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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 'Discarding well' after disasters? Examination of disaster waste and debris management in the United States.Human organization · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.