Trust in Professionals and Solving
Social Conflicts Location: A Study on Determinants in Accepting
Landfill Location

Park Seong Hoon
Ph. student
Sociology, Korea University

Trust in Professionals and Solving Social Conflicts: A Study on
Determinants in Accepting Landfill Location1
Park Seong Hoon
(Ph. student, Korea University)

Introduction
Korean Society can be called as “conflict society” for having many conflicts in variety, which
include stratification, labor and management, regionalism, ideology, generation, environment, andeducation conflict etc. These conflicts have been embossed seriously in the whole society and the
aspect has been gradually complicated than ever. Environmental conflict, one of these conflicts, has
become more frequent and intense as a result of the economic growth and the rise of standard ofliving or the enhancement of environmental awareness. Now it is one of serious social conflicts inSouth Korea.
Environmental conflict in South Korea has been complex and deepened since 1960's, when local
residents resisted Pusan thermoelectric power plant (Jung, 1998; Park, 1999). Because the damage ofenvironmental deterioration is wide and continuous, many people who are victims participate
directly or indirectly to an environmental conflict. The different values or interests over thedevelopment and the conservation can give rise to a conflict, which also can be led by the unilateraldecision-making of the government, the deficiency of legal system to prevent an environmental
contamination or the limit of scientific techniques to protect a disaster (Na & Kim, 1997).
The conflict on a trash landfill location is the representative case of environmental conflict. Life
improvement with growing population and technical development with the economic growth haveincreased a lot of wastes rapidly, so the trash landfill is now inevitable anywhere. But these arethought as hatred facilities for inconvenience in life and negative external effect. It leads to struggle

1

I cooperated with professor Yoon and other colleagues to accomplish this paper. I am thankful for thepresentation of this research on behalf of them at this conference.
1

mutually between local and national government, among local governments, or local governmentand residents. This study would verify the effect of social factor such as social responsibility or
public goods and trust in professionals in addition to administrative, economic, and technoenvironmental factor. There are many previous researches on the environmental conflict from casestudies, but few from survey data or positive analyses. The approach to analyze data collected bysurvey can lead us to investigate factors affecting whether to accept a landfill location or not inneighborhood. To achieve this goal, I will review preceding researches and classify factors
theoretically, next to trying to test these factors to which applying statistical methods.

Theoretical arguments
The environmental matters which of contents and objects are various cannot be evaluated byonly one standard. After investigation for the studies on the conflict of a trash landfill, researchers
mainly pointed out administrative factor, economic factor and techno-environmental factor (Kim,
1995; Kang, 1998; Kim, 1999; Jun, 2000; Kim, 2002; Kang & Kim, 2003, Armour, 1991). But the social
factor of environmental conflict (for example, social responsibility for a trash landfill, the degree ofpractice related policies or third party‟s (professionals) role of decision-making and judgment) alsocame to be known that it affected accepting a landfill location (Choi, 2002; Kwon, 1997; Sa, 1997).

Administrative perspectives
In first, a factor which triggers off or deepens environmental conflict is the lack of institutional
system or distrust for the administration. When it come to occur between the interested parties, thegovernment have no capacity to regulate efficiently the conflict in many cases, so this will
deteriorate a situation more and suspect the government to be neutral or fair (Kim, 1999: 33).
Local residents are afraid of this facility vaguely because they cannot contact concrete
information. Therefore, it is necessary to open the results of environmental impact assessment, andask them to understand a trash landfill facility for accomplishing successfully (Kim, 1995;
Kasperson, 1986).
2

Many reasons in environmental conflict are owing to the absence of decision making process aswell as contents of policy. The legitimacy of decision making for policy is how to guarantee not
only substantive rationality but also procedural rationality (Simon, 1976). If the political system ismore authoritarian the decision making become more downward in a closed bureaucracy, so it
deepens and amplifies a conflict between related interest groups.
The traditional model of decision making environmental facilities, as like DAD (DecideAnnounce-Defend) proposed by Ducsick (1978) excluded the participation of local residents. The
features of this model are selection by minor decision makers, compulsory execution according totheir determination (Kim, 2002), and the exclusion of participation in decision making induced local
residents to distrust and resist for the government (Kim, 1995; Kim, 1999; Jun, 2000).

Economic perspectives
The location of the facility which the residents hate fails unless they would be compensated forloss of their assets or comfortable expenses, it is namely impossible to be located without an
economic compensation. Economic factor therefore is very important to decide to accept a trashlandfill location. In comparison with past the recognition of economic compensation is diffused.
But it is difficult to achieve an agreement for the difference between the administration and local
residents. However, the tendency of opposing the location at first originated by a psychologicalexpectation about compensation may be occurred because the principles or rules of appropriatecompensation are not prepared to accommodate facilities and the methods of the government
confrontation are different according to cases (Kim et al., 1996).
In the other hand, the conflict related with a convenience pursuit is that for accommodating thelocation of the land use or facility where the convenience is higher than the expense within an area,
and this conflict assumes a competitive form between areas to call for environmental facilities. This
dispute for detention is named by PIMFY(Please in My Front Yard), which of cause is the differenceof convenience apportionment (Kim, 1995; Kwon, 1997; Kim, 1999).

3

Techno-environmental perspectives
Trash facilities can cause bad smell, a dust, street noise and traffic jam etc. and leaching ofpolluted water contaminate subterranean water. Various different types of bad gas also may be
induced by decay of wastes. The fear of environmental disaster could lead easily to local residents
to resist the location in their town (Kim et al., 1996). Consequently, the opposition of inhabitants fora hatred facility like trash landfill is related mainly with environmental deterioration in a life space.
This thought of protection for their dwelling environment is tend to be connected with theconsciousness of environment right. The uncertainty as cause of environmental conflict is mainly
proposed by the existence of environmental contamination prevention techniques and the validityof such techniques. This uncertainty increased distrust and hostility of the conflict people
concerned, so it led them to mobilize a large crowd and make a problem illegally, like as unlawful
occupation, a sit-down strike in public facilities (Lee, 1998; Hwang, 1998).
The distance from a hatred facility is certainly considered as one of affecting factor to accept it.
Local residents near the hatred facility are inclined to opposite the location on account of theasymmetry of expense and convenience (O'Hare et al., 1983), this objection against the location isstrong mostly where it is nearer than distant.

Social perspectives
Environmental conflict is deeply related with social justice. It could be transferred from an area
problem to the problem of social stratification, which next to could be changed into the problem
between one generation and the other (Kwon, 1997). Consequently if it is necessary to sacrifice theirselfishness for the public good of an area like a trash landfill, the recognition of social norm andresponsibility might be affect whether to accept a landfill location or not.
The mediation or coordination of third party, which is to make an end conflicts by intervening ofthird party and deriving an agreement, is an important factor in environmental conflict (Gladwin,1987). So the agreement and compromise is the prerequisite to solve a question. Because it
complements the weak point of judicial solution and it secures the quickness and the fairness of4

settlement a problem, it will be put to practical use of a conflict resolution (Branham, 1993; Sa, 1997;
Schellenberg, 1982). Trust in professionals consequently is above all important. Though
professionals frequently regard themselves as being scientific and could judge policies honestly,
their opinion may predicate a risk which influenced by social, political, or private interests (Kim,
2005; Mauer, 1991). The effect of the regulation and the arbitration by professional of each field istherefore different according to features of environmental conflict, so it is necessary to approach aproblem prudently when a situation is very acute (Slovic et al., 1980; Kim, 1995). The interventionof the specialist can be successful in factual conflicts related with a scientific technique, but it can be
failed in conflicts related with value or interests.

Methods
Sampling data
The raw data for this study came from a survey of 1,000 adults ages 25 and older conducted
between October 23 and November 28, 2006. The area of metropolis were excluded which had
already located big trash facilities, so the data were collected at local level such as Gyeonggi-do,
Gangwon-do, Chungcheong-do, Jeolla-do, Gyeongsang-do by the method of face to face interview.
In order to examine the difference of resident‟s perception, the questionnaires divided into two
types were given to them in a supposed dwelling within 3km or 6km.

Variables
In first, independent variables were measured by scaling from „strongly disagree‟(1 point) to„strongly agree‟(7 point), and eleven factor including the opening to the public about its hazard
were estimated by each arithmetic mean. Dependent variable was the question that if landfill
location were decided within 3km (or 6km) of my domicile at present, whether you do agree thedecision or not. This was measured by scaling from „strongly disagree‟ (1 point) to „strongly agree‟(4 point). Control variables were used by demographic indicator including sex, age, income andsize of area.
5

Results
Trust in professionals and their judgment
Table 1, which provides descriptive statistics for trust in professionals and their judgment, showsthat the agreement percentage of need for discussion professional members is highest at 69.0
percent, next to possibility as an important basis on mediating at 56.8 percent, need for obeying
professionals‟ judgment at 50.1 percent, trust in professionals‟ judgment at 41.6 percent, andapproval for professionals‟ judgment at 41.5 percent.

Table 1. The degree of agreement with trust in professionals and their judgment (N=1,000)

Professionals

Professionals’
judgment

Details of related questions

disagreemedial

agree

total

Fairness and objectivity of professionals

24.1%

41.8%

34.1%

100.0%

Scientific approach of professionals

22.4%

38.9%

38.7%

100.0%

Impartiality of professionals

31.6%

38.1%

30.3%

100.0%

Need for discussion professional members

6.9%

24.1%

69.0%

100.0%

Trust in professionals’ judgment

18.8%

39.6%

41.6%

100.0%

Approval for professionals’ judgment

20.8%

37.7%

41.5%

100.0%

Need for obeying professionals’ judgment

15.8%

34.1%

50.1%

100.0%

Possibility as an important basis on mediating

10.6%

32.6%

56.8%

100.0%

In contrast, fairness and objectivity of professionals and scientific approach of professionals are
relatively low at 34.1 percent, 38.7 percent respectively. The agreement percentage of impartiality ofprofessionals is lowest at 30.3 percent. The four measures for professionals‟ judgment are relatively
higher than the measures for professionals except for need for discussion professional members.
This tendency indicates that trust in professionals and their judgment could be an important
method in environmental conflict though the measures of impartiality and fairness are relatively
lower than others.

Determinants in accepting the landfill location
In table 2, I report the results of the logistic regression analysis using factor of accepting thelandfill location. The model presents the effects of administrative, economic, techno-environmental,
and social factor with control variables. Opening to the public of administrative factor is positive6and significant (B=0.205). Knowing a hazard to health and expecting an inconvenience for life oftechno-environmental factor are negatively associated and they are significant in each at B=-0.410,
B=-0.256. Approval for need a landfill location (B=0.424) and trust in professionals (B=0.245) ofsocial factor are also positive and significant. Gender, or dummy variable (female=1), and only
significant in control variables.
In other words, the having a higher level of opening the results of environmental assessment to
the public, approval for need a landfill location and trust in professionals and their judgment
increase the probability of accepting a landfill location. The higher, however, coefficients ofknowing a hazard to health and expecting inconvenience for life are, the lower the probability ofacceptance. If a respondent is male, he will be more agreeable to locating a landfill than a female
within his town.

Table 2. Logistic Reg: Determinants in accepting the landfill location (N=1,000)
Name of factor

Name of variables

Wald

Exp(B)*

17.4100.040***-0.64717.207

0.524

Age

0.081

1.086

1.085

Income-0.107

3.073

0.898

Education

0.079

1.149

1.082

Area size

0.143

0.611

1.154

Opening to the public

0.205

*

4.139

1.227

Decision making process

0.019

0.027

1.020

Participation of the resident

0.240

3.550

1.271

Reasonable compensation

0.017

0.014

1.017

Effect of compensation

0.123

1.500

1.131

Constant-3.222

GenderControl variables

Administrative factor

Economic factor

Technoenvironmental factor

Trust in construction & operating

0.130

1.674

1.139

Knowing a hazard to health-0.410***14.5730.664**

10.1750.774

Approval for need a landfill

0.424

***

27.185

1.528

Practicing related policies-0.035

0.166

0.966

*

6.183

1.277

Expecting an inconvenience for life
Social factor

Trust in professionals

Model summary

p<0.05**p<0.01***-0.2560.245***

chi-square

234.693-2 Log likelihood

1057.706***

Cox & Snell R Square

0.209

Nagelkerke R Square

0.288

N
*

B

1,000

p<0.0017

In afterwards, the cases (N=500) who are assumed with the resident within 3km were analyzed
to control the distance from the landfill location. Table 3 provides the results of logistic regression
about whether to accept or not. Decision making process (B=0.245), approval for need a landfill
location (B=0.637), effect for compensation (B=0.283) and trust in professionals (B=0.289) are
positive and significant, supporting administrative, economic and social factor could affect theacceptance of a landfill location. Knowing a hazard to health (B=-0.443) and expecting an
inconvenience for life (B=-250) are significant statistically, but negatively.

Table 3. Logistic Reg: Respondents within 3km from the landfill location (N=500)
B

Wald

Sig.

Exp(B)

Gender

-0.83714.236

0.000

0.433

Decision making process

0.245

4.231

0.040

1.277

Approval for need a landfill

0.637

33.053

0.000

1.891

Effect for compensation

0.283

4.917

0.027

1.326

Knowing a hazard to health-0.443

9.314

0.002

0.642

Expecting an inconvenience for life

-0.250

4.556

0.033

0.779

Trust in professionals

0.289

4.511

0.034

1.336

Constant-2.97811.907

0.001

0.051

age

0.553

0.457

income

0.531

0.466

education

0.567

0.452

Area size

0.419

0.517

Opening to the public

0.906

0.341

Practicing related policies

0.052

0.820

Participation of the resident

1.986

0.159

Reasonable compensation

1.101

0.294

Trust in construction & operating

0.274

0.601

(df=7)

0.000

Variables

Variables in theequation

Variables not in
the equation

Model summary

Chi-square

135.331-2 Log likelihood505.705

Cox & Snell R Square

0.237

Nagelkerke R Square

0.328

N

500

☞ Method = backward stepwise (wald)

The results is similar to that of Table 2 in variables of approval for landfill location, trust in
professionals, knowing a hazard to health and expecting an inconvenience for life, but is different8in variables of decision making process and effect for compensation. The coefficient of trust in
professionals is not smaller influence than others at 0.289. Gender of control variables is negatively
significant, that is the probability of men is higher than that of women.
To this time, the cases (N=500) who are assumed with the resident within 6km were analyzed
with the same. According to Table 4, opening the results of environmental assessment to the public(B=0.317), approval for need a landfill location (B=0.260), participation of the resident (B=0.355) andtrust in professionals (B=0.299) are positive and significant, supporting administrative and social
factor except for economic factor could affect the acceptance of a landfill location.

Table 4. Logistic Reg: Respondents within 6km from the landfill location (N=500)
B

Wald

Sig.

Exp(B)

Gender

-0.486

5.273

0.022

0.615

Age

0.219

4.332

0.037

1.245

Income-0.146

3.055

0.080

0.864

Opening to the public

0.317

9.931

0.002

1.373

Approval for need a landfill

0.260

6.417

0.011

1.297

Participation of the resident

0.355

7.352

0.007

1.426

Knowing a hazard to health-0.295

4.948

0.026

0.744

Expecting an inconvenience for life

-0.297

7.523

0.006

0.743

Trust in professionals

0.299

7.059

0.008

1.348

Constant-2.869

9.727

0.002

0.057

Education

0.585

0.444

Area size

0.361

0.548

Decision making process

0.339

0.560

Practicing related policies

0.123

0.725

Reasonable compensation

0.020

0.887

Effect for compensation

0.150

0.698

Trust in construction & operating

1.180

0.277

(df=9)

0.000

Variables

Variables in theequation

Variables not in
the equation

Model summary

Chi-square

107.818-2 Log likelihood543.264

Cox & Snell R Square

0.194

Nagelkerke R Square

0.266

N

500

Knowing a hazard to health (B=-0.295) and expecting an inconvenience for life (B=-297) are also
negative and significant, supporting techno-environmental factor could affect whether to accept or
9

not. Gender, age and income of control variables are significant, or men are higher, the old are
higher, the poor is higher in accepting a landfill location.
Table 4 presents interestingly the difference between the results in 3km cases and in 6km cases.
Both in 3km and in 6km cases, approval for landfill location and trust in professionals of social
factor, and knowing a hazard to health and expecting an inconvenience for life of technoenvironmental factor are common variables. But decision making process of administrative factor
and effect for compensation of economic factor in 3km cases, opening the results of environmental
assessment to the public of administrative and participation of the resident of administrative
factor in 6km cases are different in statistic significance.
These results show that if a candidate area is nearer to the landfill location, local residents of thetown would consider transparency of process or effect of compensation as more important factor,
on the other side, if a candidate area is more distant they would regard opening information to the
public or resident participation as relatively more important factor. So we can understand theoccurrence possibility of difference in recognition of the residents according to distance from thelandfill location. Also we could find the role of professionals in environmental conflict on the
ground of the surveyed data like this.

Conclusion
This paper examined the impact of a trash landfill location-administrative, economic, technoenvironmental and social factor with quantitative approach. In contrast, most existing researchessought the causes of environmental conflict with qualitative approach including case study, I
would try to confirm the factors affecting whether accepting a landfill location or not, suggesting
respondents for assumed distance from the landfill location. I included social factor, for example
trust in professionals, approval for need a landfill location and practicing related policies, as well asfactors which previous studies had found.
Findings showed that the above mentioned factors turned out to be influential in people's
acceptance of landfill location. The probability of acceptance varied, however, by the distance to a10

landfill; the closer to the landfill, people were more strongly affected by trust in site screening
processes and public officials and reasonable compensation for affected individuals and thecommunity. By contrast, the longer to the landfill, people were more strongly affected bytransparent disclosure of potential hazard of the landfill and people's participation in the decisionmaking process. In both cases, people's trust in the third-party professionals who can mediate andarbitrate neutrally and people's willingness to accept the professionals' decisions turned out to besignificant factors. These results suggest that the mediation and arbitration by professionals can bea rational and efficient solution to Korea's social conflicts.

References강성철. 김상구, 2003, “갈등의 양상과 전개과정에 관한 연구: 사례분석을 위한 분석모델의 구축을중심으로”, ｢지방과 행정연구｣, 제15권 1호.
강여진, 1998, “혐오시설의 입지갈등해소에 관한 연구: 제주도 한남리 쓰레기 매립장 사례를 중심으로”, ｢명지대학교 대학원 논문집｣, 제2집.
권해수, 1997, “한국의 환경갈등, 환경운동 그리고 정의”, ｢환경과 생명｣, 제14호.
김갑성․강신겸․최신우, 1996, “혐오시설의 입지갈등과 합리적인 해소방안: 쓰레기 처리시설을 중심으로”, 삼성경제연구소.
김길수, 1995, “혐오시설의 입지갈등에 관한 연구”, ｢사회과학연구｣.
김민정, 2005, “환경갈등조정자로서의 전문가 역할”, ｢ECO 상반기｣ 제8호.
김병완, 1999, “환경갈등의 원인과 갈등관리 방안에 관한 연구”, ｢광주․전남행정학회보｣, 제6호.
김상구, 2002, “협상의 영향요인에 관한 연구: 환경기초시설 입지갈등을 중심으로”, ｢한국행정학회
보｣, 36(2).
나성린․ 김용건, 1997, “환경분쟁과 해결방안: 외국사례를 중심으로”, ｢환경경제연구｣, 제6권 제1호.
박인권, 1999, “국책사업을 둘러싼 갈등에 관한 연구”, 서울대학교 석사학위논문.
사득환, 1997, “지방시대 환경갈등의 해결기제: 제3자 조정을 중심으로”, ｢한국행정학회보｣, 31(3).
이인수, 1998, “정부간 갈등해결방안에 관한 연구: 환경문제를 중심으로”, 경희대학교 박사학위 논문.
전길헌, 2000, “혐오시설 입지갈등에 관한 실증적 연구-부산시 북구 화명2지구 쓰레기 소각장 입지대상 지역을 중심으로”, 연세대학교 석사학위논문.
11

정회성, 1998, “국토환경의 보전과 이용관련 분쟁의 조정원칙과 방향”, ｢환경정책｣, 제6권 제1호.
최명원, 2002, “폐기물소각시설 입지에 대한 지역주민인식 연구: 마포구 폐기물소각시설 입지예정지 사례를 중심으로”, 서울대학교 석사학위논문.
황재영, 1998, “지방자치단체간의 갈등관리에 관한 연구: 상수원갈등사례를 중심으로”, 경희대학교
박사학위논문.
Amour, A. M., 1991, “The Siting of Locally Unwanted Land Uses: Towards a Cooperative Approach”,
Progress in Planning. Vol.35, Pergamum Press.
Branham, Nancy, 1993, “Mediation as a Management Tool”, Business and Economic Review. Vol.40.
Ducsik, Dennis. W., 1978, “Electricity Planning and the Environment: Towards a New Role forGovernment in the Decision Process”, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil
Engineering, M.I.T. Cambridge, Massachusetts, January.
Gladwin, Thomas N., 1987, “Patterns of Environmental Conflict over Industrial Facilities in the
United States, 1970-78”, In Lake. Robert W., Resolving Locational Conflict. New Jersey: The State
University of New Jersey Press.
Kasperson, Roger, 1986, “Six Proportions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk
Communication”, Risk Analysis, vol. 6, pp 275-281.
Mauer, 1991, “Dealing With Resistance to Environmental Sensitive Projects”, Environment
Decisions(Feb).
O'Hare, Michael, Lawrence S. Bacow, and Debra Sanderson, 1983, Facility Siting and Public Opposition,
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Shellensberg, 1982, The Science of Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simon, Herbert A., 1976, “From Substantive to Procedural Rationality”, in S. J. Latis ed., Method andAppraisal in Economics. Cambridge University Press.
Slovic, Paul, Bauruch Fischoff and Sarah Limchtenstein, 1980, “Facts and Fears: Understanding
Perceived Risk in Societal Risk Assessment”, How Safe is Safe Enough, Schwing and Albers, New
York: Plemum.

12