Forty-two communities in rural Alaska are considered unserved or underserved with water and sewer infrastructure. Many challenges exist to provide centralized piped water and sewer infrastructure to the homes, and they are exacerbated by decreasing capital funding. Unserved communities in rural Alaska experience higher rates of disease, supporting the recommendation that sanitation infrastructure should be provided. Organizations are pursuing alternative solutions to conventional piped water and sewer in order to maximize water use and reuse for public health. This paper reviews initiatives led by the State of Alaska, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, and the Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation to identify and develop potential long-term solutions appropriate and acceptable to rural communities. Future developments will likely evolve based on the lessons learned from the initiatives. Recommendations include Alaska-specific research needs, increased end-user participation in the design process, and integrated monitoring, evaluation, and information dissemination in future efforts.

the assistance of our technical monitors, J. W. Bartlett and J. V.Robinson. We also appreciate the comments and suggestions of our colleagues, W. L. Rankin and M. T. Wood.The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of our consultants and the members of the organizations who responded to our questionnaire. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAlthough some observers have concluded that the technology required to assure safe disposal of nuclear wastes is currently available, others have expressed concern about the stability of the institutions that might be required to maintain the isolation of nuclear wastes. Questions about institutional stability and other factors associated with nuclear power and nuclear waste have been the subject of some study in public opinion research.Since these surveys have, with few exceptions, been administered to n~tional probability samples, it has been difficult to accurately characterize the similarities and differences of opinion of the most strongly pro-and antinuclear portions of the public.In order to provide a basis for a more intensive study of these groups, the sampling strategy followed in the present study was the selection of 17 geographically widespread, established groups which were expected, ~priori, to vary in their attitudes from strongly pronuclear to strongly antinuclear. In comparison to probability samples, our sample more heavily represented the middle--30 to 60--age categories, had a higher proportion of males and was characterized by higher income and educational levels.Our sample was not, however, designed to be representative of the population in general. Instead, we wished to tap those people who tend to be politically_ active and therefore functionally important in matters related to energy use patterns and questions of waste management. Since the sample overrepresents those who tend to be most politically active, it appears that the sampling strategy fulfilled its purpose.Based upon statistical analyses, the 17 groups were assigned to 6 relatively distinct clusters which were compared on their level of involvement with various activities related to environmental concern. These ii activities, especially those concerned with support for nuclear power and opposition to nuclear power, provided strong confirmatory evidence of the validity of the classification of the respondent groups into clusters.For the clusters which were designated as antinuclear, a few of the respondents had engaged in activities supporting nuclear power and many reported being involved in activities opposing nuclear power, opposing environmental pollution and supporting energy conservation. Though pronuclear respondents reported many activities in support of nuclear. power, and a few in opposition to nuclear power or environmental pollution, they also actively supported energy conservation.The clusters of respondents were found to differ substantially on some questions and very little on other questions designed to measure specific beliefs about the need for and the efficacy of three potential chara...

Seattle. harhington 98105 N O T I C E This r t m was prepand as an account of work s p o n w u i by the Unit4 State C o n r n m t . Neither ;he Iinited % a t e aw h e Depjnmnt of Ensray. nor any of their employees, nw any of their mtracto;r. rirbcnntraa~, w Wir mplgtrr, maker any warranty, or imp$&. or assumes an+# lcgal linbi:iry or r~m i b i l i t y fw the accuracy. com~!etenss or uset~~lnesr of any rniormarion, apparatus, produm or pnxrjr d W , or r e p r m t b t m ust. would not Infringe privaelp o w n d rights. Tha v i m , cpiniolls and conclusions conrawtd in [his repor; are tt.0-thc contrac,or and do 1: nn n~: ar i ! y represent [hose of the Unitd State Gowrnmt or the Lnited taies Deparrmcnr of Energy. P4Cl tlC NORTilViEST IABORATQRY opented by EIATTELLE iop the UNITED STATES DtPqRTMEkT O F ENmrJY L n k r Contracr EY-/b;-C-05-1830stage in 1 i f e (probably l a t e adolescence), t h e i r value systems remain rather stable: i t becomes harder and harder t o change the relative importance of the individual values within the value system.

No abstract

No abstract