Search

Residents living in close proximity to contaminated sites may experience adverse effects from financial losses and property devaluation, leading to poor mental health and physical illnesses—effects that may require compensation. The most common legal process of seeking compensation is the toxic tort—litigation pressed on the basis that contamination has harmed the victims. Several recent toxic tort class actions in Australia brought by residents living in areas affected by contamination from per‐ and poly‐fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exemplify that process. Two such actions, those at Williamtown and Richmond, provide an opportunity to explore how toxic torts currently function as a means to secure compensation, whether they mitigate the harms of the contamination and considering how spatio‐legal manoeuvres may shape the litigation. In this article, we use a legal geography approach to analyse how plaintiffs' bodies, litigants' properties, and the state are constructed and represented by parties involved in these toxic torts. Legal geographers contend that examining the spatio‐legal manoeuvres made via litigation can make visible the effects of legal action on those involved and draw out how the law and its instruments may shape places and communities. Toxic tort class actions have allowed those affected by the contamination to be heard and receive some compensation. However, we argue that they do little to alleviate plaintiffs' concerns about the effects of contamination on their health, properties, and the environment. The findings have significance given that torts will likely play an increasingly prominent role in dealing with such challenges. This article examines a recent series of toxic tort class actions brought by residents living in areas affected by contamination from per‐ and poly‐fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in New South Wales, Australia. It explores in particular how the torts function as a form of compensation for those affected by the contamination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the links between contaminated sites and adverse effects on human health and well‐being are being increasingly recognised, some argue that the magnitude of the health problem is inadequately addressed because it is largely invisible. Health geographies literature has sought to highlight this invisibility by focusing on the link between contaminated sites and health. This study adds to health geographies by presenting unique insights into the geography of residents' worry about the disruptive effect of environmental contamination on health and well‐being. It analyses a sample of residents (n = 485) living near 13 contaminated sites across Australia. Ordinal logistic regression analysis of closed‐format survey questions was combined with coding of open‐ended survey questions to reveal the geography of residents' worry about contamination from nearby sites. First, the study explores some of the main relationships between residents, their environs, and contaminants from nearby source sites, which determines their levels of worry: residents' demographics, residents' proximity to sites, contaminant boundaries and borders, and type of contaminant. Second, the study investigates how worry affects residents' health and well‐being, ranging from effects on their personal functioning through to their sense of ontological security, which depends in part upon their perceptions of contaminants' impacts. Despite having identified a range of diverse and negative effects of worry about contamination on residents, we found that worry for contamination can also prompt coping strategies and problem‐solving, reinforcing the need for more research on this subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An increasing diversity of technologies are being used to remediate contaminated sites, yet there remains little understanding of the level of acceptance that residents living near these sites hold for these technologies, and what factors influence their level of acceptance. This lack of understanding hinders the remediation industry's ability to effectively engage with these residents about remediation technology selection, at a time when such engagement is become part and parcel of remediation policy and practice. The study develops on wider research into public acceptance of technologies, using data from a telephone survey of 2009 residents living near thirteen contaminated sites across Australia. Within the survey acceptance is measured through residents' level of support for the application of remediation technologies in their local area. Firstly, a regression analysis of closed-ended questions, and coding of open-ended questions are combined to identify the main predictors of residents' support for remediation technologies. Secondly, coding of open-ended questions was analysed using Crawford and Ostrom's Institutional Grammar Tool to identify norms and sanctions guiding residents' willingness to negotiate their support. The research identifies factors associated with the residents' personal and demographic characteristics, their physical context and engagement with institution during remediation processes, and the technologies themselves which predict residents' level of support for the application of remediation technologies. Bioremediation technologies had higher levels of support than chemical, thermal and physical technologies. Furthermore, the paper identifies a core set of norms and sanctions residents use to negotiate their level of support for remediation technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The choice of technologies used to remediate contaminated environments are increasingly made via engagement with affected local residents. Despite this, little is known about how residents perceive remediation technology applications. Building on the findings of broader technology worry research, and drawing on data from a telephone survey of 2009 residents living near thirteen contaminated sites in Australia, regression analysis of closed-ended survey questions and coding analysis of open-ended survey questions are combined to identify the main predictors of worries concerning particular remediation technologies, and how worry affects them. This suggests respondents are more worried about the application of chemical remediation technologies than the application of physical and thermal technologies, which in turn caused more worry than the application of biotechnology. The paper suggests that these worries can be reduced via direct engagement with residents about remediation technologies, suggesting that such engagement can provide knowledge that improves remediation technology decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]