatory approach, which includes information integration theory and

theory of reasoned action, focuses on how the information that people received is

evaluated and integrated to form an overall attitude toward an issue, object, behavior.

These attitude theories and measurement constitute a broad and controversial ﬁeld of

study in social psychology. In social psychology, it is assumed a relationship exists

between attitude and behavior. Thus, to understand and predict whether local elected l
ofﬁcials support or oppose LR, it is necessary to begin with a brief review of the central

concepts: attitude, belief, and perception and then focus on the discussion of the l

theoretical approach in this study.

Attitude and Behavior

Behavior is considered as an action or series of human actions performed by
individuals. Behavior can be deﬁned either as nonverbal action or verbal statements
concerning behavior; both verbal and nonverbal responses are observable behaviors and
reﬂect a person's underlying disposition or attitudes (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). In
attitude research, social scientists have assumed that human action could be explained by
attitude. According to Cohen (1981), attitude can be precursors or determinants of a
person's behavior. Petty and Cacioppo (1981) further noted that a widespread agreement
among social psychologists is that an attitude refers to a general and enduring positive or
negative feeling about some person, object, or issue.

Moreover, attitudes include affective component, cognitive component and

behavioral component (Tull and Hawkins, 1990; McAndrew, 1993). The affective

21

component, similar to the feeling that Petty and Cacioppo described, refers to people's
positive or negative reaction toward an object or behavior that makes people evaluate the
object or behavior in question as good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant. The cognitive
component refers to knowledge or beliefs held about the object or behavior. The
behavioral component refers to the action toward the object or behavior. For example, a
person may exhibit a negative feeling toward a landﬁll site (negative affect with respect
to the previous landﬁll image), but believe that a closed landﬁll is safe due to a strict
monitoring system (positive cognitive component) and agree to a reclamation
development (favorable behavioral component). Thus, to study local elected ofﬁcials‘
attitudes would include the evaluation of their affective, cognitive, and behavioral

components toward landﬁll recreation reclamation.

Beliefs, Perceptions and Attitudes

A person's beliefs, as deﬁned by Ajzen and F ishbein (1977), represent the ideas or
information he/she has about other people, objects, and issues. The information may be
factual or only one person's opinion. It may be positive, negative, or neutral. Beliefs may
be formed on the basis of direct observation, from information obtained through outside
sources, or by way of various inference processes. In this regard, beliefs are thought to
contribute to the formation of cognitive or affective components. As Ajzen and F ishbein
(1977) stated, when a person makes evaluative judgments about the information
associated with issues, objects, or behavior, his/her belief becomes an attitude, or his/her
attitude is formed.

Perceptions, as noted by Fisher, Bell, and Baum (1984), are inﬂuenced by

22

affective, cognitive, and evaluative components, all operating at the same time.
Perceptions vary with the individual past experience and present values, needs, memories,
social circumstances, and expectations. For example, as people perceive a landﬁll
environment, the cognitive processes involved might include thinking about what people
can do in that environment and they might compare this environment with alternative
environments based on their knowledge. Moreover, people's feelings (i.e., disfavor,

anger, fears) about a landﬁll inﬂuence their perception of it. Finally, evaluation of good
or bad elements associated with a landﬁll environment will contribute to the formation of
a person's perceptions.

Whether local elected ofﬁcials support or oppose LR can also be viewed as
adopting an innovation approach. Rogers (1983) stated the adoption process of
innovation as a series of steps including: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and
adoption. Perception appears to be the beginning of this adoption process. That is a
person's awareness of landﬁll recreation reclamation, his/her interest in reclamation, and
his/her evaluation of the outcome of the reclamation all inﬂuence his/her perceptions
toward adoption or acceptance of a landﬁll recreation reclamation proposal. Overall,
perceptions are certain processes that a person adopts to recognize the environment.
Perceptions consist of information processed through infening or constructing meaning
from present experiences and memory of past experiences, which simultaneously involve
affective, cognitive, and evaluation processes. What people perceive relies on the acuity
of the individual's senses to notice or become conscious of something that exists or to
understand the ease or difﬁculty of the task. Considering the formation of perceptions and

the components of attitudes, a person's perceptions can he therefore considered very

23

 

closely related to his/her attitudes except no actual action.

In sum, a person's beliefs are underlying his/her perceptions and further become
his/her attitudes toward an object or behavior. One might assume if beliefs toward LR
could be identiﬁed, the evaluation of these beliefs of local elected ofﬁcials will then
provide an indication of their perceptions/attitudes toward LR. Knowing local elected
ofﬁcials' attitudes will presumably help predict the kinds of behaviors in which they are
likely to engage.

In fact, the relationship between attitude and behavior is not that simple. The
inconsistency between attitude and behavior has been examined and discussed in attitude
research throughout the years. The major concern here is whether or not attitudes can
predict behavior. Wicker (1969) reviewed about 50 studies in which verbal and overt
behavioral responses were obtained and concluded that attitudes were often unrelated or
only slightly related to overt behaviors. Similarly, McGuire (1969) in review of attitudes
and attitude change stated that person's verbal report of his/her attitude has a rather low
correlation with his/her actual behavior toward the object in question. Often what was
argued is that attitudes are just one of several factors which inﬂuence behavior. To more
accurately predict behavior, additional variables may need to be taken into account, such
as personality traits, normative prescriptions of proper behavior, expected or actual
consequences of the behavior, competing motives (Ajzen & F ishbein, 1980). These
variables will be considered as independent contributors to behavior or serve as
moderators of the attitude-behavior relationship. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) proposed a
conceptual framework in an attempt to incorporate attitude toward the act variable and

subjective norm variable to predict behavior, known as the Theory of Reasoned Action.

24

 

The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985) was formed later by adding a perceived
behavioral control variable to the theory of reasoned action. The approach suggested that
appropriate measures of attitude with additional variables could strongly predict behavior.
The theoretical framework was considered appropriate for the present study and is

concisely presented below.

Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behavior

Prgicting Behavior frgm Intentions

To predict and understand a person's behavior is ﬁrst to identify and measure the
behavior of interest. Then, the underlying factors that determine the behavior can be
examined. The theory of reasoned action, from Ajzen and F ishbein (1980), summarized a
causal sequence to explain the relationships between beliefs, attitudes, behavioral
intentions, and behavior and tried to understand and predict attitude and behavior change.
In the theory, a person’s intention to perform or not perform a given behavior is
considered as the immediate determinant of the action. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) stated
that the theory is based on the assumption that people are usually quite rational and
consider the information available to them. Ajzen and Fishbein also argued that people
evaluate any potential consequence of their actions before they decide to engage or not
engage in a given behavior. In the theory, behavioral intentions are assumed to capture
the motivational factors that inﬂuence a behavior and refer to a measure of the likelihood
that a person will engage in a given behavior. The most direct determinant of a behavior

is a person's intentions to perform it. In other words, a causal relationship exists in which

25

 

a person's attitudes toward an object or act directly inﬂuences behavioral intentions, and
the person's behavior is primarily determined by the behavior intentions. That is to
understand a person's behavior is to measure the person's intentions. Behavior intentions
served as indications of how hard people are willing to try, or how much effort they are
planning to make. The stronger a person's intentions to engage in a behavior, the more the
person are expected to try, and the greater the likelihood that the behavior will actually be
performed.

Several studies have shown a high correlation between intentions and subsequent
behaviors (Ajzen and Madden, 1986; Watters, 1989; Harrison, 1995). However,
examinations of the relationship between intentions and past behavior are limited in the
current study. It is due to few communities in Michigan that have reclaimed landﬁlls for
recreation uses. F urtherrnore, predicting behavior from intentions does not provide much
information about the reasons for the behavior. To understand human behavior, it is
necessary to identify the determinants of behavior intentions and to obtain more in-depth

information to explain why people hold certain attitudes.

mian oBe vir te “as
To measure an individual's behavioral intentions, the theory of reasoned action
identiﬁed two determinants: (i) attitude toward an object, act, or behavior (Aact) and (ii)
subjective norms (SN) for a speciﬁc behavior. The Aact is a personal factor and refers to
the evaluation of the behavior in question as being liked or disliked, favorable or
unfavorable. This variable provides information on a person's beliefs and feeling about

the behavior. Subjective norms are more socially oriented referring to an individual's

26

 

perceptions of social pressure to perform or not perform the behavior. This variable
provides information on social pressure from others.

A behavior may be considered as completely under a person's control if the person
can decide to perform or not to perform a given behavior. However, most intended
behavior such as losing weight, obtaining a loan, approving a proposal are subject to
some degree of uncertainty (Ajzen, 1985). Behaviors that depend on some degree of non-
motivational factors such as appropriate opportunities or on possession of adequate
resources (time, money, skills, cooperation of other people) may interfere with behavior
control (Ajzen, 1985; Ajzen and Madden, 1986; Ajzen, 1991). Thus, the theory of
planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985), incorporated an additional determinant (perceived
behavior control) along with Aact and SN into the theory to predict behavioral intention.
Perceived behavior control (PBC) refers to a person's perceptions of the amount of
control he/she has over performing the behavior in question. Therefore, key'concepts in
the theory of planned behavior include behavior, behavioral intention, attitude toward the
act, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control. Each concept stands alone and may
interact with each other. These components are further described in the following sections
and their application in the current study is presented later in the conceptual framework

section.

e wr e c dis om onen
Attitude toward the act (Aact) indicates the degree to which a person has affective
evaluation of those attributes possessed by the object or behavior in question. For

example, a person may perceive to perform or not perform a behavior based on his/her

27

 

evaluation of a like or dislike, favorable or unfavorable, advantage or disadvantage. The
importance of using a measure of attitude to understand and predict intentions is that the
attitude measure is toward his/her own performance of the behavior in question (Ajzen
and Fishbein, 1980). For example, if the behavior under investigation is "the use of a
landﬁll recreation site", then the relevant attitude used to predict or explain this behavior
should be the individual's attitude toward his/her use of a reclaimed landﬁll site. Aj zen
and Fishbein (1980) noted that attitude toward the act also applies to any attitude toward
persons, issues, objects, or institutions.

Attitude toward the act can be measured in two ways, directly and indirectly.
Direct measure of attitude toward the act is considered as the best predictor of behavior
intention. For example, using a semantic differential, respondents could be asked to rate
an item by using evaluative scales, such as good versus bad, foolish versus wise, toward a
behavior.

However, indirect measure of attitude toward the act assesses a person's
perceptions or beliefs. Each belief links the behavior to a certain outcome or to some
attributes such as costs or beneﬁts resulting from the behavior. People form beliefs about
a behavior or an object by associating it with various attributes or characteristics it
possesses. For example, in a belief item that supporting LR (the object) will provide
additional recreation opportunities that the community needs (the attribute). As Ajzen
and Fishbein (1980) stated a person's life experiences lead to the formation of many
different beliefs about various persons, issues, objects, behaviors, or actions that are
generated through direct observation, accepting information from outside sources, or

through inference processes. However, it appears that only a relatively small amount of

28

beliefs stand out at the time of attitude formation. These beliefs so called salient beliefs
are the direct determinants of the person's attitude (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). According
to the theory, Aact is determined by a person's salient beliefs about the behavior, termed
attitude beliefs. The examination of the salient beliefs can provide more descriptive
information that reveals the cognitive foundations or underlies beliefs that correspond to
behavior intention.

Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) also noted people might differ in belief strength, i.e.,
their perceived likelihood that an object has or is associated with the attribute in question.
For example, some local elected ofﬁcials may be very certain landﬁll reclamation for
recreation use is safe, while for others this may be only a vague notion. Some ofﬁcials
may feel very favorable toward additional recreation opportunity while others may
slightly favor or even oppose such a consequence. Therefore, to understand why a person
holds a certain attitude toward an object it is necessary to assess his or her salient beliefs
that the object has certain attributes and his or her evaluation of those attributes. That is
measuring the strength of a person's beliefs or the likelihood that the behavior is
associated with a speciﬁc outcome.

To obtain a person's salient beliefs, Ajzen and F ishbein (1980) have suggested the
simplest and more direct procedure is using a free-response format and asking a person to
list the characteristics, attributes associated with the object in question. The ﬁrst ﬁve to
nine beliefs a person emits are his/her salient beliefs about the object. When eliciting
salient beliefs about an object in question from a population through free response,
certain beliefs occurring with the greatest frequency are then considered modal salient

beliefs. These salient beliefs will then form the core of an attitude instrument.

29

 

Thus, a local elected ofﬁcial's attitude toward an object or event, such as landﬁll
recreation reclamation, is determined by his/her beliefs that the event has certain
attributes and his/her evaluation of those attributes. If his/her beliefs toward landﬁll
recreation reclamation primarily associate with attributes that are favorably evaluated,
his/her attitude toward the reclamation tends to be positive. Inversely, a negative attitude
will result when a local elected ofﬁcial associates landﬁll reclamation mostly with
unfavorable attributes. An individual may hold both favorable and unfavorable beliefs
about an object. For example, a local elected ofﬁcial is in favor of additional recreation
opportunities but disfavors it as a safety hazard. Therefore, a local elected ofﬁcial's
attitude toward landﬁll recreation reclamation is viewed as corresponding to the total
inﬂuence associated with his/her evaluation of modal salient beliefs elicited from a
population (F ishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). His/her attitudes may
be, therefore, assessed by calculating an index over responses to a set of belief items.

According to the theory, a person's attitude toward an object can be estimated by
multiplying his/her evaluation of each attribute associated with that object by the
subjective probability that the object has that attribute, then summing the products for all
salient beliefs. A modal salient belief does not necessarily represent the attitude beliefs
held by any given individual. However, they provide a proﬁle of the beliefs that are
assumed to determine the attitudes for most people of the population under investigation.
Therefore, by measuring a local elected ofﬁcial's belief strength and his/her evaluations
with respect to modal salient beliefs we can not only predict a local elected ofﬁcial's
attitudes, but we also obtain information about the determinants of his/her attitudes

(Aj zen and Fishbein, 1980).

30

 

Suhigtive Nam and its Components

A norm, as Bethlehem (1990) noted, usually refers to "a way of thinking or
behaving that is regarded within a culture as the right way to think or behave, or a very
common way to think or behave." In the theory, Ajzen and F ishbein (1980) stated that
subjective norm (SN) refers to a person's perception that most people who are important
to him/her think he/she should or should not perform the behavior in question. The
concerns are various social pressures exerted by those important others in regard to the
performance of the behavior. The more he/she perceives that those people think he/she
should perform a behavior, the more he/she will intend to do so. On the contrary, if
he/she perceived it was important that others think he/she should not perform a behavior,
he/she will usually intend not to do so.

Subjective norm can also be measured directly and indirectly. A direct measure of
subjective norm is usually obtained by asking respondents to rate the magnitude to which
"important others" would support or oppose of his/her performing a behavior in question.
Subjective norms are also a function of beliefs, which is the beliefs of a speciﬁc
individual thinks he/she should or should not perform the behavior in question. These
beliefs underlying a person’s subjective norm are termed normative beliefs and these
individual and groups are known as referents. According to the theory, the indirect
measure of subjective norm constitutes two components, normative beliefs and
motivation to comply (Ajzen and F ishbein, 1980). Normative beliefs represent the
perceived degree of support for performing a given behavior ﬁ'om referents to the
individual. Motivation to comply is the extent of the individual's likelihood to comply

with the expectations of these persons.

31

As in the case of the attitude beliefs, local elected ofﬁcial's salient normative
beliefs can be elicited in a ﬁ'ee response format. The most frequently mentioned
individuals or groups will be selected. A local elected ofﬁcial's normative beliefs can then
be measured by using the Likert scale. Overall, subjective norms are also based on the
evaluation of a total set of salient normative beliefs and each weighted by motivation to
comply. That is the strength of each normative belief is multiplied by the person's
motivation to comply with the referent in question, and subjective norms are directly
proportional to the sum of the resulting products across the total number of salient

referents.

Pgrgeived Behavigr Control and its Compogents

Traeen and Nordlund (1993) noted that what a person expects he/she will do in
reality is a matter of perceived control. A person's actual behavior control usually is
closely associated with resources and opportunities available to the person, which to
some extent indicates the likelihood of behavior achievement (Ajzen and Madden, 1986).
Unfortunately, it is often not possible to measure actual control prior to observing the
behavior. However, it is possible to measure a person's perceived behavior control.

A person's perceived degree of control over a behavior reﬂects the subjective
evaluation of different physical and social factors that may occur which facilitate the
behavior or make it more difﬁcult to perform (Aj zen, 1985). In other words, it refers to
the person's belief as to the degree of perceived ease or difﬁculty of performing the
behavior. The presence or absence of requisite resources and opportunities has direct

inﬂuence on a person's intention (Ajzen and Madden, 1986). For example, the more

32

resources and opportunities a local elected ofﬁcial thinks he/she possesses (such as
potential funding, revenue production), and the fewer obstacles or impediments he/she
anticipates (such as safety, liability problems), the greater he/she perceives control over
the behavior in question.

A person's beliefs about resources and opportunities may be viewed as underlying
perceived behavior control, termed control beliefs. These control beliefs about behavior
control are assumed to reﬂect past experience of oneself or his/her ﬁiends as well as
anticipated opportunities or barriers toward performing the behavior. As in the case of the
attitude and normative beliefs, it is possible to elicit these control beliefs from a
population. The most frequently mentioned resources, opportunities, and barriers will be
selected. Then, a person's control beliefs can be measured by using a Likert scale.
According to the theory, the importance of control belief is multiplied by the perceived
facilitating or inhibiting effect of the resource or opportunity under consideration, and the

resulting products are summed to obtain an estimate of perceived behavior control.

The Application of the Theou

Both the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior have been applied to
research in predicting and understanding people's intentions and behavior. Research has
supported the validity of both theories in the prediction of diverse behaviors. For
example, the theory of reasoned action has been used to measure attitudes and assess
behavior in a variety of recreation settings. These studies included measurement of visitor
attitude toward resource use and management (Kiely, 1979), predicting and

understanding attitude toward participating in water skiing, pleasure cruising and ﬁshing

33

(Fedler, 1981), measurement of attitudes of campers, canoeists, wilderness recreationists,
wild river users (Cable, et a1, 1987), and examining park and recreation students toward
providing services to persons with disabilities (Austin et a1, 1990). The theory has also
been applied in other contexts such as environmental attitude toward household
hazardous waste management (Zhao, 1992).

The theory of planned behavior also received substantial empirical support in a
variety of attitude behavior studies. For instance, the theory was tested and supported in
predicting and understanding college students' attendance of class lectures (Ajzen and
Madden, 1986), predicting voting attitude and behavior in the 1988 presidential election
(Watters, 1989), predicting visiting public drinking places (Traeen & Nordlund, 1993),
predicting mothers' intentions to use Oral Rehydration Therapy (Hounsa, et al., 1993),
predicting volunteer motivation and attendance decisions (Harrison, 1995), predicting
health-related practices (van Ryn, et at., 1996), and predicting health-check attendance
(Norman and Conner, 1996).

The relative importance of the predictors in the model upon intentions varies with
contexts. In their health check study, Norman and Conner (1996) found the relative
importance in descending order: attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavior
control. In Hounsa's (1993) study, attitude toward the act is the best predictor, then
perceived behavior control. However, in college student attendance (Ajzen and Madden,
1986) and in visiting public drinking place study (Traeen and Nordlund, 1993) found
perceived behavior control is the strongest predictor, then attitude toward the act.

So far, both theories provide a solid conceptual ﬁamework for instrument

development to examine local elected ofﬁcials' attitudes. To determine which theory is

34

more appropriate for the study, some issues related to landﬁll recreation reclamation are

further discussed below.

Sanitary Landﬁlls Development and Landﬁll Recreation Reclamation

This section is aimed at reviewing the development of landﬁll recreation
reclamation and its associated problems. It begins with a brief review of the growth of
sanitary landﬁlls as well as recreation development on closed landﬁlls. This serves to
provide some critical background information with respect to the evolution of landﬁll
recreation reclamation. Then issues associated with landﬁll recreation reclamation are
discussed. These issues are brought up by host communities' concerns of risks as well as
the potential beneﬁts. The concepts of hazards and risks are brieﬂy discussed due to the
concerns about the potential risks affecting the development of landﬁll recreation
reclamation.

Americans produced l95-million tons of solid waste in 1990, according to the
US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and that will increase to 220 million tons
by year 2000 (Arrandale, 1993). The disposal of solid waste will continue to be a pressing
problem in urbanized areas or even in rural communities. Several ways to dispose of solid
waste such as incineration, open dumping, and sanitary landﬁlling are available.
However, sanitary landﬁlling is considered as the preferred disposal method (Stead, et al.,
1991) in regards to both economic and technical concerns. Although recycling rates are
rising, it is estimated that approximately 72 percent of that garbage wound up at the

landﬁlls, and many smaller communities still rely almost exclusively on landﬁlls

35

(Arrandale, 1993).

Prior to the 19705, almost every town had its own open dump. It was often placed
on what were called "useless" wetlands or in other out—of-the-way out-of-sight spots.
During the 19708 and early 19803, many of these dumps were closed (Page, 1993) due to
either full to capacity, or to protect the groundwater system as well as public health,
especially in wetland areas. The sanitary landﬁll method was then adopted to control the
disposing of refuse on land to minimize nuisances or hazards to public health or safety
(Sorg and Hickman, 1968). A sanitary landﬁll can deal with the large volumes of rubbish
from urban development, and various forms of agricultural waste and industrial refuse. A
sanitary landﬁll compacts trash, covers it over with dirt every day, instead of using open
dumps, and establishes pollution control such as monitored groundwater. However,

problems still occur with the sanitary landﬁll approach.

I s o nita Landﬁll - NIMBY ndr me

When the sanitary landﬁll method was introduced to solve waste problems in a
civilized manner, it did not alleviate the problems. With the volume of solid waste
increasing, in many communities, these sanitary landﬁlls are ﬁlling up, and everyone
wants their replacements to be built in someone else's backyard. Dunphy & Lin (1991)
stated that new landﬁlls are locally unwanted land uses (LU-LUs). In a local government
managers surveyed, Dunphy and Lin (1991) identiﬁed solid waste management as the
most signiﬁcant issue, even rated ahead of drugs and education, faced by their

community. Many communities are trying to haul waste out of town to avoid political

36

battles over siting new facilities. However, resistance is growing in many host
communities that take other people's garbage.

This type of corrununities' attitudes toward a landﬁll is also recognized as Not In
My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome that occurred at different levels, from local
community to regional, even national (Page, 1993; Gunderson, 1993). The public fears
the threats of contamination and undesirable effects, and the concerns grew that landﬁlls
were polluting the surrounding environment. Raymond (1989) stated that communities
that are close to selected landﬁlls do not want to carry a long-term burden with the
unpredictable threats to the health and living conditions of their residents. The factors
accounting for this problem was usually called the "Big Three" in the local opposition to
landﬁll operations.

The "Big Three" included water pollution, health risks, and decline in property
values. The issues of groundwater contamination resulted from leachate downward into
soils and drinking water tables that further affect public health. Potential explosive
methane and other gases generated by decaying trash contribute to air pollution and affect
public safety. The conﬂict over aesthetic and real estate values and the increasing concern
for environmental quality around host communities are other issues. In addition, factors
such as noise, odors, and consequent heavy truck trafﬁc occurred around nice, quiet
neighborhoods also piled up the opposition (Raymond, 1989; Dunphy and Lin, 1991;
Mash 1991).

However, concerned with environmental pollution control and to reduce risk
potential, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required all landﬁlls to comply

with more strict standards effective in April 1994. The Subtitle D of the Federal Resource

37

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which established landﬁll design and
performance standards required landﬁlls to comply with certain criteria. These criteria
include: (a) double plastic liners; (b) leachate recovery pumps, a system to collect the rain
water and liquid (leachate) created when solid waste decomposes or breaks down; a place
to treat leachate after it has been collected; and a means to verify that nearby underground
water in not harmed; (c) gas collection or ﬂaring systems, a gas recovery system
(decaying trash releases methane gas); ((1) impenetrable covers -- 6 inches daily, 18
inches cap; and (e) 30 years monitoring plan after landﬁll closed -- which requires
monitoring gas, collecting leachate and preventing the cover from being disturbed. To
comply with these standards, a closed landﬁll is expected to provide a more secure
environment for the community and eventually more suitable for future reclamation.

Today, the problem of landﬁll siting is as difﬁcult as that of protecting a
wilderness area (Page, 1993) due to the strict regulations and increased opposition to
landﬁlls. These have not only reduced the hazardous landﬁll facilities, but also have
made landﬁlls harder to site, and increased waste processing expense (Page, 1993;

Dunphy & Lin, 1991; Arrandale, 1993).

lssug af Landﬁll Redevelaprpent - Landﬁll Rggpeatian Raglarpatiaa

A recent signiﬁcant trend involved landﬁll and recreation is so called landﬁll
recreation reclamation (LR). The increasing afﬂuence and leisure time and a growing
population have placed an increasing pressure on outdoor recreation development. While
new parkland becomes harder to ﬁnd, people begin to utilize a closed landﬁll site for

recreation deve10pment. For example, golf courses, community parks, ski hills, hiking

38

trails, and ball ﬁelds have been developed on or adjacent to closed landﬁlls. The
reclamation is considered beneﬁcial to both host communities and landﬁll developers due
to the factors such as low or no land cost, and additional recreational opportunities.
Besides recreation demand mentioned above, several other attributes that might be taken
into landﬁll recreation reclamation consideration and affect local elected ofﬁcials' beliefs
are discussed as follows:

(i) Property value -- The positive impact on surrounding land or property value
after reclaimed landﬁlls has been reported. For instance, golf course and science park
were built on closed landﬁlls in the city of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Since then, the
property values of land adjacent to Edmonton's landﬁlls went up 30 percent (Naber,
1987). The boosted land value of neighboring land in John F. Kennedy Presidential
Library, Boston is another example (Naber, 1987). The Renaissance Community Park
located on a landﬁll in Charlotte, North Carolina has increased land value and helped
revitalize southwest Charlotte (Golden, 1994).

(ii) Location -- Landﬁll location can affect what can be done. Naber (1987) noted
the John F. Kennedy presidential Library was built on Boston's Columbia Point, a former
landﬁll, thanks to its location near Boston and the scenic harbor view it affords. While the
growing communities gradually surround some previous remote landﬁlls, the creation of
additional recreation facilities may be a desirable solution for the communities.

(iii) Economics -- Economic factor is another factor that may signiﬁcantly
inﬂuence what can be done with a closed landﬁll. The acquisition costs for closed
landﬁlls are usually low compared with prices for surrounding land. However, the site

construction and maintenance costs are relatively higher. It is estimated at least 20

39

percent more than a more conventional site (Hurdzan, 1995; Rux, 1995). In some cases,
revenue production could be generated such as user fees resulting from golf courses, and
ballﬁelds.

(iv) Hazards and risks -- Nevertheless, to reclaim a closed landﬁll also has similar
problems rooted in the fears of risk to public health and safety. Methane gas generation
can cause a potential explosion danger. Settlement can cause foundations to crack or
effect drainage in the turf areas or sport ﬁelds, or affect roads or tennis courts surfaces.
Park users might be affected by the presence of hazardous waste materials or leachates on
site that can cause health concerns about using the facility. The problem of odors
generated from the decay of organic matter has potential to ruin the quality and
experience and discourage use of the recreation facility. These are potential hazards that
may exist on the reclaimed facility for a certain period of time. As in McCool and
Braithwaite's study (1992), they distinguished hazard as a set of circumstances that may
cause harmful consequences, and risk as the likelihood of being harmed by a hazard.
Along with the deﬁnition, the hazards involved in the LR included methane gas, waste
settlement, and leachate. And the risks are that people may be injured came from a
potential gas explosion, uneven ground settlement, and direct exposure to leachate. As
risks are a continuous concern in LR, more in-depth discussions follow.

McAndrew (1987) noted that a major difﬁculty people face when making
decisions involving environmental hazards is that they are trying to make decisions under
conditions of uncertainty. As Wilson and Crouch (1987) stated, "Risk implies
uncertainty, so that risk assessment is largely concerned with uncertainty and hence with

a concept of probability that is hard to grasp (p.267)." The perception of risk could cause

40

a difficulty in people's decision making. In review of landﬁll recreation development, the
risk dilemma somewhat causes hesitation in some communities to develop recreation
facilities on or adjacent to a landﬁll. The cases in the city of Urbana and the city of East
Lansing previously mentioned in chapter one are examples.

Previous risk acceptance studies show, perceived beneﬁts and perceived risks as
the two factors that have been discussed and compared in their role of importance in
studies of risk acceptance (Fischhoff, et al., 1978; Sokolowska and Tyszk, 1995). To
understand the impact of beneﬁts and dangers on acceptance of risky activities,
Sokolowska and Tyszk (1995) assumed that people use a two-step threshold strategy.
First, people evaluate the level of danger. They reject the activity if they consider the risk
level is too high. If the perceived risk level is acceptable (meet a certain threshold, low or
moderate risky activities), people look at the beneﬁts side and then perceived beneﬁts are
the main determinant of their attitude. The result of Sokolowska and Tyszk's (1995, p733)
study did support the assumption that acceptance of a activity with a low or moderate
degree of risk has been mostly inﬂuenced by perceived beneﬁts.

The concerns of residents' health and safety appear to have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence
on local government decision making. Last (1997) found in his study of local elected
ofﬁcials' decision making criteria that most zoning committee members' decisions were
motivated by a desire to prevent harm to landowner health or safety by the proposed land
use. If this is true, then the magnitude of perceived risk involved in landﬁll recreation
reclamation will play an important role in its acceptance. However, no study was found
that measured risk in that aspect. Nevertheless, in their study of the effect of risk beliefs

on property values, McClelland, et a1. (1990) found that a wide diversity of risk beliefs of

41

community residents exists towards a landﬁll. In general, two segments of responses are
found. Some residents believed the risk to be very small and rated it at 10'5 in a risk
ladder, which is approximately the risk from the average consumption of saccharin. The
others believed the risk to be large and rated it at 102, which is approximately the risk of
smoking at least one pack of cigarettes per day. However, 51% of respondents in the
study believed that health risk decline after landﬁll closure.

In addition, people may be not aware that time and proper engineering can resolve
some of the problems related to landﬁll recreation reclamation. Most methane generation
and waste settlement problems are expected to occur in the ﬁrst few years after landﬁll
closure. EPA's mandated methane and leachate monitoring and collection system can
minimize the hazard problem. Furthermore, methane gas is only dangerous when it is
contained in a closed structure. In an open environment, it is not dangerous (Treadaway,
1989). Planning and design landﬁll utilities with later recreation use in mind also can
mitigate the problems. Therefore, it can be assumed if perceived risks including potential
methane gas explosion, leachate contamination, ground surface settlement, were
considered as acceptable in a recreation setting, then local elected ofﬁcials' attitude
toward landﬁll recreation reclamation will be mostly inﬂuenced by perceived beneﬁts.

Beneﬁt, according to Driver, et a1. (1991), is a change that is viewed as
advantageous. In other words, a change is an improved or desired condition plus positive
impacts from production and use of leisure services or a gain to an individual, a group, to
society. In this case, perceived beneﬁts could be increasing property value, additional
recreation opportunities, and economic advantages in the aforementioned literature

review. The current study uses the assumption of perceived beneﬁts outweighing

42

perceived risks. That is, supporters will perceive higher beneﬁts resulting from landﬁll
recreation reclamation while still perceiving certain level of risks, and opponents will

perceive higher risk.

Attitude Study related to Landﬁll Recreation Reclamation

At the present, the only study found in attitude survey related to landﬁll recreation
reclamation was from the city of Urbana, Illinois. The landﬁll post-closure recreational
alternatives study (Heumann, et al., 1985) measures the impacts of conversion of the
landﬁll site on surrounding land use from the perspective of adjacent land owners, local
planners, real estate brokers, and developers. The study indicated the more intensive
recreational use of a closed landﬁll area, the more likely the revitalization will occur. The
study also reported that respondents indicated an active or a passive recreational use of
the landﬁll would cause an increase in the demand for housing within the impact area.
The respondents also projected land value increase after an active or a passive
recreational conversion, but decreased after a noisy recreational use or no change after a
revegetated alternative.

The landowners survey indicated that the active recreational alternative was most
favored, rather than the passive recreational alternative. It also showed a generally
positive response to all the conversion alternatives presented. The landowners
interviewed expressed the alternative use must be one that can revitalize the area. The
result of the planners, the real estate brokers, and developers interviewed showed all

alternative recreation uses (active, passive, noisy, revegetation) would beneﬁt the

43

surrounding area, with the exception of the noisy recreation use.

Alternative recreation activities regarding revenue production were also examined
using site constraints, development costs, maintenance costs, surrounding impacts, and
perceived demand. The study concluded that several revenue producing activities (i.e.,
golf, trailer camping) can be integrated with non-revenue producing activities such as
hiking and a wildlife observation corridor.

Despite the positive results obtained from the study, the city did not convert the
landﬁll into a recreation area due to the great health and safety concerns from the city
management ofﬁcials (Fletcher, 1997). Therefore, to examine local elected ofﬁcials'
attitudes toward landﬁll recreation reclamation in their community becomes an integral

part of the community recreation development.

The Conceptual Framework for the Study

Perceived beneﬁts and perceived risks of the development of a closed landﬁll into
an outdoor recreation area have become a prominent issue. As controversy has grown, it
has become apparent that little is known about whether local elected ofﬁcials support or
oppose landﬁll recreation reclamation. Thus, such problems may be aided by the studies
of attitudes of local elected ofﬁcials, based on the Ajzen and Fishbein's theory.

Research on the planned behaviors has demonstrated that when volitional control
becomes questionable, the addition of perceived behavioral control signiﬁcantly improves
prediction of intentions as well as prediction of behavioral achievement (Ajzen and

Madden 1986; Ajzen, 1988). In the present study, the decision of local elected ofﬁcials

was considered more toward goal-directed issues, while their major duties concerned the
value of community growth. In addition, their decision making was also inﬂuenced by
some external control factors such as funding, location. Thus, the study was mainly based
on the theory of planned behavior to develop an instrument to assess local elected
ofﬁcials' attitudes toward landﬁll recreation reclamation.

That is, the intention to support landﬁll recreation reclamation (LR) depends on a
local elected ofﬁcial's attitude toward attaining the goal of community growth
(development, beneﬁts), on perceived social pressure to attain it, and on perceived
behavior control over goal attainment. Beliefs concerning the likely consequences of the
LR inﬂuence the attitude toward the goal. The attitude beliefs of likely consequences may
be categorized into perceived beneﬁts and perceived risks. Perceived beneﬁts may be
based on perceived economic gain or improvement of community living conditions,
while perceived risks are mainly inﬂuenced by NIMBY syndrome in terms of previous
landﬁll perceptions and risk concerns. Community situations such as awareness, interests,
recreation demand, preference, and resources could have an impact on the attitude beliefs
as well as the other two determinants, normative beliefs and control beliefs. Normative
beliefs that signiﬁcant referents from the community would approve of making an effort
to support the reclamation inﬂuence the subjective norms. Control beliefs about likely
facilitating or obstacle factors that the community possessed underlie perceived behavior
control. A diagram of this conceptual framework based on the theory of planned behavior
is presented in Figure 2-1.

Several different techniques are associated with attitude measurement. However,

the semantic differential method, Thurstone's method, and Likert scaling may be the most

45

ﬁequently used scaling method. The attitude measurement used for the current study is
mainly based on the semantic differential and Likert scale. Attitude measurement could
be conducted by testing a person's location on a unipolar or bipolar evaluative or affective
dimension regarding landﬁll recreation reclamation.

Attitudes toward the act (Aact) can be measured by asking each respondent to rate
each consequence belief toward LR on a Likert scale. According to the theory, a local
elected ofﬁcial's attitude toward his or her support of LR can be estimated by multiplying
his or her evaluation of each attribute associated with LR by the subjective probability
that the practice has that attribute, then summing the products for all beliefs. However,
the study did not use the product of attitude beliefs and affective evaluation suggested by
Aj zen's theory. The operation was modiﬁed to ﬁt the study context. This is further
explained in the methodology section.

The subjective norms (SN) measure how a local elected ofﬁcial felt about
important others' assessment of his/her performing the behavior on a Likert scale. The SN
is quantiﬁed by summing the products of normative beliefs multiplied by the motivation
to comply for referents. Normative beliefs, the respondent's perceptions of relevant
referents' expectations regarding whether or not supporting LR, are measured by asking
the respondent to rate on an unipolar Likert scale. Motivation to comply with each
referent's expectations is measured by asking each local elected ofﬁcial the degree of
agreement with each referent's expectation.

Perceived behavior control (PBC) is measured by rating of several barriers and
opportunities toward LR. The responses are recorded on a bipolar Likert scale such as

Likely to Unlikely. Their perceived importance of these factors in their decision making

46

 

Community situations:
NIMBY awareness, interests, resources, needs,
opportunities, expectations, preferences

1 r—J """""

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

  
    
   
 

Previous (i)

Perceptions: Improvement

knowledge, of conditions

feeling & (ii) Economic

concerns. gain

v” """"" ‘v
Perceived Perceived
Risks Beneﬁts
1 T ...............
,/ ------- .\-\
Theory of ./ : : \
Planned // I 1 \
Behavior ' I ' \.
Attitudes Normative Control \.
beliefs beliefs beliefs \\
! J l i. \1
I Attitudes Subjective Perceived
I toward the behavior
- norms
! act control
-' l
l
l
‘. I
\. Intention /'
\. of Support j,
\\ vs. /
\\ Opposition //
\‘ /'
\‘ /'
\‘\‘ / /'

Figure 2-1. The Conceptual Framework of the Study

47

§—~-—a——

is measured on this unipolar Likert scale. The product of the scores of each barrier or
opportunity multiplied by the perceived importance represented the measure of perceived
behavior control.

Behavioral intentions (BI), the respondent's intention to perform a speciﬁc
behavior (i.e., support or oppose the hypothetical development proposal) is measured by a
bipolar Likert scale.

The above conceptual framework was adopted as a guideline for the development I
of the instrument in testing the theory and to identify the underlying factors that affect the

intentions to support landﬁll recreation reclamation. Hypotheses were then designed

 

according to the theoretical framework and are presented below.

I-

Research Hypotheses

Hypotheses were mainly designed to examine the relationships between attitude
toward the act (Aact), subjective norms (SN), perceived behavior control (PBC), and
behavioral intentions. As stated in the literature review, the relationships of the
attitudinal, normative and control determinants of the theory with behavioral intentions
should be positively related, and four hypotheses were formed and stated in the null
hypotheses form.

The following hypotheses examine the relationships between each determinant
(Aact, SN, PBC) and behavioral intentions.

H,: No relationship exists between the local elected ofﬁcials’ attitude toward the

act and their behavior intentions to support landﬁll recreation reclamation.

48

H,: No relationship exists between the local elected ofﬁcials’ subjective norms
and their behavioral intentions to support landﬁll recreation reclamation.

H,: No relationship exists between the local elected ofﬁcials’ perceived behavior
control and their behavioral intentions to support landﬁll recreation reclamation.

The following hypothesis explores the relationship between three determinants
(attitudes toward the act, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control) and
behavioral intentions.

H,: No linear relationship exists between the overall effects of the three
determinants (attitudes toward the act, subjective norms and perceived behavior control)
and the local elected ofﬁcial' behavioral intentions to support landﬁll recreation
reclamation.

Three determinants (attitudes toward the act, subjective norms, and perceived
behavior control) of the theory of planned behavior are considered as independent
variables to predict the behavior intentions toward landﬁll recreation reclamation
(dependent variable). Based on the above review and design, chapter three presents the
processes of instrument development, sample design, data collection and analysis

procedures.

49

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS

The purpose of this study is to assess local elected ofﬁcials' attitude toward
landﬁll recreation reclamation. This study examines the differences in local elected
ofﬁcials' attitude toward the recreation uses of closed landﬁll(s) which are located close
to their constituents. Thus the factors that affect the local elected ofﬁcials' support and the
degree of support of landﬁll recreation reclamation were investigated. This chapter
presents the methodologies and procedures of the research including the following
sections: study areas, population selection and sampling frame, determination of sample

size, sample derivation, development of survey instruments, and data collection.

Sample Design

Study Areas

The major emphasis of this study was to survey, with a self-administered
instrument, a representative cross section of local elected ofﬁcials serving in a
municipality in southern lower Michigan in 1998. The study areas were selected based on
the following considerations:

First, the demand of parkland was considered. The need of landﬁll recreation
reclamation is considered low in northern Michigan due to the scarce population results

in less demand of parkland. Besides, more choices for the location of recreation space are

50

available. This is in contrast to southern lower Michigan where population density is
greater and less open space is available for the growing population. Thus the need of
landﬁll recreation reclamation is comparatively higher.

Second, the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board stated in their 1996
annual report, 329 applications requested a total of 68.9 million dollars in grant assistance
for recreation land acquisition and development, and ﬁnal approval was given to forty
land acquisitions and twenty-six development proposals. Among forty land acquisition
proposals, more than half of the proposals were made by counties in southern lower
Michigan (MDNR, 1996).

Third, Sherman (1997), a physical engineer in the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ), stated that currently active landﬁll sites still are
producing revenue, therefore, some funding could be set aside for future planning and
development of potential recreation facilities associated with landﬁll reclamation. Also
pre-planning can be established so that landﬁll operation would shape how the landﬁll
can be used for ﬁrture recreation. These active landﬁll sites are regulated under the
Michigan Act 641 and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1994 regulations.
The EPA regulations require landﬁll using double plastic liners, a monitoring system, and
impenetrable covers. As a result, it provides a much safer use environment than previous
landﬁll sites that did not have a gas and leachate collection system. Therefore, the study

area was focused on southern lower Michigan, which includes forty-one counties.

S ' La d Is ' o hern Lowe Mich' a
Michigan currently has 105 active landﬁlls according to the 1997 database from

the Waste Management Division of the MDEQ. Seventy-four of these active landﬁlls are

51

located in 28 counties in southern lower Michigan (See Figure 3-1). Among the 74 active
landﬁlls, 48 are Type II landﬁlls and 26 are Type III landﬁlls (See deﬁnition in the
chapter one). Nine out of seventy-four of these landﬁlls are closed under the 30 years
monitoring requirements. Sixteen out of the seventy—four active landﬁlls are owned by
government agencies; the remaining ﬁfty-eight landﬁlls are owned by private ﬁrms. The
total acreage of these landﬁlls, including buffer areas, ranging from less than 20 acres to
more than 400 acres. Approximately 33% of the landﬁlls are below 20 acres; 39% of the
landﬁlls are between 21 and 65 acres; 9% of the landﬁlls ranged from 80 to 110 acres;

and 19% of the landﬁlls are over 110 acres.

tud o ulati n and Sam lin r m

The study population includes local elected ofﬁcials in southern lower Michigan
municipalities (cities and townships) that have at least one active landﬁll regulated under
EPA's 1994 regulation and Michigan Act 641, either currently under operation or closed
under monitoring. Therefore, the study population was selected in two phases. Phase one,
municipalities that have at least one active landﬁll located within their boundaries were
identiﬁed within the twenty-eight counties mentioned earlier. In phase two, the city
council members and township board members that serve in these identiﬁed
municipalities were considered as the study population. More details are described in the
following sections.

In phase one, two steps were performed to identify the municipalities that have an
active landﬁll. Step one, a list of Michigan landﬁlls was obtained from the Waste

Management Division of MDEQ which contained information about landﬁlls, such as

52

names of municipalities, types of landﬁlls, ownership of landﬁlls, status of landﬁlls, and
landﬁll acreage. There are sixty-one municipalities in the study areas consisting of
seventy-four active landﬁlls mentioned earlier. Some municipalities contain more than
one landﬁll. Step two was taken to ensure that each identiﬁed municipality is a landﬁll
host. The jurisdiction location (based on facility address and section number) of each
landﬁll was searched and conﬁrmed by using either the Street Atlas USA software
(1997), county plat book (1997), or Michigan County Atlas (1989). Phone calls were
made to some landﬁll ofﬁces to conﬁrm their jurisdiction location where the landﬁll
address was not valid in the previous approach.

A major task in phase two was to obtain lists of names and mailing addresses of
local elected ofﬁcials from the sixty-one identiﬁed municipalities. Since no single source
contained all required name and address lists, the sampling frame was constructed based
on three sources, the Michigan Township Ofﬁcials Directory (1997), Carroll's
Municipal/County Directory (1997), and the Directory of Michigan Municipal Ofﬁcials
(1997). Each municipality has 5 to 8 city council members or township board members,
consisting of 382 local elected ofﬁcials used as the study population.

Conﬁrmation of the list of names was conducted because of the concern over
replacement of some local elected ofﬁcials in the 1997 November's election. An updated
name and addresses list was obtained by making phone calls to each municipality in an

attempt to reduce any hidden errors such as undelivered mail.

53

 

 

 

 

 

10
'11

.2 0

 

\S

  
  

   
 

CO_NA|£ CODE OOJMME

    
     

  
  
  
 

  
     
      
   

    

     

    
   

Alcona 30 Lake 38 1 6 1 7

Alger 06 Lapeer 62 ‘l 8

Allegan 64 Leelanau 20 Q 1 '

Alpena 24 Lenawee 82

Antrim 21 Livingston 68 ' 21 22 '23 24

Arenac 42 Luce O7

Baraga 04 Mackinac 15 25 25 27 28 29 30

Barry 65 Macomb 70 The Stud Area
Bay . , 48 Manistee 31 31 32 33 34 35 35 Y
36MB 25 Marquette 05 (Southern Lower
Berrien 77 Mason 37

    

Branch 80 Mecosta 45 541011183“)

Calhoun 73 Menominee 12

3'7 38 39 4O 41

     
   

Cass 78 Mlldland 47

Charlevoix 19 Mlssaukee 33 43 44 45 45
Cheboygan 17 Monroe 83

Chippewa 08 Montcalm 51 52
Clare 4O Montmorency 23

Clinton 59 Muskegon 50

Crawford 28 Newaygo 44

Delta 13 Oakland 69

Dickinson 1 1 Oceana 43

Eaton 66 Ogernaw 35

Emmet 18 Ontonagon 03

Genesee 61 Osceola 39

Gladwln 41 Oscoda 29

Gogeblc 09 013690 22

Gratlot 52 Ottawa 56

Grd.Traverse 26 Presque Isle 18

Hillsdale 81 Roscommon 34

Houghton 02 Saginaw 53

Huron 49 Sanilac 55

:gggam g8, ggpamwalcrassaﬂa g; g County with active landﬁll within the study area
losco 36 St. Clair 63

Iron 10 SLJoseph 79

arr-.12: #2 62:31.3... 3? s... m... produced 1.,
Kalamazoo 72 Washtenaw 75 The Michigan Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center
Kalkaska 27 Wayne 76

Kent 57 Wexford 32

Keweenaw 01

Figure 3-1. The Study Areas

54

Stratiﬁcation and Sample Salsctian

Stratiﬁcation by population size of the municipality was considered appropriate.
Consideration was given to the different recreation space demands of various
municipalities with different population sizes. Therefore, each class of selected
municipalities (i.e., city or township) was divided into two subgroups —- those
municipalities with a population under 10,000 and those with a population of 10,000 and
greater. The study areas contained thirty-nine municipalities with a population under
10,000 and twenty-two municipalities had a population of 10,000 or greater. This
approach ensured that the study had an adequate sample to represent each subgroup.
Separate lists were identiﬁed arranging municipalities according to their population size.
The list of the names of local elected ofﬁcials related to each subgroup was identiﬁed.
Therefore, the study population included 225 city council or township board members
from municipalities with a population under 10,000 and 157 city council or township
board members from municipalities with a population of 10,000 and greater. The ratio of
these two sub-groups is 1 to 1.43 for municipalities of populations 10,000 and greater and
municipalities with populations under 10,000.

As survey researcher Babble (1992) suggested, an ordered list is more useful in
obtaining a greater degree of representativeness and thus decreasing a probable sampling
error. The sample frame kept the order of geographic relationship. That is the sample
frame was ﬁrst listed in alphabetical order of county names and then listed in alphabetical
order of municipality names to insure that an appropriate number of samples were drawn
from the homogeneous group (i.e., same municipality). Under the alphabetical order,

ofﬁcials in each municipality were kept together instead of alphabetically sorting the list

55

by ofﬁcials' names. Once the ofﬁcials had been arranged by population size, a
systematically random sample was selected across the entire rearranged list from each

population subgroup for the required nlunber of respondents.

D emiatin Sale ize
To ensure an appropriate statistical analysis to be operated at the 95% conﬁdence
level with a sample error at 5%, an appropriate sample size of 190 was needed for the
study. The appropriate calculations of the sample size are based on the following statistic
formula.
110 = (4,92 . (pq /d2) and sample size n* = 110 /(1+ no/N)
where zd,2 = 1.96,
pq = (0.5*0.5) as assumed equal population proportion,
d = 5% sample error,
n* = sample size, and N = population size.
However, according to Hembroff (1998), a policy survey researcher at Michigan State
University, increasing the sample size will reduce the sample error resulting from the
cooperation rate and hidden errors such as missing lists or the wrong addresses. It was
also necessary because of the low response rate in the pilot survey. Therefore, the sample
size was proportionally increased to 243. This would ensure a sufﬁcient sample for the
two population subgroups for further analysis.
After sample size was determined, the sample of local elected ofﬁcials was
proportionally selected in 1 to 1.43 ratio from the two population subgroups, population
10,000 and greater and population under 10,000, respectively. This was to ensure same

proportion of samples were drawn from each population subgroup. For the pilot survey,

37 local elected ofﬁcials were systematically and randomly selected from the

56

municipalities with a population under 10,000. Twenty-six local elected ofﬁcials were
systematically and randomly selected from the municipalities with a population of 10,000
and greater. Thus, a total of 63 local elected ofﬁcials were selected to complete a pilot
questionnaire F orm-97. For the main survey, 143 local elected ofﬁcials were
systematically and randomly selected from municipalities with a population under
10,000. The remaining 100 samples were drawn from municipalities with a population of
10,000 and greater. Hence, a total of 243 local elected ofﬁcials were drawn from the

study population to complete a questionnaire F orm-98.

Development of Instrument

The new instrument developed in this study was an attitude inventory using a self-
adnrinistered questionnaire. The new attitude instrument was developed through the
following three phases (Light, 1976; Decker, 1980; Spector, 1992):

Phase I -- development of items for pilot questionnaire;

Phase H -- pilot questionnaire formatting, scaling, and testing (pilot survey), and
revising;

Phase III -- construction of questionnaire form-98 for the main survey.

Phasa I - Devalopment 91' Items for Pilot Questionnaire

The instrument development began with item development. The item
development was based on a person’ salient beliefs which Ajzen and Fishbein (1986)

considered as the immediate determinants of the person’s attitude and may be collected

57

using a free-response format (i.e., an open-ended questionnaire). Thus, an eliciting survey
with an open-ended questionnaire (Appendix A) was conducted to determine belief items
relevant to the three determinants: attitude toward the act (Aact), subjective norms (SN),
and perceived behavior control (PBC). The results of these salient beliefs were then used
in pilot questionnaire construction. The survey also avoided the appearance of belief
items of no concern to local decision-makers on the ﬁnal questionnaire.

Thirty questionnaires were distributed to randomly selected local elected ofﬁcials
with a cover letter. A qualitative content analysis of responses was conducted and most
frequently mentioned items related to each determinant were retained as the basis for the
formulation of the pilot questionnaire. Table 3-1 shows the results of the eliciting survey
which included sixteen consequence beliefs for attitude toward landﬁll recreation
reclamation, eight referents for subjective norms, and seven control beliefs for perceived
behavior control.

Additional information obtained from the literature review and consultation with
personnel associated with landﬁlls such as state agents and engineer consultants were also

considered in the development of the pilot questionnaire.

Phase II - Pilot Questionnaire Formatting, Scaling, Testing and Revising

The pilot questionnaire (see Appendix B) was designed with three parts. Part one
included 7 scales to examine local elected ofﬁcials’ perceptions toward landﬁll
reclamation. Part two asked questions related to knowledge of landﬁll operation,
preference of alternative landﬁll end use, and regulation concerns. Part three was

designed to obtain information about (1) community recreation need, any end use plan,

58

Table 3-1. Frequency of the Eliciting Survey related to Consequence Beliefs, Normative
Beliefs, and Control Beliefs.

 

Eliciting Response Response Literature
frequency review

Consequence beliefs:

 

 

 

Provide additional recreational opportunities 67% observed
User safety and concern of settlement (stability of ground) 44% observed
Large wide open space suitable for rec. 44% observed
Fiscal responsibility, up-front capital costs 44% observed
Potential liability with recreational facility on landﬁll 33% observed
Funding or grant available, using tipping fees 33% observed
Good for public relations 22% observed
Public support/acceptance within community 22% observed
Image: turn negative to positive 22% observed
Maintenance concern 22% observed
Good use of open space, maximize available land use 22% observed
Cost: inexpensive source (if given by landﬁll owners) 11% observed
Increase surrounding land values 11% observed
Generate additional revenues observed
Inﬂuence of previous dump/landﬁll image observed
Not as pleasant as a regular recreation facility observed
Normative beliefs:

Township board of trustees & city council members; township 89%

ofﬁcials -- (related department) directors of public works, ﬁnance,
purchasing, park and recreation

Experts from recreation advisory committee, planning committee, 78%
consulting architects and engineers

State agency (DNR, DEQ) 33%
County commissioners, county related staff 33%
Landﬁll owners (support from owners) 33%
Local media, local journalists 22%
Residents/voters l 1%
Professional organizations, special interested groups: ML 11%

(Michigan municipal league), MUCCC, MRPA
Control Beliefs:

Always need more parkland, community needs 33%
Ownership concern -- funding from owner, opposition from owner 33%
Self-supporting concern (minimization of up-front capital costs) 33%
Potential health hazard and concern 22%
Funding concern -- available funding 22%
Acceptance concern -- public perceptions, community approve 22%
Locations -— suitability 22%

 

59

and current status of landﬁll; and (ii) local elected ofﬁcials' awareness of landﬁll

recreation reclamation and experience involving landﬁll permission granting.

Items F 'n nd S all

Measara of attitude toward the act.

The testing of the theory of planned behavior with the three determinants and
behavior intention was included in part one of the questionnaire. The attitude toward the
act (Aact) was inﬂuenced by a local elected ofﬁcial’s beliefs that the event has certain
attributes and by his/her evaluation of those attributes. Therefore, the Aact was examined
in two sections. The consequence belief section evaluated local elected ofﬁcials’
perceived salient consequences of landﬁll reclamation project with 16 items (see example
in Table 3-2). The evaluation of the belief strength section examined local elected
ofﬁcials' preference toward a landﬁll reclamation project with 8 items (see example in

Table 3-2). Each statement was rated on a 5-point agree-disagree Likert scale.

Table 3-2. Example of Item Statement, Response Choice, and Scale Value for
Consequence Belief and Preference Evaluation

 

Item statement Response choice
Consequence belief:
LR provides additional recreational opportunities for the community SA --- PA -- NC --- PD --- SD

 

 

 

LR produces an unacceptable health hazard for public use SA --- PA --- NC --- PD --- SD
Preference evaluation:

I like the land reuse strategy, landﬁll reclamation (LR), for our SA --- PA --- NC --- PD --- SD
community

I am worried about the potential safety hazards in the ﬁeld SA --- PA --- NC --- PD --- SD

 

Scale value:
SA = Strongly Agree (2), PA = Partially Agree (1), NC = No Comment (0), PD = Partially Disagree (-l),
SD = Strongly Disagree (-2).

60

According to the theory, belief strength associated with each outcome should be
assessed in addition to assessing consequence beliefs. However, the current study
contained a different approach from Ajzen's theory in evaluating belief strength. The
reasons for this alteration are based on the committee's concerns and the potential
problem found in the literature review.

First, according to the theory of planned behavior, belief strength associated with
each of the salient consequences should be evaluated. Then, the attitude toward the act is
predicted by the sum of the product of each item of the consequence beliefs multiplied by
each item of the belief strength. However, the committee members were concerned about
the same set of items used in two sections in the questionnaire that may cause confusion
and result in many no responses in the other section.

Second, Kiely (1979) indicated a potential error that may occur in the
multiplication operation suggested by the theory. The data interpretation can be
ambiguous since the same attitude score would arise for either support or opposition. For
example, it can be ambiguous that whether the high scores in the attitude item were a
result of many respondents strongly believing that LR provides additional recreation
opportunities (+2) and strongly favor the action (+2), or to the contrary, the high scores
were a result of many respondents strongly believe it did not provide additional recreation
opportunities (-2) and strongly oppose the increasing recreation opportunities (-2). Both
situations will give a product score of +4. Local elected ofﬁcials may believe that LR
allows revitalization of the adjacent areas (+2), but strongly oppose the consequence (-2).
The same score may be achieved when an ofﬁcial strongly believes that revitalization

will not occur (-2), but strongly favor the consequence (+2). The results provide no

61

meaningful information for further analysis.

Third, the review of literature also found that some studies applying the theory of
planned behavior have different approaches in the measurement of attitude toward the act.
For example, only the consequence belief dimension was adopted in F edler's (1981) study
of attitude toward participating in recreation activities. In van Ryn's (1996) study of
health behavior, the attitude measure toward exercise was measured by the perceived
beneﬁts of exercise and perceived susceptibility to heart attack. The health study did not
use the same item in the consequence belief to evaluate the belief strength. In both
Netemeyer's (1991) voting behavior study and Norman’s (1996) attitude toward attending
a health check study only the direct measure of attitude was used. Belief strength was not
assessed in either study. It appeared that modiﬁcations were made to meet different
circumstances in various studies.

In the current study, the evaluation of the belief strength section was modiﬁed to
focus on assessing affective factors in terms of their preference toward LR. Eight
statements related to liking or disliking the LR outcomes were used instead of the 16
consequence belief items. The sum score of a total set of the consequence belief section
and the preference section represents a local elected ofﬁcial’s attitude toward the act in
question.

Measura of supiactjve norms.

The subjective norms (SN) were assessed by normative beliefs and motivation to
comply with referents. Thus, the SN also was measured in two sections. The normative
belief section assessed the expectations of eight referents such as state agents, county

commissioners, derived from the results of the phase I open-ended survey. The local

62

elected ofﬁcials indicated the likelihood they think that each referent would support a
closed sanitary landﬁll reclamation for recreation use in their community. A bipolar 5—
point Likert scale ranging from 2 (very likely) to -2 (very unlikely) was used. In the
compliance section, respondents were asked to address the degree to which they would
comply with each referent’s opinion on an unipolar 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(never) to 5 (very much). See Table 3-3.

The product score was obtained from the score of each normative belief
multiplied by the score of the corresponding item of compliance. The sum of the eight
product scores constituted the belief-based measure of subjective norms. The summing
scores indicated how much the local elected ofﬁcials cared whether the referents
approved or disapproved of their support of landﬁll recreation reclamation in their
community.

e o rc 'ved havi c ntrol.
The perceived behavior control (PBC) examined the local elected ofﬁcials' beliefs

regarding the importance of perceived external factors in his/her decision making, and the

Table 3-3. Example of Item Statement, Response Choice, and Scale Value for Normative
Belief and the Degree of Compliance.

 

 

 

 

 

Item statement Response choice
Normative belief:
Your county commissioners VL -- L --- NS --- UL --- VUL“
Your colleagues (township board or city council members VL -- L -—- NS -- UL --- VUL
Degree of compliance:
Your county comnrissioners VM --- AL --- O --- S --- N "
Your colleagues (township board or city council members) VM --- AL --- O --- S --- N

 

Scale value:
"' VL = Very Likely (2), L = Likely (1), NS = Not Sure (0), UL = Unlikely (-1), VUL = Very Unlikely (-2)
*"' VM = Very Much (5), AL = Always (4), O = Often (3), S = Sometimes (2), N = Never (1)

63

perceptions of the presence or absence of these factors may inﬂuence their intention to
support landﬁll recreation reclamation. Thus, the PBC was also measured in two sections.
The control belief section was to examine opportunities, resources, or barriers a local
elected ofﬁcial perceived in his/her community. These factors included recreation
demand, residents' attitude, and funding which were obtained from the phase I open-
ended survey. The local elected ofﬁcials expressed their beliefs regarding each of seven
factors on a bipolar 5-point Likert scale (Table 3-4) that ranged from 2 (very likely) to -2
(very unlikely).

The important factor section was to examine important factors considered in the
local elected ofﬁcials' decision making. These were measured by an unipolar 5-point
Likert scale with an endpoint labeled "very much" (5) and "never" (1), see Table 3-4.

The product score was obtained from the score of each control belief multiplied
by the score of the corresponding item of important factor to obtain a product score. The
sum of seven product scores constituted the belief-based measure of perceived behavior

control.

Table 34. Example of Item Statement, Response Choice, and Scale Value for Control
Belief and Important Factors in Decision-making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item statement Response choice

Control belief:

No available funds for development VL --- L --- NS --- UL --- VUL"

Low community recreational demand exists in your area VL --- L --- NS --- UL --- VUL

Important factor in decision-making:

No available funds for development VM --- AL --- O --- S --- N "

Low community recreational demand exists in your area VM --- AL --- O m S --- N
Scale value:

* VL = Very Likely (2), L = Likely ( l ), NS = Not Sure (0), UL = Unlikely (-l), VUL = Very Unlikely (-2)
*‘ W = Very Much (5), AL = Always (4), O = Often (3), S = Sometimes (2), N = Never ( l)

Behavioral intention to support landﬁll recreation reclamation in their community
was assessed with two items using a bipolar 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 2 (very
likely) to -2 (very unlikely). The sum score was obtained to measure the local elected
ofﬁcials’ behavior intention. See Table 3-5.

After item development, each questionnaire item statement was further examined
for its wording and meaning (Spector, 1992). For example, whether an item statement is
short, clear, well written, and contained a single idea. Then, these items were reviewed by
the dissertation committee and accordingly revised the items based on the committee's
comments and suggestions. A pilot survey was then administrated to test the newly

developed instrument.

Table 3-5. Example of Item Statement, Response Choice, and Scale Value for Behavioral
Intention

 

Item statement Response choice
Behavioral intention:
I would be willing to propose a reclamation project to the proper VL --- L --- NS --- UL --- VUL"
Committee for consideration
I would approve a project of recreation development on VL m L --- NS --- UL --- VUL
a closed landﬁll when it is brought to board meeting

Scale value:
" VL = Very Likely (2), L = Likely (1), NS = Not Sure (0), UL = Unlikely (-l), VUL = Very Unlikely (~2)

110 u - l I tru ent Te ti
The pilot questionnaire was mailed to the sixty-three selected city council
members or township board members in southern lower Michigan. As a result, twenty-

one out of sixty-three (33 percent) of the selected local elected ofﬁcials returned their

65

questionnaires. The pilot survey aimed to collect responses to each scale for analysis and
reﬁnement of the pilot questionnaire prior to their inclusion in the questionnaire Form-98.

W

The reﬁnement of the pilot questionnaire was mainly based on item analysis. In
addition, each individual item was inspected for skip patterns, non-response, and question
order problems.

The item analysis is to examine the internal consistency of each scale and to
produce a tentative version of a scale. In other words, the item analysis aims to ﬁnd those
items that form an internally consistent scale and to delete those items that do not
interrelate. Internal consistency among a set of items suggests that they share a common
variance or implies they measure the same underlying construct. A scale ideally should
have reliability, in terms of a coefﬁcient alpha, of at least 0.70 (Spector, 1992; Bourque
and Clark, 1992) to be considered as a reliable scale.

Thus, the revision of the pilot instrument was mainly based on the results of the
item analysis for reliability. The negatively worded item score was reversed to form the
same direction prior to item analysis. Corrected item-total correlation was used as a
selection criterion to delete or retain item to form the best scale possible. The corrected
item-total correlation reﬂects the contribution of each item to the reliability of the scale.
A positive corrected item-total correlation indicates that the item contributes to the
reliability.

The statistics for corrected item-total correlation were presented in Table 3-6.
Their mean, standard deviation, range, were presented in Appendix C, Table l. The pilot

questionnaire revision was based on the following ﬁndings.

66

Measure of attitude tgward the act:

The coefﬁcient alpha of consequence beliefs (16 items) was 0.75, preference (8
items) was 0.77, and the coefﬁcient alpha for all 24 items was 0.86. However, initial item
analysis revealed several low intercorrelation items in the attitude toward the act scale.
First, the wording of some of these relatively low item-total correlation (ranging from
0.068 to 0.145, Table 36) items were reﬁned and retained in the scale to ensure adequate
content coverage. These items included item 3 (undesirable landﬁll image), item 9
(decline of adjacent land value), item 14 (involved a liability problem), item 16
(unacceptable health hazard) in the consequence belief section, and item 4 (feels annoyed
about potential risk) in the preference section.

Second, item 5 (available funding) and item 7 (inexpensive way for land
acquisition) in consequence belief were deleted due to the low item-total correlation and
similar questions were asked in the perceived behavior control section. Item 6
(development cost) in the consequence belief section was deleted due to the low corrected
item-total correlation and the respondents seemed not quite aware of the cost as several
respondents did not answer the question.

Megure of subjective pgpps:

Measure of subjective norms was based on the product of normative beliefs and
the degree of compliance. The coefﬁcient alpha of the product of the two scales was 0.76.
Most of corrected item-total correlations were 0.45 and above (Table 3-6), except item 3
(colleague) and item 8 (interested group). However, the deletion of these two items from
the scale would not maximize the scale variance signiﬁcantly. Therefore, no further

revision was made and the eight referents were all retained in the questionnaire Form-98.

67

 

Table 3-6. Item-total Statistics for Pilot Survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Scale Corrected
Items # ' Mean Variance Item- Alpha Items
Pilot surve if Item if Item Total if Item revised or
Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted Alpha deleted
Behavioral intentions: (Section VII, N=18) 0.944
INTEl I 0.833 1.324 0.894 .
INTEZ 0.889 1.399 0.894 .
Attitude Beliefs: (BC in Section I, BCEV in Section III, N=19) 0.858
BCl 13.158 115.918 0.409 0.854
BC2 13.000 114.667 0.647 0.845
BC3 15.211 125.175 0.095 0.867 BC6“
BC4 14.421 118.035 0.370 0.855
BC5 14.105 126.766 0.142 0.860 Deleted
BC6 14.895 125.544 0.199 0.859 Deleted
BC7 13.579 124.257 0.335 0.855 Deleted
BC8 14.579 1 16.480 0.531 0.849
BC9 13.105 126.544 0.068 0.866 BC8“
BC10 13.421 123.035 0.366 0.854
BC] 1 13.105 118.433 0.782 0.846
BC12 13.526 1 13.485 0.779 0.841
BC13 13.263 1 15.871 0.656 0.845
BC14 15.158 126.140 0.145 0.860 BCI 1"
BC15 13.263 117.871 0.596 0.848
BC16 13.211 125.287 0.135 0.863 BC12“
BCEVl 12.947 122.497 0.385 0.854
BCEVZ 12.842 1 17.807 0.666 0.846
BCEV3 13.421 108.702 0.642 0.843
BCEV4 14.842 127.140 0.105 0.861 BCEV8"
BCEVS 13.895 1 15.766 0.494 0.850
BCEV6 13.053 114.830 0.816 0.842
BCEV7 14.368 115.357 0.443 0.852
BCEV8 12.895 1 17.766 0.753 0.845
Normative Beliefs: (Section IV’SectionVI, N=l6) 0.755
PRO_N01 18.250 126.333 0.545 0.731
PRO_N02 17.500 160.000 0.669 0.694
PRO_NO3 16.688 188.496 0.215 0.767 Retained
PRO_NO4 15.563 167.329 0.539 0.716
PRO__N05 17.813 160.296 0.557 0.710
PRO_NO6 19.938 180.196 0.458 0.732
PRO__NO7 17.000 157.333 0.580 0.705
PRO_N08 19.000 202.667 0.156 0.767 Retained

 

 

68

Table 3-6 (Cont’d)

 

 

 

 

Scale Scale Corrected

Items # in Mean Variance Item- Alpha Iterrrs
Pilot if Item if Item Total if Item Alpha revised or
survey Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted deleted
Control Beliefs: (Section II‘ Section V, N=18) 0.215

PRO_CTI -2.056 115.467 -0.053 0.303 Revised
PRO_CTZ 1.444 124.026 -0.034 0.254 Revised
PRO_CT 3 -0.167 85.441 0.218 0.055 Revised
PRO_CI‘ 4 -2.389 117.781 0.083 0.194 Revised
PRO_CT 5 -2.278 1 18.801 0.034 0.220 Revised
PRO_CI‘ 6 -2.500 97.206 0.185 0.106 Revised
PRO_CI‘7 -0.722 100.918 0.151 0.137 Revised

 

* Item was revised and retained in the Form 98 (i.e., BC3 in pilot was revised into
BC6 in Form 98).

Measjap pf pergsived behavidr sontrdl:

The item analysis of the perceived behavior control scale resulted in a low
coefﬁcient alpha 0.22 (Table 3-6). Corrected item-total correlations of these items were
low, ranged ﬁ'om 0.034 to 0.218. As shown in the correlation matrix, most of the items
have relatively low correlation with the other items. It could be the conceptual framework
for this construct was weak or inappropriate for the respondent group (Spector, 1992).
Additional literature was reviewed to ﬁnd other factors used in local elected ofﬁcials'
decision making to ensure items used in the scale would be able to measure the PBC
determinant. All seven items were rephrased and one item related to revitalization of
surrounding areas was added into the questionnaire Form-98.

Measure of behavidral intentioa:

For the behavioral intention scale, the results of the item analysis show that a high
intercorrelation was found with a coefﬁcient alpha of 0.94. Scale variance was

maximized and no revision was needed.

69

mantles;

In part two of the pilot questionnaire, ﬁve items relating to local elected ofﬁcials'
knowledge of landﬁll operation were deleted. It was based on the results of the
independent-samples t-test indicating no signiﬁcant difference between low and high
intention groups in knowledge aspect except in the preplanning approach (Table 3-7).

It has to be noted here that the higher mean scores within the collection system indicated

the respondents were generally quite aware of EPA’s regulations. However, the

Table 3-7. Knowledge Differences between Low and High Intention Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

low and N Mean“ T Sig.
high (2-tailed)
mtentron

Gas monitoring /collection system Low 8 1.63 -0.447 0.661
High 9 1.78

Leachate collection system Low 8 1.25 -l .921 0.088
High 9 1.89

30 years monitoring periods Low 8 1.25 -1.525 0.158
High 9 1.78

First 5 years settlement Low 8 0.25 -l.852 0.085
High 8 0.88

Rarely gas explosions Low 8 0.38 -1.141 0.273
High 8 0.88

Little harm in properly closed landﬁll Low 8 0.63 -1 . 181 0.256
High 9 1.11

Preplanning minimize safety concerns Low 8 0.75 -2.311 0.035
High 9 1.56

Mega-landﬁll replace township landﬁll Low 8 0.63 -1.141 0.273
High 8 1.13

More suitable size of mega landﬁll for rec. Low 8 0.50 -0.447 0.662
High 8 0.75

 

' SA = Strongly Agree (2). PA = Partially Agree (1 ). NC = No Comment (0). PD = Partially Disagree (-1).
SD = Strongly Disagree (-2).

70

respondents were uncertain about the settlement and potential for gas explosions. Another
modiﬁcation was performed to change the wording and format of alternative use
questions. It was used to reﬂect the non-response problem that occurred in the pilot
survey.

Overall, the results of the item analysis of the newly developed instrument show
all scales had acceptable reliability except the measure of perceived behavior control.
These items were then used in the formulation of the questionnaire Form-98 related to the

theoretical framework.

h - ° nna'r F r -

The questionnaire Form-98 (Appendix D) consisted of two portions:

First, the instruction portion explained the overall structure of the questionnaire
and a note for the arbitrary use of "support" instead of "opposition" in the wording.

Second, the measurement portion was composed of two parts, (I) Perceptions
toward landﬁll reclamation, and (II) Landﬁll and you. The ﬁrst part mainly consisted of
seven sections for testing the theory in terms of three determinants and the behavior
intention statements as mentioned in the pilot questionnaire construction. Each section
measured one of the constructs of the theory: (i) Your views toward landﬁll recreation
reclamation -- a relatively direct measure of three determinants and behavioral intentions,
(ii) Your perceptions of community support for measuring normative beliefs,
(iii) Important factors in your decision making for evaluating strength of perceived
behavior control, (iv) Your preference toward a landﬁll recreation reclamation for

assessing preference, (v) Attitudes and limitations you perceived in your community for

71

measuring perceived behavior control, (vi) Your perceived consequences and anticipated
risks or beneﬁts for measuring consequence beliefs, (vii) Agreement with the referents'
opinion for measuring compliance.

The second part was designed to collect information about community recreation
needs, status of the landﬁll, ownership, ofﬁcials' awareness of landﬁll reclamation, and
experiences with the landﬁll permit granting process. It was divided into two sections
with the following headings, (i) About landﬁll issues, alternative end uses, and regulation

concerns; (ii) About you and your community.

Measurement

In Part One, a set of evaluative semantic differential scales with seven items as
direct measure of the three determinants (Aact, SN, and PBC) was added into the
questionnaire F orm-98. For Aact, six items with a closed, semantic differential format
were used to rate item on 7-point bipolar adjective scales for attitude, see example in
Table 3-8. The sum of these six items served as a direct measure of attitude toward the
act. For SN, one item assessed social pressure in a more global fashion, which used a 7-
point "approve" versus "disapprove" scale (see example in Table 3-8). For PBC, one item
measured the overall perceived behavior control on a 7-point scale (see example in Table
3-8). The behavior intention scale was also changed from a 5-point to a 7-point Likert
scale. After recode, its scale value ranged from 3 (extremely likely) to -3 (extremely
unlikely). That is 7 became —3, 4 became 0, and I became +3. The measure of attitude
beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs were all rated on the same 5-point scale

used in the pilot questionnaire.

72

Table 3-8. Example of Item Statement, Response Choice, and Scale Value for Direct
Measure of Aact, SN, and PBC

 

Direct measure of Aact‘:

Extremely very slightly neutral slightly very extremely
5 6 7---- foolish
5 6 7 ----- risky

J>

wise l 2 3
beneﬁcial l 2 3

Direct measure of SN“:
If I support LR development in my community, most people who are important to me would

4L

 

approve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7--- disapprove

Direct measure of PBC:
How much control do you have with the LR development in your community?

 

 

very little control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7--- complete control

" Scale value for the scale was recoded to indicate the degree of positive and negative response, ranged
from +3 to —3. For example, 7 became -3, 4 became 0, and I became +3.

Data Collection

urve i is a

The revised instrument (Form-98) was administrated by mail to a new sample of
243 selected township board members and council members drawn from the same
population. A cover letter and a self-addressed, stamped envelope for returning the
questionnaire were included. A postcard reminder was sent one week after the initial
mail. Approximately two weeks later, 28.4% (69) ofﬁcials returned the questionnaire.

The ﬁrst follow-up mailings were then administered to increase response rates. A
follow-up letter and a new copy of the survey questionnaire were sent to non-respondents,
and additional 46 responses were received. Thus the response rate increased to 47.3%.
The second follow-up letter was sent two weeks later after the ﬁrst follow-up mailing,
and ten ofﬁcials responded to the ﬁnal request. Overall the total response rate was 51.4
percent, 125 out of the 243 local elected ofﬁcial samples. Among the 125 returned

questionnaires, 118 were usable. Among 118 usable participants, 76 are ﬁom the

73

population under 10,000 and 42 are from the population 10,000 and greater.

No mail was undeliverable because of the veriﬁcation effort described above.
Two cases were unusable because of missing data. Five respondents returned the
questionnaire blank at the end of follow-up stage, and indicated they were not able to
complete the questionnaire since they have no idea or knowledge about the LR project.
Thus, this would provide one explanation for those non-respondents. Also the responses
were deemed adequate to represent the sample population. As a result, no non-response

follow-up was initiated beyond the second follow-up mailing.

P o in

Data were coded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) Release 7 for Windows 95. Respondents were asked to select a point
along the Likert scale to represent their choice. Thus, in data coding, each response was
later coded as a numerical value corresponding to their choice. The numerical value of
each choice was presented in the previous tables.

While there were several negatively worded items on the questionnaire, their
coding was reversed before data was analyzed. For instance, some items of consequence
beliefs and preference scores were recoded to indicate agreement or disagreement with
belief statements representing perceived beneﬁts or risks toward reclaiming closed
landﬁlls. The control belief scores were recoded to indicate the degree of positive
perception of community opportunities and needs. Using the RECODE procedure, the
raw data in these items were reversed, so that the bipolar scale 2 became -2, I became -l,

and vice versa; in the other unipolar scale I became 5, 2 became 4, 4 became 2, and 5

74

became 1.

To obtain a total score for each determinant for further analysis, the COMPUTE
procedure was performed to create several new variables for each determinant. First, the
product of control beliefs and normative beliefs was computed as described above.
Second, a scale total score was obtained by summing each item score in the scale, which
included scales of the attitude toward the act (Aact), behavioral intention, attitude beliefs
(sum of consequence belief scores and preference evaluation scores), normative beliefs
(sum of product scores), and control beliefs (sum of product scores).

During data cleaning, visual inspection of data ﬁle and frequency distribution
were performed to examine the data structure and to check any data out of range or
spurious data. Few coding errors were identiﬁed and corrected. There were a few cases
where participants failed to answer an item in a scale, or circled two answers to the same
question. As Bryman & Crarner (1997) and Peers (1997) suggested, an estimate missing
value, which is mean score of the non-missing values in the same scale, was used as an
appropriate index since the missing data appeared to be random. There were six cases
where data for a scale were missing for several items; the whole scale was coded missing.
Three cases were missing a whole scale or whole pages, but the remaining answers still
provided valid data. Two cases with many missing value and/or incomplete responses
were eliminated from the data set. Five cases were deleted since they were returned with
no responses. A total of seven cases were omitted, resulting in 118 valid responses for
further analysis.

The data analysis and discussions of the results are presented in chapter four,

Which include description, comparison, and test of relationship between variables.

75

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

This chapter presents the analysis of the data collected from the local elected
ofﬁcials in southern Lower Michigan in 1998 and the results relating to the main purpose
of the study. Test results pertaining to reliability and validity, using SPSS item analysis
and principal component factor analysis, are presented ﬁrst. The social attributes of the
local elected ofﬁcials and their differences in attitudes are examined and discussed. Then,
the results of the study hypotheses concenring the relationship between behavioral
intentions and three determinants, attitude toward the act (Aact), subjective norms (SN),
and perceived behavioral control (PBC) are presented. In addition, the prediction model
for the behavioral intentions and the underlying factors (beliefs) that inﬂuence local

elected ofﬁcials' support or opposition to landﬁll recreation reclamation are presented.

Assessment of Reliability and Validity

Raliapility Tgt
Several methods for assessing reliability of measurements are available, such as
alternative form, split-halves, test-retest (Carmines and Zeller, 1979, Peers, 1996). The
most popular one is Cronbach's alpha for assessing internal consistency, also called
coefﬁcient alpha. However, one of the assumptions underlying the method is that it

assumes a single phenomenon lies beneath the items (Light, 1976; Carmines and Zeller,

76

1979; Peers, 1996). Thus, prior to analysis of internal consistency, factor analysis was

conducted to explore the dimensions of the newly constructed instruments.

Spa]; Dimensida

Principal component factor analysis was employed in assessing whether an
unidimensional scale exists. It is expected that a set of items is measuring a single
phenomenon if results of the factor analysis meet the following conditions (Carmines and
Zeller, 1979):

(i) All or most of the items have substantial factor loadings on the ﬁrst component;

(ii) The ﬁrst extracted component explains a large proportion of the variance;

(iii) All or most of the items have higher loading on the ﬁrst component than on
subsequent components;

(iv) Subsequent components explain fairly equal proportions of the remaining variance
except for a gradual decrease.

Also Spector (1992) noted factor analysis can be used to explore possible
subdimensions within the group of items selected, which can determine whether the items
contain the intended components. For example, the attitude toward a behavior was
constructed based on the perceived advantages and disadvantages of landﬁll recreation
reclamation. It is expected to ﬁnd two components ﬁ'om the factor analysis. However, it
should form under the attitudinal dimension.

The consequence belief scale used in this study consisted of 14 items and was
analyzed using principal component analysis. Table 4-1 displays that most of the

consequence belief items have substantial factor loadings on the ﬁrst component. These

77

factor loadings ranged from 0.50 to 0.79. The variance explained by the ﬁrst extracted
component was 44.7 %. According to Carmines and Zeller’s guidelines (1979), the
results imply that the consequence belief scale is measuring a single phenomenon.

In addition, the scales of preference evaluations, normative beliefs, control beliefs,
and attitude toward the act (Aact) were also analyzed by using the principal component
analysis. In the preference scale, all seven items were highly correlated, factor loading
ranged ﬁom 0.63 to 0.82, on the ﬁrst component, and the variance explained by the ﬁrst
extracted component was 48.3% (Table 4-2). The factor loading for the normative beliefs
scale ranged from 0.67 to 0.83 (Table 4-3), the control beliefs scale ranged from 0.48 to
0.72 (Table 4-4), the direct measure of the attitude scale (Aact) ranged ﬁ'om 0.79 to 0.93
(Table 4-5), all make a substantial contribution to the ﬁrst component. The variance
explained by the ﬁrst extracted component was 57.8% for the normative belief scale,
37.3% for the control belief scale, and 79.3% for the Aact scale. These results imply that
all the above four scales measured a single phenomenon.

However, the factor analysis extracted two components from each scale of
consequence beliefs, preference beliefs, and control beliefs. The scree test of their
eigenvalues also indicated two factors should be rotated. To obtain an interpretable result,
a Varimax rotation procedure was further conducted.

The rotated solution of the consequence beliefs scale yielded two interpretable
factors. Inspection of factor I of the consequence beliefs reveals a positive perception
toward landﬁll recreation reclamation. The beliefs loading highest on this factor are
improve adjacent living conditions (0.84), additional recreational opportunities (0.75),

allow revitalizing the adjacent areas (0.75), positive impacts on community image (0.75),

78

Table 4-1. Factor Loadings of the Consequence Beliefs Items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extracted Rotated
Consequence Belief Items Component Component Perceived Perceived
beneﬁts ‘I risk
improve adjacent living conditions 0.75 -0.38 M 0.10
additional recreational opportunities 0.77 -0.20 _l§ 0.26
allow revitalizing the adjacent areas 0.68 -0.34 .12 0.09
positive impacts on community image 0.79 -0.16 _l5_ 0.30
community asset 0.73 -0.21 M 0.23
increase adjacent property value 0.69 -0.25 (LE 0.17
promote positive public relations 0.69 -0.26 ._72_ 0.17
problem can be managed 0.69 0.00 i 0.39
threatening users' safety 0.74 0.39 0.40 ()_.73
threatening users' health 0.77 0.36 0.45 M
negative impact of undesirable landﬁll image 0.51 0.52 0.13 ._71_
liability problem involved 0.60 0.39 0.28 ﬁ
higher maintenance costs 0.24 0.55 —0.10 __._5_9
small problem 0.50 0.22 0.29 M
Initial Eigenvalues 6.27 1.55 4.81 3.01
% of Variance 44.76 11.09 34.38 21.47
Cumulative % 55.85 55.85
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Two components extracted.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
°The underlined factor loading indicates which of the factors each item loading higher on.
Table 4-2. Factor Loadings of the Preference Evaluations Items
Extracted Rotated
Preference Evaluations Items Component Component Perceived Perceived
beneﬁts ° risk
like land reuse strategy 0.81 -0.42 M 0.17
pleased with additional recreation opportunities 0.82 -0.37 m 0.22
like promoting positive public relation 0.64 -0.56 M; -0.05
like increasing house demand 0.65 -0. 19 M 0.26
worried about potential safety hazards 0.66 0.61 0.14 1.82
uncomfortable about potential liability risk 0.63 0.60 0.12 m
uneasy when recreating 0.64 0.53 0.17 Qﬂ
Initial Eigenvalues 3.38 1.69 2.73 2.35
% ofVariance 48.35 24.13 38.97 33.51
Cumulative % 72.48 72.48

 

 

 

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Two components extracted.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

4"The underlined factor loading indicates which of the factors each item loading higher on.

79

Table 4—3. Factor Loadings of the Normative Beliefs Items

 

 

 

 

Normative beliefs Component I

county comrrrissioners 0.83

Colleagues 0.8 1

community special interested groups 0.79
voters/residents 0.79
local media/journalists 0.78
state agents (DNR, DEQ) 0.70
experts in community 0.69
landﬁll owners 0.67
Eigenvalues 4.63

% of Variance 57.85

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

1 component extracted.

Table 4-4. Factor Loadings of the Control Beliefs Items

 

 

 

 

Extracted Rotated

Control Beliefs Component Component Requisite Perceived

I II opportunity 1’ obstacle‘
Revenue production 0.72 -0.30 015 0.21
Revitalizing surrounding area 0.60 -0.35 9&2 0.10
Community recreational space need 0.61 -0.32 m 0.13
Available funds 0.61 -0.31 m 0.14
Adverse health/safety effect 0.60 0.63 0.08 (L81
Suitable location 0.48 0.49 0.08 m
Potential liability risks 0.71 0.20 0.43 0_.6_Q
Cost to obtain land 0.51 0.10 0.34 0.39
Eigenvalues 2.99 1 .09 2.26 l .82
% of Variance 37.39 13.64 28.24 22.78
Cumulative % 51.03 51.03

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Two components extracted.

'°" The underlined factor loading indicates which of the factors each item loading higher on.

80

Table 4-5. Factor Loadings of the Direct Attitude Items

 

 

 

 

Direct attitude Component 1

good vs. bad 0.93

wise vs. foolish 0.91

beneﬁcial vs. risky 0.90
pleasant vs. unpleasant 0.90
favorable vs. unfavorable 0.90
safe vs. harmful 0.79
Eigenvalues 4.76
% of Variance 79.33

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
1 component extracted.

etc. Tire factor I has been labeled Perceived Beneﬁts. Factor II in the consequence belief
scale appears as a negative perception toward landﬁll recreation reclamation. The beliefs
loading highly on factor II are threatening users' safety (0.73), threatening users' health
(0.73), etc. The factor II has been labeled Perceived Risk. The two factors accounted for
56 percent of the total variance of the consequence belief scale (Table 4-1).

The rotated solution of the preference evaluation scale also yielded two
interpretable factors. Factor I in the preference evaluation scale has been labeled
Perceived Beneﬁts, including items such as like land reuse strategy (0.89), pleased with
additional recreation opportunities (0.87), like promoting positive public relation (0.85).
Factor H in the preference evaluation scale includes worried about potential safety
hazards (0.89), uncomfortable about potential liability risk (0.87), and uneasy when
recreating (0.81). The factor has therefore been labeled Perceived Risk. The two factors
together accounted for 72 percent of the total variance of the preference scale (Table 4-2).

The rotated solution for the control beliefs yielded two interpretable factors.
Inspection of the items deﬁning the ﬁrst factor reveals expectations of opportunity and

improvement, such as revenue production (0.75), revitalizing surrounding area (0.69).

81

The factor has been labeled Requisite Opportunity. The second factor includes items such
as adverse health/safety effect, suitable location, and potential liability risks. It has been
labeled Perceived Obstacle. The two factors together accounted for 51 percent of the total
variance of the control belief scale (Table 4-4).

In summary, the factor analysis of the attitude toward the act (Aact), the
normative beliefs, and the behavioral intentions all revealed a unitary dimension.
Therefore, each of these scales was considered unidimensional for the following
reliability analysis. However, the other three scales (consequence, preference, and control
belief) appeared to have two underlying dimensions instead of being unidimensional
according to the data analysis presented thus far. The reliability of these scales were then

tested with each underlying dimension.

S e l' 111

For the present study, reliability of the newly constructed instrument was assessed
using a test of internal consistency. As most of the scales were constructed as a Likert
rating scale assuming unidimensionality, Cronbach's coefﬁcient alpha was used in
estimating the internal consistency of the scale as described in chapter three. An alpha
value of at least 0.70 was considered necessary for a scale to be judged internally
consistent (Spector, 1992). The higher the alpha coefﬁcient, the better internal
consistency a scale has. The scale then can be considered as a reliable measurement for
the study.

Reliability of the pilot instrument has been reported in the previous instrument

development section in chapter three. The revised instrument (F orm-98) was ﬁrrther

82

tested in the main survey. The reliability of each scale was tested and is presented as the
following.

Behavior intentions were assessed by means of two questions that examined the
likelihood of supporting a landﬁll recreation reclamation proposal. The sum of the two
responses served as the measure of behavioral intentions, having an alpha coefﬁcient of
0.79 (Table 4-6).

A direct measure of attitude (Aact) was obtained by means of six semantic
differential scales. An alpha coefﬁcient for the Aact was high (0.95), as shown in Table

4-6. Item-total correlations ranged from 0.71 to 0.89. Although the deletion of item three

Table 4.6. Summary Table for Item-total Statistics Analysis of the Behavior Intentions,
Aact, and Normative Belief Scales in Instrument Form 98

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Alpha N

if Item if Item Total if Item of

Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted Alpha Cases
Behavioral intentions:
INTEI -- willingness to propose LR 1.345 2.332 0.666
INTEZ -- intent to approve a LR project 0.647 3.413 0.666 0.791 116
Attitude toward the act (Aact):
GA'I'I‘I -- wise vs. foolish 5.396 38.732 0.869 0.933
GATT2 - beneﬁcial vs. risky 5.469 38.197 0.851 0.935
GATT3 -- safe vs. harmful 5.910 40.828 0.713 0.951
GATI‘4 -- pleasant vs. unpleasant 5.829 38.289 0.857 0.935
GATI'S -- favorable vs. unfavorable 5.423 38.992 0.849 0.935
GATT6 -- good vs. bad 5.396 39.169 0.893 0.931 0.947 111
Normative beliefs:
PRO_NOl - state agents (DNR, DEQ) 17.353 396.126 0.613 0.885
PRO_N02 - county comrrrissioners 17.371 393.192 0.757 0.872
PRO_NO3 - colleagues 16.560 373.327 0.736 0.873
PRO_NO4 - experts in community 16.517 406.478 0.607 0.885
PRO_NOS - voters/residents 18.388 380.727 0.693 0.877
PRO_NO6 - local media/joumalists 18.078 412.542 0.696 0.879
PRO_NO7 - landﬁll owners 17.155 406.550 0.576 0.888
PRO_N08 - special interested groups 18.638 388.581 0.715 0.875 0.893 116

 

83

(safe vs. harmful) from the Aact scale would have slightly improved alpha to 0.95, the
item was retained since it highly correlated with the scale (r = 0.71).

The normative belief scale (indirect measure of subjective norms) consisted of
eight items with an alpha coefﬁcient of 0.89. Item-total correlation ranged from 0.57 to
0.75. The scale variance was maximized, as the deletion of one item from any of the
scales would result in a reduction in the overall scale variance (Table 4-6).

The attitude belief scale (indirect measure of attitude) was composed of two
scales, consequence scale and preference scale. Each of them contained two dimensions,
perceived beneﬁts and perceived risk. Green, et a1. (1997) suggested that two correlations
need to be computed if a measure assesses multiple dimensions. First, correlations
between item scores and corrected total scores for the items’ dimension should be
computed. Second, correlations between item scores and total scores assessing different
dimensions should be examined. Green, et a1. noted an item should be correlated more
with its own scale than with scales assessing different dimensions. Thus, item analysis
was ﬁrst employed to examine the correlation of an item with its own corrected total
scale and to ﬁnd those items that form an internally consistent scale and eliminate those
items that do not. The corrected item-total corrections address whether the items on the
scale have convergent validity. The bivariate correlation was then performed to examine
the correlation between an item and total scores for different dimensions (discriminant
validity).

The perceived beneﬁts component in the consequence belief scale contained eight
items with alpha value of 0.90. Item-total correlations ranged between 0.56 and 0.75 and

no items were deleted from the scale as the scale variance was maximized (Table 4-7).

84

The perceived risk component in the consequence belief scale contained six items with
alpha value of 0.79. Item-total correlations ranged between 0.32 and 0.72. The removal of
item seven (higher maintenance costs) ﬁom the scale would have slightly improved the
scale's alpha to 0.80, but the item was retained to maintain content coverage.

The perceived beneﬁts component in the preference evaluation scale contained
four items with an alpha value of 0.83 (Table 4-7). Item-total correlations ranged between
0.50 and 0.78. The removal of item three (like increasing housing demand) from the scale
would have improved the scale's alpha to 0.87, however, the item was retained to
maintain content coverage. The perceived risk component in the preference evaluation
scale contained three items with an alpha value of 0.84. Item-total correlations ranged
between 0.65 and 0.76 and no items were deleted from the scale as the scale variance was
maximized (Table 4-7).

The results of these item analyses indicate the items on the perceived beneﬁt and
items on the perceived risk in both the consequence belief scale and the preference
evaluation scale have convergent validity.‘ The next step was to compute correlations
between item scores and total scores assessing different dimensions.

The results indicate the perceived beneﬁts component and perceived risk
component in both the consequence belief scale (Table 4-8) and the preference evaluation
scale (Table 4-9) have discriminant validity since each item correlated more with its own
scale than with the other scale.

Alpha coefﬁcients were computed to obtain internal consistence estimates of

reliability for these dimensions. The alphas were all above 0.79 (Table 4-7). Furthermore,

85

Table 4-7. Summary Table for Item-total Statistics Analysis of the Attitude Belief Scale

in Instrument Form 98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Alpha N
if Item if Item Total if Item of
Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted Alpha Cases
Consequence beliefs - perceived beneﬁts:
BCl - additional recreational opportunities 4.619 32.494 0.728 0.878
BC2 - improve adjacent living conditions 5.195 30.039 0.759 0.875
BC3 - allow revitalizing the adjacent areas 5.246 32.426 0.669 0.884
BC4 - community asset 4.864 32.529 0.688 0.882
BC5 - positive impacts on community image 4.907 32.000 0.739 0.877
BC8 - increase adjacent property value 5.364 32.131 0.640 0.887
BC9 — promote positive public relations 4.898 34.075 0.643 0.886
BC14 - problem can be managed 5.246 34.495 0.566 0.893 0.896 1 18
Consequence beliefs .. perceived risk:
BC6 - negative impact of undesirable landﬁll -1.025 14.81 1 0.548 0.756
BC7 - higher maintenance costs -0.949 17.519 0.316 0.804
BC10 - threatening users' safety -1.720 13.896 0.699 0.716
BC11- liability problem involved -0.983 15.504 0.581 0.748
BC12 - threatening users' health —1.737 13.751 0.715 0.711
BC13 - small problem -l.381 16.529 0.396 0.790 0.789 118
Preference evaluation -- perceived beneﬁts:
BCEVl - like land reuse strategy 1.746 8.926 0.784 0.739
BCEV2 - like promoting positive PR 1.822 9.327 0.643 0.799
BCEV3 - like increasing house demand 2.983 9.436 0.502 0.873
BCEV4 - pleased with additional rec opp. 1.941 9.099 0.773 0.746 0.833 I 18
Preference evaluation -- perceived risk:
BCEVS - uneasy when recreating -O.966 5.537 0.649 0.831
BCEV6 - worried about safety hazards -0.390 5.078 0.758 0.721
BCEV7 - uncomfortable about liability —0,339 5.799 0.709 0.775 0.839 118
Attitude beliefs (overall)
BCI- additional recreational opportunities 5.042 210.571 0.717 0.922
BC2 - improve adjacent living conditions 5.619 207,366 0.664 0.923
BC3 - allow revitalizing the adjacent areas 5.670 212.206 0.606 0.924
BC4 - community asset 5.288 211.318 0.659 0.923
BC5 - positive impacts on community image 5.331 210.035 0.704 0.922
BC6 - negative impact of undesirable landﬁll 6.720 214,511 0.480 0.926
BC7 - higher maintenance costs 6.797 224.471 0.234 0.930
BC8 - increase adjacent property value 5.788 21 1.519 0.585 0.924
BC9 - promote positive public relations 5.322 215.212 0.608 0.924
BCIO - threatening userS' safety 6.025 207.119 0.730 0.922
BCI l - liability problem involved 6.763 214.644 0.566 0.925
BC12 - threatening users' health 6.009 206.179 0.756 0.921
BC] 3 - small problem 6.364 217.413 0.437 0.927
BC14 - problem can be managed 5.670 214.274 0.612 0.924
BCEVI - like land reuse strategy 5.102 207.084 0.744 0.921
BCEV2 - like promoting positive PR 5.178 21 1.669 0.555 0.925
BCEV3 - like increasing house demand 6.339 206.380 0.621 0.924
BCEV4 - pleased with additional rec opp. 5.297 206.997 0.763 0.921
BCEVS - uneasy when recreating 6.068 211.842 0.487 0.927
BCEV6 - worried about safety hazards 6.644 210.847 0.515 0.926
BCEV7 - uncomfortable about liability 6.695 213.513 0.496 0.926 0.928 1 18

 

86

Table 4-8. Correlations between Item Scores and Total Scores for the Different
Dimension on the Consequence Belief Scale

 

 

 

 

Perceived Perceived

beneﬁts Risk
Consequence beliefs -- perceived Beneﬁts
BCl - additional recreational opportunities 0.73 0.49
BC2 - improve adjacent living conditions 0.76 0.41
BC3 — allow revitalizing the adjacent areas 0.67 0.38
BC4 -— community asset 0.69 0.45
BC5 - positive impacts on community image 0.74 0.53
BC8 — increase adjacent property value 0.64 0.43
BC9 - promote positive public relations 0.64 0.40
BC14 - problem can be managed 0.57 0.51
Consequence beliefs -- perceived risk:
BC6 - negative impact of undesirable landﬁll 0.33 0.55
BC7 - higher maintenance costs 0.12 0.32
BC10 -— threatening users' safety 0.56 0.70
BC11- liability problem involved 0.43 0.58
BC12 — threatening users' health 0.60 0.72
BC13 — small problem 0.39 0.40

 

Table 4-9. Correlations between Item Scores and Total Scores for the Different
Dimension on the Consequence Belief Scale

 

 

 

 

Perceived Perceived

beneﬁts risk
Preference evaluation -- perceived beneﬁts:
BCEVl - like land reuse strategy 0.78 0.32
BCEV2 - like promoting positive PR 0.64 0.13
BCEV3 - like increasing house demand 0.50 0.30
BCEV4 - pleased with additional rec opportunities 0.77 0.35
Preference evaluation -- perceived risk:
BCEV5 - uneasy when recreating 0.29 0.65
BCEV6 - worried about potential safety hazards 0.30 0.76
BCEV7 - uncomfortable about potential liability 0.28 0.71

 

87

the consequence beliefs and the preference evaluations were designed to assess a
respondent’s overall attitude beliefs. According to Spector (1992), although several scales
measure one concept, all items should be analyzed using item analysis for a total score
since it makes conceptual sense. Therefore, all items in both consequence beliefs and
preference evaluations were analyzed together for a total score. Thus, reliability of the
overall scale (21 items) was assessed. Most of the item-correlations in the overall scale
were beyond 0.43. The coefﬁcient alpha of this overall scale was 0.93. The results
provide evidence of scale reliability.

The control belief scale (indirect measure of perceived behavior control)
contained two components, the requisite opportunities and the perceived obstacle
components. As with the attitude belief scale, both item analysis and bivariate correlation
were conducted to assess the items. The results of the item analysis are displayed in Table
4-10. The requisite opportunity component contained four items with coefﬁcient alpha
value of 0.68. Item-total correlation ranged from 0.44 to 0.54. The perceived obstacle
component contained four items with coefﬁcient alpha value of 0.62. Item-total
correlation ranged from 0.31 to 0.54 and no items were deleted from the scale as the scale
variance was maximized.

The next step was to compute correlations between item scores and total scores
for the different dimension. The results of the bivariate correlation (Table 4-11) indicate
that the items on the requisite opportunities correlated more with its own scale, while the
items on the perceived obstacle had two items that correlated slightly more with the other
scale than their own scale. The two items were item 2 (potential liability risk) and item 6

(cost to obtain land). After examining the content of the items, keeping the two items in

88

Table 4-10. Summary Table for Item-total Statistics Analysis of the Control Belief Scale

 

 

 

 

 

in Instrument Form 98
Scale Scale Corrected

Mean Variance Item- Alpha N

if Item if Item Total If Item of

Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted Alpha Cases
Control beliefs - requisite opportunity:
PRO_CI‘ l - community recreational space need -2991 95.904 0.449 0.633
PRO_CT3 - revenue production -1.741 118.420 0.537 0.583
PRO_CT 4 - available funds -0.621 109.368 0.440 0.626
PRO_CTS - revitalizing surrounding area -3.026 111.904 0.458 0.614 0.678 116
Control beliefs - perceived obstacle:
PRO_CTZ - potential liability risk -2.259 108.454 0.433 0.530
PRO_Cl" 6 - cost to obtain land -5.345 114.698 0.308 0.622
PRO_CT7 - suitable location -6.336 1 10.173 0.347 0.594
PRO_CT 8 - adverse health/safety effect -4.009 102.913 0.540 0.454 0.622 1 16
Control beliefs:
PRO_CT 1 - community recreational space need -8974 387.521 0.448 0.723
PRO_CTZ - potential liability risk -5.052 . 394.050 0.538 0.705
PRO_CT3 - revenue production -7.724 418.810 0.552 0.709
PRO_CT 4 - available funds -6.603 408.102 0.447 0.722
PRO-C15 - revitalizing surrounding area -9009 414.791 0.446 0.722
PRO_CT 6 - cost to obtain land -8. 138 416.190 0.367 0.738
PRO_C1'7 - suitable location -9.129 416.479 0.358 0.740
PRO_CT 8 - adverse health/safety effect -6.802 413.760 0.446 0.722 0.749 1 16

 

Table 4-11. Correlations between Item Scores and Total Scores for the Different
Dimension on the Control Belief Scale

 

 

 

 

 

Requisite Perceived
opportunity obstacle
Control beliefs -- requisite opportunity
PRO_CTI - community recreational space need 0.45 0.34
PRO_CT 3 — revenue production 0.54 0.42
PRO_CT 4 — available funds 0.44 0.34
PRO_CT5 — revitalizig surrounding area 0.46 0.32
Control beliefs -- perceived obstacle:
PRO_CTZ — potential liability risk 0.47 0.43
PRO_CT 6 — cost to obtain land 0.32 0.31
PRO_CT7 - suitable location 0.28 0.35
PROJCT 8 — adverse health/safety effect 0.27 0.54
89

the perceived obstacle was more appropriate than moving the items to the requisite
opportunity group. Overall, both the requisite Opportunity and the perceived obstacle had
convergent validity, while only the requisite opportunity's discriminant validity was
supported.

As with the attitude belief scale, all items in both the requisite opportunity and the
perceived obstacle were analyzed together for a total score. The reliability of the overall
scale (8 items) was assessed. Most of item-correlations were beyond 0.44 (Table 4-10).
The coefﬁcient alpha of this overall scale was 0.75. The results provide evidence that the
scale is reliable.

In sum, the reliability of the attitude toward the act (Aact), the attitude beliefs
(including the consequence beliefs and the preference evaluation), the normative beliefs,
and the control beliefs were moderately high, ranging from 0.75 to 0.95. The results of
the reliability test show that internal consistency appeared adequate and consistent across
the initial development samples (pilot survey) and ﬁnal development samples (main
survey), except in the control belief scale (Table 4-12). The control belief scale had a low
alpha value in the pilot survey while the revised scale improved its internal consistency
substantially from 0.21 to 0.75. It was concluded at this point that the newly developed
instrument had acceptable levels of reliability. The scales were ready for the next step of

validation.

Table 4-12. Alpha Value of the Pilot Survey and the Main Survey

 

 

Survey I Aact Intentions Attitude beliefs Normative beliefs Control beliefs
Pilot survey N/A 0.94 0.88 0.75 0.21
Main survey 0.95 0.79 0.93 0.89 0.75

 

90

Validi Test

Any measuring device is valid if it does what it is intended to do. Content,
construct and criterion-related validity are three types of validity usually assessed. The
attainment of any of these types of validity indicates that the scale measures what it
purports to measure. Criterion-related validity is based on some external criterion to the
measuring instrument itself. However, no appropriate external behavioral criteria to
validate the constructs exist in the present study. Nevertheless, the new instrument was
constructed based on the theory of planned behavior to examine local elected ofﬁcials'
attitudes. Hence, hypotheses are developed to examine their causes and effects or
correlation of the constructs. As Carmines and Zeller (1979) stated construct validity is
based on the logical relationships among variables such as the three determinants and
behavior intention. Therefore, construct validity is the most appropriate one to assess the
validity of the newly developed instrument. It can be concluded that the measure has
construct validity if the outcome of the measure is consistent with the theoretically
derived expectations.

To assess construct validity, the three indirect measures (attitude beliefs,
normative beliefs, and control beliefs) were expected to correlate with the three direct
measures respectively according to Ajzen’s theory. Also the three direct measures (Aact,
SN, and PBC) were expected to correlate with the behavioral intentions.

Table 4-13 indicates the correlation between the indirect measure (i.e., attitude
beliefs) correlated signiﬁcantly (p S 0.01) with each corresponding direct measures (i.e.,
Aact). The coefﬁcients were 0.73 (attitude beliefs and Aact), 0.64 (normative beliefs and

SN), and 0.38 (control beliefs and PBC). The direct measures of Aact, SN, and PBC also

91

Table 4-13. Pearson Correlation Matrix of Indirect Measures, Direct Measures, and
Behavioral Intentions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correlation coefﬁcient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Intentions (N=116) ------
2 Global attitude (N=1 1 1) 0.73
3 Subjective norm (N=1 15) 0.61 0.77
4 Perceived control (N=1 14) 0.27 0.22" 0.24‘
5 Attitude belief (N=1 16) 0.62 0.73 0.71 0.26
6 Normative belief (N=1 16) 0.64 0.67 0.64 0.34 0.60
7 Control belief (N=1 14) 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.38 0.43 0.38 mm

 

 

"'. Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level, all other correlations are signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level.

correlated signiﬁcantly (p s 0.01) with behavioral intentions. These correlations
coefﬁcients were 0.73 (Aact and intention), 0.60 (SN and intention), and 0.27 (PBC and
intention). The correlations among these variables were found to be in agreement with the
direction as the theory predicted. Overall, the positive association between variables
provided evidence supporting the construct validity of the reﬁned instrument (Form 98).
The content validity of the instrument was examined ﬁrrther. Content validity
refers to the degree to which a measure reﬂects a speciﬁc domain of content. However,
no method or procedure exists to determine whether the goal is achieved (Carmines and
Zeller, 1979). Nevertheless, two methods were conducted to explore the adequacy with
which important content would be covered in the current study. These methods included
exploring the available literature on the subject of landﬁll recreation reclamation, and
conducting an open-ended survey to identify the potential underlying dimensions. The
responses to the open-ended survey were analyzed using content analysis to retain the

most frequently mentioned items associated with the three determinants of Ajzen’s theory

92

(see chapter 3, development of instrument section). Also the scales were reviewed by the
dissertation committee before testing and revised accordingly. All of the above

approaches were implemented to insure the content validity of the measurement.

Descriptive Analysis of Three Determinants and Behavioral Intentions

Descriptive statistics for the three indirect measures (attitude beliefs, normative
beliefs, and control beliefs), direct measures (attitude toward the act, subjective norm, and
behavioral control), and behavioral intentions were summarized in Table 4-14. A higher
mean score indicates the respondents perceived much more positive attitudes (in term of
attitude beliefs), stronger support from their community/referent (in term of normative
beliefs), and more control (in term of control beliefs) toward supporting the landﬁll
recreation reclamation. The results indicate that, in general, the local elected ofﬁcials
tended to have positive perceptions toward LR and feel support from the
community/referent, however, they perceived less control toward LR. The local elected

ofﬁcials' behavioral intentions are further discussed below.

Table 4-14. Summary of Mean, SD, and Potential Range for Indirect Measures, Direct
Measures, and Behavioral Intentions in the Main Survey

 

 

 

 

 

Variables N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Intentions 1 16 -6.00 6.00 1.99 3.08
Attitude toward the act 111 -17.00 18.00 6.68 7.46
Subjective norm 115 -3.00 3.00 1.07 1.51
Perceived behavior control 1 14 1.00 7.00 3.64 1.94
Attitude beliefs 118 -38.00 42.00 6.19 15.25
Normative beliefs 117 -64.00 80.00 19.96 22.44
Control beliefs 1 16 -76.00 80.00 -8.78 22.70

 

93

Local elected ofﬁcials' behavioral intentions to support landﬁll recreation
reclamation were measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Each respondent rated the
likelihood he or she will propose a reclamation project and the likelihood he or she will
approve a reclamation project. The sum of the scores indicates the direction of their
intentions to either support or oppose a proposal for landﬁll recreation reclamation.
Among 116 respondents, 58% of respondents tended to support the LR (above a mean
score of 2), 31% of respondents remained neutral or undecided (scored between 1 and -1),
and only about 11% of respondents leaned toward opposing the LR (scored between -2

and -6). These results indicate that the local elected ofﬁcials' intentions to support LR

were fairly positive (Figure 4-1).

 

 

 

 

 

 

23
' 3 ’ 20.
5‘
C
e
3
8
.1:
g.
m
o
a:
' Std. Dev=3.08
, Mean=2.0
' N=110.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.00 470 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0

Sum scores of behavioral intention

Figure 4-1. Histogram of Local Elected Ofﬁcials’ Behavioral Intentions

94

Figure 4-1 illustrates that intentions were negatively skewed (mean = 2, SD =
3.08). In order to compare the differences between local elected ofﬁcials with different
degrees of intentions, the respondents were divided into two groups based on summing
the scores of their behavioral intentions. One group with scores of 2 or above was termed
a high intention group that supported LR and the other group with mean scores below a
mean score of 2 was termed a low intention group who may be slightly support or

opposed to such a practice.

Analysis of Local Elected Officials' Attitudes

One of the objectives of this study is to explore the relationship between
perceptions toward landﬁll recreation reclamation and behavioral intentions. The
perceptions, as noted by the three determinants, served as independent variables while
behavioral intentions served as the dependent variable in this study. The statistical
analysis of local elected ofﬁcials' attitudes began with examining the relationship
between the three determinants and behavioral intentions using Pearson product moment
correlation.

As Ajzen (1986) stated, additional external variables may be useful in predicting
behavioral intentions. The respondents' social attributes which make a signiﬁcant
difference in behavioral intentions may be selected as additional criteria for prediction of
intentions. The t-test was applied to examine the difference. Then, the chi-square test was
applied to test the strength of the relationship between intentions and the selected nominal

variables (i.e., awareness). Finally, multiple regression analyses were conducted to

95

identify important predictors of behavioral intentions.

Relationship between Three Determinants and Behavioral Intentions

Once the relationship among indirect measures, direct measures, and behavioral
intentions had been examined, the hypothesized relationships between the three
determinants (Aact, SN, PBC) and behavioral intentions were tested.

According to Ajzen’s theory, the local elected ofﬁcials will tend to support LR,
when they evaluate it positively, when they believe that referents think they should
support it, and when they believe fewer barriers will prevent their action or more
opportunities will facilitate their action. Hypotheses I through 111 were based on the above
assumption, and the Pearson correlation analysis was employed to analyze the

relationships among the variables. Correlation coefﬁcients between the variables are
shown in Table 4-13 and Figure 4-2.

H,: No relationship exists between the local elected ofﬁcials’ attitude

toward the act and their behavioral intentions to support landﬁll recreation

reclamation.

The local elected ofﬁcial's intentions to support LR was positive and strongly
correlated with the direct measure of attitude (r = 0.73, p< 0.01). The null hypothesis was
rejected. This means that if local elected ofﬁcials perceived more beneﬁts (advantages)
than risk (disadvantages) toward LR development; their intentions to support LR were
higher.

H2: No relationship exists between the local elected ofﬁcials’ subjective norms

and their behavioral intentions to support landﬁll recreation reclamation.

96

The local elected ofﬁcials' intentions to support LR was positive and moderately
correlated with the direct measure of SN (r = 0.61, p< 0.01). The null hypothesis was
rejected. This means that if local elected ofﬁcials perceived stronger social pressure from
referents in supporting LR; their intentions to support LR were also higher.

H,: No relationship exists between the local elected ofﬁcials’ perceived

behavior control and their behavioral intentions to support landﬁll

recreation reclamation.

The results indicate that local elected ofﬁcials’ behavioral intentions to support
LR correlated positively but modestly with their perceived behavior control (r = 0.27, p<
0.01). The null hypothesis was rejected. This indicates that if local elected ofﬁcials’
intentions to support LR would be slightly higher when they perceived more requisite
opportunities (i.e., funding) and/or less obstacle factors (i.e. risk) for LR development in

their communities.

Differenges in Social Agribgtes

In this study, it was assumed that the following variables might relate to local
elected ofﬁcials' intentions to support landﬁll recreation reclamation. Selected variables
included population size of a municipality, landﬁll ownership, and respondent's
experience in granting landﬁll permits. Independent-sample t-tests were employed to
examine whether differences existed. Analysis of social attributes of the respondents was
summarized and presented in Appendix E and in Table 1.

Table 4-15 indicates no differences existed in all tests except the awareness of

landﬁll recreation reclamation. Local elected ofﬁcials who were aware of LR had a

97

signiﬁcantly different behavior intentions toward LR compared to those ofﬁcials with
less awareness. The aware group had stronger intentions in supporting LR than the non-
aware group. No signiﬁcant differences were found between different population groups,

different landﬁll ownership status, and different experiences of landﬁll permit granting.

 

Attitudes Normative Control
beliefs beliefs beliefs

 

 

r= 0. 73 r = 0. 64 r = ID. 38
Attitudes Sub' ective Perceived
toward the nirm behavior
behavior c/ontrol
r= 0 73 r= 0. 61 r= 0 2/

\l/

Intention to
Support LR

Figure 4-2. The Correlations between Indirect Measures, Direct Measures, and Local
Elected Ofﬁcials’ Behavioral Intentions to Support LR

98

Table 4-15. Differences of Behavioral Intentions between Different Population,
Ownership, Pemrit, and Awareness Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

experience of landﬁll awareness of landﬁll
Population ownership permit tin reclamation
10,000 less than public private
and 10,000 owned owned Yes No Yes No
above
Intentions to support 2.35 1.78 2.29 1.92 2.38 1.64 2.73" 1.17"
landﬁll reclamation
“ P< 0.01
R lati shi etw e 0 'a Attri te nd haviorallnt ions

Since awareness of landﬁll recreation reclamation makes a difference in local
elected ofﬁcials’ intentions toward supporting LR, a chi-square test (a two-way
contingency table, 2 x 2) and Phi coefﬁcient (0) were further employed. A Phi coefﬁcient
(0) was computed to measure the strength of association between the intention variable
and awareness variable. A large value of the Phi coefﬁcient indicates that a high degree
of association exists. The results indicate awareness and behavioral intentions were found
to be signiﬁcantly and modestly related (Pearson x2 = 8.74, p=0.003, (I) = 0.28).

Among aware respondents, the experience of visiting a LR site might inﬂuence
behavior intentions and this relationship was further examined. The results indicate that a
signiﬁcant and moderate relationship was found between the respondents have visited a
LR site and their level of intentions toward LR (Person x2 = 4.16, p= 0.04, d) = 0.26).

It appears that both the awareness of LR and the experience of visiting a LR site
among the aware group were signiﬁcantly related to the local elected ofﬁcials' intentions
to support LR. However, the t-test and Phi-coefﬁcient indicate that relationships between

these variables were moderate, but signiﬁcant.

99

This study assumed the local elected ofﬁcials' intentions to support LR are related
to the difﬁculty in obtaining recreation areas in their communities. The differences
between low and high intention groups were examined.

The results indicate there is a signiﬁcant difference in the local elected ofﬁcials'
perceptions of difﬁculty in obtaining new parkland in their communities relating to their
level of intentions toward LR (t = -2.72, p = 0.01). The correlation coefﬁcient (r = 0.34, p
= 0.01) indicates that the variable correlated positively with behavioral intentions. In
other words, the respondents tended to have higher intention toward LR as they perceived
more difﬁculty in obtaining new parkland or recreation areas in their communities.

Overall, the awareness of LR and the degree of difﬁculty in obtaining recreation
areas appeared to relate to the local elected ofﬁcials’ behavioral intentions, while the
population size, ownership, and permit experience did not make any signiﬁcant
difference in the local elected ofﬁcials’ behavioral intentions. The local elected ofﬁcials
possessed higher behavioral intentions to support LR when they are aware of LR.
Therefore, two variables, awareness and difficulty, were selected as additional criteria to

predict the behavioral intentions.

Ergicting Intgnﬂgns
The key deterrninant(s) of the local elected ofﬁcials’ behavior intentions was
examined in the null hypothesis IV using a multiple regression analysis.
H,: No linear relationship exists between the overall effects of three
determinants (attitude toward the act, subjective norms and perceived

behavior control) and the local elected ofﬁcials’ behavioral intentions to

100

support landﬁll recreation reclamation.

Prior to the regression analysis, a bivariate correlation among the predictors (Aact,
SN, and PBC) was conducted to examine potential multicollinearity problems. This
analysis implies that regression coefﬁcients may be unstable if multicollinearity exists. In
other words, the regression coefﬁcients are likely to vary from sample to sample
(Bryman, 1997). The correlation matrix among the independent variables is shown in
Table 4-16. Because none of the correlation coefﬁcients between each pair of predictors
is 0.80 or higher, this suggests that a multicollinearity problem is not evident.

The prediction of behavioral intentions to support landﬁll recreation reclamation
was examined by a hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The direct measures of Aact,
SN, and PBC served as predictors in the analysis. The Beta weights of the three
determinants in a multiple regression equation indicate the relative importance in the
prediction of the behavioral intentions.

In the analysis, Aact and SN, as two predictors according to the theory of
reasoned action, were entered ﬁrst. Then, the PBC was entered as an additional predictor
based on the theory of planned behavior. Two additional variables (awareness of LR,

difﬁculty in obtaining recreation areas) were entered in the equation later since they were

Table 4-16. Pearson Correlations Matrix among the Three Predictors

 

 

Determinants (Aact) (SN) (PBC)
Attitude toward the act (Aact) (N=1 16) 1.00
Subjective norm (SN) (N=115) 0.77" 1.00
Perceived behavioral control (PBC) (N =1 14) 0.22" 0.24“ 1.00

 

 

". Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (1-tai1ed).
*. Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level (l-tailed).

101

found to relate to the behavioral intentions, as noted previously. These linear

relationships were expressed in the following regression equations:

(1) Intention to support LR = b0 + b,(Aact) + b2(SN) + e

(2) Intention to support LR = bo + b,(Aact) + b2(SN) + b3(PBC) + a

(3) Intention to support LR = bO + b,(Aact) + b2(SN) + b3(PBC) + b4(Diff) + b5(aware)+ a
Table 4-17 shows the linear combination of Aact and SN was signiﬁcantly related

to the local elected ofﬁcials’ behavioral intention. The results of the ﬁrst regression

equation show that both Aact and SN made a signiﬁcant contribution to the prediction of

the behavioral intentions, F (2,107) = 68.38, p ..<_ 0.001. The F-test is a test of overall

model ﬁt. The small p-value associated with the F-test result in rejection of the null

hypothesis. The multiple correlation coefﬁcient (R) was 0.75, a squared multiple

regression (R2) was 0.56 indicating approximately 56 percent of the variance of the

intention scale in the sample can be accounted for by the linear combination of the two

determinants. An adjusted R2 was 0.55.

Table 4-17. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis with the Behavioral Intentions
Scores as the Criterion Variable and Aact, SN, and PBC Scores as Predictor Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¥ Beta
direct measures
Predictors R R2 Adjusted Aact SN PBC difﬁculty awareness F -test
R2
Aact-l-SN 0.75 0.56 . 0.55 0.54"" 0.25" ---- ---------- F(2,107)=68.38,
pS0.001
Aact+SN+PBC 0.76 0.58 0.57 052*" 0.26“ 0.06 ---------- F(3,105)=48.65,
pS0.001
Aact+SN+PBC 0.76 0.58 0.56 051"" 0.26“ 0.02 0.03 0.07 F(5,100)=27.68,
+ Diff.+Aware pSODOI

 

*". Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.001 level.
“2 Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level.
’. Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level.

102

In the second regression equation, the linear combination of three determinants
was signiﬁcantly related to the intention scale, F (3,105) = 48.65, p 5 0.001. The multiple
correlation coefﬁcient was 0.76. The R2 increased from 0.56 to 0.58, which indicated
approximately 58 percent of the variance of the intention scale in the sample can be
explained by the regression model. An adjusted R2 was 0.57 (Table 4-17). The addition of
a perceived behavioral control variable slightly improved the model's predictive power,
AR’ = 0.02. However, the partial correlation indicates only two determinants, Aact (r =
0.46) and SN (r = 0.25) were signiﬁcant (Table 4-18). It appears that only two variables,
Aact and SN, are useful predictors in predicting intentions to support the landﬁll
recreation reclamation. The additional predictor (PBC) did not make a signiﬁcant
contribution to the prediction of behavioral intentions.

In the third regression equation, the R2 remained virtually unchanged (Table 4-17)
when two additional variables, the awareness of LR entered as dummy variable and the
difﬁculty in obtaining recreation areas, were entered. It appears that these two variables

did not contribute to the overall prediction of intentions.

Table 4-18. Coefﬁcient Table for Multiple Regression Analysis with Predictors Aact and SN

¥

 

 

 

Correlation Collinearity
lVIodel B Std. Error Beta T Sig. Zero.order Partial Part VIF
(Constant) -0.09 0.27 -0.35 0.72
Aact 0.22 0.04 0.54 5.31 0.00 0.73 0.46 0.34 2.47
SN 0.53 0.21 0.25 2.52 0.01 0.67 0.25 0.16 2.47

 

 

 

 

Bependent Variable: Behavioral Intentions

103

So far, the ﬁrst regression equation with two predictors remains the preferred
speciﬁcation for predicting the local elected ofﬁcials’ behavioral intentions to support
LR. The relative importance of these two predictors is indicated by the standardized
coefﬁcients (Beta), the Aact was 0.54, and SN was 0.25 (Table 4-17). The results show
that the Aact was a more signiﬁcant predictor than was SN for the prediction of local
elected ofﬁcials' behavioral intentions in supporting LR.

This study proceeds ﬁrrther into the model reﬁnement by examined interaction
effects, multicollinearity, and a possible curvature effect. A formal method of detecting
multicollinearity is using variance inﬂation factors (V IF). The VIF measures how much
the variances of the regression coefﬁcients are inﬂated (Neter et a1, 1990). A VIF value in
excess of 10 is an indication of a multicollinearity problem. Thus, a VIF was calculated
and presented in Table 4-18. As the results show VIF = 2.47 for both predictors, thus,
multicollinearity among the two predictors is not a problem.

Since the predictors Aact and SN were highly correlated, to test the possible
interaction effects Aact was multiplied with SN to obtain a product score. The product
score was entered into a hierarchical regression analysis after Aact and SN. The results in
Appendix F, Table 1 indicate the interaction effect to be non-signiﬁcant (b = -0.03, p =
0.12). Thus, it was decided not to include any interaction term in the regression model.

A concern of a possible curvature effect was examined by adding the squared term
of two predictors to the model. It contributes a little to the prediction of behavioral
intention and both squared terms are not signiﬁcant. The normality assumption was
checked by examining a normal probability plot of the residuals from the ﬁtted model.

Figure 4-3 indicates that the residuals are reasonably normal. Overall, the regression

104

Expected value

Figure 4—3. Normal Probability Plot of Regression Standardized Residuals

analyses presented thus far lend support to the ﬁrst regression equation as the best model

in predicting behavioral intentions with a linear relationship between behavioral

Predictor variables: Aact. SN

Criterion variable: Behavioral Intentions

 

 

 

 

1.00 ,3
ﬂ
x}
Of
.75 1 i
,J'
1),,"
47"
.50 /'
i (I,
I,
I”
.25 I j '
{In
,n"
0 00 4V! _ -
0.00 .25 .50 .75
Residuals

intentions and two predictors (Aact and SN).

The study successfully identiﬁed two predictors helpful in understanding the local
elected ofﬁcials' intentions to support landﬁll recreation reclamation. In other words, one
should be able to predict local elected ofﬁcials' intentions by only examining a local
elected ofﬁcial's responses in the direct measure of the attitude toward the act scale and
the subjective norm scale. Indeed, 55% of the total variance of the local elected ofﬁcials'

intentions to support landﬁll recreation reclamation can be explained by the model.

105

1.00

Beliefs Underlying the flfwg Predictors

After identifying relatively important predictors, the direct measure of attitude
(Aact) and direct measure of subjective norm (SN), the next step was to identify what
elements of the signiﬁcant theoretical constructs explained differences in the local elected
ofﬁcials' intentions to support LR. To gain insight into the considerations that inﬂuence
local elected ofﬁcials' intentions to support (or oppose) LR, it is necessary to review what
beliefs the local elected ofﬁcials hold. The construction of the Ajzen and F ishbein’s
theory allows examination of each determinant in more detail to understand the
underlying beliefs that inﬂuence local elected ofﬁcials’ intentions to support LR. Ajzen
(1986) stated that changing a person's attitude toward a behavior requires changing the
attitude beliefs regarding the consequence of performing a speciﬁc behavior or the
evaluation of those consequences. Changing a person's subjective norm lies in changing
what a person perceives a speciﬁc referent group would want the person to do (normative
beliefs). This information of signiﬁcant difference in an underlying belief would be
crucial for deﬁning the content of future educational interventions.

Independent-sample t-test was employed to examine the difference between the
high intention group and the low intention group among attitude beliefs and normative
beliefs. The results may help explain why some local elected ofﬁcials support LR and

others do not.

'ff n inA 'tud elief und r1 'n atti des ow r int ntions.

For ease of discussion, both the consequence beliefs and preference evaluation

items were arranged into two groups: perceived beneﬁts and perceived risk in general. In

106

Table 4-19, the results of the independent-samples t-tests were outlined. All consequence
belief items were signiﬁcantly (p 5 0.001) different between low and high intention
groups except items (10), (13), and (14). The results of preference evaluations in Table 4-
20 indicate that the high intention group was signiﬁcantly different ﬁ'om the low intention

group in all preference evaluations.

Table 4-19. Differences between the Low and the High Intention Groups in Consequence
Beliefs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High and Low Sig.
Consequence beliefs Intention N Mean" t-ratio (2-tailed)

1. Additional recreational opportunities low intention 62 0.82

high intention 54 1.56 -4.20 0.000
2. Community asset low intention 62 0.52

high intention 54 1.31 -4.48 0.000
3. Positive impacts on community image low intention 62 0.56

high intention 54 1.20 -3.40 0.001
4. Promote positive public relations low intention 62 0.60

high intention 54 1.20 -3.88 0.000
5. Improve adjacent living conditions low intention 62 0.26

high intention 54 0.94 -3. 15 0.002
6. Allow revitalizing the adjacent areas low intention 62 0.15

high intention 54 0.93 -4.10 0.000
7. Increase adjacent property value low intention 62 0.16

high intention 54 0.76 -2.96 0.004
8. Problem can be managed low intention 62 0.23

high intention 54 0.85 -3.69 0.000
9. Liability problem involved‘ low intention 62 -0.81

high intention 54 -0.26 -2.94 0.004
10. Negative impact of undesirable landﬁll image‘ low intention 62 -0.66

high intention 54 -0.33 "s -1.51 0.135
11. Threatening users' safety‘ low intention 62 -0.19

high intention 54 0.61 -4.04 0.000
12. Threatening users' health‘ low intention 62 -0.15

high intention 54 0.59 -3.65 0.000
13. Higher maintenance costs‘ low intention 62 -0.53

high intention 54 -0.69 ”5 0.82 0.415
14. Is a small problem lovmtention 62 -0.34

high intention 54 0.04"5 -l .89 0.061

 

 

 

”5 Non-signiﬁcant

" Possible score ranged from -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree).
‘ Item stated in a negative way in the questionnaire; and its mean score was reversed.

107

Table 4-20. Differences between the Low and the High Intention Groups in Preference
Evaluations

 

 

 

High and Low Sig.
Preference evaluations Intention N Mean" t-ratio (2-tailed)
1. Like land reuse strategy low intention 62 0.69
high intention 54 1.61 -5.07 0.000
2. Like promoting positive public relations low intention 62 0.63

high intention 54 1.52 -4.51 0.000

3. Pleased with additional rec. opportunities low intention 62 0.50
high intention 54 1.44 -5.55 0.000

 

 

 

4. Like increasing house demand low intention 62 -0.45
high intention 54 0.24 -2.81 0.006
5. Uneasy when recreating‘ low intention 62 -0.21

high intention 54 0.43 -2.65 0.009

6. Worried about potential safety hazards‘ low intention 62 -0.76
high intention 54 -0.13 -2.60 0.011

 

 

7. Uncomfortable about potential liability risk‘ low intention 62 -0.81

high intention 54 -0. 19 -2.86 0.005
" Possible score ranged from -2 (strongly disagree) to 2 (strongly agree).

‘ Item stated in a negative way in the questionnaire; and its mean score was reversed.

 

 

 

It appears that the two groups of the local elected ofﬁcials differing in level of
intention to support LR also differ on most of the individual items of indirect measure of
attitude. Furthermore, Table 4-19 indicates the high intention group was more positive
toward perceived beneﬁts than was the low intention group in the beliefs of LR would
provide additional recreational opportunities (M = 1.56), become a community asset (M =
1.31), and positive impacts on community image (M = 1.20) and promote positive public
relations (M = 1.20). The high intention group was less negative toward perceived risk
than were the low intention group. For example, the low intention group perceived more
negative impacts related to liability problem involved (M = -0.81), threatening users’
safety (M = -0.19) and threatening users' health (M = -0.15) while the high intention
group was more positive and felt that these problems could be managed (M =0.85).

However, both groups implied that a previous negative image toward landﬁll operation

108

would have a negative impact on LR and their perceptions of maintenance costs were
high.

In addition, the preference scale (Table 4-20) shows the high intention group
strongly favored the land reuse strategy (M = 1.61), promoting positive public relations
(M = 1.52), and pleased with additional recreation opportunities (M = 1.44). Both groups
had a tendency to remain neutral (mean score toward zero) in response to the question of
increasing housing demand in surrounding areas and the question of feeling uneasy when
recreating on a landﬁll. But yet, the two groups were signiﬁcantly different in their
responses to these items.

In regard to perceived risk (i.e., liability, safety and health problems), the negative
belief scores indicate that local elected ofﬁcials were concerned about the potential risk
while the belief scores toward the positive end imply they were concerned less or even
had no concem at all about the risk. Table 4—1 9 and 4-20 show that the low intention
group scored negative items (i.e., threatening safety and health, uneasy when recreating,
worried about safety, and uncomfortable about liability) signiﬁcantly lower than the high
intention group. The mean scores shown indicate the high intention group believed that

these outcomes might occur but they were more tolerant or less concerned about the risk.

SE91”!!! perceived beneﬁts and gvgrgll pgrcgived risk.

The analysis went further to examine the local elected ofﬁcials' overall
perceptions of beneﬁts and overall perceptions of risk, which were based on the local
elected ofﬁcials' sum of scores in response to beneﬁt and risk items previously identiﬁed

in the factor analysis section. The overall perceived beneﬁts score was obtained by the

109

summing of perceived beneﬁts scores in both consequence beliefs and preference
evaluations with a coefﬁcient alpha value of 0.93 (Appendix F, Table 2). The overall
perceived risk score was obtained by the summing of perceived risk scores in both
consequence beliefs and preference evaluations with a coefﬁcient alpha value of 0.85.
Then, the mean scores were computed for both the overall perceived beneﬁts and the
overall perceived risk.

The frequency analysis illustrates that the local elected ofﬁcials had a certain level
of overall risk concern, about 55 percent had scores less than the mean score, (M = -0.27,
SD = 0.79 and ranging between 2 and -2, see Figure 4-4). Approximately sixty percent of
local elected officials had overall perceived beneﬁts scores larger than the mean score

(M= 0.72, and ranging between 2 and -2, see Figure 4-5).

40

 

 

301

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5‘

5 Std. Dev = .79
g Mean 8 -.27
I: N = 118.00

 

 

 

 

 

Overall mean scores of perceived risk

Figure 4-4 Histogram of Local Elected Ofﬁcials’ Perceived Risk

110

 

30

Std. Dev=.83
- Mean=.72
-;' N = 118.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency

 

\ e s s s \- e' e. 0 . , .; I‘ I' I.‘ (' e-
szélgeazcba, so a, 009.: ’0 a 0,9,, 60 a, 00

Overall mean scores of perceived beneﬁts

Figure 4—5. Histogram of Local Elected Ofﬁcials’ Perceived Beneﬁts

An independent-sample t-test was conducted to assess the mean difference
between low and high intention groups among overall perceived beneﬁts and overall
perceived risk. Table 4-21 indicates that the low and the high intention groups were
signiﬁcantly different in their overall perceived beneﬁts and overall perceived risk.

The relationships among these variables were further examined by regression
analysis. The results indicate a signiﬁcant correlation existed between overall perceived
beneﬁts and behavioral intentions (r = 0.63, p 5 0.001), and a signiﬁcant, but negative
correlation existing between overall perceived risk and behavioral intentions (r = -0.45,

p 5 0.001, Table 4-22). The high intention group had higher mean scores in terms of more
positive perceptions of overall beneﬁts toward LR while the low intention group had

lower negative mean scores in terms of perceptions of overall risk toward LR. Both

lll

 

Table 4-21. Mean Differences in Overall Perceived Beneﬁts and Overall Perceived Risk
between Different Intention Groups, and between Different Awareness Groups

 

 

 

 

 

N Mean SD t Sig. (2-tailed)

Overall perceived beneﬁts High intention 54 1.13 0.57

Low Intention 62 0.38 0.85 -5.551 0.000
Overall perceived risk High intention 54 0.008 0.86

Low Intention 62 -0.49 0.65 -3.490 0.001
Overall perceived beneﬁts Aware 63 0.95 0.65

Non-aware 54 0.45 0.93 3.314 0.001
Overall perceived risk Aware 63 -0.07 0.82

Non-aware 54 -0.49 0.70 2.970 0.004

 

 

 

Table 4-22. Coefﬁcient Table for Regression Analysis for Overall Perceived Beneﬁts and
Overall Perceived Risk

 

 

Correlations
B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part
(Constant) 0.58 0.38 1.53 0.13
Over_benefrts 2.09 0.33 0.56 6.27 0.00 0.63“ 0.51 " 0.45
Over_risks -0.48 0.35 -0. 12 -1.38 0.17 -0.45"'* -0. 13 -0. 10

 

 

 

Dependent Variable: Behavioral Intentions (R = 0.64, R2 = 0.41, F=38.99, p 5 0.001)
" p S 0.001

groups perceived positively toward the beneﬁt consequences of LR and both groups were
slightly more negative toward risk concerns. The mean score (M = 0.008) of overall
perceived risk shows ofﬁcials in the high intention group were either uncertain or had less
concern about the risk than the low intention group. Similar. results were found in the
examination of the aware group versus non-awareness group, M = 0.95 vs. M = 0.45; M
= -0.07 vs. M = -0.49, respectively (Table 4-21).

It is interesting to note the relationship among these variables using a partial

correlation analysis. The results show that overall perceived beneﬁts were moderate and

112

signiﬁcantly correlated with behavioral intentions when holding constant the perceived
risk (r = 0.51, p S 0.001), while no signiﬁcant relationship was found between overall
perceived risk and behavioral intentions when holding constant the overall perceived
beneﬁts (r = -0.13, p S 0.17). The results of multiple regression analysis are presented in
Table 4-22. It appears that the overall perceived beneﬁts were the sole determinant of
behavioral intentions. This ﬁnding supports Sokolowska and Tyszk’s two-step threshold
strategy as mentioned in chapter two.

In sum, the data related to overall perceived beneﬁts and overall perceived risk
presented thus far support the previous study assumption in chapter two. That is the
opponents of LR will perceive higher risk (score toward negative end), and supporters of
LR will perceive higher beneﬁts resulting from LR while still perceiving risk at a certain
level. However, the perceived risks were found not to be signiﬁcant in predicting

behavioral intentions while holding perceived beneﬁts constant.

Noemeﬁve beliefs underlying subjective norms.

Prior to testing the difference in normative beliefs, their frequencies were
examined. The percentage of the local elected ofﬁcials’ responses toward each normative
belief and their degree of compliance are presented in Appendix F, Table 3 and Table 4.
For the degree of compliance, the local elected ofﬁcials tended to feel stronger (more than
often) about complying with the wishes of residents (87%), experts (86%), and their
colleagues (84%). For perceived support of LR, the local elected ofﬁcials considered that
all referents were likely or very likely to be supportive, especially from experts (73%) and

colleagues (72%). However, a certain proportion of responses, ranging from 18% to 41%

113

(Appendix F, Table 4), centered around the neutral value (not sure). Only a small percent
of local elected ofﬁcials considered referents opposed to LR.

The interesting thing to note here is about 60 percent (Appendix F, Table 4) of the
local elected ofﬁcials thought landﬁll owners were likely to support LR, but about 40
percent (Appendix F, Table 3) of the them were less inclined to comply with landﬁll
owners’ wishes. This makes sense because some respondents’ comments on the fear that
landﬁll companies may inappropriately use landﬁll recreation reclamation as a tactic to
gain public support for approval of landﬁll siting.

The difference between the low and the high intention groups in normative beliefs
and motivation to comply were further examined using independent-sample t-tests.
Results should reveal who is the important referent(s) and will identify the tendency at
which a local elected ofﬁcial will comply with referent(s).

Table 4-23 presents the mean belief scores for the two groups. The results show
that perceptions of the low intention group and perceptions of the high intention group
were quite different toward the referents' support of LR and toward the degree of
compliance with referents. In compliance with referents’ opinions, all mean scores are
signiﬁcantly different except for the local media. In fact, the local media opinions appear
to be the least oriented toward compliance, according to their mean scores, for both
groups in this study. Although the mean scores show that both low and high intention
groups “often” (with mean score 3 or above) comply with referents’ opinions, the high
intention group indicated stronger motivation to comply with referents' opinions than did
the low intention group.

The results shown in Table 4-23 also indicate that signiﬁcant differences existed

114

Table 4-23. Mean Differences between the Low and the High Intention Groups in
Perceived Support, Degree of Compliance, and Overall Effects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean scores Mean scores Mean scores
High and Low of perceived of degree to of product
Referents Intention N support 1’ comply ‘
State agents (DNR, DEQ) Low intention 62 0.42 3.08 1.27
High intention 54 1.06 3.89 4.28
County commissioners Low intention 62 0.39 2.87 1.19
High intention 54 1.13 3.44 4.31
Colleagues Low intention 62 0.31 3.31 1.16
High intention 54 1.46 4.04 6.15
Experts in community Low intention 62 0.56 3.52 2.08
high intention 54 1.28 4.04 5.30
Voters/residents low intention 62 -0.05 3.42 -0.11
high intention 54 0.89 3.91 _ 3.67
Local media/joumalists low intention 62 0.32 2.44 ”S 1.08
high intention 54 0.98 _ 2.87 "S 2.96
Landﬁll owners low intention 62 0.79NS 2.69 2.06
high intention 54 0.96NS 3.54 3.61
Community special interested groups low intention 62 0.11 2.66 0.15
high intention 54 0.78 3.22 2.76

 

NS: not signiﬁcant, others p< 0.05

‘ Possible score ranged from -2 (very unlikely) to 2 (very likely).

‘ Possible score ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (very much).

between low and high intention groups' normative beliefs of referents' support except the

landﬁll owners group. According to the mean scores of normative beliefs, the high

intention group perceived a much stronger support from all referents (except the landﬁll

owners group) than the low intention group perceived. Both groups thought landﬁll

owners would likely support LR. However, the low intention group was much more

reluctant to comply with landﬁll owners' opinions. The high percentages of not sure

response were further explained by the mean scores of the low intention group. As their

mean scores approached zero, it indicates low intention group was not sure whether or

not the referents would support LR, while the high intention group considered the

referents likely to support LR. Among eight referent groups, four referent groups (state

115

agents, county commissioners, colleagues, and experts) received a higher mean score
ﬁ'om the high intention group than from the low intention groups. The differences are
more obviously in the mean scores of products. The product scores were obtained by the
score of normative beliefs multiplied by the score of degree of compliance. The higher
product score implies the referent(s) play an importance role in inﬂuencing the local
elected ofﬁcials' intentions. The results also indicate the high intention group perceived
stronger support from the above four groups, especially their colleagues (M = 6.15) and
the expert groups (M = 5.30).

On the other hand, the low intention group perceived weak support ﬁ’om
voters/residents and community special interested groups, where the mean score of
product score was -0.11 and 0.15, respectively. In sum, the state agents, county
commissioners, colleagues, and experts groups may play a critical role which inﬂuence
the high intention group’ intention to support LR. On the other hand, the perceptions of
weak support from residents and interested groups have more inﬂuence on the low
intention group’ intention.

A summary of the study ﬁndings are presented in chapter ﬁve, along with
implications and discussions of the research ﬁndings. Recommendations for ﬁrture

research and conclusions are then presented.

116

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study was conducted to test a conceptual framework based on the theory of
planned behavior and to provide a better understanding of the local elected ofﬁcials'
attitudes toward the issue of reclaiming closed type II and type III landﬁlls for recreation
uses. The study further examined the underlying beliefs toward the two signiﬁcant

predictors (attitude toward the act and subjective norm) of behavioral intentions.

Summary and Implications
The study area was conducted in southern lower Michigan municipalities that
have at least one active landﬁll. The study population (N=243) was stratiﬁed into two
strata based on the population size of the municipality. A self-administrated questionnaire
was mailed to the local elected ofﬁcials who were systematically and randomly selected
from the two strata. The total response rate was 51% with 118 valid responses. Although
this response rate was typical of many mail surveys, the potential generalizability of the

results need to be made with some caution.

i b' V 'd’
Prior to determining the reliability and validity of the newly constructed
instrument, the scale dimension was ﬁrst examined. A unidimensional scale was

conﬁrmed for each scale developed in this study including the scales of behavioral

117

intentions, attitude toward the act, and normative beliefs by using principal component
analysis. However, both consequence beliefs and preference evaluations consisted of two
components: perceived beneﬁts and perceived risks, while the control beliefs scale
consisted of perceived opportunities and perceived obstacles.

The reliability test indicated that the newly constructed instrument (Form 98) had
acceptable levels of reliability. The coefﬁcient alpha for each scale tested ranged between
0.7 5 and 0.95. The construct validity of the instrument was supported by the expected
signiﬁcant and positive association between the three indirect measures and each
corresponding direct measure -- attitude toward the act (Aact), subjective norms (SN),
and perceived behavior control (PBC); and between each direct measure of Aact, SN, and

PBC and behavioral intentions.

.111'191 3' 1111-111» wrd -811, 11131101; ‘11=1_1_;111

W

The results of behavioral intention scores show that local elected ofﬁcials tended
to express a positive attitude toward supporting landﬁll recreation reclamation.
Approximately 58% of the respondents were likely to support LR while approximately
11% of respondents opposed it. The remaining respondents were either neutral or
undecided.

n n e i r' t

The t-test results suggest that the population size, ownership, and landﬁll permit

granting experience were not signiﬁcantly related to the local elected ofﬁcials' behavioral

intentions. However, the local elected ofﬁcials' behavioral intentions were positively

118

inﬂuenced by their awareness and experience of visiting a LR site. Thus, an attempt to
enhance the local elected ofﬁcials' experience of a LR such as providing related
reclamation information or visiting 3 LR site may have a positive impact on their decision
making related to supporting LR. The local elected ofﬁcials who perceived their
community as having difﬁculty in obtaining parkland or recreation areas also have
stronger intentions to support LR. Thus, communities with increasing demand of
recreation areas may be more supportive than those who are not. The ﬁndings of the local
elected ofﬁcials in favor of landﬁll end-use regulation may facilitate future policy

formation.

 

The results of the hypotheses tests supported the theoretical model based on the
theory of planned behavior. First, the rejections of hypotheses I through 111 suggest that
the loacal elected ofﬁcials have a stronger tendency to support LR when they perceived
more beneﬁts would result from LR (r = 0.73), when they perceived support from their
important referents(r = 0.61), and when they perceived fewer barriers (i.e., liability)
preventing their support or when they perceived more opportunities (i.e., funding)
facilitating their support (r = 0.27).

Second, when considering the overall effects of Aact, SN, and PBC on behavioral
intentions, the rejection of hypothesis IV shows both Aact and SN had stronger effects
upon behavioral intentions than PBC did. The local elected ofﬁcials' intentions to support
LR were successfully predicted (R = .75) from their attitude toward supporting LR (Aact)
and the social pressure they perceived from their community (SN). More speciﬁcally, the

results of this study indicated the attitudes toward LR had a greater inﬂuence on local

119

elected ofﬁcials' intentions to support LR than did subjective norms.
' f e ' e edic rs

The differences between the high intention group and the low intention group in
attitude beliefs and in normative beliefs, the underlying beliefs of the two signiﬁcant
predictors of behavior intentions, are summarized below.

1. Attitude beliefs

The t-test results of the attitude beliefs suggest that the attitudes toward landﬁll
recreation reclamation of the local elected ofﬁcials were inﬂuenced by both consequence
beliefs and preference evaluations. For example, the study results indicate that the
underlying beliefs of the high intention group were based on the positive perceptions of
the additional recreation opportunities, the creating of a community asset, promoting a
positive community image, improving public relations, and favoring the land use
strategy. On the other hand, the concern of the liability problems, the threat to users’
safety and health made the low intention group lean toward opposing LR.

The attitude beliefs toward supporting LR consisted of two attitudinal
components, perceived beneﬁts and perceived risks. The weight (beta) of the multiple
regression analysis indicated that the perceived beneﬁts component was a signiﬁcant
attitudinal predictor of the behavior intentions to support LR. Nonetheless, the perceived
risks did not contribute in predicting behavioral intentions to support LR. This could be
interpreted as the uncertainty of risk perceived by the local elected ofﬁcials. No one can
assure that the risk will or will not occur, and how little or how severe the risk will be.
Thus, it can be expected that some local elected ofﬁcials oppose LR while others intend

to take a chance on LR.

120

2. Normative beliefs

The t-test results of the normative beliefs suggest that subjective norms of the
local elected ofﬁcials were inﬂuenced by both the referents' opinions and the degree of
compliance with the referents' opinions. The underlying beliefs of the high intention
group were based on the perceptions of positive support from the referents and a higher
degree of willingness to comply with the referents’ opinions. On the other hand, the
underlying beliefs of the low intention group were mostly neutral or not sure about
whether the referents would support LR. The low intention group also complied less with
the referents' opinions.

In terms of the importance of referents, the study found that experts, colleagues,
state agents, and county commissioners were most important for the high intention group
in making decisions to support LR; while residents and interested groups have more
impact on the low intention group. Therefore, if residents and interested groups turn out
to be supportive, then the low intention group may change its attitude toward LR.

Ajzen (1991) stated that each determinant of the theory of planned behavior
reveals a different aspect of the behavior, and each provides information for an attempt to
change it. The outcomes of this study suggest some practical implications for those who
wish to promote LR. The results suggest that Aact and SN are two important variables in
predicting support of LR. Thus, the ﬁrst option should be to reinforce local elected
ofﬁcials' positive beliefs toward LR. The intervention program should increase their
awareness in the beneﬁts of LR. The second option could be addressing the support from
important referents in their communities. The results of attitude beliefs of the low

intention group also indicate that if one were to attempt to persuade the low intention

121

group to support LR, it would be most effective to convince them by using an
information campaign that the liability problem can be prevented or mitigated and public

safety can be secured.

Discussions

Th t

In this study, the standardized regression coefﬁcieants (beta) showed that Aact
was a stronger predictor of intention than SN. This result was similar to Aj zen's study
(1991) which compared studies using the theory of planned behavior. In Ajzen's ﬁnding,
Aact made signiﬁcant contributions to the prediction of intentions in most of the studies
reviewed, whereas SN did not display a clear pattern of signiﬁcant contribution. Thus,
Ajzen claimed that personal consideration (Aact) tended to overshadow the inﬂuence of
perceived social pressure (SN). This appears to be the case according to the beta in the
current study.

The additional variables, perceived behavioral control (PBC), awareness, and
parkland availability, did not signiﬁcantly contribute to the prediction of intentions.
Caution must be exercised in interpreting the regression models. The model did not state
that Aact and SN are the only factors inﬂuencing the intention. Rather the model showed
56% of the total variance (an adjusted R2 was 0.55) in the intentions to support LR was
explained by Aact and SN. Other variables that account for some of the remaining
unexplained variances in the behavioral intention measures need to be investigated.

The relatively insigniﬁcant effect of the PBC upon intention may mislead us to

122

make a false assumption that the control factor is not important in predicting support of
LR. Ajzen and Madden (1986) have noted that a strong effect of PBC is expected only
under two conditions:

First, the behavior being predicted must not be under complete volitional

control. When it is, then the concept of perceived behavioral control

becomes largely irrelevant for prediction of behavior and the theory of

planned behavior reduces to the theory of reasoned action. Second,

perceptions of behavioral control must reﬂect actual control in the

situation with some degree of accuracy. When this is not the case, the

measure of perceived behavioral control can add little to the prediction of

behavior (p.459).

This may provide some explanations for insigniﬁcant effects of PBC upon
intentions. The local elected ofﬁcials’ intention to approve a LR proposal may be more
toward volitional control instead of goal-directed. If this is the case, then the theory of
reasoned action would be more appropriate for this study than the theory of planned
behavior, as Ajzen and Madden (1986) discussed above.

However, with regard to the local elected ofﬁcials’ obligations, the perceived
behavior control of the external factors such as funding, recreation demand, and liability
should play an important role in their decision making process. Furthermore, Ajzen
(1988, 1991) also stated that the realism of measuring PBC depends on the accuracy of
the perceptions of behavioral control. Aj zen argued that a PBC measure might not
contribute to the prediction of behavioral intentions: when a person has relatively little
information about the issue or behavior, when requirements or available resources have
changed, or when new and unfamiliar elements have entered into the situation.

The mean rating scores of the control beliefs centered around the uncertain

response, the insigniﬁcant effect of PBC upon intentions may be the result of a lack of the

required information about their community situations related to LR. The local elected

123

ofﬁcials either felt uncertain about the real situation regarding their community or did not
have adequate information to make appropriate judgment.

Another explanation is the process leading to the decision to support the LR may
be over-simpliﬁed. The control beliefs scale developed in this study may not be able to

reﬂect the complex effects of these external control factors on behavioral intentions.

Ad ° 11] on erns

This study also found that the local elected ofﬁcials expressed their concerns
about the potential liability, the lack of funding, and the need of preplanning. These
issues are discussed below.

With regards to the liability concerns, it is critical to note that Michigan has taken
actions to mitigate the risk and liability in redeveloping contaminated property. Michigan
enacted PA. 234 effective on July 1, 1991 which declared that the state was willing to
enter into a covenant not to sue (CNTS) for past contamination liability at brownﬁeld
sites. PA. 234 not only represents the state's interest in redevelopment and reuse of
brownﬁeld sites to initiate community revitalization, but also decreases the investors'
ﬁnancial risk of investing in brownﬁeld redevelopment (Swartz, 1994). Whether a closed
landﬁll, which is not a Superfund site, could be classiﬁed as a brownﬁeld is subject to
debate. However, the CNT S provides a good reference for mitigating liability concerns
for landﬁll reclamation sites. Initiating similar laws and funding practices or adopting a
CNT S format should be considered if the state, local government, and waste industry are

to recognize the signiﬁcant social and economic beneﬁts generated by LR.

124

The following approaches may be considered to alleviate funding concerns. If
closed landﬁlls in Michigan were later considered as brownﬁelds, they are then eligible to
apply for Site Reclamation Grants to reclaim closed landﬁlls for recreation uses. Also a
potential state grant creating new funding sources to encourage landﬁll reuse might be
considered. Additional ﬁmding may be obtained by revenues generated ﬁ'om the landﬁll
reuse. For example, the cost of landﬁll closure and landﬁll reuse was supported by
revenue generated from a golf course developed on the closed landﬁll in Yarrnouth,
Massachusetts (Reidy, 1996). Moreover, waste companies should be encouraged to
actively provide funding to support the municipalities which intend to reclaim landﬁll for
recreation uses through tipping fees.

2 1 . 1 I a .

Some concerns have been raised in the survey with regard to the high rise landﬁll
with a steep slope that provide very little level land at the top. It must be noted that the
high rise and steep slope pattern can be changed in the landﬁll planning and design stages
if landﬁll owners are willing to sacriﬁce some proﬁts. By using the reﬁise as the
sculpting medium, Fuss (1981) stated that appropriate landforrn for recreation use can be
created under certain technological, physical, social, and economic constraints. Changing
of the landﬁll design concept to overcome the landforrn and mechanic problems also was
suggested by Golden (1994) and Rasmussen (1997).

A landﬁll host community, in general, has three opportunities to modify the ﬁnal
appearance of a landﬁll, which are before (planning stage), during (operation stage), and
after a landﬁll operation (closed stage). It is most desirable to have the end use plan

determined at a planning stage. The shape and slope of the landﬁll appearance then can

125

be created to accommodate the end use plan. The second chance would be negotiating
appropriate end use during the landﬁll operation when expansion becomes necessary.
After landﬁll closure, Opportunities are still there but it is more problematic because of
more limitations in landforrn modiﬁcation. Thus, making an end use decision in the early
stages is preferred as the size and shape can be created to ﬁt the proposed use.

This study has shown most municipalities in this survey have no end use plan.
Thus, the potential reclamation falls into the last two stages and becomes more
problematic. However, successful reuses of closed landﬁlls have been documented as
discussed in the literature review. Nevertheless, all these concerns addressed one key
issue, the importance of preplanning. If recreation end use is determined at a landﬁll
planning stage, the landforrn can be constructed as the site is ﬁlled with refuse and the
communities can see the vision of the ﬁnal destiny of their closed landﬁll sites.

Another key point is phasing. Many recreation developments can be phased over
time. If possible, develop off-site recreation areas in the ﬁrst phase as a buffer zone. The
expansion plan on the elevated site is constructed after the landﬁll has been closed for a
certain period of time. For example in Broward County, Florida, a 90-acres of a proposed
588-acre landﬁll site was developed as a park at the beginning of landﬁll operation. The
park will be expanded as more landﬁll parcels ﬁll up (Naber, 1987). A multi-phased plan
would allow balancing the technical constraints of a landﬁll and the aesthetic concerns as
well as the need for future recreation uses.

It should be emphasized here that the liability and maintenance problems could be
present even when equipped with good planning and high technology. The safety hazards

due to methane gas as well as additional maintenance problems due to the heat from

126

garbage decomposition and uneven ground settling have been reported. Thus, a feasibility
study of landﬁll end use should begin by examining the most appropriate use for each
landﬁll in ﬁtting its unique characteristics in different physical and social settings. The
major issues to consider, including but not limited to, are the technological constraints
imposed by landﬁll operation (i.e., whether equipped with a collection and monitoring
system), the unique characteristics of the landﬁll site (i.e., type of refuse collected, size,
ﬁnal cover), community recreation needs, and economic issues.

mm

The results of this study show the local elected ofﬁcials favored end-use
regulation that might facilitate LR. The mandate of a landﬁll recreation end use plan as an
acceptable ﬁnal step of the solid waste management permitting procedure may be the best
alternative for a closed landﬁll monitoring since it will beneﬁt both local communities
and landﬁll companies. However, since landﬁll companies do not have any legal
responsibility to do any end use plan for the community at this time, local elected
ofﬁcial's vision of the future use of a closed landﬁll is very critical. Local elected ofﬁcials
have to be proactive and take action to initiate the end use plan. A joint partnership of
local, regional and state government units, landﬁll management agencies, and community
residents is also critical to make landﬁll recreation reclamation feasible.

W

A caution which needs to be mentioned here is that some local elected ofﬁcials
expressed their fears that landﬁll companies might use a recreation end use plan as a
strategy to gain public support for approval of the landﬁll siting or expansion. Although

this study showed local elected ofﬁcials have expressed positive support toward landﬁll

127

recreation reclamation, landﬁll companies should not pursue landﬁll recreation
reclamation as a tool to obtain community support for a landﬁll siting and expansion.
Nonetheless, it is good to have a landﬁll company's commitment to create additional

recreation opportunities for the welfare of the whole community.

Recommendations for Future Research

The development of a survey instrument is an ongoing process that usually never
ends. This research may be an initial study on this subject. The construct validity of the
instrument should continue to be monitored as the instrument is used with other samples
and in other circumstances. Future study should extend to survey other regions in the US.
and obtain additional information for comparison. A more general and larger size of
population sample may improve the prediction of the intention model as well as to assess
the general applicability of the model established in this study.

Supporting landﬁll recreation reclamation is expected to represent complex
behaviors with some potential baniers. However, the perceived behavior control variable
did not appear to be a signiﬁcant component in predicting behavioral intentions. This
may have resulted from methodological limitations such as the control beliefs elicited and
tested in this study. The control belief measure used may not have captured enough
speciﬁcity of the perceived behavior control. van Ryn, et a1. (1996) suggested that
prediction of complex behaviors with many barriers may be enhanced by including
additional explanatory variables. For instance, in behavior with non-volitional elements,

assessment of objective barriers to the behavior in question is likely to improve the

128

predictive power. Thus, a special effort to identify these objective baniers which reﬂect
the communities' situations or differ ﬁom the control belief measure used in this study
may improve the predictive power in future research. An interview with local elected
officials with experience in LR would make a valuable contribution to perceived barriers
or additional external variables, and further reﬁne the instrument.

Ajzen's theory is dedicated to predicting a behavior in question. As behavioral
intention is regarded as a mediating factor between antecedent beliefs and consequent
action, it is essential to examine the relationship between behavioral intentions and actual
behavior. However, the actual behavior (community with LR experience) was not
examined due to the limited cases available for examination. For the same reason, the
predictive power of past behavior was not able to be examined in this study although past
behavior has been reported as a signiﬁcant predictor (Traeen and Nordlund, 1993;
Norman and Conner, 1996). The inﬂuence of past behavior upon behavior intentions may
be obtained through a broader study scope such as a nationwide study.

Netemeyer, et a1. (1991) noted that the individual difference variables such as
self-knowledge may affect the theory's predictive validity. The study did not examine
how the local elected ofﬁcials' knowledge related to landﬁll regulation and safety issues.
Since a person's cognition is inﬂuenced by his/her knowledge, the impacts of knowledge
on perceived beneﬁts and perceived risk should be assessed in a future study.

Public involvement is critical to introduce the idea and obtain feedback to
formulate the designs and programs for LR. As stated in chapter one, community
residents also play an important role in the success of LR. However, little is known about

how community residents will react to the development and especially to what extent

129

residents will utilize the recreation facility. It is also unknown whether those who use the
recreation facilities have any particular concerns. For those who do not participate, what
are their primary concerns or what are the reasons they did not use the site? As a result,
utilization of these facilities may be one of the indices for whether landﬁll recreation
reclamation is successful or not. Further application of the conceptual framework among
community residents might be able to identify those for which attitudes, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioral control are important determinants and those which are

not. This will be of considerable value for future planning and management purposes.

Conclusions

As of today, no one knows exactly how many landﬁlls will close each year.
However, considering the United States generates some 200 million tons of municipal
waste each year, it can be expected more landﬁlls will reach their capacity soon. Local
governments need to prepare to answer the question: "What can we do with these closed
landﬁlls?" Some local elected ofﬁcials in this study are ready to response to this
challenge. The ﬁndings of this study indicate the local elected ofﬁcials will support a
project of reclaiming closed sanitary landﬁlls for recreation uses. This study also
successfully identiﬁed two factors helpful in understanding why more than half of local
elected ofﬁcials are supportive toward landﬁll recreation reclamation (LR) while a few of
them do not. The identiﬁed factors, attitude toward the act (Aact) and subjective norms
(SN) were useful in predicting the behavioral intentions to support LR, with

approximately 56% of the variance being explained by applying the model. Moreover, the

130

results add support to Aj zen (1991) that subjective norms (SN) are less inﬂuential on
behavioral intentions than attitude toward the act (Aact). Any attempt to understand LR
without investigating attitudes could overlook a major inﬂuence upon the behavioral
intentions. The ﬁndings also illustrate that the positive relationships exist among attitudes
toward the act, subjective norms, selected external variables, underlying beliefs, and
behavioral intentions.

The perceived behavior control (PBC) remains an unresolved issue that needs
further study. The study was not successful in identifying the PBC that related to
community situations in predicting behavioral intentions. The insigniﬁcant effect of this
particular construct upon intentions should not mislead us to conclude that the PBC factor
is not important in inducing support of LR. No contribution of the PBC may be a result of
lacking information related to community situations.

It is important to note that the present study highlights the potential of using a
social psychological model to increase our understanding in the context of local elected
ofﬁcials' attitudes toward landﬁll recreation reclamation. The use of the theory provides a
basis for exploring future ways of facilitating local elected ofﬁcials' involvement in
reclaiming landﬁll for recreation uses in their communities. As noted, the Aact and SN
can have an important impact on a person's behavioral intentions. The more positive
consequences and higher referents' support the local elected ofﬁcial perceived, the
stronger is the person's intention to support LR. To facilitate LR development, the
information campaign must address the beneﬁt statements that affect local elected
ofﬁcials' attitudes as early as possible and address local elected ofﬁcials' concerns

effectively such as the mandated monitoring system to reduce risks.

131

The underlying beliefs of each behavioral determinant provide the detailed
descriptions needed to obtain substantive information about a speciﬁc social or behavior
concern. The analyses of belief-based measures showed that attitudes toward LR can be
separated into two attitudinal dimensions -- perceived beneﬁts and perceived risks. This
study indicated the supporters of LR perceived higher beneﬁts resulting from LR while
still expressed concerns about the latent risks that might be involved. This ﬁnding adds
support to Sokolowska and Tyszk's (1995) two-step threshold strategy. The local elected
ofﬁcials' support/acceptance of LR indicated that LR was mainly considered as an
activity with low or moderate degree of risk. Thus, perceived beneﬁts became a
signiﬁcant determinant of the local elected ofﬁcials' behavioral intentions to support LR.

The perceived beneﬁts were based on perceived economic gain, and improvement
of community living conditions, etc. The dominance of the beneﬁt component may be a
function of latent demand. As the combination of rising land values, a growing
population, and the need for recreation areas occurs, closed sanitary landﬁlls may become
the few remaining spaces available and affordable for park and recreation uses in some
municipalities. The EPA's requirement of a 30 years monitoring period after closure is
another major incentive. Instead of leaving the land idle for 30 years, municipalities in
urbanized settings might consider the suitability of various end use plans and take action
to make the land more productive. Municipalities with landﬁlls in rural settings should
also plan ahead with any potential end use in mind. When urban sprawl occurs, the once
remote landﬁll is going to be surrounded by newly developed communities sooner or
later. The landﬁll sites would be ready for the productive use as long as preplanning was

completed.

132

As addressed in the MDNR 1991 annual report, not much can be done in the
distribution of natural resources, but we can take full advantage of the many potentials
that exist in southern lower Michigan. The closed sanitary landﬁlls would be one of the
potentials that exist and could be reclaimed to provide additional recreation opportunities
for the surrounding communities. Monitoring closed sanitary landﬁlls while providing a
recreation service seem to be an ideal combination. Moreover, it is possible to convert the
site into revenue property such as a golf course providing a new tax base for local
government. By transforming an unpopular necessity into an attractive asset may also
help restore real estate values, and improve the surrounding living quality. Reclaiming
landﬁll for recreation uses has been considered as one of the most appropriate end-uses.
This approach can be an additional way of compensation to the host community.

Landﬁll recreation reclamation is certainly not going to be the major trend for
park and recreation development in the future, but it would play an important part in
solving one of our pressing environmental problems. Not every landﬁll is suitable for
landﬁll recreation reclamation. The feasibility of every site should be examined on an
individual site basis. For those communities with the need of expanding their park and
recreation space and having a suitable landﬁll site, landﬁll recreation reclamation should
be strongly considered in their end use plan. It is to be hoped that with all decent efforts
and additional caution; an undesirable necessity of our society can be turned into a

remarkable place for people in the future.

133

APPENDICES

134

APPENDIX A

THE ELICITING QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Sir:

I am a graduate student at Michigan State University. Currently, I am doing a study
related to recreational development on top of a closed sanitary landﬁll. Could you please
help me with this project?

People have many different opinions about reclaiming closed sanitary landﬁll for
recreational uses. Some communities around the nation have developed various types of
recreational facilities on top of closed landﬁlls (e. g., community park, golf course), while
others are hesitate to do it due to the concerns of the risk potential. I would like to know
what you, as an ofﬁcial of local government, believe about a landﬁll end use, and what
factors will be used in making your decision to develop an alternative landﬁll end use.

Four questions are attached. There are no right or wrong answers. Your responses will
help me in further understanding what factors inﬂuence your decision on landﬁll
recreation reclamation. The data gathered would be used to construct a questionnaire that
will be distributed to collect data for my dissertation. Please ﬁll out the four questions
attached; they will provide important data for my study. Your responses will be used for
this study only and will be kept conﬁdential.

When you completed the form, please return it in the postage-paid envelope provided as
soon as possible. I appreciate your time and assistance in this study.

Sincerely,

Chia-J en Liu

Graduate Student

E-mail: liuchiaj@pilot.msu.edu
(517)353-5190

PS. You may use E-mail to send your responses if you prefer.

135

First, lease enumerate your perceived consequences -- advanta es and disadvantages,
bene ts and costs --- of recreational development on closed lan ﬁll for your commumty.
(Please use additional sheet as needed)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, please identify people or grou s of people (such as media, state ofﬁcial) who
would inﬂuence your support of a lan ﬁll recreation end use plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Third, please identify any barriers (i.e., funding, community demand, and location) that will
inﬂuence your decision to support a landﬁll recreation end use plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fourth,_what other factors will be considered in your decision making process in terms of
evaluating a landﬁll recreation end use plan?

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Please returns it in the postage-paid envelope provided.)
THANK YOU!

136

APPENDIX B

THE PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE FORM-97

 

SURVEY OF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS' ATTITUDES TOWARD
LANDFILL RECLAMATION FOR RECREATION USES

 

 

 

INSTRUCTIONS

This questionnaire consists of three parts:

Perm—Wm

The ﬁrst part includes seven sections. Each section asks you about a different aspect of landﬁll

reclamation.
Section (i) --- Your perceived consequences and anticipated costs/beneﬁts
Section (ii) -- Opportunities and resources you perceive in your community
Section (iii) -- Your preference toward a landﬁll reclamation project
Section (iv) --- Your perception of community support
Section (v) --- Important factors in your decision making
Section (vi) --- Agreement with the referents opinions
Section (vii) --- Your intention of supporting recreational uses associated with a closed

sanitary landﬁll in your community.
Part B - W

Part two focuses on environmental issues, alternative uses and regulation need associated with landﬁll
reclamation.

Pane—W

Part three provides background information about your community and your experience with landﬁll
permits and reclamation of closed landﬁlls for recreational uses.

There are instructions regarding the nature of response in each section. There are no right or wrong
answers. Please read the instructions for the scales careﬁdly, as the items may appear similar in nature.
but they are assessing drﬂerent aspects. Please respond to every item.

Please feel ﬂee to mark any question that you feel unclear.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Please return the completed questionnaire before February 2, 1998.

137

Part One - Perceptions Toward Landfill Reclamation

 

Reclamation (LR) refers to "recreation uses of a closed sanitary landﬁll. ”

 

 

Please read each statement and circle the symbol which indicates your degree of agreement or
disagreement of the perceived consequences and the anticipated advantages or disadvantages
associated with recreational uses of a closed landﬁll in your community. Landﬁll Recreation

 

 

SA = Su'ongly Agree PA = Partially Agree NC = No Comment PD = Partially Disagree

SD = Strongly Disagree

 

 

LR provides additional recreational opportunities for the community .................. . SA PA NC PD SD
LR allows reclaiming land suitable for active or passive recreational uses ............ SA PA NC PD SD
The undesirable landﬁll image has a negative impact on LR .................................. SA PA NC PD SD
A LR site has the same recreation appeal as a non-reclaimed recreation site .. SA PA NC PD SD
There is funding (i.e., grants, tipping fees) available

for landﬁll reclamation for recreation purposes ................................................. SA PA NC PD SD
The cost of LR is far more than establishing a non-reclaimed recreational site ..... SA PA NC PD SD
LR provides an inexpensive way to

acquire additional park land for the connnunity ............................................... SA PA NC PD SD
LR has higher maintenance costs than a non-reclaimed recreational area ............. SA PA NC PD SD
LR causes the decline of adjacent land value ............................................................ SA PA NC PD SD
LR allows economic development on the adjacent land .......................................... SA PA NC PD SD
LR promotes positive public relations

between the community and landﬁll owner ....................................................... SA PA NC PD SD
A LR site receives support from the public sector (for recreation use) .................. SA PA NC PD SD
Recreational use of an EPA regulated landﬁll site is safe for public use .............. . SA PA NC PD SD
Recreational use of a closed EPA regulated landﬁll involves liability problem .. .. SA PA NC PD SD
LR turns a potential liability into a community asset ............................................... SA PA NC PD SD
LR produces an unacceptable health hazard for public use .................................... SA PA NC PD SD

11 i 'e r c iv ' ur 1

Please identrﬁ) the likelihood the following conditions or attitudes will be presented
in your community regarding recreation developments on a closed sanitary landﬁll.

 

VL = Very Likely L = Likely NS = Not Sure UL = Unlikely VUL = Very Unlikely

Residents' oppose recreational use of a closed landﬁll ......................................... VL
No available funds for deve10pment ....................................................................... VL
LR is non-self-supporting ..................................................................................... VL
Liability risks will be involved ............................................................................... VL
The landﬁll location is unsuitable for recreational use .......................................... VL
Low community recreational demand exists in your area ...................................... VL
Landﬁll owners will not want to fumish the land with little or no cost ................ VL
(OVER)

138

l"l"t"l"1"?‘l"

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS

sssssss
sssssss

 

 

recreation development on a closed sanitary landﬁll in your community.

 

WWW

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the consequences resulting from

 

SA = Strongly Agree PA = Partially Agree NC = No Comment PD = Partially Disagree

SD = Strongly Disagree

I like the land reuse strategy, landﬁll reclamation (LR), for our community . . SA
I like LR which promotes positive public relations between community

and landﬁll owner ............................................................................................ SA
I would like to acquire more park land for the community

even it is a closed landﬁll site .......................................................................... SA
I feel annoyed about the potential liability risk with landﬁll reclamation .............. SA
I feel uneasy when recreating on a landﬁll .............................................................. SA
I am pleased with additional recreation opportunities for the community

even it is on a closed landﬁll ............................................................................ SA
I am worried about the potential safety hazards in the ﬁeld .................................... SA
I feel landﬁll reclamation is good overall for our community ................................ SA

PA

PA

PA
PA
PA

PA
PA
PA

NC

NC

NC
NC
NC

NC
NC
NC

PD

PD

PD
PD
PD

PD
PD
PD

SD
SD
SD

SD
SD

 

WW

development on a closed sanitary landﬁll in your community.

 

Please indicate the likelihood you think that each referent would support a recreation

 

 

VL = Very Likely L = Likely NS = Not Sure UL = Unlikely VUL = Very Unlikely

 

 

 

 

State agents/ofﬁcials from DNR or DEQ ............................................................... VL L NS UL VUL
Your county commissioners ................................................................................... VL L NS UL VUL
Your colleagues (township board or city council members) ............................... VL L NS UL VUL
Experts in your community (i.e., engineer consultants, solid waste ofﬁcials,

recreational professional) ............................................................................... VL L NS UL VUL
Voters/residents ...................................................................................................... VL L NS UL VUL
Local media, local journalists ................................................................................. VL L NS UL VUL
Landﬁll owners ....................................................................................................... VL L NS UL VUL
Special interested groups in your community ........................................................ VL L NS UL VUL

S 'on V t l i
Please indicate to what extent the following factors would negatively inﬂuence your support
of a recreation development on a closed sanitary landﬁll in your community.
VM = Very Much AL = Always O = Often S = Sometimes N = Never

Low community recreational demand exists in your area .................................... .VM AL 0 S N
Liability risks will be involved .............................................................................. VM AL 0 S N
No available funds for development ....................................................................... VM AL 0 S N
Residents' opposition to recreational use of a closed landﬁll ............................. . VM AL 0 S N
Landﬁll owners will not furnish the land with little or no cost ............................. VM AL 0 S N
The landﬁll location is unsuitable for recreational use ......................................... . VM AL 0 S N
LR is non-self-supporting ...................................................................................... VM AL 0 S N

139

 

 

A twi fr in

 

This following questions address the degree you want to follow referents ' recommendations
regarding the support of a recreation development on a closed sanitary landﬁll in your community.

 

 

VM = Very Much AL = Always O = Often S = Sometimes N = Never

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State agents/ofﬁcials from DNR or DEQ ............................................................... VM AL 0 S N
Your county commissioners .................................................................................. VM AL 0 S N
Your colleagues (township board or city council members) ................................ VM AL 0 S N
Experts in your community (i.e., engineer consultants, solid waste,
recreational professional) ............................................................................. VM AL 0 S N
Voters/residents ...................................................................................................... VM AL 0 S N
Local media, local journalists ................................................................................. VM AL 0 S N
Landﬁll owners ...................................................................................................... VM AL 0 S N
Special interested groups in your community ........................... VM AL 0 S N
W
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding recreational
uses of a closed sanitary landﬁll in your community.
VL = Very Likely L = Likely NS = Not Sure UL = Unlikely VUL = Very Unlikely
I would be willing to propose a reclamation project to the proper
committee for consideration ........................................................................ VL L NS UL VUL
I would approve a project of recreation development on
a closed landﬁll when it is brought to board meeting .................................. VL L NS UL VUL
Part Two -- Landﬁlls and Alternative Uses
The following questions ask about issues with landﬁlls, their alternative end uses and regulation
need.
SA = Strongly Agree PA = Partially Agree NC = No Comment PD = Partially Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
1. How strongly do you agree with the following landﬁll statements?
An EPA regulated landﬁll is required to have a
gas monitoring and collection system ............................................................. SA PA NC PD SD
An EPA regulated landﬁll is required to have a leachate collection system .......... SA PA NC PD SD
An EPA regulated landﬁll needs to be monitored for 30 years after close ........... SA PA NC PD SD
Most settlement will occur in the ﬁrst 5 years ........................................................ SA PA NC PD SD
Gas explosions rarely happen .................................................................................. SA PA NC PD SD
A properly closed landﬁll has little potential for actual
environmental harm, especially with recreational uses ................................. SA PA NC PD SD
Pre-planning of recreational end use can minimize the safety concerns ............... SA PA NC PD SD
Mega-landﬁll sites will replace township landﬁll sites ........................................... SA PA NC PD SD
The size of a mega-landﬁll is more suitable for recreational development ........... SA PA NC PD SD

140

2. What type of development do you consider as a most appropriate development on the closed landﬁlls?

[3 Wildlife habitats .................................................................................................. SA PA NC PD SD
El Passive recreation area (i.e., hiking trail, picnicking) .......................................... SA PA NC PD SD
[:1 Active recreation area (i.e., ballﬁeld, ski area, golf course) .............................. SA PA NC PD SD
D Open space with natural succession .................................................................... SA PA NC PD SD
D Industrial development - .. . -- - - ............................... SA PA NC PD SD

 

 

3. In surface mining, a reclamation plan is required for use after the mining operation. Do you think a post
landﬁll-recreation conversion or end use plan should be part of the landﬁll regulations?

D Completely Agree El Partially Agree Cl No Comment [:1 Partially Disagree U Completely disagree

Part Three -— Background Information

 

Section 1. Recreation and Landﬁlls in Your Community

 

 

 

(1) Do you think your community needs more parkland? Yes Cl No D
(2) Does your community have difﬁculty in obtaining new park/recreation space? Yes D No C]
(3) Who owns the landﬁll in your community? Public El Private El

(4) If you have a closed landﬁll in your community, what is the current use of the site?
D No plan El Don't know C] Use planned, please speciﬁed

 

(5) Did the landﬁll in your community have any end uses plan after it closed?

El Yes, go to Q 6 D No, go to Q 7 El Don't know, go to Q 7.
(6) Does the landﬁll end use plan provide recreation uses?
[I] Don't know D Yes D No, speciﬁed

 

 

Section II. About you

 

 

 

(7) What is your current position/official title?

 

(8) Have you had experience with the landﬁll permitting process? Yes CI NOD

(9) Do you know of any closed landﬁlls that have been transformed into recreational uses, such as parks,
golf courses, etc.?
D No
D Yes, How did you learn about it?
C] Workshop El Meeting El TV Cl Newspaper El Friends D Others

(10) Have you ever visited a recreational facility developed on a closed landﬁll?
E] No
D Yes, if possible, please indicated name of the facility and location (city, state)

 

(11) We invite you to make any comments here.

 

 

Your contribution to this study is greatly appreciated.
Please put the questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid envelop and return it
BEFORE FEBRUARY 2, 1998.

141

APPENDIX C

Table 1. Summary of Mean, SD, Range, and Potential Range for the Three Indirect Measures in
Pilot Survey

 

N Mean SD Range Min. Max.

 

 

Attitude Beliefs: BC1 20 1.15 1.31 4 -2 2
BC2 20 1.35 0.99 4 -2 2
BC3 20 -0.90 1.25 4 -2 2
BC4 20 -0.20 1 .28 4 -2 2
BC5 20 0.25 0.72 3 -2 1
BC6 20 -0.50 0.83 3 -2 l
BC7 20 0.75 0.64 2 0 2
BC8 20 -0.30 1.03 3 -2 1
BC9 20 1.25 1.12 4 -2 2
BC10 19 0.89 0.74 3 -1 2
BC 1 1 20 1.25 0.64 2 0 2
BC 1 2 20 0.85 0.93 3 -1 2
BC 13 20 1.05 0.89 3 —l 2
BC14 20 -0.80 0.83 3 -2 1
BC 1 5 20 1.05 0.83 3 -1 2
BC16 20 1.10 1.02 4 -2 2
BCEVl 20 l .40 0.75 2 0 2
BCEV2 20 l .50 0.76 2 0 2
BCEV3 20 0.90 1 .37 4 -2 2
BCEV4 20 -0.50 0.76 3 -2 1
BCEV5 20 0.30 1.26 4 -2 2
BCEV6 20 l .30 0.80 2 0 2
BCEV7 20 -0.10 1.29 4 -2 2
BCEV8 20 1 .40 0.68 2 0 2

Normative Beliefs PRO_N01 18 1.78 4.71 20 -10 10
PRO_N02 16 2.75 2.65 12 -4 8

PRO_NO3 17 3.35 2.76 10 0 10
PRO_NO4 17 4.41 2.83 10 0 10
PRO_NOS 18 2.17 2.94 12 -2 10
PRO_NO6 18 0.28 2.05 10 -5 5
PRO_NO7 17 3.06 3.09 10 0 1o

 

 

 

 

PRO_N08 17 1.18 1.51 4 0 4
Control Beliefs: PRO_CT l 20 0.65 4.27 16 -10 6
PRO_CI‘Z 19 -2.95 2.90 12 -10 2
PRO_CT3 19 -l.21 4.87 18 -10 8
PRO_CT 4 20 1.05 2.74 l l -5 6
PRO_CT5 19 0.58 3.20 15 -5 10
PRO_CT6 19 1.05 4.12 20 -10 10
PRO_Cl‘7 19 -0.68 4.03 20 -10 10
Intention: lNT_l 18 0.89 1.1827 4 -2 2
INT_2 18 0.83 1.1504 4 -2 2

 

142

APPENDIX D

THE REVISED QUESTIONNAIRE FORM-98

 

SURVEY OF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS' ATTITUDES TOWARD
LANDFILL RECLAMATION FOR RECREATION USES

 

 

 

INSTRUCTIONS

In this particular questionnaire we are mainly concerned with your views toward a potential landﬁll
reclamation project for recreational use in your community.

This questionnaire consists of two parts:

rams-WW

The ﬁrst part includes seven sections. Each section asks you about a different aspect of landﬁll
reclamation.

Section (i) - Your views toward landﬁll recreation development proposal
Section (ii) - Your perceptions of community support

Section (iii) -- Important factors in your decision making

Section (iv) - Your preference toward a landﬁll recreation reclamation
Section (v) -- Attitudes and limitations you perceive in your community
Section (vi) - Your perceived consequences and anticipated costs/beneﬁts
Section (vit)- Agreement with the referents opinions

Part3 —Landtill_ansl_Y_o_u

This part focuses on landﬁll issues, alternative uses, and regulation need associated with landﬁll
reclamation. It also includes background information about your community and your experience with
landﬁll permits and end uses of closed landﬁlls.

There are instructions regarding the nature of response in each section. There are no right or wrong
answers. Please read the instructions for the scales carefully, as the items may appear similar in nature, but
they are assessing different aspects.

For convenience and time's sake, we are evaluating community support of landﬁll recreation projects. Kg

WWW Our choice between the two was essentially
arbitrary.

Be sure you answer all items --- please do not omit any.

Thank you for your cooperation. Please return the completed questionnaire as prompt as possible.

143

Part One -- Perceptions Toward Landﬁll Recreation

 

w wa a VI sa

Following is a series of word pairs which are used to describe your opinions and feelings about
landﬁll recreation reclamation, please circle the number between each pair that best describes your
opinions and feelings. Please circle only one number per line for each word pair.

 

 

 

For me to support Landﬁll Recreation (LR) development in my community is ...............................
extremely very slightly neutral slightly very extremely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wise I 2 3 4 5 6 7 foolish
beneﬁcial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 risky

safe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 harmful
pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unpleasant
favorable use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7--- unfavorable use
overall good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 overall bad

 

 

If I support LR development in my community, most people who are important to me would

 

approve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 disapprove

How much control do you have with the LR development in your community?

 

little control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 complete control

I would be willing to propose a reclamation project to the proper committee for consideration.
likely I 2 3 4 5 6 7 unlikely

 

I would approve a project of recreation development on a closed landﬁll when it is brought to the board
meeting.

likely I 2

h)
45
Us

6 7 unlikely

 

WWW

Please indicate the likelihwd you think that each referent would support a recreation
development on a closed sanitary landﬁll in your community.

 

 

 

VL = Very Likely L = Likely NS = Not Sure UL = Unlikely VUL = Very Unlikely

State agents/ofﬁcials from DNR or DEQ ............................................................... VL L NS UL VUL
Your county commissioners ................................................................................... VL L NS UL VUL
Your colleagues (township board or city council members) ................................. VL L NS UL VUL
Experts in your community (i.e., engineer consultants, solid waste ofﬁcials,

recreation professional) ................................................................................ VL L NS UL VUL
Voters/residents ....................................................................................................... VL L NS UL VUL
Local media, local journalists ................................................................................. VL L NS UL VUL
Landﬁll owners ....................................................................................................... VL L NS UL VUL
Special interested groups in your community ......................................................... VL L NS UL VUL

144

 

 

Please indicate to what extent the following factors will be considered in your decision
making regarding recreation development on a closed sanitary landﬁll in your community.

 

 

 

VM = Very Much AL = Always O = Often S = Sometimes N = Never

Community need for additional recreation areas .................................................... VM AL 0 S N
Potential liability risks ............................................................................................ VM AL 0 S N
Revenue production via leagues, fees charges etc. ................................................. VM AL 0 S N
Funds for development are available ...................................................................... VM AL 0 S N
Revitalization of the surrounding area will occur ................................................... VM AL 0 S N
Obtain land at little or no cost ................................................................................. VM AL O S N
Suitable location for recreation use .......................................................................... VM AL 0 S N
Adverse users' health and safety effect .................................................................... VM AL 0 S N

 

 

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the consequences resulting from recreation
development on a closed sanitary landﬁll in your community. Landﬁll Recreation (LR) refers to
"recreation uses ofa closed sanitagv landfill. ”

 

 

 

SA = Strongly Agree PA = Partially Agree NC = No Comment PD = Partially Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree

I like the land reuse strategy, from landﬁll to recreation use, for my community... SA PA NC PD SD

I like LR which promotes positive public relations between community

and landﬁll owner ........................................................................................ . SA PA NC PD SD
I think LR will increase the demand for housing in the surrounding area .............. SA PA NC PD SD
I am pleased with additional recreation opportunities for

the community even it is on a closed landﬁll ............................................... SA PA NC PD SD
I feel uneasy when recreating on a landﬁll ............................................................ .SA PA NC PD SD
I am worried about the potential safety hazards in the ﬁeld ................................... .SA PA NC PD SD

1 am uncomfortable with the potential liability risk with landﬁll reclamation .. SA PA NC PD SD

 

artrv

 

If your community proposes a recreation development on a closed sanitary landﬁll, please identify the
likelihood the following limitations or attitudes will be present.

 

 

 

VL = Very Likely L = Likely NS = Not Sure UL = Unlikely VUL = Very Unlikely

No need to acquire more park or recreation areas ................................................. VL L NS UL VUL
Big potential liability risks ...................................................................................... VL L NS UL VUL
No revenue production ........................................................................................... VL L NS UL VUL
No available funds (i.e., grants, tipping fees) for development ............................. VL L NS UL VUL
No revitalization will occur in the surrounding area ............................................. VL L NS UL VUL
Landﬁll owners will not want to furnish the land at little or no cost .................... VL L NS UL VUL
The landﬁll location is unsuitable for recreation use ............................................ VL L NS UL VUL
Adverse effect on users' health and safety .............................................................. VL L NS UL VUL

145

 

ti iv u ti ' it its

Please indicates your degree of agreement or disagreement of the perceived consequences and the
anticipated advantages or disadvantages associated with recreational uses of a closed landﬁll in

 

your community. Landﬁll Recreation (LR) refers to "recreation uses of a closed sanitary landﬁll ”

 

 

SA = Strongly Agree PA = Partially Agree NC = No Comment PD = Partially Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree

 

 

 

LR provides additional recreation opportunities for the community ..................... SA PA NC PD SD
LR will improve living conditions in adjacent areas after closure ......................... SA PA NC PD SD
LR allows revitalization of the adjacent areas ......................................................... SA PA NC PD SD
LR turns a potential liability into a community asset - - SA PA NC PD SD
LR will contribute to positive impacts on community image aﬁer closure ........... SA PA NC PD SD
The undesirable landﬁll image has a negative impact on future

recreation daily uses of a reclaimed site ........................................................ SA PA NC PD SD
LR has higher maintenance costs than a non-reclaimed recreation area ................ SA PA NC PD SD
LR will increase nearby owner property value .. . . _ - -- .......................... SA PA NC PD SD
LR promotes positive public relations

between the community and landﬁll owner ................................................... SA PA NC PD SD
LR posts a threat to public users' safety .................................................................. SA PA NC PD SD
Recreational use of a closed EPA regulated landﬁll involves liability problem SA PA NC PD SD
LR has adverse health effect on public users .......................................................... SA PA NC PD SD
Potential ground settlement and gas problem is small ............................................. SA PA NC PD SD
Potential ground settlement and gas problem can be managed ............................... SA PA NC PD SD

e h r

the support of a recreation development on a closed sanitary landﬁll in your community.

 

This following questions address the degree you want to follow referents' recommendations regarding

 

 

VM = Very Much AL = Always O = Often S = Sometimes N = Never

State agents/ofﬁcials from DNR or DEQ ............................................................... VM AL 0 8
Your county commissioners .................................................................................. VM AL 0 S
Your colleagues (township board or city council members) ................................ VM AL 0 S
Experts in your community (i.e., engineer consultants, solid waste,

recreation professional) ............................................................................... VM AL 0 S
Voters/residents ...................................................................................................... VM AL 0 S
Local media, local journalists ................................................................................. VM AL 0 S
Landﬁll owners ...................................................................................................... VM AL 0 8
Special interested groups in your community ......................................................... VM AL 0 S

146

2

22222

Part Two - Landﬁlls and You

 

 

Section I — About landﬁlls issues, their alternative end uses and regulation need.

 

 

SA = Strongly Agree PA = Partially Agree NC = No Comment PD = Partially Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree

(1). How strongly do you agree with the following statements?

Mega (regional) landﬁll sites will replace city/township landﬁll sites .................. SA PA NC PD SD
The size of mega-landﬁll has good potential for recreational development .......... SA PA NC PD SD
There is a difﬁculty in obtaining new recreational areas in my community ........... SA PA NC PD SD

In surface mining, a reclamation plan is required for use
after the mining operation. Do you think a post landﬁll recreation
conversion should be part of the landﬁll permit regulations? .................... SA PA NC PD SD

(2). What type of development do you consider as the most appropriate development on closed landﬁlls?

D Open space with natural succession El Passive recreation area (i.e., hiking trail, picnicking )
Cl Wildlife habitats [3 Active recreation area (i.e., ball ﬁelds, ski area, golf course)
El Combination of active and passive recreation area D Other

 

 

 

Section II -- About Your Community and You

 

 

(1) Who owns the landﬁll in your cormnunity? Public Cl Private El

(2) If your community has a closed landﬁll, what is the current use of the site?
Current use planned, please specify Cl
Don't know C] No plan E] Not applicable [3

 

(3) Did the landﬁll in your community have any end use plan after it is closed?
E! No, go to Q 4 [3 Don't know, go to Q 4.
D Yes, Does the landﬁll end use plan provide for recreational uses?
Don't know Cl Yes E] No CI please specify other use

(4) Have you had experience with the landﬁll permitting process? Yes D No Cl

 

(5) Do you know of any closed landﬁlls that have been transformed into recreational uses, such as parks,
golf courses, etc.?

DNo

D Yes, How did you learn about it?
C] Workshop D Meeting El TV [3 Newspaper El Friends [3 Other

Have you ever visited a recreational facility developed on a closed landﬁll?

D No
D Yes, please indicated name of the facility and location (city, state)

( 6) We invite you to make any comments here. (Please use additional sheet if needed)

Please put the questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid envelop and return it as prompt as possible.

THANK YOU

147

APPENDIX E

Descriptive Analyses of General Attributes of Respondents

It may be useful and informative to present some of the ﬁndings related to the
attributes of the respondents. Table l in Appendix E summarizes the results of the
analysis. In regard to the community background section, among 118 respondents, 64.4%
are from municipalities with a population under 10,000, and 35.6% are from
municipalities with a population 10,000 and greater. Most of respondents (68.4%)
indicated that landﬁlls in their communities are owned by the private sector while 29.9%
are owned by the public sector. Only 1.7% respondents indicated that they have both
public and private owned landﬁlls in their communities.

In regard to current status (closed or active) of the landﬁll in their community,
6.3% of the respondents stated they don't know, 41.1% of the respondent stated the
landﬁll in their communities are still active or under operation, and 38.4% respondents
stated that their landﬁlls were closed with no future plan. Approximately 14% of the
respondents indicated that their closed landﬁlls have an end use plan. These end use plans
included golf course practicing facilities, a community park, a gun range, a model
airplane ﬁeld, and a soccer ﬁeld. A few of these plans were implemented; most of them
are still under consideration.

To explore the future end use of a closed landﬁll, the study asde the ofﬁcials
whether an end use plan for their landﬁlls aﬁer closure exists. About half (44.6%) of the
respondents reported the landﬁll in their community has no end use plan aﬁer closure.

One third (33.7%) of the respondents did not know whether a plan exists or not.

148

Table 1. Summary Table for Frequency Distribution of General Attributes of the Local Elected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ofﬁcials
Variables Frequency Percent
Community background:
Population group Under 10,000 76 64.4
10,000 and greater 42 35.6
Total 118 100.0
Landﬁll ownership Public owned 35 29.9
Private owned 80 68.4
Both 2 1.7
Total 117 100.0
Current use of closed landﬁll Don't know 7 6.3
Closed with use planned 16 14.3
No plan 43 38.4
Not applicable, still 46 41.1
active
Total 112 100.0
Any end use plan after landfdl closed Don't know 34 33.7
Yes 17 16.8
No 45 44.6
Not applicable 5 5.0
Total 101 100.0
Personal experience:
Experience with permit process Yes 53 46.1
No 62 53.9
Total 115 100.0
Awareness of landﬁll - recreation Yes 63 53.8
No 54 46.2
Total 117 100.0
Experience of visiting LR site Yes 23 35.9
No 41 64.1
Total 64 100.0
Ways to learn about LR Workshops 6 5.1
Meetings 7 6.0
TV 7 6.0
Newspapers 13 1 1.1
Friends 10 8.5
Others 18 15.4
Not applicable 56 47.9
Total 117 100.0

 

 

 

149

Only 16.8% of respondents indicated their landﬁlls have an end use plan after closure.
Among those with an end use plan, eleven respondents reported their plan included
recreation uses.

With regard to the personal experience section, the results of local elected ofﬁcials’
experiences with granting a landﬁll permit indicated that 46% of the respondents have
been involved in the landﬁll permit granting process. More than half (53.8%) of the
respondents were aware of landﬁll recreation reclamation. However, only 36% of the
aware respondents had visited a landﬁll recreation reclamation site. The major ways the
respondents learned about landﬁll recreation reclamation were either from their own
community experience, newspapers or friends. About one third learned from TV,
meetings or workshops.

This study revealed the local elected ofﬁcials' responses to the development of
mega-landﬁll, the difﬁculty in obtaining parkland in their community, regulation need for
a landﬁll recreation end use plan, and their preference of alternative uses. The results of
these ﬁndings are presented in Appendix B, Table 2.

In response to the size of a future landﬁll, more than one third of the respondents
(33.9%) strongly agreed a mega-landﬁll will replace a small landﬁll. In regard to size for
recreation use, approximately 61% of the respondents tended to agree that a mega-landﬁll
provides a size that is more suitable for recreation use. Only 18% of the respondents
indicated a mega-landﬁll would not provide suitable size for recreation use.

The local elected ofﬁcials were asked whether or not their communities had
difﬁculty in obtaining new recreation areas. More than half of the respondents

acknowledged that the difﬁculty existed. One third of the respondents did not think their

150

communities have problems in obtaining new parklands or recreation areas.

In regard to regulation needed for a landﬁll recreation end use plan, about 76% of
the respondents indicated that regulation is needed, and about 10% of the respondents did
not agree with the need for regulation. With regard to the alternative uses of closed
landﬁlls, the results indicate that development of mixed active and passive recreation use
was most preferred (41.6%), then was active recreation use (21.2%). Approximately 11%
respondents preferred wildlife habitat use, while about 7% preferred open space use, and
about 6% preferred passive recreation use. Approximately 9% of the respondents
preferred any recreation end uses while about 4% preferred to do nothing on a closed

landﬁll.

Table 2. Summary Table for Frequencies of Agreement with the Issue of Mega-landﬁll, Parkland
Difﬁculty, and Need of Regulation by Local Elected Ofﬁcials

 

 

 

 

 

Issues strongly partially no partially strongly Total
disagree disagree comment agree agree

Mega-landﬁll replace small Frequency 6 9 22 41 40 118
landﬁll

% 5.08 7.63 18.64 34.75 33.90 100.00
Mega-landﬁll provides more Frequency 7 14 24 47 24 116
suitable size for rec.

% 6.03 12.07 20.69 40.52 20.69 100.00
Difﬁculty in obtaining new Frequency 17 21 13 39 26 116
recreation areas

% 14.66 18.10 11.21 33.62 22.41 100.00
Regulation of recreation end Frequency 8 4 15 35 54 116
use plan

% 6.90 3.45 12.93 30.17 46.55 100.00

 

 

 

151

Table 1. Coefﬁcient Table for Multiple Regression Analysis in Testing Interaction

APPENDIX F

 

 

B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 0.03 0.28 0.1 1 0.92
Product -0.03 0.02 -0. 15 -1.57 0.12
SN 0.62 0.22 0.29 2.84 0.01
Aact 0.25 0.05 0.61 5.50 0.00

 

 

Dependent Variable: Behavioral Intentions

Table 2. Summary Table for Item-total Statistics Analysis of the Overall Perceived Beneﬁts and

 

 

 

Overall Perceived Risk
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Alpha N
if Item if Item Total if Item of
Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted Alpha Cases
Overall perceived beneﬁts:
BC] - additional recreational opportunities 7.449 83.224 0.796 0.917
BC2 — improve adjacent living conditions 8,025 80.589 0.754 0.918
BC3 — allow revitalizing the adjacent areas 8.076 84.328 0.671 0.922
BC4 — community asset 7.695 84.641 0.680 0.921
BC5 — positive impacts on community image 7.737 83.854 0.724 0.920
BC8 — increase adjacent property value 8.195 84.004 0.638 0.923
BC9 — promote positive public relations 7.729 86.558 0.666 0.922
BC14 - problem can be managed 8.076 87.490 0.577 0.925
BCEVl - like land reuse strategy 7.509 81.415 0.794 0.917
BCEV2 ‘ like promoting POSitiVe PR 7.585 83.783 0.620 0.924
BCEV3 - like increasing house demand 8.746 81.576 0.627 0.925
BCEV4 - pleased with additional rec. 0PP~ 7.703 81.971 0.781 0.917 0.927 1 18
Overall perceived risk:
BC6 — negative impact of undesirable landﬁll -1 .873 41.035 0.554 0.840
BC7 - higher maintenance costs - l .797 45.958 0.283 0.863
BC10 — threatening users' safety -2.568 38.880 0.743 0.821
BC1 1- liability problem involved -1.831 42.313 0.566 0.839
BC12 — threatening users' health -2585 38.963 0.733 0.822
BC13 - small problem -2.229 44.434 0.361 0.857
BCEV5 - uneasy when recreating -2,525 38.969 0.605 0.835
BCEV6 - worried about potential safety -1949 37.792 0.688 0.825
hazar s
BCEV7 - uncomfortable 350‘“ P0160113] -1.898 39.699 0.633 0.832 0.853 118

liability

 

152

APPENDIX F

Table 3. Percentages of Local Elected Ofﬁcials’ Degree of Compliance with Referents

 

 

 

 

state county colleagues community voter/ local landﬁll interested

agents commissioner experts residents media owners groups
never 5.08 5.08 3.39 3.39 3.39 20.34 9.32 9.32
sometimes 22.88 33.05 12.71 11.02 8.47 29.66 30.51 35.59
often 22.03 23.73 27.12 23.73 33.05 22.88 21.19 23.73
always 20.34 17.80 29.66 30.51 26.27 11.86 15.25 16.10
very much 28.81 19.49 27.12 31.36 27.97 13.56 22.88 15.25
Mean 3.42 3.11 3.64 3.75 3.64 2.63 3.09 2.92
N=ll8

 

Table 4. Percentages of Local Elected Ofﬁcials’ Normative Beliefs (Perceived Support from

 

 

 

 

Referents)
state county colleagues community voter/ local landﬁll interested

agents commissioner experts residents media owners groups
very 3.42 1.71 2.56 0.85 5.98 2.59 2.56 5.13
unlikely
unlikely 0.85 5.13 7.69 3.42 13.68 4.31 1.71 7.69
not sure 41.03 29.91 17.95 23.08 28.21 35.34 35.90 41.03
likely 30.77 44.44 47.01 52.14 41 .03 43.97 24.79 32.48
very likely 23.93 18.80 24.79 20.51 11.11 13.79 35.04 13.68
Mean 0.71 0.74 0.84 0.88 0.38 0.62 0.88 0.42
N=1 17

 

153

BIBLIOGRAPHY

154

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl and

J. Beckmann (Eds), Actioo-control: From oogoition to behavior, 11-39.
Heidelberg: Springer.

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudo, personality, and behavior. Chicago: The Dorsey Press.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. g)_rganizational Behavior and
W (50), 179-211.

Aj zen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis &
review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 811 (5), 888-918.

Ajzen, I. &Fishbein, M. (1980). nde t i ttitu es 'ctin i l e avior.
Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ajzen,I. & Madden T. (1986). Prediction of goal-direct behavior: attitudes, intentions, and

perceived behavioral control Walnut (22)
453-474.

Arent, K. A. (May 1989). The creation of a park. Puoljo Worn, 1,29 (6), 58.

Arrandale, T. (August 1993). The changing world of landﬁlls. Governing-The States and
Lam Q (11). 59-71.

ARUP (1997). Stockley park landﬁll reclamation Hillingdon. [Online] Available
http://www.arup.com/proj/zstock/zstock.htm.

Austin, D., W. Hoge, and K. Austin. (1990). Attitude, beliefs, and behavioral intentions
of park and recreation students toward serving persons with disabilities. Journol of

Park go Recreation Administration , 8 (3). 57-73.

Baumann, D., and Kasperson R. (1974). Public acceptance of renovated waste water;
myth and reality. Water Resources Research, m (4), 667-674.

Bethlehem, D. W. (1990). Attitudes, social attitudes, and widespread beliefs. In C. Fraser
and G. Gaskell (Eds), The ooojol osychologioal study of widespread beliefs.

Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bourque, L. B., & Clark, V. A. (Ed.). (1992). Procesoing dato - The survey examole.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.

155

Breckler, S. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct

components of attitudes. Journal of Personalig & Sooial Poychology, ﬂ.
1 191-1205.

Brownﬁelds: Potential for Urban Revitalization. [Online] Available
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/audit/list398/8100091.html, April 18, 1998. Report
of Audit No. E1SHF8-11-0005-8100091, Ofﬁce of Inspector General, Inspector
General Division.

Brownﬁelds: Community participation or stakehold involvement (1996). [Online]
Available http://www.csa.com/routenet/disk/current.htrnl, Interactive
Environmental Issue No.1996-1. , May 1, 1998. US EPA, Ofﬁce of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.

Brunner , D. R. & Keller. D. J. (1972). W.
Washington, DC: US. Environmental Protection Agency.

Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (1997). ngp'totive oata molyois m1]; SPSS for Windows : A
goioe for sooiol gientisto. London: Routledge.

Cable, T., D. Knudson, E. Udd, and D. Stewart, (1987). Attitude change as a result of
exposure to interpretive messages, a1 0 Par ecreat'on A inistration,
5 ( 1). 46-60.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979).I;e1iobjjjty_opd_\gl_iom_a§§ogmm. Newbury
Park, CA.: Sage publications Inc.

WW. (1997). Washington DC: Carol] Publications Co.

Cohen, D. (1981). Consumg behavior; New York: Random House.

Decker, J. A. (1980). R creati 11 and o uni edu ation irecto ' erce tions of

recreation services for the mootally retarded in Minne§ota commonities.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.

WW (1997)- Ann Arbor: Michigan Municipal
League.

Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J ., & Peterson, G. L. (Ed.). (1991). gesegoh on leisure oenoﬁts:
W- State College, PA.: Venture Publishing.

Dunphy, R. T. & Lin, B. C. (1991). A battle plan for local landﬁlls. 1po Real Estate
Appraiser, (12), 36-42.

EFAB Indianapolis meeting on ﬁnancing brownﬁelds redevelopment (1996). [Online]
Available http://www.epa.gov/eﬁnpage/efabindy.htrnl, May 1, 1998. US EPA,

156

EnvironmentalFinancial Advisory Board.

Edmonton (1997). Rundle Golf Course [Online]. Available http://www.gov.edmonton.ab.
ca/parkrec/rvc/golf/rundle.htm. May 1, 1998.

Engler, M. (1995). Waste landscapes: Permissible metaphors in landscape architecture.

MEMO), 11-25.

Fedler, A. J. (1981). Attitudes su ective norm behavi rali tions asi ut for
eation behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M
University.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe
enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and

beneﬁts. Polioy Soience (9), 127-152.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, iptention, and behavior. An
WW Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley

Fisher, J. D., Bell, P. A., & Baum, A. (1984). Environmental psychology (2nd ed.). New
York: CBS College.

Fletcher, R. (1997). (personal communication, April 25, 1997). City of Urbana, Illinois.

Fuss, S. (1981) ' e-us of New 11 land sanit landﬁll ites -- idelines
for landscape orohitects. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts.

Garn, K. Renovations approved for Calverton-Fairland Park. Calverton, Maryland,
W3. Available email. laurel@webtrek. com, September 18, 1996.

Gawenda, M. (1997, May) Plans for tainted ﬁeld delayed. East Lansing, Michigan State
University, Stat; ﬂows.

Golden, M. S. (1994). Pros and cons of developing recreational facilities on closed

landﬁlls. In M. Flug & M. Klancnik (Eds), Maring, parko go rocreation

dovelopmmg -- moeeding of the international cooferopoo, (257-260). New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J ., & Akey, T. M. (1997). Doing SPSS for Windowo : Malyzing
WW. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Griswold, M. (1993). The landﬁlls progress. Landscape Architecture, 83 (10), 78-81.

Gunderson, W. C. (1993). Partisan political, economic growth, and the roots of NIMBY:
the case of Montpe. In J. M. Gillroy (Eds), Environmental risk environmental

values, and politiool ohoices (113-127). Boulder, Colorado: Westview.

 

157

Harrison, D. A. (1995). Volunteer motivation and attendance decisions: competitive
theory testing in multiple samples from a homeless shelter. Journal of Applied

highchair. & (3), 371-385.

Hembroff, L. (1998). (personal communication, January, 1998). East Lansing: Michigan
State University.

Heumann, L., Osborne, L., & Hogue, J. (1985). Poot—closure recrootional alternotlves for
the Upbana landﬁll. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.

Hounsa, A. M., Godin, G., Alihonou, E., Valois, P., & Girard, J. (1993). An application
of Ajzen's theory of planned behavior to predict mothers' intention to use oral

dehydration therapy in a ma] area of Benin. MW, 3_7 (2), 253-
261.

Hurdzen, M. (1995). Developing golf course on sanitary landﬁlls. Proceedingo of $9
an 1 1f . Lb' _ ' bl I -ovelo en _ fr Othrwi e n itale is, (65-
72). Charlotte, North Carolina: National Golf Foundation.

I-SPOT, I. (1997). Byxbee Park -- City of Palo Alto [Online] Available
http://www.ispot.com/hargreaves/proj ects/byxbee.html.

Kiely. K. A. (1979) WM
W. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Krohe, J. (1993). Engineering nature -- Ecology enters the reclamation mix. Landscape
Arolotecturo, 83 (10), 71-76.

W. (1997). Rockford, IL.: Rockford Map Publishers, Inc.

Last, D. G. (1997). Understanding the motives of rural zoning decision makers. Society &
Natugol Booooroes (10), 567-575.

Lee, C., & Haas, W. (1995). Site recycling -- From brownﬁeld to football ﬁeld.
Eoviromentol Protootiop, 51(7), 24-26.

Light, S. S. (1976) Developmept of op inolmment angl meguromont of attitudes toward
the pmvioiop of local govomplept park Qd ryreation services. Unpublished

master’s thesis, The Pennsylvania State University.

Mackey, R. E. (1996). Three end-uses for closed landﬁlls and their impact on the
geosynthetic design. Qootexlles angl Qoorpemomooo, l4 (7-8), 409-424.

158

Main, D. F. (1995).Opposites attract: Landﬁlls and golf facilities. Golf Financing &
Investrnopt Smey, 2 (11). 4—6. Newport Beach, CA: Golf Valuation International.

Marsh, W. M. (1991). Landocape planning - Environmental applicap'op (2nd ed.). New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Matilsky, B. (1992). 11 cc lo : out o ists' int r t tions and
solotions. New York: Rizzoli International Publications.

Matthews, J. (1994). Enhancing golf and the environment. Bark go Recreation, 22 (5),
40-45.

McAndrew, F. T. (1993). Environmental psychology. Paciﬁc Grove, California :
Brooks/Cole.

McClelland, G. H., Schulze, W. D., & Hurd, B. (1990). The effect of risk beliefs on
property values: A case study of a hazardous waste site. Risk Malysis, 1_0 (4),
485—497.

McCool, S. F., & Braithwaite, A. M. (1992). Persuasive messages and safety hazards in
dispersed and natural recreation settings. In M. J. Manfredo (Eds.), loﬂuencing
human bebou'or (294-325). Champaign, IL.: Sagamore.

McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & G.

Aronson (Eds), Ilfbe handbook of social psyobology. (136-314). Reading, MA:
Addison-Weslsy.

Michigg bounty atlg. (1989). East Lansing, MI.: Universal Map Enterprises.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. (1991). 1991-1226 Michigan rooreation plan
(m. Lansing, Michigan.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. (1996). Michigan natural resources last
f_upo bogd a_nn__pal romrt for 1996. Lansing, Michigan.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (1997). Miohjgan'o oommitmoot to
revitallg'og brownﬁeld oites. Lansing, Michigan: Environmental Response

Division.
Michigan tomsbo'p ofﬁoialo oiroctog. (1997). Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Township
Association.

Mitchell, J. (1965). How to use your completed landﬁlls. fljbe meﬁoan gig, August,
91-94.

159

Naber, T. (1987). Today's landﬁll is tomorrow's playground. Wasto Age, September,
46-58.

Neter, J ., Kutner, M., Nachtsheim, C., & Mirror, T. (1990). Applied linear stotiorical
modols. Chicago, IL: Irwin. William Wasserman.

Noah, T. (1994, May 2.). Golf courses are denounced as health hazards. Wallstreet
Journal.

Norgbey, S. (1998). (Personal communication, May 15). Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality.

Norman, P., & Conner, M. (1996). Predicting health-check attendance among prior
attenders and nonattenders: The role of prior behavior in the theory of planned

behavior. Journal of Appliool Sooial Psychology, g (11), 1010-1026.

Page, T. (1993). Environmental values, the economic ethos, and NIMBY: The Rhode
Island case. In J. M. Gillroy (Eds), Environmental risk environmental values
ood political oboicoo (128-149). Boulder, Colorado: Westview.

 

Petty , R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and persuasion; ngsic and
ooptomporm approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Co.

Pontin, W. When is a brownﬁeld site not a brownﬁeld site? [Online] Available
http://www.epa.gov/eﬁnpagelefabindyhtm, May 1, 1998.

Portney, P. R., & Probst, K. N. (1994). Cleaning up Superfund. Resources, 1_1§ (Winter),
25.

Rasmussen, G. (1997) (personal communication, May 12, 1997). Michigan State
University.

Raymond, L. S. (1989). Living with landﬁlls: Compensation and groundwater
contamination in New York. In C. Fridgen (Eds), National QES Solid and

Hazardous Waste Management Workshop Proceodings (119-135). East Lansing:

MSU Couperative Extension Service.

Reclamation project enjoys spoils of Boston's big dig. (1998). inil Engineering. _6_8_ (8),
14.

Reidy, C. (1996). CDM begins two landﬁll closure projects in Massachusetts. [Online]
Available http://www.cdm.com/news/projects/twoland.htrnl. April 8, 1996.

Revesz, R. L., & Stewart, R. B. (1995). The superfund debate. In R. Revesz & R. Stewart

(Eds.), Aogyripg oupeﬂd: Ecooomio, soience, and law, (3-24). Washington,
DC: Resources for the Future.

160

 

Roger, B. M. (1983). Difﬁision of innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rux, F. (1995). The compatibility of golf course and landﬁlls. Proceedings of the Landﬁll

Call Courses Suitable Developments for Qherwise Unsuitable Sites, (4449).
Charlotte, North Carolina: National Golf Foundation.

 

van Ryn, M., Lytle, L. A., & Kirscht, J. P. (1996). A test of the theory of planned

behavior for two health-related practices. Journal of Applloo Sooial Psychology,
2_6 (10), 871—883.

Saunders, D. (1997). Landﬁll golf course: A Fresh Solution to Discarded Problems.
[Online] Available http://www.golfwebcom/forums/architecture, May 9, 1997.

Schmidt, F. N. & Robert, G. (1989). A dispositional approach to hazard perception:
preliminary development of the environmental appraisal inventory. Joornal of

Enumemalﬁmholan, 2. 57-67.

Sherman, W. (1997). (personal communication, October 7, 1997). Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality.

 

Sokolowska, J ., & Tyszka, T. (1995). Perception and acceptance of technological and
environmental risks: Why are poor countries less concerned? Risk Analyoio, l5
(6), 733-743.

Sorg , T. J. & Hickman, H. L. (1968). Sgitgy landﬁll focts. Cincinnati: US. Dept. of
Health.

Spector, P. E. (1992). ated i scal con truc ion -- An intr ducti n. Newbury
Park, CA.: Sage Publication, Inc.

Stead, D., Nixon, D., Atemo, K., & Dempsey, D. (1991). Western Michigan: Statewide
plans are garbage. Mloblgan Epviropmontal Repoﬂ, § (2), March/April.

Swartz, R. (1994). Michigan's approach to urban redevelopment involving contaminated

properties. Eoonomio Qovelopment Quﬂerly, 8 (4), 329-337.

Top environmental issues listed. (1994). In Michigan Chapter News (Landscape
Architecture), 20 (4), 6.

Traeen, B., & Nordlund, S. (1993). Visiting public drinking places in Oslo: An
application of the theory of planned behavior. Addiction, 88 (9), 1215-1224.

Treadaway, D. (1989). Landﬁlls become landscapes: The American park revolution.
Ameg'can Qiry & Coong, M (3), 48-55.

161

Tull, D. S. & Hawkins, D. (1990). Marketing research: Measurorpent 8 method (5th ed.).
Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon.

W. (1997). Yarmouth, Maine: DeLorme Inc.

Watters, A. E. (1989) Reasoned/intuitive action: An individual difference moderator of the
adjprde—behovior relationship in tho 1288 US. presidential election. Unpublished

master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Wilson, R., & Crouch, E. A. C. (1987). Risk assessment and comparisons: an
introduction. Scienoo, 83b (4), 267-270.

Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitude versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt
behavioral responses to attitude objects. MW, (25) 41-78.

Zhao, W. (1992). A m env' ent ctio ' est'

the
reo§oned acrloo t1_1_1;oug1_1_ IhQ ompirlool orody of hoorehold hazardous woote
manogemenl, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State

University.

162

 

 

CHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIB

018llzll llllllllll