HOME | POLICIES | FAQ | CONTACT  
Program on Negotiation Clearinghouse
Your cart is empty

Resources
Sign In
Returning users may sign in. Registering with the Clearinghouse offers several benefits, including:
  • Save your customer information for quicker shopping.
  • View your order history.
Siting an Asphalt Plant in the City of Madrona
ROLE SIMULATIONS
Siting an Asphalt Plant in the City of Madrona

Jason Corburn and Lawrence Susskind
 
 
Per participant (Non-Profit/educational)$3.00
Per participant (For Profit)$4.00
Teacher's Package (Download Below)$0.00
Soft copyHard copyWhat to Order?

Download a review copy

Be the first to write a review

SCENARIO:

The City of Madrona's zoning board has approved construction of an asphalt plant in the largely minority-populated neighborhood of Pina. The plant will supply the asphalt necessary for major projects which are vital to stimulating Madrona’s stagnant economy. Opponents of the plant, mainly environmental groups, churches, and neighborhood organizations, believe the zoning process was unfair, particularly in light of the cumulative health risks that will fall primarily on the ‘minority community’. One long-time Pina resident and physician has suggested that there is a correlation between the high rates of lung and respiratory cancer evident in Pina residents and the already high level of air pollution in the neighborhood. Proponents of plant construction claim that all legal requirements regarding the siting and environmental impact assessment have been met. Six key stakeholders must meet to consider how to address this matter in a fair way and also how to deal with claims of racism in environmental decision making.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This game introduces the topic of Environmental Justice. ‘Environmental Racism’ involves the deliberate targeting of poor communities or communities of color in the siting of hazardous facilities. It aims to convey lessons in 4 areas.

MECHANICS:

Estimated Time Requirements:
Preparation and reading time – minimum of 30 mins
Negotiation – minimum of 60 mins
Debrief – minimum of 45 mins
Total: 135 mins

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • Fairness and equity - Traditionally, poor and historically disenfranchised communities are more willing to demand less than their wealthier, politically-connected neighbors. Does fairness require forbidding any new facilities from being built and/or operating in poor or minority communities because they have housed a majority of such facilities in the past?
  • Equity issues must be looked at from a community-wide, even regional perspective. For example, is it equitable to allow higher health risks in one community than in others? What if a community with higher health risks has also received disproportionate benefits in the past? Environmental justice asks whether it is inequitable to have one segment of the population, be it poor or minority, bear disproportionate health burdens.
  • Process versus outcome - Establishing a transparent decision making process is a tenant of environmental justice. However, an improved process may not ensure a just outcome, especially if political power is concentrated.
  • This exercise shows that even with a well structured process with adequate stakeholder representation, just outcomes are difficult to achieve. Outcomes that are normally deemed appropriate are multi-layered and complex i.e. they ensure local input into land use decisions, guarantees of public health, compensation (financial and/or physical), and environmental mitigation (clean-ups and/or stricter rules) and often some kind of economic stimulus.
  • Long-term and cumulative impacts - Many environmental and health decisions are made under great uncertainty. We are forced to make decisions using ‘imperfect’ information or contest scientific findings. One of the essentials of environmental justice is that we should seek to protect populations traditionally bearing the heaviest burdens or greatest risks. This negotiation shows how issues of environmental justice can be addressed even if there is great uncertainty about long-term and cumulative impact.
  • Stigma - Communities with historically “dirty” and unhealthy facilities can suffer a stigma as undesirable places to live and work. Urban areas typically develop such reputations and often become “dumping grounds” for noxious facilities. This game shows that a carefully constructed community improvement package can address many of these issues.
  • ADDITIONAL NOTES:

    This exercise is available in the Environmental Justice Package, which is comprised of the Teacher's Package, Beaumont Incinerator Exercise, and includes the article Risk and Justice, by Patrick Field, Lawrence Susskind, and Howard Raiffa.

    TEACHING MATERIALS:

  • General Information, including attachments regarding health risk assessment, environmental impact assessments and agenda

    Confidential Instructions for:

  • Dr. S. Burien (Health Expert)
  • P. Reilly (asphalt company representative)
  • S. Ramos (City Council President)
  • K. Mercer (Mayor of Madrona)
  • C. Jackson (leader of STAMP, a neighborhood opposition group)
  • T. Tukwila (Director of Madrona's Department of Environmental Protection)
  • Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • teaching notes
  • KEYWORDS
    Environmental justice, facility siting, environmental dispute resolution, risk assessment, science-intensive policy disputes, joint fact finding; multi-party negotiation

    SIMILAR SIMULATIONS

    Beaumont Incinerator Exercise
    River Bend

    Time required1-2 hours
    Number of participants6
    Teams involvedNo
    Agent presentNone
    Neutral third party presentNone
    ScoreableNo
    Teaching notes availableYes
    To search for other role simulations by attributes, use our role simulation advanced search tool.
    Search

    ADVANCED SEARCH >>
    Topics
    Arbitration

    Business

    Community

    Consumer

    Education

    Environment

    Ethics

    Facilitation

    Family

    Government

    High School/Young Adult

    International

    Intra-organizational

    Law

    Mediation

    Medicine/Health

    Multidisciplinary

    Pedagogy

    Prisoner's Dilemma / Game Theory

    Psychology

    Public Disputes

    Technology

    Reviews

    Current Reviews: 0
    Write a Review
    PRIVACY POLICY Phone: 800-258-4406 (from within the U.S.) or 781-239-1111 (from outside the U.S.)
    E-mail: chouse@law.harvard.edu
    Copyright © 2004 The President and Fellows of Harvard College