-
Title
-
Eng
To Want or To Waste: An Exploratory Case Study on Decision-making in King County Regarding Landfill Alternatives
-
Date
-
Eng
2021
-
Creator
-
Eng
Helpenstell, Gretchen
-
Identifier
-
Eng
Thesis_MES_2021_Helpenstell
-
extracted text
-
To Want or To Waste: An Exploratory Case Study on
Decision-making in King County Regarding Landfill
Alternatives
By
Gretchen Helpenstell
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of
Environmental Studies at The Evergreen State College, June 2021
©2021 by Gretchen Helpenstell. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
By
Gretchen Helpenstell
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
By
________________________
Shawn Hazboun, Ph. D.
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
Abstract
To Want or To Waste: An Exploratory Case Study on Decision-making in King County
Regarding Landfill Alternatives
Gretchen Helpenstell
The King County Council voted to approve the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan (“the Plan”), expanding the Cedar Hills Regional into its final cell and
committing the County to landfilling until 2040. Two studies were conducted by external
consultants regarding the feasibility of landfill alternatives, specifically a waste-to-energy
(WTE) facility, and both recommended the County pursue WTE. To examine the
Council’s decision to instead pursue landfill expansion, I conducted an exploratory case
study using 35 coded news and opinion articles, a map of 2,082 air quality complaints
(AQCs), and 10 semi-structured interviews as data sources. I contextualize my study
within the decision-making theories of rationalism and incrementalism, as well as an
extension of the rank order PESTE model (Politics, Economics, Social, Technology, and
Environment, expanded to include Waste Quality and Quantity). Findings revealed that
economic factors were discussed the most in news coverage, while social factors were
discussed the least. Of the AQCs, the majority were odor issues from locations within
two miles of the landfill, with the farthest complaint being from 13 miles away. Of the
records I received, all the AQCs occurred within the two county districts that voted to
reject the Plan, and thus reject landfill expansion. From the interviews with
Councilmembers and relevant staff, I gathered that Councilmembers whose key issues
didn’t include WTE or waste management employed deference to the Solid Waste
Division’s recommendation for landfill expansion, so they voted to approve the Plan. If a
Councilmember was passionate about this issue, or this was one of their key issues, they
voted to reject the Plan.
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1
The 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan .........................................................................4
Next Steps Upon Approval of the Plan .......................................................................................................6
Solid Waste Policymaking in King County .................................................................................................7
Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Decision-making Theories: Rationalism, Incrementalism, and the PESTE Model .................................. 10
Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
Why a Case Study? ................................................................................................................................... 16
Research Questions, External Data, and Qualitative Factors for Analysis.............................................. 18
Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Interviews ............................................................................................................................................ 20
Air Quality Complaints ........................................................................................................................ 22
News Articles....................................................................................................................................... 24
Analytical Approach ................................................................................................................................. 25
Ground-Up Coding .............................................................................................................................. 25
Developing a Case Timeline ................................................................................................................ 25
Process-tracing ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Evaluating Strength of Results.................................................................................................................. 26
A Note on Spokane’s Role in this Case Study ........................................................................................... 26
In Summary............................................................................................................................................... 27
Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Coding News and Opinion Articles .......................................................................................................... 28
Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Results: Tone ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Results: Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Codes-to-Themes Model ...................................................................................................................... 30
Air Quality Complaints (AQC) ................................................................................................................. 35
Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 36
The Government’s Role ....................................................................................................................... 36
The Public’s Role ................................................................................................................................ 39
Semi-Structured Interviews....................................................................................................................... 46
Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 46
Rank Order of PESTEW Model .......................................................................................................... 46
Analysis of Qualitative Interviews ....................................................................................................... 49
Discussion and Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 54
Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 60
iv
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 65
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 65
Literature Review ..................................................................................................................................... 66
Methods.................................................................................................................................................... 69
Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 70
Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 70
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 70
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 71
Appendix A: Letter to Subjects (front) ..................................................................................................... 71
Appendix A: Letter to Subjects (back)...................................................................................................... 72
Appendix B: Consent Form (front) .......................................................................................................... 73
Appendix B: Consent Form (back)........................................................................................................... 74
Appendix C: List of Interview Questions (front) ...................................................................................... 75
Appendix C: List of Interview Questions (back) ...................................................................................... 76
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 1) ........................................................................................................... 77
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 2) ........................................................................................................... 78
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 3) ........................................................................................................... 79
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 4) ........................................................................................................... 80
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 5) ........................................................................................................... 81
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 6) ........................................................................................................... 82
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 7) ........................................................................................................... 83
v
List of Figures
Fig 1. The history of landfill expansion at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill………………………………. 2
Fig 2. The history of landfill expansion at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill………………………………. 3
Fig 3. Code-to-Themes model for the portrayal of public opinion in the news……………………………. 32
Fig 4. Code-to-Themes model for the portrayal of government opinion in the news……………………… 35
Fig 5. Map of Air Quality Complaints from 1994-2020…………………………………………………… 40
Fig 6. Map showing distance between gas-to-energy plant and a landfill neighbor’s “dream home”……... 42
Fig 7. Radar charts to visualize each decision-makers’ rank order of PESTEW factors…………………... 47
Fig 8. Radar charts to visualize each decision-makers’ rank order of PESTEW factors according to vote.. 48
Fig 9. Comparison of incrementalism quotes among interviewees…………………………………………52
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Table averaging the rank order of PESTEW factors among decision-makers…………………… 49
vii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all of the interviewees from King County that contributed to my
research. I’d also like to thank the interviewees from Spokane who provided perspective
from a municipality that was able to change their “business-as-usual” waste disposal
method from landfilling to waste-to-energy. I gained so much from these conversations,
more than I could include in this thesis but will take with me into the future. I owe my
thesis advisor, Shawn Hazboun, a significant amount of gratitude for her patience as I
continued to extend my thesis deadline. Her advice and support throughout this process
was invaluable to my research and helped me accomplish a piece of work I can truly be
proud of. I’m also grateful for Kathleen Saul’s guidance as I began developing my
research method, and for allowing me to borrow her copy of the “case study bible”, Case
Study Research and Applications by Robert K. Yin. Thank you to Mike Ruth for his
direction and support in incorporating ArcGIS mapping software into my thesis. Finally,
to my family and friends whose support I could not have gone without, there are few
words to describe the amount of love I have for you. Thank you for keeping me laughing
while I clung to sanity in the final weeks of writing this thing.
viii
ix
Introduction
“The vote is five ayes, two no's,” said the County Clerk. That nights’ King
County Council Chair, Rod Dembowski, confirmed, “By the barest of majorities required
by the charter of this County, which is five votes, the proposed substitute ordinance 20180375.4 is approved.” And with that, the decision was made. With five Councilmembers
voting to adopt the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (“the Plan”),
King County would move forward with landfill expansion (Regional Policy Committee,
2019).
King County has a long history of expansion at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
(“the landfill”). Covering 1.4 square miles in unincorporated King County, the landfill
opened in 1965 to consolidate the previous sixteen open-air landfill systems, making it
the only local landfill available that can manage the County’s municipal solid waste
(Solid Waste Division, 2018). The County’s Solid Waste Division is responsible for
preparing comprehensive plans that establish a twenty-year planning horizon for solid
waste management. In 2001, the County adopted a Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan that anticipated the landfill would reach capacity by 2012, directing
the County to develop Area 6 and begin planning to export waste to an out-of-county
landfill (Solid Waste Division, 2001). In response, the County Council adopted the Cedar
Hills Site Development Plan in 2006, which approved the development of Area 7 and
extended the landfill’s lifespan to 2016 (Solid Waste Division, 2006). The 2013
Comprehensive Plan, an update to the 2001 plan, recommended building Area 8 to
prepare for Area 7’s closure in 2018, further extending the lifespan to 2028 (Solid Waste
1
Division, 2013). Figure 1 maps out this timeline of expansion by landfill cells, focusing
on area developments that have occurred since the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. Area 8 is
where the County is currently disposing of its solid waste and once that cell reaches
capacity, the 2019 Plan approved Area 9 for landfilling. This is being referred to as the
landfill’s “final cell”.
Figure 1. The history of landfill expansion at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
Figure 2 visualizes the 20-year planning horizon prior to the 2019 Plan. Events in yellow
represent plans for landfill expansion along with their estimated closure dates. Events in
red and green represent moments when the Solid Waste Division considered landfill
2
alternatives, specifically waste-to-energy (WTE). Two studies were conducted that did
not recommend the County pursue WTE and, more recently, two studies were conducted
that did. These later two studies were completed before and after the 2019 Plan was
approved by Council, respectively. Below the timeline, the dates of landfill expansion
and lifespan of cells 5, 6, 7, and 8 can be seen.
Figure 2. The history of landfill expansion at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
This precedence of landfill expansion made the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan (“the Plan”) unique in that it gave waste-to-energy (WTE)
technologies the most serious consideration to date. King County’s Solid Waste Division
(“the Division”), the department responsible for developing these plans, began the
process of preparing a new Plan in 2016 and define WTE as technologies that “recover
energy from municipal solid waste and include both waste conversion technologies and
incineration with energy recovery, such as mass burn waste-to-energy, refuse-derived
fuel, and advanced thermal recycling” (Solid Waste Division, 2019). The critical
3
difference from previous planning processes centered on hiring third-party consultants
that specialize in waste-to-energy technologies to conduct feasibility analyses on two
alternatives: waste export by rail (train) and a WTE facility (Normandeau Associates,
Inc., 2017; Arcadis, 2019). To date, these are the only professional studies analyzing
whether waste-to-energy is a viable option for the future of solid waste management in
King County. These consultant studies, along with prior internal reports, were taken into
account by the Division when deciding what action to recommend the County take.
The 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
The Division1 gave two consulting companies, Normandeau Associates and Arcadis, the
following parameters to use for their analysis of alternatives (Solid Waste Division, 2019):
Maintain a recycling rate of 52% through 2040,
Use the Division’s forecasting for 2018-2028 (which uses variables such as “per
capita employment, MSW tipping fee and retail sale”),
Upper Boundary: assuming aggressive population growth occurs, use an annual
growth rate of 2.91% after 2028,
Baseline Boundary: assuming baseline population growth occurs, use an annual
growth rate of 1.73% after 2028,
Lower Boundary: assuming conservative population growth occurs, use an annual
growth rate of 0.57% after 2028,
Forecast these alternatives using both a 20-year Scenario (2025-2045) and a 50year Scenario (2025-2075).
1
For the purpose of this study, waste export by rail will not be considered a landfill alternative because it utilizes
landfilling as the disposal method. The only options discussed will be landfill expansion and waste-to-energy.
4
Normandeau Associates conducted the first WTE feasibility study and concluded that the
Division should recommend mass burn WTE technology as a landfill alternative in the
Plan (Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2017). From there, Arcadis conducted a second
feasibility study that compared mass burn WTE technology to waste export by rail. They
concluded that WTE will provide the County gross savings of $4.3 to $7.2 billion (low
bound to high bound tonnage forecast) across the 50-year planning scenario (Arcadis,
2019). Other findings conclude that WTE will:
-
be advantageous for the County’s recycling and energy recovery goals,
-
have multiple revenue streams that “lower inflation impacts and protect against
future price increases as the County moves further into the planning period”,
-
require an 8 to 10-year construction period,
-
require carbon capture and sequestration technology in order to qualify as a
“carbon neutral” or “non-emitting utility source” as mandated by the Washington
State legislature.
Arcadis recommended that the Division moves forward with WTE facility planning
because of “the long-term cost savings, improved recycling rates, and potential for net
negative GHG emissions with the inclusion of carbon capture technology.” They deem
WTE the most financially stable option of the Division’s considerations, which will
protect ratepayers from inflation and escalation. Arcadis also notes that the current
landfill closure date provides a 10-year opportunity to site a WTE facility, which they
suggest goes on landfill property, and a place to dispose the subsequent WTE ash.
The three options the Division chose to consider for the 2019 Plan included 1)
landfill expansion, 2) waste export by rail, and 3) a mass burn WTE facility. In the Plan,
5
landfill expansion would develop a new cell, called Area 9, and increase the permitted
height from 800 feet to 830 feet. Under the WTE option, all of the region’s waste would
instead be directed to a mass burn facility in King County once Area 8 reaches capacity
in 2028. The Division ultimately recommend landfill expansion because it will extend the
“planning horizon” for the County, take advantage of the Division’s 50-year experience
with landfill operation, and is consistent with the County’s policy to maximize the life of
the landfill (Solid Waste Division, 2019).
The Division did not recommend WTE as a landfill alternative for multiple
reasons, primarily because the Division considered the technology incapable of reliably
and cost-effectively handling the County’s total forecasted waste (Solid Waste Division,
2019). The Division found that the County’s annual waste tonnage would require a 5,000
ton-per-day system, which would be the largest in the world, and would require a facility
expansion after 20 years. This is disputed among the WTE consultants’ findings from the
feasibility studies. Beyond the referenced sizing issues, the Division says they also did
not recommend WTE because it had the highest initial costs, would require a consistent
quantity and composition of feedstock, and would have the highest greenhouse gas
emissions of the options considered. Although this option was not chosen, the Division
says they will commit to continued exploration of emerging technologies to prepare for
landfill closure.
Next Steps Upon Approval of the Plan
On April 24, 2019, the King County Council voted to approve the Plan, tipping
the first domino in a long series of actions with the end result of expanding the landfill
6
(Regional Policy Committee, 2019). A 2019 Environmental Impact Statement determined
that there would not be significant impacts from increasing the landfill’s height limit to
830 feet (Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., 2019). At the time of this study, the
Division has yet to apply for a landfill permit modification with the Public Health
Department and site a location for the landfill administration buildings (currently located
on Area 9), and then develop the new cell. While the Division develops this new cell,
they will also review the latest technologies to prepare for the ultimate closure of the
landfill. In 2024 this Plan will be updated to include analyses of future disposal options
(Natural Resources and Park, 2019).
Solid Waste Policymaking in King County
Thirty-seven cities in King County participate in the County’s waste system,
including four out-of-county cities and all unincorporated areas (Solid Waste Division,
2018). Only Seattle (the County’s largest waste producer) and Milton no longer send their
waste to the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, with Seattle exporting their waste by rail to
the out-of-county Roosevelt Regional Landfill and Milton utilizing Tacoma-Pierce
County’s waste management system and their in-county LRI Landfill. The County
provides final disposal of waste at the landfill and these 45 cities contract with the county
to provide that service, called an interlocal agreement. The structure of this agreement
requires that the Plan has to be ratified by enough cities to represent at least 50% of the
County, which provides cities the opportunity to voice their approval or disproval of the
Plan. So, if enough cities do not approve of the planned disposal method, they can either
lobby the Councilmembers with their recommendation or vote against ratification. The
7
2019 Plan was ratified by the majority of the cities, with only Snoqualmie formally
rejecting it because of their interest in alternatives like waste-to-energy (DeFord, 2019).
The process of presenting the Plan to Council and interlocal cities for approval and
providing an opportunity for stakeholder engagement and community input before
ratification took around one year.
• • • • • •
Many scholarly studies have been conducted to understand local governments’
decision-making processes with respect to landfill alternatives, specifically WTE.
However, these usually manifest as feasibility analyses testing the viability of
technologies and their potential environmental impacts in comparison to other
alternatives or landfilling. This makes my research significant because it questions not
whether new technologies are feasible, but why decision-makers choose to reject them. It
also focuses on a recent case of a local government rejecting WTE in Washington State, a
state where another large municipality has operated a WTE facility since 1991 (City of
Spokane, 2021). Findings from my research can provide insight into the complex world
of King County’s decision-making process regarding landfill alternatives, and an
understanding of what led them to choose the “business-as-usual” option of landfilling
over something new. Hopefully, the research presented here will encourage further
inquiry into how solid waste management infrastructure evolves over time, and what it
takes to tip the proverbial scales in favor of a new, albeit expensive, system.
• • • • • •
8
This thesis is organized into six chapters: Introduction, Literature Review,
Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. The Introduction provides a case timeline,
the Literature Review establishes a theoretical framework, the Methods chapter details
the data I collected, the Results chapter presents my analysis process and findings, the
Discussion chapter interprets the findings and contextualizes them with respect to the
theoretical framework, and the Conclusion summarizes my research and recommends
future research.
9
Literature Review
My research asks why King County Councilmembers chose to adopt the 2019
Comprehensive Waste Management Plan (“the Plan”), essentially committing their waste
management system to landfill expansion for another 20 years. The purpose of my
research is to understand and highlight the complexity of the King County’s decisionmaking process and its subsequent economic, environmental, and social impacts. This
case study applies two decision-making theories to municipal waste management
decision-making. The chosen theories and model are described in this chapter, as well as
how these apply to the case of waste management.
Decision-making Theories: Rationalism, Incrementalism, and the PESTE Model
In trying to understand the “how” and “why” of political decision-making, it is
valuable to understand process theory. Abstract process theory can delineate into the
midcentury public administration approaches of rationalism, incrementalism (Lindblom,
1959). The rationalism approach to decision-making assumes that an actor, with a
specific goal in mind, chooses how to act based on what is the most likely means to
achieving that end, and defines a “good” policy as one with the most appropriate means
to that end. It usually entails a comprehensive, theory-driven, in-depth analysis of policy
options and assumes that an actor has access to all of the data necessary to make the most
rational decision possible. Using this approach when siting a waste management facility
for example, decisions are circumscribed to a limited number of site locations, available
technologies, feasibility studies and consultations, and a time frame (Dodds and
Hopwood, 2006; Healy, 2010; Petts, 1998, 2001; Solid Waste Division, 2019). Upon
10
review of these documents, discussions involving decision-makers and their constituents
then occur through town hall meetings, educational presentations, opportunities for public
comment, and other forms of consultation (Allen, 2007; Carse, 2012; Marres, 2005; Van
de Poel, 2008; Solid Waste Division, 2019). The concept that decision-makers act
rationally or attempt to “maximize a desired utility under the constraint of belief” has
driven an impressive amount of research in the political and social sciences when trying
to predict voting behavior (Downs, 1957; Feddersen, 2004; McGann, 2016). A common
argument for employing rationalism in waste management-related decisions is that it will
protect the “public purse” and ensure fiscal responsibility on the part of the policymaker
(Hostovsky, 2005). This economic rationale is showcased in this case study as it pertains
to King County’s tipping fees, and the priority of the Solid Waste Division to keep them
as low as possible for the ratepayer. However, assessing a decision and its relative
consequences using a rationalistic approach requires knowledge that is, at best, piecemeal
because individual decision-makers have neither the time nor assets to gather all
information required to make a “purely” rational choice. Attempting to make decisions
more rational can require changes to the institutional structure that negatively impact
elected officials and their constituents (Lowi, 1969; Ostrom, 1989; Seidman and Gilmore,
1986; Bourdeaux, 2008).
Previous research has used this framework in the context of municipal waste
decision-making. A study about the underlying institutional structure of municipal waste
management found that elected officials, confronted by a wide variety of policy issues,
are often concerned they do not have enough knowledge to make a “good” rational policy
decision (Bourdeaux, 2008). O’Leary et al. describe highly contentious and technical
11
policy arenas, such as siting waste management facilities, as particularly difficult when it
comes to rationalistic policymaking (1998). Their concern is that elected officials may
“bog down” in stalemate if policymakers try to employ rationalism while receiving
pressure from all parts of the electorate (O’Leary et al., 1998). King County’s Solid
Waste Division attempts to predict the constantly changing waste environment by
forecasting consumption rates, evolving waste composition, and infrastructure demands
decades into the future (Solid Waste Division, 2019). However, in Etzioni’s words, “a
limited universe of relevant consequences” is not possible because decisions are not
linear, therefore decision-makers face “an open system of variables, a world in which all
consequences cannot be surveyed” (1967). The employment of rationalism in King
County’s decision to adopt the Plan will be analyzed in later sections.
In accounting for the limited capacity of rationalism, incrementalism
intentionally reduces the scope of information in order to make decisions. This
approach’s focus on the short-run can establish a “norm” that dissuades significant
variation from past policies, especially when presented with innovation (Etzioni, 1967).
An incrementalist approach to decision-making focuses the attention on incremental
actions and compares policies through these margins. In Lindblom’s definition, “The
only values that are relevant to [a policymaker’s] choice are these increments by which
the two policies differ” (1959). This case study will explore elements of incrementalism
in King County’s long history of Cedar Hills Regional Landfill expansion.
In the context of waste management, the push for efficiency and reducing costs to
the ratepayer contributes to the routinization of the decision-making system, manifesting
as small changes to the status quo (Latour, 2007; Hird et al. 2014). A case study of
12
Kingston County, in Ontario, Canada, found that policymakers do not consider landfill
alternatives a pressing issue because landfilling “has become so routine [that it is]
entrenched in City budgets and infrastructure and [has] no immediately apparent
environmental consequences for the City” (Kingston City Council, 2012; Hird et al.
2014). A proponent of landfill expansion interviewed in another case study noted that
expansion became “reasonable as time went on” (Hostovsky, 2005). Taking an
incrementalist approach to waste management planning makes it difficult for decisionmakers to commit to adopting new technologies (even if they are proven viable), or
consider long-term environmental or financial risks (Bourdeaux, 2008; Frant, 1989). One
case out of Nova Scotia found that it took reframing solid waste as a valuable economic
resource to break their province’s established norm and reject landfill expansion
(Wagner, 2007). The flaw of this approach is poetically stated by sociologist Kenneth E.
Boulding as, “we stagger through history like a drunk putting one disjointed incremental
foot after another” (via Etzioni - Boulding, 1964).
Incrementalists ask how a decision can be defined as “good” if values cannot be
universally scaled or summarized. Based on work by David Osborn, Etzioni suggests that
an informal scaling of values using an ordinal scale can achieve such a summary (Etzioni,
1967). This employs a ranking system to assess the value an actor places on a qualitative
variable of the decision-making process. I will be using informal scaling to measure
political values and assess the hierarchy of values employed by decision-makers when
they voted on the Plan. Guy (1984) explains that when measuring political values on a
scale, a researcher should expect participants to be reluctant to assigning quantitative
numbers to their preferences because their feelings are relative. Therefore, a participant’s
13
ranking may change depending on the case presented, known uncertainties, and simply
the time they made the ranking.
There is little prior research on what U.S. policymakers consider their priority
values when making waste management-related decisions, not to mention how they
would rank these values. A case study from Stockholm ranked selected influence factors
by the degree to which they affected the choice of decision-makers when considering
incineration and fermentation. After conducting interviews with employees of The City
of Stockholm Waste Management Administration, they concluded that national
legislation, [facility] capacity, potential revenue, and risks to public health and the
environment were the most influential factors to these decision-makers (Li, 2007). The
PESTE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, and Environmental) model provides
a set list of categories to consider and is frequently used in strategic business
management, future analysis, and environmental scanning (Hurmekoski et al., 2013;
Zalengera et al., 2014; Fozer et al., 2017). A study about decision-making within forest
industry companies employs this model to establish a macro-perspective of the decisionmaking environment (Senko and Pykäläinen, 2019). Using a point system, these
researchers asked experts within the industry to suggest actions that would contribute to
the long-term, sustainable development of forestry in Karelia, Russia and categorized
them within the PESTE framework. They found that experts ranked these categories in
the following order (most important to least): Technology, Political, Economic, Social,
and Environmental (Senko and Pykäläinen, 2019). In the context of my study, I will
adopt the PESTE model and expand it to include Waste Quality and Quantity in order to
categorize waste-related factors. I will also be asking each participant to rank these
14
categories themselves by order of importance. Through this study I will address the
differences and similarities between Councilmember’s values within the solid waste
decision-making environment.
A large amount of research speaks to the impact of citizen input on policymaking
and environmental decision-making, mostly about situations where the public has little to
no impact (McCann, 2001; Alkadry, 2003; Lando, 2003; Adams, 2004), few where
public involvement did affect the decision (Rowe and Frewer 2005; Beierle and Cayford,
2002), and what inspires public assembly around waste-related issues (Hird et al., 2014).
Research about perception gaps among stakeholders shows that decision-makers operate
on incorrect beliefs about their constituents’ perception of an environmental resource, and
experts judge risk much smaller than the general public (Sjöberg, 1999; Alexander et al.,
2018). These findings justify incorporating perspectives from multiple stakeholders to
assess the influence of public input on King County’s decision to adopt the Plan and the
differences between perspectives about their current waste management system.
Using this literature, I frame my research into King County’s decision-making
process regarding landfill alternatives using the decision-making theories of rationalism
and incrementalism. I also apply the PESTE model to my research. This approach will
allow me to draw conclusions about my research questions.
15
Methods
This thesis analyzes why King County voted to adopt the 2019 Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan (“the Plan”) and what factors led Councilmembers to
make this decision. I am essentially asking why Councilmembers approved a plan that
committed them to landfill expansion for another decade and how they prioritized their
values when making this vote. My goal is to better understand why some
Councilmembers voted for the “business as usual” option of landfill expansion while
others used voted for an alternative. To conduct this analysis I use exploratory,
qualitative single case study methodology by conducting semi-structured interviews,
content analysis of news articles, and mapping of air quality complaints. In this chapter, I
discuss why I chose case study design as my research method and how I structured my
research questions within this method. I then explain how I collected my data and how I
plan to analyze it. This chapter will conclude with a note on Spokane’s role in my
research and a summary of methods discussed. Through this research, I hope to gain a
rich understanding of the process, experience, and impact of solid waste policymaking
regarding landfill alternatives.
Why a Case Study?
I chose the case study research method to explore the municipal decision-making
process at a county-level when considering landfill alternatives. This method provides the
opportunity to systematically explore complex social phenomenon and understand the
contextual conditions pertinent to my case (Yin, 2018, p. 15). This case study is oriented
in a relativist perspective that acknowledges the existence of multiple realities among the
16
individuals interviewed (Yin, 2018, p. 16), and a constructivist approach that finds the
construction of meaning around a phenomenon to be unique to the experience of the
individual (Charmaz, 2006). From such vantage, the multiple perspectives of participants
involved in this study is allowed to illuminate the topic. Furthermore, the case study
method provides a framework for collecting, analyzing, and triangulating multiple
sources of qualitative evidence, including documents, open-ended interviews, regional
news media, and public comments and complaints. This process will support, parallel, or
reject the theoretical concepts referenced in the literature review, or clarify new concepts
that arose upon completion of the case study (Yin, 2018, p. 38). Above all, case study
methodology allows for gaining a rich qualitative understanding of the process,
experience, and impact of municipal decision-making and solid waste policy
development.
Case study methodology lends itself to research about public administration and
decision-making because by allowing the researcher to retain a holistic and realistic
perspective while exploring a specific case in-depth. Yin considers this method relevant
when considering a process’s development and why it led to a certain outcome (Yin
1984, p. 18). Part of the policy-making process involves discrete, qualitative events or
actions that cannot be obtained from survey design, archival analysis, or quantitative
feasibility analyses alone (Arganoff & Radin, 1991, p. 205). When assessing multiple
policy options and their respective consequences, Kaplan suggests that “storytelling” can
provide the medium necessary to “explain the development of current dilemmas, and
point the way to resolutions” (Kaplan 1986, p. 775). Further, this research method is
appropriate for exploring the “why” of a contemporary circumstance where the
17
researcher has little or no control (Yin 1984, p. 18). Therefore, case study methodology is
appropriate for answering the “why” of King County’s vote on the Plan because it allows
for holistic analysis, exploratory “storytelling”, and a greater understanding of the
qualitative actions taken by King County Councilmembers to make this decision
regarding landfill alternatives.
This research uses an exploratory single case study focused on King County’s
municipal decision-making process around solid waste management. After being notified
in 2016 that their landfill would reach capacity in about a decade, King County began a
four-year process of analyzing the available options. The nine King County
Councilmembers were presented with three options: expand the last landfill into its final
cell, export waste by rail to a landfill in another county, or invest in new waste-to-energy
(WTE) infrastructure. In April 2019, the King County Council voted 5-2 to adopt the
2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (“the Plan”), thus committing to
landfill expansion rather than investing in a new waste-to-energy facility. In the context
of this study, decision-makers are defined as the King County Councilmembers in office
at the time the Plan was being developed (Solid Waste Division, 2019).
Research Questions, External Data, and Qualitative Factors for Analysis
There are two research questions guiding this study.
Q1: Why did King County vote to adopt the Plan, essentially choosing landfill
expansion over a landfill alternative, specifically waste-to-energy (WTE)?
Q2: What factors led King County Councilmembers to make this decision?
18
The context of this case is defined using background information I obtained, which is
restricted to the following reports and studies used and/or produced by King County in
the decision-making process:
● “Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Options and Solid Waste Export Considerations”
(Normandeau Associates, 2017)
● Cedar Hills Regional Landfill 2019 Annual Report (Solid Waste Division, 2018)
● “Residential Curbside Characterization” (Cascadia Consulting Group, 2018)
● “Waste-to-Energy and Waste Export by Rail Feasibility Study” (Arcadis, 2019)
● “Final Environmental Impact Statement” (Solid Waste Division, 2019)
● “2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan” (Solid Waste Division,
2019)
Upon reading these documents, I concluded that the background information provided to
Councilmembers to assist or direct their vote could be categorized into six overarching
factors. I will explore this vote within the framework of these categories in an attempt to
understand which of the factors had the most influence on decision-makers’ vote. The six
factors I chose to frame my analysis in are:
1. Economics: the financial impacts of the decision.
2. Environment: the conditions, assets, and vulnerabilities of the regional
environment.
3. Politics: the political climate and culture.
4. Social: the “attitude” of constituents in each district.
5. Technology: the technologies available for consideration.
19
6. Waste Quality & Quantity (WQQ): the conditions of the current solid
waste management system.
Data Collection
The process of collecting and analyzing the three sources of data used (semi-structured
interviews, news articles, and air quality complaints) will be discussed in this section.
Interviews
My primary source of data collection involves semi-structured, open-ended
interviews with participants relevant to solid waste policy-making. Participants
interviewed include Councilmembers, County Staff, a WTE Consultant, and King County
residents. My goal with these conversations was to gain insight into the differing
perspectives of solid waste management techniques and municipal decision-making.
When speaking to King County Councilmembers, this evolved to inquire about their
experience voting on the Plan, what factors contributed to or impacted their decision, and
what they wish for King County’s solid waste management system. There was little
concern for researcher bias related to voter districts, since I reside in a separate county
and do not contribute to the Councilmember’s voter base.
To recruit participants, I first emailed an explanation of my research goals and a
request to participate. After accepting my request, I sent participants a letter further
explaining the intent of my study (see Appendix A), a consent form (see Appendix B),
and the list of interview questions for review (Appendix C). I offered participants the
opportunity to skip questions or end the interview at any time. I conducted interviews via
20
Zoom and phone calls, using a separate device to record the audio and a notebook to note
themes or patterns that emerged in the conversation. Interviews lasted from 55 minutes to
almost three hours. Only one participant chose to respond to questions in writing. In total,
I conducted 14 interviews: 10 via Zoom, 3 via phone, and 1 in writing. I spoke with 3
King County Councilmembers, 2 King County staff, 3 King County residents (residing
within one mile of the landfill), 1 King County WTE consultant, 2 Spokane landfill and
WTE engineers, 2 former Spokane employees, and 1 current Spokane employee. Once
completing an interview, I saved the audio recording in a password-protected folder on
my laptop and began the transcription process.
To structure the interviews, I begin with providing background information
defining the boundaries of my study (i.e. the phenomenon, definition of WTE
technologies, and definition of decision-maker). The first four questions inquire about the
participant’s general experience with and opinion of waste management in Washington
State (see Appendix C for full interview protocol). This laid the foundation for deeper
inquiry into subject areas I couldn’t access through other forms of data collection,
specifically public opinion of municipal decision-making processes and landfill
alternatives (i.e. WTE).
A major component of the interview process was asking participants to rank a set
of factors by how important each factor was the decision-making process. As mentioned
in the literature review, the factors used in this process are drawn from the PETSE
framework (Senko and Pykäläinen, 2020), expanded to include Waste Quality and
Quantity as a sixth factor. Rather than employ a cumulative voting approach where
participants are given 100 points to spend on prioritizing categories (Blair, 1973), I asked
21
participants to simply rank the six factors in order of importance. Participants ranked
each factor on a scale of 1-6 (with 1 being most important), according to how they either
perceive decision-makers prioritized these factors when voting on the Plan (if they were
not a Councilmember) or, for Councilmembers I interviewed, according to how they
remember prioritizing them in their decision-making process. Asking this question within
a semi-structured interview setting allowed participants to expound on their reasoning
and thought process for prioritizing certain factors over others. With this approach I can
better understand why decision-makers voted to approve the Plan and how perspectives
differ or relate among the various participants interviewed. This question benefited from
“in-person” interviews because of its potential to confuse participants. This is the only
interview question that provides some form of quantitative analysis. The open-ended
interview format allowed for follow-up questions, which was an important opportunity
for clarification or introduction to topics and concepts I had not previously considered.
A Human Subjects Review approval was obtained for the study through The
Evergreen State College’s Institutional Review Board. Participants were frequently
offered the option to remain anonymous, confirmed their consent to be recorded, and told
when I began recording. Upon completion of my thesis, I deleted the audio recordings.
Air Quality Complaints
In addition to the interviews, I also collected and mapped air quality complaints
filed by residents of King County. This is a valuable source of candid public
comments/opinions regarding the current waste management system, specifically the
Cedar Hills Regional Landfill (CHRL). The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) is
22
a public agency responsible for recording and processing public complaints regarding air
quality in King County (“File a Complaint”). Filing a complaint is available online, via
phone, and by mail. All complaints become public record once filed and are provided
upon request.
I filed a public records request for access to complaints that met the following
characteristics: it references the “Cedar Hills Regional Landfill” or anything adjacent, the
resident lives within a 10-mile radius of the landfill, and complaints regarding odor, dust,
or “business - visible emissions”. I received 2,082 records in one installment that had
records beginning May, 1994 and ending September, 2020. I coded these records for the
complaint “types'' defined by PSCAA, which include odor, noise, and dust. I made
special note of any complaints that lead to legal action or negative impacts on public
health or quality of life for the complainant. I also recorded whether an action was taken
by a PSCAA Agency Inspector regarding the complaint. This could mean calling the
complainant to discuss their concerns via phone, traveling to the site of the alleged
complaint to inspect its validity, or contacting the alleged manufacturer of the air quality
concern (in this case the landfill) to inquire about their operations. Since these filings also
contain the address and time of the complaint, I documented this for further analysis
using mapping software (ArcGIS). Through this data collection I can analyze the impact
landfill operations have had on neighboring residents since a filing system became
available, describe the government structures in place to manage these impacts, and infer
a general public opinion regarding the continued use of CHRL as a means of final
disposal in King County.
23
News Articles
The purpose of this data collection is to explore the scope and tone of news
coverage in King County regarding the topic of landfill expansion and WTE
consideration. Through this process, I assessed the level of each news outlet’s topic
exposure to their respective audiences. Coding is a heuristic analysis method, and thus
fits well with the exploratory structure of this case study. The Pew Research Center
defines this pursuit as “assessing the way in which a story’s content is constructed via use
of quotes, assertions or innuendo, which results in supportive, neutral or negative
coverage” (“Human Coding of News Media”). A coding key is created to provide the
platform for documenting these elements of a story’s content. As defined in The Coding
Manual, “a code...is often a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative,
salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute” (Saldaña, 2015). The coding key I
developed uses the proposed six factors as overarching categories to organize codes
within. I concluded what codes to include in my analysis through past research on the
topic. I also saved direct quotes I considered evocative of a potential tone or theme. To
read the coding key used in this study, see Appendix D.
I sourced 35 relevant news articles using the research database NewsBank. The
keywords I used to find these articles included: King County, landfill expansion, wasteto-energy, waste management, Cedar Hills Landfill, Cedar Hills Regional Landfill,
Maple Valley, Eagles, Public Comment, Residents, and solid waste. The search was
restricted to the years 2016-2019 because this was the time range given for King County
to consider the discussed disposal options. Using Microsoft Excel, I read the main body
of each article and manually recorded which articles directly addressed codes from my
24
coding key. During this process I also saved memos to another Excel sheet to keep track
of emergent themes for later analysis.
Analytical Approach
Ground-Up Coding
I used ground-up coding in my analysis of all the data collected. Ground-up
coding involves analyzing the qualitative data collected for overarching themes and
patterns, which can lead to new concepts or relationships emerging (Yin 2018, p.169).
The chosen six factors act as a preliminary theme structure from which deeper
abstractions or interests related to the original inquiries can emerge.
Developing a Case Timeline
This analysis will result in concepts and possibly new themes or connections, all
of which will direct the second inductive analysis strategy: developing a case timeline.
Here I will attempt to identify the timeline of decisions made by King County officials
leading up to the vote, develop a model of King County’s solid waste policy-making
structure, and place the six factors within this model.
Process-tracing
The final stage of analysis employs the explanation building technique to gain a
rich understanding of the phenomenon within its context – in this case, the decision
around landfill options in King County. A method specific to political science research,
called process-tracing, strives to approach a more intimate vantage point with which to
25
observe the mechanisms behind the phenomena (George & Bennett 2005, p. 108).
Process-tracing attempts to posit “which aspects of the initial conditions observed, in
conjunction with...the many that may be at work, would have combined to generate the
observed sequence of events” (Goldstone 1991, p.50). The result of this analysis will be
hypothesis generation based on these observations. In following with case study research,
this analysis can only conclude with generalizations and deeper insights based on the
specific case study in question. The value of this study design is similar to that of a
history degree; it can’t predict the future, but it can provide a clearer window with which
to see the world.
Evaluating Strength of Results
The criteria for interpreting the strength of these results will consider whether the
logic of choosing the six factors remains sound. A sign of success will be whether the six
factors contribute to the development of the policy-making structure. If this does not
occur, the original proposition will need to be revised and another case study will be
recommended.
A Note on Spokane’s Role in this Case Study
Spokane, a city in Eastern Washington, currently employs a mass burn waste-toenergy (WTE) facility as their primary option for solid waste disposal. Being that this is a
single (versus comparative), case study, Spokane will play a specific role in the analysis.
I found that, in certain ways, it was easier to recruit people from Spokane for interviews.
Each of these interviewees contributed in different capacities to the 1989 decision to
26
integrate WTE into Spokane’s solid waste management system. There could be many
reasons for their availability and willingness to participate in my research. But, given that
Spokane is the only city in Washington State that currently operates a WTE facility, I
found value in hearing their thoughts on municipal decision-making. I used the same list
of interview questions for both the Spokane and King County participants, so their
responses will be used to infer a deeper understanding of the solid waste policy-making
structure in King County. I did not conduct any other research into the Spokane decision
(i.e., coding news articles and mapping public air quality complaints), but the potential
for this to become a comparative case study will be discussed in my conclusion.
In Summary
In this case study I will apply a holistic lens to a specific moment in King
County’s solid waste management history, looking through the window into the very
complex world of municipal decision-making. By interviewing decisionmakers directly
involved or impacted by these decisions, I intend to deepen my understanding of the
commonalities and differences between perspectives. In lieu of a survey, I will use air
quality complaints about the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill to provide context on the
current waste management system’s impacts on King County residents. By coding
regional news articles, I will better understand the scope and tone of coverage regarding
the County’s decision in various news outlet. When combined, I will draw conclusions to
paint the “big picture” of waste management in King County and highlight the
complexity of the regional decision-making process and its subsequent economic,
environmental, and social impacts.
27
Results
This chapter describes my results for the data collected on municipal decisionmaking in King County regarding landfill alternatives. The first section summarizes the
results from coding news and opinion articles, the second section details the results of
mapping air quality complaints, and the final section synthesizes the results from the
interviews. I will first describe the analytic procedure used, then will present the results.
Coding News and Opinion Articles
Overview
I coded 35 news and opinion articles in order to understand the scope and tone of
coverage from regional and domestic news outlets regarding King County’s 2019
Comprehensive Waste Management Plan (“the Plan”). I conducted my analysis with 53
codes using predominantly iterative coding to allow for new variables to be derived from
the data. The majority of these articles (33) were published within King County, the
remaining (2) articles were national online publications. Each of these articles discussed
the Plan and decision in some capacity. The median word count was 841, the longest
article was 3,788 words, and the shortest article was 196 words. Almost all of the articles
were written during the decision-making timeline (2016-2019), with one written during
the 1999 decision-making process. The result of this analysis is a better understanding of
how this topic was framed in the news during the decision-making process.
28
Results: Tone
The tone of the majority of articles coded (32) was neutral. Of these articles, none
expressed an opinion for either landfill expansion or WTE outside of direct quotes by
residents, WTE consultants, or King County officials. Of the remaining (3) articles, one
was an opinion piece published in The Kent Reporter and two were letters to the editor in
The Auburn Reporter and Federal Way Mirror. The opinion piece was written by a King
County resident who lives within 2 miles of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill (“the
Landfill”), and was in favor of WTE. One letter to the editor was written by a waste-toenergy (WTE) Consultant who consulted for King County on the 2017 WTE feasibility
study and was also in favor of WTE. The other letter to the editor was written by a King
County resident who was a member of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
during the decision-making process and is in favor of landfill expansion.
Results: Scope
To analyze the scope of coverage in these articles I used 53 codes, which I then fit
within my interpretation of the PESTE framework (Politics, Economics, Social,
Technology, Environment, and I include Waste Quality and Quantity). The majority of
my codes (35) were binary, meaning a code/subject was either discussed or not discussed
in the article. The remaining codes (18) had three options/variables to allow for deeper
analysis of and comparisons between the two disposal methods under analysis (landfill
expansion and WTE), and a “did not discuss” option. An example of a binary code is
shown below: “WQuant” refers to an article that was coded either 1 for “…did discuss
the quantity of waste produced annually in King County?” or 0 for “…did not discuss…”
29
An example of a non-binary code is “SocPref,” shown below, so an article was coded
either 1 for “…did discuss a King County resident preferring WTE”, 0 for “…did discuss
a King County resident preferring landfill expansion…”, or 99 for “…did not discuss a
King County resident’s preference”.
Under my analysis, a “…did discuss” code means an article did provide that information;
therefore, the scope is considered to inclusive of that information. The majority of the
“did mention” codes (68%) occurred in less than 10% of the articles. Of that content,
31% of these codes were categorized within “Economics”. Under my analysis, a “…did
not discuss” code means an article did not provide that information; therefore, the
coverage of that information is considered to be limited. The majority of the “did not
mention” codes (33%) occurred in over 90% of the articles. Of that content, 43% of these
codes were categorized within “Social”.
Codes-to-Themes Model
From this coding analysis I developed “outcomes” that evolved codes into
categories and themes. As defined by Rossman and Rallis (2003), “think of a category as
a word or phrase describing some segment of your data that is explicit, whereas a theme
is a phrase or sentence describing more subtle and tacit processes.” I derived three major
30
themes from this process: the news’ portrayal of public opinion and government
opinions.
The Portrayal of Public Opinion in the News
The first theme I derived from the data is the public’s opinion of the Plan. Shown
graphically in Figure 3, the primary category for this theme are the residents who live
around the landfill (referred to as “landfill neighbors”) because they were the only
members of the public quoted in the collected news articles. This category delineates into
the subcategories of landfill neighbors that approve or oppose of the Plan. From there,
these subcategories further delineate into the PESTEW factors (Politics, Economics,
Social, Technology, Environment, and Waste Quality and Quantity), from which the
codes are placed. A large number of references to public opinion addressed people who
opposed the Plan. This mostly included residents surrounding the landfill (“landfill
neighbor”). The remaining references to public opinion addressed members of the public
who approved of the Plan (one landfill neighbor).
Members of the public who opposed the Plan cite impacts to the environment,
public health concerns, and disamenity affects resulting from landfill expansion (LX) as
their main concern. In the context of this research, an environmental disamenity affect is
defined as, “a ‘nuisance’ caused locally as a result of the presence of landfill. It can be
characterized by noise, dust, litter, odor, presence of vermin, visual intrusion and
enhanced perceptions of risk” (COWI, 2000). They expressed having support or at least
some interest in WTE as a method for final disposal. They expressed having distrust with
the intentions of King County Council (KCC) and the Solid Waste Division (SWD) about
31
their decision to approve the Plan. A resident who lived by the landfill wrote an op ed
that approved of the Plan, specifically landfill expansion, because of his concern that
landfill alternatives will have a negative economic impact on ratepayers. He argued that
economics should direct the Councilmembers’ decision.
Figure 3. Code-to-Themes model for the portrayal of public opinion in the news
32
The Portrayal of Government Opinion in the News
The second theme I derived from the data regarded the government’s opinion of
the Plan. Shown graphically in Figure 4, the categories for this theme include King
County Councilmembers, members of the Solid Waste Division, and elected officials
from cities in the interlocal agreement (“Local Leadership”). Each of these categories
delineate into the subcategories of “Approve of the Plan” or “Reject the Plan”. From
there, these subcategories further delineate into the PESTEW factors (Politics,
Economics, Social, Technology, Environment, and Waste Quality and Quantity), from
which the codes are placed. The majority of references to government opinion addressed
the Solid Waste Division’s reasons to support of the Plan. The next most common
reference addressed Councilmember opinions for both approving of and opposing the
Plan. There were few references to Local Leadership addressing why they approved of or
opposed the Plan.
Councilmembers that opposed the Plan were portrayed as considering landfilling
archaic and WTE cutting edge technology, feeling that a localized waste management
system ensures their system’s resiliency (i.e. they don't want to rely on export-by-rail),
and worrying that landfill expansion (LX) is a "missed opportunity". Councilmembers
that approved of the Plan acknowledged that landfill neighbors are concerned but
considered landfill expansion the best option “right now” for the benefit of the whole
county. Solid Waste Division (SWD) officials considered WTE viable but not the best
option right now, mostly because it’s “the most expensive option”. The Division intends
to "keep eyes on WTE technologies" for future consideration, but wanted to prioritize
diversion over disposal. They also saw landfilling as a waste of materials (a "pit") but
33
necessary in order to extend their "planning horizon". Most local leadership approved of
the Plan, saying that King County needs more time and information to make a final
decision about the next method of waste disposal, so landfill expansion was the best
option for now. Bellevue mentioned that they approved because the SWD recognized
their constituent's public comments and made relevant amendments to the Plan. Local
leadership that opposed the Plan used their vote symbolically to show that they want
landfill alternatives and don't agree with the SWD's "casual dismissal" of WTE in the
Plan.
34
Figure 4. Code-to-Themes model for the portrayal of government opinion in the news
35
Air Quality Complaints (AQC)
Overview
I documented 2,082 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) air quality
complaints in order to better understand the history of disamenity affects that the Cedar
Hills Regional Landfill (“the landfill”) has had on King County residents. Disamenity has
been defined in waste management-related research as adverse impacts to quality of life
from landfill operations, such as noise, visual intrusions, odor, wind-blown litter or dust,
animals, and “stigma damages” to property values (Ham et al., 2012). By mapping these
complaints over time, I can visualize the distance, frequency, and type of recorded
disamenity affects.
The Government’s Role
I divided my analysis into two roles based on the “conversation” being had
regarding air quality issues and concerns: the government (“Inspectors”) and the public
(“complainants”). The government’s role is defined by the breakdown of votes on the
2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste 2Management Plan (“the Plan”), and the process in
place to respond to AQCs.
2
An important note regarding this research: all of the data I analyzed is based on the records I received
from PSCAA. I was not told what percentage of total records this represents, so I can only make inferences
about the records I received.
36
Breakdown of Vote by District
The five districts that voted to approve the Plan did not record any AQCs during the
period of time analyzed (Solid Waste Division, 2019). These districts and their respective
representatives are:
District 1: Rod Dembowski (Democrat)
District 4: Jeanne Kohl-Welles (Democrat)
District 5: Dave Upthegrove (Democrat)
District 6: Claudia Balducci (Democrat)
District 8: Joe McDermott (Democrat)
The two districts that voted to reject the Plan are the only two that recorded AQCs during
the time period analyzed. These districts and their representatives are:
District 3: Kathy Lambert (Republican)
District 9: Reagan Dunn (Republican)
The two districts that did not vote also did not record any AQCs during the time period
analyzed. These districts and their representatives are:
District 2: Larry Gossett (Democrat)
District 7: Pete von Reichbauer (Republican)
Of the districts that recorded AQCs, District 9, where the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill is
located, held over 99% of the records. District 3 held two records.
37
The Government’s Response Process
Once a resident notifies PSCAA of an issue, a case is filed that documents the
date and time it was received, the type of issue reported (options included asbestos, burn
ban, chimney smoke, dust/fallout, gas station, gas tester/installer, mobile coater, odor,
outdoor fire, visible emission, and other), the type of action taken (none, contact, or
offsite contact), the complainant’s contact information (name, address, phone/email), and
“comments” or description of the event or experience.
From these records I learned that in order to confirm the presence of odor, a
PSCAA Inspector or Cedar Hills Regional Landfill representative needs to travel to
where the complainant claims the nuisance is located, called an “offsite contact”. One
resident who lives within 1,000 feet of the landfill (a “landfill neighbor”), received this
email explaining the response process in response to their complaint:
“We take odor complaints very seriously when applying our regulations
which state that it is against the law to emit any air contaminant that
unreasonably interferes with enjoyment of life and property. This means
we must independently verify the presence of an odor to characterize its
unpleasantness using our noses. Once on site, our inspector must be able
to detect an odor that is distinct, definite and unpleasant, and be able to
trace the odor back to its source with the complainant willing to complete
a formal complaint form and to testify should there be an appeal. We also
prioritize our field responses based on the number of complaints received
and likelihood of the smell still being present. I hope this is helpful in
understanding the process and evidence needed in support a documented
odor violation.” (Case #2015501518 – 1; July 8, 2015)
Another requirement to filing a complaint is that the complainant can only define the
location as a private address. In another case, it was described as, “This complaint
38
specifically stated, ‘Cloud of Gas on 156th st and Cedar Grove Road. Got headache, sore
eyes, nose and sore throat from driving through it.’ Typically, PSCAA does not respond
to ‘transient’ complaints when the issue is not at a complainant's home or workplace”
(Case #2014500643 - 1; May 17, 2014). This removes the ability to file a complaint
regarding air quality issues on public property, like while driving or walking on a
sidewalk. About 11% of the complaints were responded to by either a phone call or
offsite contact. Often, when a complaint was acted on with an investigation, an Inspector
visited the location days, weeks, or even months after the complaint was filed. One
complainant (referred to in this case as “CP”), expressed concern about this to the
Inspector, “I arrived at CP location and detected no odor. I called CP and advised. CP
was upset that it took 4 hours for an on-site response. I advised this was a fast response.”
The Public’s Role
The public begins the process of filing a complaint by providing the location,
frequency, and context of issue experienced to PSCAA in the form of a telephone call or
online submission. Figure 5 displays the location and frequency of complaints across the
timeline of records provided. The majority of complaints were located within two miles
of the landfill, and specifically west of the landfill in Maple Hills, Washington. The
farthest complaints were recorded in Newcastle, Washington, about 13 miles away. From
the installment I received, the number of complaints per year ranged from one complaint
in 2005 to 482 complaints in 1997. There are noticeable decreases in AQCs during the
years 2000-2001 (16 total complaints) and 2004-2007 (40 total complaints).
39
Figure 5. Map of Air Quality Complaints from 1994-2020
Disamenity Affects, Public Health Impacts, and Property Loss
Disamenity affects in this section of analysis is defined by the type of issue listed
in the original case file. From the list referenced earlier, the only issues listed in this
installment of records were for odor, noise, and dust. The majority were for odor (2,056),
then noise (24), and dust (2). Complainants can list multiple issues in their case and 22
complaints listed both odor and noise, and one listed odor and dust. Odor complaints
were described as “gassy”, “terrible”, “overwhelming”, “not breathable”, “blueberries
and diarrhea”, “a chemical cocktail”, and “garbage in hot black plastic bags”. Multiple
complainants referenced disamenity affects from seagulls and eagles dropping waste on
their property (roof and yard), construction noises or waves of odor (most commonly
described as “leachate” or “methane”), waking them up at night, and concerns about
property values. One complainant said, “I'll never be able to sell my house unless it’s the
dead of winter and pouring outside” (Case #2017502441 - 1; July 26, 2017), and another,
40
“Once again the disgusting Cedar Hills Landfill odors have woken up my family and has
filled the entire house! I regret buying our home, had no idea how often and nasty this
would be. This is now happening twice a week!!! Something needs to be done” (Case
#2017501876 - 1; June 28, 2017). Both of these cases were evaluated and deemed to
require no action from either PSCAA or the landfill.
Public health impacts in this section are defined by the comment section of the
case file. From this section I learned that complainants expressed concern, outrage, stress,
and fear over the impacts they attributed to the landfill. The most common physical
reactions to landfill-related odor issues included “burning sinuses”, “headaches”,
“nausea”, “asthma attacks”, and a “tight chest”. Multiple cases mentioned having to
abandon their home to seek relief from these affects. One complainant mentioned
concern over the long-term impacts the landfill could be having on her physical health,
saying “I have allergies to mold, and they are getting worse. I have increasing asthma.
I'm quite sure those two facilities are spewing mold into the air. The neighbor behind us
has a dog that just died of cancer, and she has it also.” I noted many comments from the
perspective of parents or teachers in the Maple Hills school district speaking about being
fearful for that their children’s health will be impacted from landfill impacts. One
complaint said, “Nauseating smell by Maple Hills Elementary. This is a nearly daily
occurrence and totally unacceptable. How can these children reach their academic
potential if the smell of their school puts them off of their lunch? Have a conscience
please.” I mapped the locations of vulnerable populations referenced in these complaints
as including three schools, two parks, one wedding venue and Christmas tree farm, and
41
one rehabilitation facility called Passage Point (which is located within the landfill
buffer). All of these locations reside within 2,000 feet of the landfill.
In December 7, 2013, a pipeline connecting the landfill’s North Flare Station to
the Bio Energy Washington landfill gas-to-energy plant broke and released methane gas
eastward into the surrounding neighborhood (Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Community
Meeting, 2014). It took four hours from the time landfill neighbors experienced physical
reactions and called the fire department to when the Solid Waste Division arrived and
shut the pipeline off. The pipeline remained shut down from December 7 to December
20. A collection of neighbors filed a lawsuit against the County for damages experienced,
resulting in a six-year case that settled out of court. Shortly after, the County bought these
neighbors’ homes and demolished them.
Figure 6. Map showing distance between the landfill’s gas-to-energy plant and a landfill neighbor’s “dream home”
42
Figure 6 provides a partial aerial-view of the landfill, the location of the Bio Energy
Washington landfill gas-to-energy plant, the 1,000-foot buffer zone, and the location of
the neighborhood area where the County bought and demolished residents’ homes. In an
interview I conducted, one neighbor shared his experience as,
"We were just about done with our dream home when the [2013] pipeline
break happened. It smelled like our neighbor's propane tank had ruptured.
We had bright red faces that night, trouble breathing, itchy eyes and
throats... We had no idea what was going on. I called the fire department
and had them show up at the landfill to see if it was the Bio Energy plant
and the gate was locked. The landfill had no clue. My nightmare with the
landfill lasted six years from the pipeline break until I was done with the
lawyers. The whole street on our side of the landfill, the houses are now
gone. The county bought and demolished them."
This neighbor, along with his partner, no longer live in King County.
Confusion About Odor Source
One note from analyzing these complaints is confusion about the source of the
odor, especially when complainants appear confused by facility names. There are three
other waste and construction sites and one Superfund site adjacent to the landfill: Cedar
Grove Composting Facility, Pacific Topsoils Inc. (soil, mulch, and equipment supplier),
Quality Aggregates LLC (sand and gravel supplier), and Queen City Farms (previous
industrial/hazardous waste Superfund site). Some residents referenced “Cedar Groves
Landfill”, or “Cedar Hills Compost” as the culprit of odor, noise, or dust. For example,
one complainant commented, “Garbage smell in the air. Most likely its rotting compost
from Cedar Hills Regional Landfill in Maple Valley.” I noted a trend that most
43
complainants associated the landfill as the source of their odor complaints from 19942000, and this changed from 2000-2010 to more composting associations.
Another note is that when an Inspector makes offsite contact, they often do not
detect landfill odors from Cedar Hills Regional Landfill and/or refer to the odor as
something else. Examples include “compost odor” (most common), “the Hobart
Landfill”, “grass”, “livestock”, and “a neighbor’s propane tank”. This has occurred even
when on landfill property. For example, after investigating a complaint in December
2013 on the night of the pipeline break an Inspector said, "Upon arrival at the landfill
office, I detected a very strong, #3 compost odor. We drove in separate vehicles to the
site of the gas line break and while en route I continued to detect compost odor while on
the landfill, and I also detected a #1 gas odor while driving atop the landfill" (Case
#2013503158 - 1; December 7, 2013). I was not provided a list of odor definitions along
with my public records request, however one Inspector’s response to a complaint
explains their discretion. Upon arriving to the residence and asking the complainant to
describe the odor, “The spouse indicated the odor smelled like ‘garbage’ and thought the
landfill was the source. However, when pressed to describe the odor, words such as
‘heavy’ and ‘sickly-sweet’ were used. Those words are typically used when describing
compost odor” (Case #2003502017 - 1; November 21, 2003). The Inspector ultimately
deemed this issue compost-related.
From these case records it was unclear what occurs after an odor was deemed to
be the result of landfill operations. Each report has a space for a case summary to be
written, but was rarely descriptive. There were a few cases where the landfill was
confirmed as the source of an odor but the case summary suggested otherwise. One case
44
where a third-party inspector was brought in reported that, “The ERMAS representative
stated the odor was from Cedar Hills landfill and was attributable to the north flare
station”, but the case summary said, “No verification that odor detected was from [Cedar
Hills Landfill]” (Case #2010501155 - 1; January 1, 2012). Another case suggests that
odor complaints can be handled by landfill employees, stating that,
“The call summary report was authored by Wally Grant [Landfill Gas
Supervisor] and noted compost odor upon arrival [to the landfill]. He
detected a faint landfill gas odor near Area 6, a location where there has
been a documented release of landfill gas at the surface. That detection
was intermittent. Grant reported no odor along the east side of the landfill
adjacent to the complainant's property. From Grant's written report, there
appears to be some mis-catorigization of the odor from the complainant's
perspective, based on what Grant reported. I specifically asked if any
measurements had been taken. No measurements taken.” (Case
#2014500631-1; May 15, 2014)
This can create a conflict of interest between the Inspector and the odor complaint being
investigated, and can contribute to confusion about the source.
45
Semi-Structured Interviews
Overview
I interviewed 10 King County residents regarding their experience with the Cedar
Hills Regional Landfill (“the landfill”) and the subsequent vote regarding its expansion in
the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (“the Plan”). I spoke with three
Councilmembers directly and received one Councilmember’s response via email. I spoke
with one of these Councilmember’s Chief of Staff and with an unrepresented
Councilmember’s Policy Advisor on Solid Waste. To gain a non-government perspective,
I spoke with three residents who live within 1,000 feet of the landfill (“landfill
neighbors”) and one waste-to-energy (WTE) consultant who conducted one of the
feasibility studies for the Solid Waste Division. The shortest interviews were with
Councilmembers, ranging from 19 to 57 minutes. The longest interviews were with
landfill neighbors and the WTE consultant, ranging from one hour 16 minutes to one
hour 53 minutes.3 In this section, I will first discuss the PESTEW rank order exercise I
conducted with the Councilmembers and relevant staff, then I will discuss themes that
emerged across all interviews.
Rank Order of PESTEW Model
The only quantitative component of my interviews employed my extension of the
PESTE model (Senko and Pykäläinen, 2020), which considers Politics, Economics,
Social, Technology, Environment, and Waste Quality and Quantity (PESTEW). I
3
Only a few of these interviewees requested to remain anonymous, but I am applying this anonymity to
throughout my analysis. This is in order to respect their privacy, given their more intimate connection to the
topic. Additionally, revealing participants’ identities beyond the perspective they contribute to this research
doesn’t add value to the study.
46
conducted 10 qualitative interviews, including: 4 Councilmembers, 1 Councilmember's
Chief of Staff, 1 Policy Advisor on Solid Waste to an unrepresented Councilmember, 1
WTE consultant hired by the Division (who ultimately recommended WTE), and 3
landfill neighbors. I asked the four Councilmembers and one Policy Advisor to rank the
PESTEW factors in order of importance to how they (or their representative
Councilmember) voted on the Plan. Rankings were ordered by importance from highest
to lowest, with 6 representing the most important or highest priority factor to a decisionmaker, and 1 representing the least important or lowest priority. Figure 7 shows that
only Politics, Environment, and Waste Quality and Quantity were ranked as most
important across all five decision-makers, then Technology, and Social and Economics.
Figure 7. Radar charts to visualize each decision-makers’ rank order of PESTEW factors
When broken down by vote, Figure 8 shows that the Councilmembers who voted to
approve the Plan (shown as green, blue, and yellow polygons), all chose Waste Quality
and Quantity as the most important factor in their decision-making process. The Policy
47
Advisor to a Councilmember who voted to approve the Plan suggests that Environment
was the most important factor. The Councilmember who voted to reject the Plan felt that
Politics was the most important factor in their decision-making process, whereas Waste
Quality and Quantity was the least important.
Figure 8. Radar charts to visualize each decision-makers’ rank order of PESTEW factors according to vote
Averaging these ranking orders exposes where decision-makers are aligned or skewed in
their prioritizing of factors while voting on the Plan. Table 1 displays the original ranking
of factors along with a total average and then averages broken down by vote. From this
vantage, Environment is ranked the most important factor among decision-makers
(averaging 4.6 out of 6), and Technology is ranked the least important (averaging 2.4 out
of 6). Considering how Councilmembers voted, these decision-makers were most aligned
regarding Economics (averaging 3 out of 6), and least aligned regarding Waste Quality
48
and Quantity (averaging 4.8 out of 6 for Councilmembers that approved the Plan, and 1
out of 6 for Councilmembers that rejected the Plan).
Table 1. Table averaging the rank order of PESTEW factors among decision-makers
Analysis of Qualitative Interviews
One Councilmember who voted to approve the Plan and ranked Waste Quality and
Quantity as most important to their decision-making process said,
“I think that [factor] is the one that points to ‘can the solution handle the
problem?’ The problem being we have a certain amount of people, people
generate a certain amount and type and volume of waste, and we need to
accommodate it. Therefore, the solution has to accommodate that amount
and type of waste.”
The other two Councilmembers who voted to approve the Plan aligned with this
sentiment, suggesting that the County should invest in technologies and public education
campaigns around diversion (i.e. recycling, composting, etc.), before new disposal
technologies. It came across that Councilmembers in-favor of the Plan found that all of
the Technology options presented to them could be feasible, if not viable, in King
County. One Councilmember said,
49
“I truly believe that any of the major technologies we were considering
can be made to work. They each have their challenges, mainly
environmental, but also political. I think they can be made to work and
operational and cost [effective] but it's just a question of which one meets
those other [factors] best. To me, I would go through the criteria and then
land on a technology.”
The Councilmember who voted to reject the Plan and ranked Politics as most
important simply said, “in order to get the five votes we need, it happens politically”, also
suggesting that education is key to removing the sense of uncertainty that comes along
with WTE technology. A Councilmember who voted to approve the Plan did mention
that “key environmental voices” — such as Washington Conservation Voters,
Washington Environmental Council, and the Sierra Club — were important to their
voting perspective, and that they would be uncomfortable “being crosswise” with these
groups.
There were multiple takeaways from my conversations with each interviewee. No
interviewee said that landfills symbolize the ideal method for the final disposal of solid
waste, rather most referred to them as a "necessary evil" or something similar. The Chief
of Staff to a Councilmember who voted to reject the plan said,
“Landfilling is, obviously, a major part of our waste disposal system. I
think it's always going to have a role in some way, shape, or form. We
("we" meaning the human), have been burying our waste for probably
several hundreds or thousands of years. So, I don't see it going away
anytime soon. That being said, I don't think it's our best option. I think it's
hard to envision but, if you look at our lifetime, the internet and cell
phones weren't really a thing and now, 30 years later, the internet's in
our pocket. Encyclopedias don't exist anymore because they're in our
50
pocket. Yet we still bury our waste. So, at what point do we as a society
[become] unsatisfied with the status quo and look for something better?”
Almost everyone acknowledged that landfilling has negative impacts on the surrounding
community and environment. The Councilmember who voted to reject the Plan, the WTE
Consultant, and two of the landfill neighbors vocalized that landfilling should not even be
an option, or “necessary evil”. A common remark about why Councilmembers approved
the Plan was that they were "buying time" or "maxing out an asset". By expanding the
landfill into its final cell, the County “bought” themselves 20 more years to study, plan,
and ultimately decide what the next disposal method will be. Being that the Cedar Hills
landfill property is permitted for waste disposal and this is hard to come by, the County
would essentially be leaving money on the table if they choose not to expand.
Regarding WTE, it seemed that interviewees were either advocating for its
viability in King County or “not convinced” by the technology or potential environmental
impacts. The Councilmember who voted to reject the Plan, the Chief of Staff, the WTE
consultant and one landfill neighbor strongly advocated for WTE over landfilling. Some
interviewees acknowledged that the County is currently employing WTE technologies at
the landfill through Bio Energy Washington, which proves to one landfill neighbor that
the County is not equipped to manage a WTE facility given the landfill gas-to-energy
plant’s history of failure.
Almost every interviewee, especially the Councilmembers, mentioned that since
decision-makers "can't be experts in everything", they would need to defer their opinion
to an expert they trust. In this case, for Councilmembers who voted to approve the Plan,
they deferred to the Solid Waste Division's recommendation for landfill expansion. A
Councilmember that voted to approve the Plan said,
51
“I think the work of the [Division] came with some deference in my
approach. The recommendation from the department and the executive
arrived with what I assumed to be some careful consideration/weighing of
various elements and consequences, therefore I was probably deferential
to the recommendation in the plan from the beginning.”
In this case, Councilmembers could choose to defer to the internal staff who
recommended landfill expansion, and whom they have worked with before or for many
years, or to the WTE Consultants who recommended a “new and expensive” alternative,
and whom they have never worked with before. This concept of deference (deferring to
experts) was frequently mentioned alongside comments about incrementalism. Almost
everyone mentioned that King County decision-makers (i.e. Councilmembers and the
Solid Waste Division) acted incrementally about waste management when developing or
voting on the Plan. Figure 9 compares comments about incrementalism between
Councilmembers that voted differently on the Plan, a landfill neighbor, and the WTE
Consultant than recommended an alternative.
Figure 9. Comparison of incrementalism quotes among interviewees
The two Councilmembers have opposite opinions about the Solid Waste Division’s
recommendation for landfill expansion, which aligns with their vote. This was the only
landfill neighbor that empathized with the Councilmembers who voted to approve the
52
Plan, acknowledging that the economics of the current system are convincing regardless
of political party. Whereas the WTE Consultant simply regarded the Division as shortsighted in their actions, considering landfill expansion a fruitless venture.
53
Discussion and Limitations
I used the PESTEW (Politics, Economics, Social, Technology, Environment,
Waste Quality and Quantity) framework to look at a simple question of why King County
made the decision it did on its solid waste management (Hurmekoski et al., 2013).
However, I quickly found the PESTEW lens inadequate; King County’s municipal solid
waste management system cannot be synthesized into just six factors. My discretion is
what fuels this framework, so the boundaries of each factor blurred when an
interviewee’s comment could not be isolated to one factor. For example, a decisionmaker’s apprehension towards siting a waste-to-energy (WTE) facility does not fall
neatly into one factor. This concern was described using economics, environmental
justice, the “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) mentality, and policy issues throughout the
interviews. In the words of one Councilmember, “Just from a pure policy and political
standpoint, siting any place to get rid of our collective garbage... we all make it, we all
want to get rid of it, [but] nobody wants it to be put in the ground or in the air anywhere
near them. So, it's the siting that's always a huge problem.” In these moments throughout
my research, I chose to apply multiple factors to a singular, albeit complex topic.
Additionally, my research uncovered factors that I did not consider prior to this
study. For example, time, or timing, was a concern to one Councilmember,
“Timing is also a large factor. The 2018 update to the SWCP was a
decade in the making and only extends the life of Cedar Hills Landfill by
20 years to 2040. Shifting a regional system that disposes of the solid
waste of over 2 million people would be a big lift and require planning,
partnerships, and immense funding. Ultimately, my colleagues and I did
not feel that the technology and the timing were there yet with WTE.”
54
Another important factor that emerged from my interviews is education. In the context of
this study, this primarily means educating the public and Councilmembers on WTE
technologies, the cost structure of funding a facility, and their subsequent environmental
impacts. Interestingly, only Landfill Neighbors, the WTE Consultant, and the
Councilmember and Chief of Staff who wanted to reject the 2019 Solid Waste
Management Comprehensive Plan (“the Plan”) brought up the need for more education in
their interviews. In the words of a Landfill Neighbor,
“I think a lot of people in our town hall wanted to know more about WTE
before they said yes [to landfill expansion]. A lot of people were for it. But
in the county, there was no education. All they did was say, ‘this is too
expensive. We can't do this. It'll take 12 years to site something like that.
Too long to build...’ all these negatives.”
None of the Councilmembers (or related Staff) who voted to approve the Plan spoke
about the public or themselves needing or wanting more education on WTE. Because of
these emergent factors, I cannot claim that the PESTEW approach to rank order analysis
sufficed to embody the entire conversation about King County’s decision-making process
regarding landfill alternatives, specifically WTE. Therefore, my analysis of this case
under the PESTEW framework is limited.
However, the PETSEW framework did provide a preliminary structure for the
analysis of why King County rejected landfill alternatives, specifically WTE. The main
reasons for not choosing this landfill alternative and adopting the Plan, provided by three
Councilmembers and the representative Policy Advisor, were high initial costs (and
impacts to ratepayers), environmental concerns, concerns about the size and scale of a
facility, and apprehension about siting a new facility in King County. Another frequent
55
comment from this group regarded approving the Plan in order to “buy time” or “expand
the planning horizon” to decide on a landfill alternative. In the words of one
Councilmember’s Policy Advisor,
“I think what it really came down to was, ‘we'll expand this because it's
already an existing infrastructure, [we’ll] minimize the economic and
environmental impacts, maintain where we're at, max out that [asset], and
then use that time to create a more sustainable, evidence-based, long-term
solution and future plan.”
I found that this perspective was not lost on the Landfill Neighbors interviewed, but that
they did not necessarily agree with this logic. One Landfill Neighbor said, “As a citizen
living next to the landfill, I have accepted the fact that King County sees it as an asset and
is going to use every last bit of it until it's sold out. So, I'm never surprised when they
decide to expand. ‘We're gonna build a new area, we're gonna spend another ‘x’ million
bucks so we can put more garbage in here.’ My opinion on the expansion? I'm not
surprised.” This example showcases one of the many differences in perspective exist
between Councilmembers and Landfill Neighbors.
Given this, I conclude that the Councilmembers employed rationalism in their
vote on the Plan. As defined in the Literature Review, rationalism assumes that an actor
has a specific goal in mind and chooses how to act based on what is the most likely
means to achieving that end, while also assuming that an actor has access to all of the
data necessary to make the most rational decision possible. As decision-makers, each
Councilmember had a specific goal in mind and chose how to vote based on how they
thought they could most likely achieve that goal. Through the multiple reports from both
third-party consultants and the Solid Waste Division (“the Division”), they were provided
56
an in-depth analysis of policy options and assumed that they had access to all of the data
necessary to make the most rational decision in their mind. An emergent concept from
my interview with a Councilmember’s Chief of Staff spoke to the principle and practice
of rationalism in this context:
“When do they choose how they will vote? I think, to answer your question
with a question, what are they voting on? I think there are going to be nine
different answers to ‘what are you voting on’. For a lot of the members
who voted yes, their answer to that question might be something like,
‘well, this is a regional plan for how we're going to handle waste. Yes, it
says we're going to landfill now, but it also talks about how we're going to
make a decision after we close Cedar Hills Regional Landfill’. For my
boss, who voted no, it was ‘yes, but we don't have that kind of time. We
need a decision now and we should have the information to make that
decision now’. So, how do you get there?”
Being that the Councilmembers are aligned on solid waste management decisions solely
through the policies listed in the Plan, the “means to that end” is up to their discretion.
They do not necessarily need to be aligned on how to achieve something like zero waste,
for example (King County, 2019).
Councilmembers cannot know everything about an issue prior to a vote, and this
highlights the pitfall of rationalism. Each of the Councilmembers who voted to approve
the Plan acknowledged employing deference to some degree (that is, deferring to experts)
during their decision-making process. In the end, this deference directed them to fall back
to the Solid Waste Division’s recommendation for landfill expansion in order to “max out
their asset” and “expand the planning horizon”. One Councilmember described this logic:
“When it comes to these kinds of decisions, I do have to rely a great deal
on the expertise of the policy professional staff that work for the county
57
and the consultants that we hire to give us input. There were some
conflicting findings among the multiple studies. Not being an expert, I
resolved them based (as much as I can) on the weight of the
recommendations. Like, ‘most people seem to be recommending this
versus that’. I knew that our Solid Waste Division was recommending in
the short- to medium-term we expand the landfill to get the absolute most
out of it that we can and at that point, we'll need to come up with
something else. And our own internal experts' position never really
changed. So, to me, that was kind of the leading proposal.”
There are echoes of this thought process in other Councilmembers’ interviews. Another
Councilmember also acknowledged not being an expert on solid waste management and
the process that led them to vote in favor of the Plan,
“Legislators of any level are a mile wide and an inch deep. We choose
what issues to dive into and become policy experts [on] or have more
depth in than others because we can't be experts in everything that comes
before us. [You have to learn] who you [are] going to follow on the issues
that you [aren’t] an expert on. Whose philosophy [are] you aligned with?
Who [do] you trust? Who [do] you think [won’t] lead you or your
constituents astray? The recommendation that came from the Division and
the Executive arrived with what I assumed to be careful consideration of
various elements and consequences; therefore, I was probably deferential
to the recommendation in the plan from the beginning.”
From these conversations, I propose that Councilmembers form networks of experts to
defer to when encountering a knowledge gap. This can be seen in the literature largely
regarding government agencies and administrative law. One study surveying mayors,
chief administrative officers, and city managers found that the more a mayor found their
role to be managerial the less they deferred to the expertise of their internal staff (Potter
and Eskridge, 2018). Another study on European supreme and constitutional courts found
58
that judges who were formerly academics are less deferential than those who were
formerly lawyers (Skiple et al., 2020). So, I conclude that if a Councilmember was not
passionate about WTE technologies, or waste management was not one of their key
issues, then they deferred their opinion to the Division’s recommendation for landfill
expansion. To answer why some Councilmembers went against this recommendation and
voted to reject the Plan, I found one of their Chief of Staff’s comments clarifying: “Every
[Council]member has their passion issue, whatever it may be. So that also drives some of
their interest in how much they're going to dig into [the Plan], and shape their opinions.
We all only have the capacity to do so much.” The Councilmember I interviewed that
rejected the Plan spoke in-depth about their passion for WTE technologies, citing specific
facilities in Europe and the U.S. Because of this, I conclude that Councilmembers who
were previously passionate about landfill alternatives, like WTE, chose to reject the Plan.
My analysis of the Plan and the long history of expansion at the Cedar Hills
Regional Landfill has also led me to a second conclusion: that the King County Solid
Waste Division acts incrementally about solid waste management. Based on Etzioni’s
(year) description of incrementalism as intentionally reducing the scope of a decision to a
shorter timeframe, the Solid Waste Division’s focus on the short-run of solid waste
management has established the “norm” of landfill expansion and dissuades “innovative”
alternatives like WTE. Everyone interviewed acknowledged, in so many words, that
landfilling is a “necessary evil”. Whereas the opinions on WTE were varied. The four
Councilmembers and one Policy Advisor who approved of the Plan considered WTE to
be either “premature” technology, having unknown implications if done “too quickly”,
potentially creating a more “toxic” waste than landfills, or simply “unconvincing”.
59
Conclusions and Recommendations
Despite the limitations of the PESTEW model, my research suggests that King
County Councilmembers were rational (Lindblom, 1959) in their decision-making
process while voting on the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (“the
Plan”). News articles produced during the decision-making period discussed economic
factors the most and social factors the least. All interview participants believed that
landfilling solid waste is not an ideal method of waste disposal, and most acknowledged
the negative impacts this method is having on the surrounding community.
Councilmembers interviewed that voted to approve this Plan deferred to the Solid Waste
Division’s (SWD) recommendation for landfill expansion due to a lack of expertise on
the issue. This lack of expertise could be because solid waste was not a Councilmember’s
personal passion or key political issue. On the other end, the Councilmember interviewed
that voted to reject the Plan was passionate about waste-to-energy (WTE) as a landfill
alternative. This passion for WTE led this Councilmember to educate themselves indepth on the issue and therefore they did not defer their opinion to the SWD. As for the
SWD, my research suggests that they acted incrementally (Etzioni, 1967) regarding the
capacity of their landfill. With over 55 years of landfill expansion, the SWD again
continued to choose this option rather than seek alternatives in the Plan presented to
Council.
Education is a pivotal factor when considering landfill alternatives like WTE.
Given its controversial history, WTE comes with concerns similar to landfilling. From a
government perspective, Councilmembers expressed concern over siting a new facility in
King County due to the “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) mentality common to waste
60
facilities. From the public’s perspective, landfill neighbors expressed NIMBY-related
concerns about possible air quality and odor issues that could occur if a WTE was sited in
their community. In the words of one landfill neighbor, “If we had a smokestack in my
backyard and it was waste-to-energy, would I be okay with that? I don't know. I don't
think so. I'm scared of it because I don't understand it, so maybe if I understood more
about it…” From my conversations with landfill neighbors, two mentioned wanting more
educational opportunities from the County about WTE technologies under consideration,
or feeling like their community didn’t receive enough. In the words of a Councilmember
passionate about WTE,
“It will take a lot of public education to have people understand that
[waste-to-energy] is actually better than what is happening currently. I
think it's hard for people [to understand WTE] who haven't seen it.
[However,] I don't understand why it's so complicated to go and see
something better than what we have and say, ‘[we can] replicate it’. It
would be good in my mind to get people that [the public] can trust about a
variety of things to go [tour] a couple of plants in the world. There's less
dust in those plants than there is in my house. [And even] at Ground Zero,
if you can’t smell it there, you won’t smell it anywhere. If people could see
that it would be helpful, because seeing is believing.”
As an advocate for WTE in King County, this Councilmember hosted multiple
symposiums prior to voting on the Plan in an attempt to educate constituents about the
WTE facilities they had personally toured (Kathy Lambert, 2020). This was the only
Councilmember to provide such educational opportunities.
From a policy standpoint, there are two strategies for approving landfill
alternatives that I concluded from my conversation with a Councilmember’s Chief of
Staff. The first would involve gaining public support for alternatives like WTE. When the
61
Cedar Hills Regional Landfill is scheduled to finally close then all disposal options will
have the common denominator of requiring some level of infrastructure development.
Only then will all options be on “equal footing”. In the words of this Chief of Staff, “It's
easy to say, ‘our landfill has less negative environmental impacts than WTE’ when [the
landfill is] already built and operating. When they're on equal footing, all of a sudden you
have to have an honest conversation about the impacts and benefits of both of them.” In
this situation the public would be brought into the conversation, able to educate
themselves on the options, and ultimately form their opinion about what the County
should do once the landfill is full. The second approach to getting a landfill alternative
approved focuses on connecting issues within the system. Waste management is not a key
issue or even an interest of every decision-maker, but waste management touches many
parts of the entire system. From this perspective, and in the words of the Chief of Staff,
“You have nine different people on the council all with their own interests.
[You can say,] ‘waste management is important to my member, how do I
relate that to something that the eight other members are going to care
about?’ For some of them it might be economics, for others it might be the
environment or the social side of it. [Absorbing other issues within the
system,] that's how you get people who wouldn't otherwise be interested in
waste management, interested in waste management. That's how you build
a coalition.”
For example, this interviewee spoke to key environmental groups’ opinions of the airline
industry, specifically the use of jet fuel and its impact on communities surrounding
airports. WTE technologies can absorb some of the issues surrounding jet fuel by
providing an alternative fuel source derived from solid waste. By creating one solution
62
for two issues, groups with different key issues can align on their perspective of landfill
alternatives like WTE.
From my research, I have documented the decision-making process in King
County regarding landfill alternatives in the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan. My study is unique in that it examines the perspectives of multiple
stakeholders, highlighting how Councilmembers came to their conclusions regarding the
Plan. Little research has been conducted on county-level decision-making regarding
landfill alternatives in the U.S. Given the emergent connection I discovered between
decision-making and deference in the context of this case study, I encourage further
research into the impacts of deference on long-term solid waste management planning.
With landfill space becoming scarcer at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, King County
staff working on solid waste need to seriously consider the viability of landfill
alternatives in order to ensure their system remains resilient. Even though alternatives
will not fully negate the need for landfills in the short-term, alternatives are part of a
long-term solution. In the words of one landfill neighbor,
“The folks that laid the phone lines down had no idea that the internet was
going to come along. The Internet came along in the 80s and 90s and has
changed our world in many ways, for better and worse, but it changed our
world. What we need to do is lay the phone lines and let your kids, my
kids, my grandkids innovate. Goddamn, you have to look 100 years out. If
we keep building these landfills up, they aren't going away. When we start
thinking about it long-term, how is this thing going to impact us in 50
years? Start making those social decisions today. I know they're difficult
politically, I know they're difficult economically, I know they're not at the
top of your constituents' minds. But those are the sorts of tough choices we
have to start making today to make a difference tomorrow.”
63
From this research, I postulate that local governments can avoid the pitfalls of
incrementalism by seeking partnerships with universities to stay educated on best waste
management practices and new and progressive technologies. Along with this, local
governments can prioritize education internally for both Councilmembers and employees
of the Solid Waste Division. For example, organizing tours of modern WTE facilities for
staff and elected officials could challenge any misconceptions they might have regarding
WTE technologies. Finally, local governments can poll constituents regarding their
opinion of landfill alternatives to gain a better understanding of what ratepayers prefer
the county does with their solid waste. I hope that my research encourages further
investigation into local government decision-making, impacts of education on public
opinion of WTE, and the connection between decision-making and deference regarding
solid waste policymaking.
64
Bibliography
Introduction
1. Arcadis. “Waste-to-Energy and Waste Export by Rail Feasibility Study, 2019.” King
County Office of Performance, Strategy, and Budget, Seattle, WA. September 2019.
Web.
2. City of Spokane. “Waste to Energy Facility.” City of Spokane Solid Waste, Spokane,
WA. Accessed March 17, 2021. Web.
3. DeFord, Natalie. “Snoqualmie City Council rejects county’s solid waste plan.”
Snoqualmie Valley Record, Federal Way, WA. September 29, 2019. Web.
4. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. “Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2019.”
King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. March 2019. Web.
5. Natural Resources and Parks. “State adoption of King County solid waste comprehensive
plan clears way for improved regional solid waste management.” King County Public
Affairs, Seattle, WA. December 5, 2019. Web.
6. Normandeau Associates, Inc. “Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Options and Solid Waste Export
Considerations.” King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. September 2017. Web.
7. Regional Policy Committee. “Proposed Substitute Ordinance No. 2018-0375.4”
Metropolitan King County Council, 24 April 2019, Council Chamber, 10th Floor, King
County Courthouse, Seattle, WA. Council Meeting.
8. Solid Waste Division. “Cedar Hills Regional Landfill.” Fact Sheet. King County. Seattle,
WA. July 2018. Web.
9. Solid Waste Division. “Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, 2013.” King
County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. September 2013. Web.
10. Solid Waste Division. “Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, 2019.” King
County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. September 2019. Web.
11. Solid Waste Division. “Final Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, 2001,
Chapter 1.” King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. 2001. Web.
12. Solid Waste Division. “Interlocal agreements” King County Solid Waste Division,
Seattle, WA. Last updated May 10, 2018. Web.
13. Solid Waste Division. “Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Export System Plan.” King
County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. September 2006. Web.
65
Literature Review
1. Adams, B. “Public meetings and the democratic process.” Public Administration Review,
vol. 64, 2004, pp. 43-54.
2. Alexander, K.A., S. Freeman, D.L. Angel. “Public attitudes and decision making in
environmental resource planning — a perception gap.” Environmental Science and
Policy, vol. 80, Feb. 2018, pp. 38-43.
3. Alkadry, M.B. “Deliberative discourse between citizens and administrator: if citizens talk
will administrators listen?” Administration and Society, vol. 35, 2003, pp. 184-209.
4. Allen, Barbara L. “Environmental Justice and Expert Knowledge in the Wake of a
Disaster.” Social Studies of Science, vol. 37, no. 1, Feb. 2007, pp. 103–110,
DOI:10.1177/0306312706069431.
5. Beierle, T.C. and J. Cayford. “Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in
Environment Decisions.” Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.
6. Bourdeaux, Carolyn. “Politics versus Professionalism: The Effect of Institutional
Structure on Democratic Decision Making in a Contested Policy Arena.” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, vol. 18, no. 3, Jul. 2008, pp. 349373. Web.
7. Carse, Ashley. “Nature as Infrastructure: Making and Managing the Panama Canal
Watershed.” Social Studies of Science, vol. 42, no. 4, Aug. 2012, pp. 539–563,
DOI:10.1177/0306312712440166.
8. Downs, Anthony. “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.” Journal of
Political Economy, vol. 65, no. 2, Apr. 1957, pp. 135-150.
9. Etzioni, Amitai. “Mixed-Scanning: A ‘Third’ Approach to Decision-Making.” Public
Administration Review, vol. 27, no. 5, Dec. 1967, pp. 385-392.
10. Feddersen, Timothy. "Rational Choice Theory and the Paradox of Not Voting." Journal
of Economic Perspectives, vol. 18, no. 1, 2004, pp. 99-112. DOI:
10.1257/089533004773563458
11. Fozer, D., Flora Z. Sziraky, Laszlo Racz, Tibor Nagy, Ariella J. Tarjani, Andras J. Toth,
Eniko Haaz, Tamas Benko, and Peter Mizsey. “Life cycle, PESTLE and multi-criteria
decision analysis of CCS process alternatives.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 147,
Mar. 2017, pp. 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2017.01.056.
12. Frant, Howard. “Incentive and structure: On the control of managerial opportunism.”
PhD dissertation, Public Policy, Harvard University.
13. Guy, M. E. “Measuring Conflicting Political Values (Or How To Tell Who Agrees With
Whom).” Political Methodology, vol. 10, no. 2, 1984, pp. 125-141.
14. Hird, Myra J., Scott Lougheed, R. Kerry Rowe, and Cassandra Kuyvenhoven. “Making
waste management public (or falling back to sleep).” Social Studies of Science, vol. 44,
no. 3, June 2014, pp. 441-465.
66
15. Hostovsky, Charles. “Evaluation in Integrated Waste Management: Understanding the
Crisis and Improving Practice Through Planning Theory.” Canadian Journal of Urban
Research, vol. 14, no. 1, 2005, pp. 81-101. ISSN: 1188-3774
16. Hurmekoski, E. and Lauri Hetemäki. “Studying the future of the forest sector: review and
implications for long-term outlook studies.” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 34, Sept.
2013, pp. 17–29. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.05.005.
17. Judith Petts “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes: Waste Management
Case Studies.”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 44, no.
2, 2001, pp. 207-226, DOI: 10.1080/09640560120033713
18. Judith Petts “Trust and waste management information expectation versus
observation.”, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 1, no. 4, 1998, pp. 307320, DOI: 10.1080/136698798377079
19. Kenneth E. Boulding. “Review: A Strategy of Decision” The American Sociological
Review, vol. 29, 1964, pp. 931.
20. Kingston City Council. “Environment, Infrastructure & Transportation Policies
Committee Meeting #09-2012.” October 9, 2012.
21. Lando, T. “The public hearing process: A tool for citizen participation, or a path toward
citizen alienation?” National Civic Review, vol. 92, 2003, pp. 73-82.
22. Latour, B. “Turning around politics: A note on Gerard de Vries’ paper.” Social Studies of
Science, vol. 37, no. 5, 2007, pp. 811-820.
23. Li, Kui. “Study of Influence Factors in Municipal Solid Waste Management Decisionmaking.” Master of Science Thesis, Industrial Ecology Royal Institute of Technology in
Stockholm, 2007.
24. Lindblom, C. E. “The Science of Muddling through.” Public Administration Review, vol.
19, 1959. pp. 79-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/973677
25. Lowi, Theodore J. and Thomas, Norman C. “The End of Liberalism: The Second
Republic of the United States.” The American Political Science Review, vol. 74, no. 01,
1980, pp. 206–207. Web.
26. Lyn Dodds & Bill Hopwood “BAN waste, environmental justice and citizen participation
in policy setting.” Local Environment, vol. 11, no.3, 2006, pp. 269286, DOI: 10.1080/13549830600558762
27. Marres, Noortje. “Issues Spark a Public into Being. A Key but Often Forgotten Point of
the Lippmann-Dewey Debate.” Making Things Public, 2005. Print.
28. McCann, M.P, and D.A. King. “Procedural fairness, personal benefits, agency expertise,
and planning participantsí support for the Forest Service.” Natural Resources Journal,
vol. 39, 1999, 443-458.
67
29. McGann, Anthony. "Voting Choice and Rational Choice." Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Politics. Aug. 2016. DOI: 10.1093/9780190228637.013.79
30. O’Leary, Rosemary, Robert F. Durant, Daniel J. Fiorino, Paul S. Weiland. Managing for
the Environment: Understanding the Legal, Organizational, and Policy Challenges.
Jossey-Bass Press, December 1998.
31. Ostrom, Vincent. The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 1989.
32. Rowe, G. and L. J. Frewer. “A typology of public engagement mechanisms.” Science,
Technology, and Human Values, vol. 30, 2005, pp. 251-290.
33. Seidman, Harold and Robert Gilmore. “Politics, position and power.” 2ed. New York:
Oxford University Press. 1986.
34. Senko, S. and Jouni Pykäläinen. “Exploring the views of forest industry companies on the
long-term forestry development in Russia: A case study in Republic of Karelia.” Forest
Policy and Economics, vol. 120, Nov. 2020, doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102311.
35. Sjöberg, L. “Risk Perception by the Public and by Experts: A Dilemma in Risk
Management.” Human Ecology Review, vol. 6, no. 2, 1999, pp. 1-9.
36. Solid Waste Division. “Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, 2019.” King
County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. Sept. 2019. Web.
37. Stephen Anthony Healy “Facilitating Public Participation in Toxic Waste Management
Through Engaging ‘The Object of Politics’.” East Asian Science, Technology and
Society: An International Journal, vol. 4, no. 4, 2010, pp. 585-599, DOI: 10.1215/s12280010-9152-z
38. Van de Poel, Ibo. “The bugs eat the waste: what else is there to know? Changing
professional hegemony in the design of sewage treatment plants.” Social Studies of
Science, vol. 38, no. 4, 2008, pp. 605-34. DOI:10.1177/0306312707088149.
39. Wagner, Travis. “Refraining Garbage: Solid Waste Policy Formulation in Nova Scotia.”
Canadian Public Policy, vol. 33, no. 4, Dec. 2007, pp. 459-475.
40. Zalengera, C., Richard E. Blanchard, Philip C. Eames, Alnord M. Juma, Maxon L.
Chitawo, and Kondwani T. Gondwe. “Overview of the Malawi energy situation and a
PESTLE analysis for sustainable development of renewable energy.” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 38, Oct. 2014, pp. 335–347. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.050.
68
Methods
1. Agranoff, Robert and Beryl A. Radin. “The Comparative Case Study Approach in Public
Administration.” Research in Public Administration, vol. 1, 1991, pp. 203-231.
2. Blair, George. “Cumulative Voting: An Effective Electoral Device for Fair and Minority
Representation.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York, NY, vol.
219, no. 1, 1973, pp. 20–26.
3. Cascadia Consulting Group. “Residential Curbside Characterization.” King County Solid
Waste Division, Seattle, WA. October 2018.
4. Charmaz, K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative
Analysis. SAGE Publications, 2006.
5. COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners. “A Study on the Economic Valuation of
Environmental Externalities from Landfill Disposal and Incineration of Waste.”
European Commission. October, 2000.
6. George, Alexander and Andrew Bennett. “Case Studies and Theory Development in the
Social Sciences.” Belfer Center Studies in International Security. April, 2005, pp. 108.
7. George, Alexander and Andrew Bennett. 2005 Case studies and Theory Development in
the Social Sciences Cambridge Massachusetts London: MIT Press.
8. Goldstone, Jack. “Revolution and Rebellion in Early Modern World.” University of
California Press, Berkeley. 1991.
9. Kaplan, Thomas. “The Narrative Structure of Policy Analysis.” Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, vol. 5, no. 4, 1986, pp. 761-778.
10. Pew Research Center. “Human coding of news media.” Pew Research Center,
Washington, DC. Accessed March 17, 2021. Web.
11. Rallis, Sharon and Gretchen Rossman. “Learning in the Field: An Introduction to
Qualitative Research.” SAGE Publishing, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA. 2003.
12. Saldaña, Johnny. “The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers.” SAGE Publishing,
3rd edition. November 26, 2015, pp. 1-31.
13. Solid Waste Division. “Cedar Hills Regional Landfill 2019 Annual Report.” King County
Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. Last updated May 2020.
14. Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications, 1984.
15. Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications, 2018.
69
Results
1. Ham, Yun-Ju, David J. Maddison, Robert J.R. Elliott. “The valuation of landfill
disamenities in Birmingham.” Ecological Economics, vol. 85, 2013, pp. 116-129.
2. Solid Waste Division. “Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Community Meeting Notes.” King
County Library Service Center, Issaquah, WA. October 22, 2014. Web.
Discussion
1. Potter, Michael, and Robert Eskridge. “Do Local Government Executives Believe They
Are More Political or Administrative? An Analysis of the Ethics of Administrative
Officer Self-Perception.” Public Integrity, vol. 20, no. 4, July 2018, pp. 401–
414. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/10999922.2017.1337500.
2. Skiple, Jon Kåre, et al. “The Government Deference Dimension of Judicial Decision
Making: Evidence from the Supreme Court of Norway.” Scandinavian Political Studies,
vol. 43, no. 4, Dec. 2020, pp. 264–285. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/1467-9477.12176.
Conclusion
1. Etzioni, Amitai. “Mixed-Scanning: A ‘Third’ Approach to Decision-Making.” Public
Administration Review, vol. 27, no. 5, Dec. 1967, pp. 385-392.
2. Lambert, Kathy. “Last year’s Waste to Energy, Recycling, Upcycling and moving
towards Zero Waste Symposiums.” King County Council, Seattle, WA. September 25,
2020.
3. Lindblom, C. E. “The Science of Muddling through.” Public Administration Review, vol.
19, 1959. pp. 79-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/973677
70
Appendices
Appendix A: Letter to Subjects (front)
Date
Letter to Subjects
Dear ________________,
I am a graduate student at The Evergreen State College pursuing a master’s degree in
Environmental Studies. As part of my thesis work, I will be conducting a research project titled
“To Want or To Waste: An Exploration of Municipal Decision-Making in King County Regarding
Landfill Alternatives”. The purpose of my project is to gather information on how Washington
State municipalities make decisions about their waste management systems. I am conducting
qualitative case study research on King County’s recent vote to adopt the 2019 Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan (“the Plan”), committing to expand the Cedar Hills Regional
Landfill rather than invest in landfill alternatives.
In order to advance my thesis work, I am asking to conduct a 15 minute semi-structured, audiorecorded interview with you regarding your experience voting to adopt the Plan. I am
minimizing risk to you by providing the attached consent form. This will ensure your
confidentiality if requested. There is no compensation available for your participation, which is
completely voluntary. However, you may withdraw your participation at any point or skip any
question you do not wish to answer.
I will keep your responses to my questionnaire in a password protected computer accessible
only by me. I may share part or all of them with my faculty sponsor, Shawn Hazboun, but no
one else. Upon completion of the project, I will destroy the file. As mentioned above, I will use
your responses as resource material for my research paper on municipal decision-making
regarding landfill alternatives in Washington State. At your request, I will provide you with a
copy of the final draft. The paper will be read by my faculty sponsor and department director. I
will also be presenting the conclusions of my research to my university cohort.
71
Appendix A: Letter to Subjects (back)
72
Appendix B: Consent Form (front)
Date
Consent Form
I, _________________________, hereby agree to serve as a subject in the research project
titled “To Want or To Waste: An Exploration of Municipal Decision-Making in King County
Regarding Landfill Alternatives”. It has been explained to me that its purpose is to gather
information about how elected officials in Washington State municipalities make decisions
about their waste management system. The research activity I will participate in is responding
in writing to a semi-structured, open-ended questionnaire.
I have been informed that the information I provide will only be listened to and used for a
research paper and presentation by Gretchen Helpenstell for her thesis work at The Evergreen
State College. I also understand that my responses may be reported in the paper and
presentation, and my identity can be kept confidential along with my identifying information
upon request. Gretchen Helpenstell has agreed to provide, at my request, a copy of the final
draft of her paper. Ms. Helpenstell has also informed me that she may want to attempt to
publish her work, in which case I have another opportunity to remove my information from the
study.
I understand that the risks to me are minimal. I agree to be interviewed and to have my
responses recorded for this project. I have been told my responses will only be heard by Ms.
Helpenstell and her faculty sponsor and will be destroyed when the project is finished.
There will be no compensation available for my participation. I have been told that I can skip
any question or withdraw my full participation from the study at any time without penalty. If I
have any questions about this project or my participation in it, I can call Ms. Helpenstell at (360)
970-6133, or email her at gretchenhelpenstell@gmail.com.
73
Appendix B: Consent Form (back)
74
Appendix C: List of Interview Questions (front)
Date
List of Interview Questions
Background:
King County’s Recent Waste Management Decision: In 2019, the King County Council had to make a decision about
what to do with their county’s solid waste. They were presented with three options: expand the last landfill into its
final cell, export waste by rail to another county, or invest in new waste-to-energy (WTE) infrastructure. The final
vote was 5-2 to expand the landfill into its final cell.
Waste-to-Energy (WTE): A thermochemical technology that can manage large quantities of municipal solid waste
for final disposal. In the context of my research, these technologies include incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification.
They do not include biochemical technologies such as anaerobic digestion.
Municipal Decision-makers: In the context of my research, this term is defined as the King County Councilmembers
who vote on a waste management-related decision.
Questions:
1. What is your experience with waste management in Washington State?
2. What is your experience with waste-to-energy (WTE) in Washington State?
3. What is your opinion of landfilling as a means of final disposal for municipal solid waste?
4. What is your opinion of WTE as a means of final disposal for municipal solid waste?
5. In your opinion, what is the municipal decision-making process regarding waste
management in King County? Do you feel this process is efficient and/or productive?
6. Do you know what the general public opinion of WTE was in King County at the time it
was being considered? Do you know what the public opinion is now?
7. Who or what do you think creates the most resistance for landfill alternatives, specifically
WTE?
8. What does your ideal waste management system look like in King County?
9. What do you think a realistic future of waste management looks like in King County?
75
Appendix C: List of Interview Questions (back)
76
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 1)
77
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 2)
78
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 3)
79
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 4)
80
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 5)
81
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 6)
82
Appendix D: Coding Key (page 7)
83
