As if exposure to toxins were not enough: the social and cultural system as a secondary stressor.

Abstract

A growing body of evidence indicates that toxic contamination, both indoor and outdoor, negatively affects sociocultural systems and that this in turn affects the social and psychological responses to the contamination. Using secondary case studies and primary survey, interview and observation data from three toxic contamination situations, this paper conceptualizes and summarizes the findings to date. We argue that using a sociocultural perspective helps us to understand much of the seemingly inexplicable behavior that accompanies cases of toxic contamination. Using examples from primary and secondary case studies, four areas in which the sociocultural system affected by toxic contamination can influence the outcome of the response are described: a) engineering options may be frustrated by sociocultural systems; b) communications may be frustrated by sociocultural systems; c) cultural images and social structural patterns of space usage can affect response; and d) sociocultural systems can affect medical outcomes. Given the nature of sociocultural systems and human behavior, measuring the relationship between contamination, social response, and individual behavior is difficult. An example of one approach using the concept of alienation is discussed, wherein linkages have been found between toxic contamination, alienation, and psychological coping difficulties. Implications for professionals responding to toxic contamination cases are also discussed. We conclude that a sociocultural perspective provides a necessary complement to medical and engineering perspectives if we are to fully understand human reactions to toxic contamination and move toward alleviating human health problems associated with these risks.

Back and forward to the future: an explorative study of public responses to urban groundwater contamination

“…This is in accordance with previous research indicating that stressors related to the recovery and the redevelopment of a contaminated site can be more critical than the threat of the contamination itself (Kroll-Smith and Couch 1991;Picou et al 1992;Matthies, H€ oger, and Guski 2000;Vandermoere 2006). This is also consistent with previous research on the social amplification of risk, which has emphasised the role of rippling effects (Kasperson et al 1988;Kasperson 1992).…”

“…Kroll-Smith and Couch 1991;Edelstein 1991;Picou et al 1992;Matthies, H€ oger, and Guski 2000). These studies have shown that a number of factors, such as hesitant and delayed responses by authorities to manage environmental risks, the development of environmental stigmas (e.g.…”

“…Next to risk perception research on the one hand, and studies on the higher-order impacts of environmental risks on the other (Kasperson et al 1988;Kroll-Smith and Couch 1991), a related stream of research has been focusing on residential (dis)satisfaction and environmental annoyances broadly defined (Amerigo and Aragones 1997;Robin, Matheau-Police, and Couty 2007). This includes but is not limited to environmental nuisances such as air pollution, social problems and associated feelings of insecurity, and functional constraints like a lack of public transportation or parking space (see, e.g.…”

The Process of Soil Excavation in a Community

“…This relates to the extreme uncertainties of CTDs as they induce different and often conflicting definitions of the situation. Several case studies have shown how these contradicting responses to chemicals are likely to become secondary stressors (e.g., Edelstein, 2004;Kroll-Smith & Couch, 1991a, 1993b. For example, the delayed responses by authorities to manage the environmental risks, the rise of social conflicts among residents, the development of an environmental stigma, victims' skepticism about risk assessments, and their distrust of policy makers, resulting from, among other things, the ignorance and uncertainties surrounding the health effects of exposure to chronic contaminants, can cause psychosocial effects in addition to the stress effect of being exposed to chemicals (e.g., Couch & Mercuri, in press;Edelstein, 1991;Freudenburg, 1997;McGee, 1999).…”

“…The sneaking accumulation of microstressors related to the hazardous event (also stress-e, Quarantelli, cited in Hartsough, 1985) and to the social responses they can provoke (stress-r) perfectly describes Kroll-Smith and Couch's (1991a) statement, "As if exposure to toxins were not enough" (p. 61). Although most of the research has identified the psychosocial effects of contamination incidents by addressing general determinants of objective stress (e.g., general health status predicting somatic complaints or anxiety) through comparing a contaminated community with an uncontaminated area as a control group, relatively few studies have addressed the effects of site-specific determinants of subjective stress.…”