Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40242561›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental hazards (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2024

Disaster waste and debris clean-up decisions of government actors in the United States: social process and socio-material systems.

A Marissa Matsler, Keely B Maxwell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental hazards (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

A Marissa MatslerUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3294-1991
Keely B MaxwellUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0802-4723

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the United States, debris removal is one of the costliest and most time-consuming elements of disaster response and recovery. It is essential to reducing secondary environmental and health risks, and to community recovery and rebuilding. Analysis of debris removal and waste management, though, primarily treats it as a series of operational steps and technical decisions. In contrast, this article analyses disaster debris removal decision-making as a social process. We present the findings of an ethnographic study that engaged over 70 government actors from federal, state, local, and Tribal agencies in focus groups and interviews. By examining the experiences of these actors, who are central to debris removal decisions, this article identifies decision points that send waste down particular pathways from collection to final disposal. Three operational areas of concern that emerge from the analysis are: local control and capacity, cost and reimbursement, and balance between urgency and sustainability. This article shows how social processes in particular socio-material systems shape these decisions, such as the interplay of waste and disaster institutional arrangements. Finally, it shares practical implications for social process workarounds to operational challenges, such as interagency and interlevel relationships, that can support on-the-ground decision-making.

Indexed as

disaster debrisdisaster debris removaldisaster reimbursementdisaster waste managementrelationship buildingsustainable materials management

Identifiers

PMID40242561
PMCPMC11998916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.