Environment and Sustainability Negotiation Role-Play:

Siting an Asphalt Plant in the City of Madrona

Jason Corburn and Lawrence Susskind
Six-party, multi-issue negotiation among community representatives, elected leaders, environmental and health experts, and asphalt company regarding siting of an asphalt plant in a racially mixed neighborhood

What to Buy?

Login or Register to download the free packages.

 

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

 

Siting an Asphalt Plant in the City of Madrona Attributes

Time required:
1-2 hours
Number of participants:
6
Teams involved:
No
Agent present:
None
Neutral third party present:
None
Scoreable:
No
Teaching notes available:
Yes
PON Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

Close window

Soft copy vs. hard copy

You may order this role simulation in either soft copy (electronic) or hard copy (paper) format. If you select the soft copy option, you will receive an e-mail with a URL (website address) from which you may download an electronic file in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. You are then permitted to view the document on your computer and either print the number of copies you purchased, or forward the electronic file as many times as the number of copies you purchased. You will only receive a link to one electronic file per document. So, if you order 25 soft copies, you may either forward copies of the link to 25 people via e-mail, or print (and/or photocopy) 25 hard copies of the document.

If you select the hard copy option, you will receive paper copies of this role simulation via the shipping method you select.

The purchase price and handling fee are the same for both soft and hard copies. Soft copies do not entail a shipping fee.

For additional information about the soft copy option, please visit our FAQ section, or contact the PON Teaching Negotiation Resource Center at tnrc@law.harvard.edu or 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.).

Please note: At the present time, Teaching Negotiation Resource Center soft copies are compatible with the following versions of the Adobe Acrobat Reader: English, German, French, Spanish, Swedish, Portuguese, Japanese, and Korean. If you have a different version of the Acrobat Reader, you may wish to download one of these at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html, or contact the PON Teaching Negotiation Resource Center at tnrc@law.harvard.edu, 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.), or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.) for further assistance. This restriction does not apply to the freely available Teacher’s Package Review Copies.

Ordering a single copy for review

If you wish to review the materials for a particular role simulation to decide whether you’d like to use it, then you should order a single Teacher’s Package for that role simulation. A PDF, or soft copy, version of the Teacher’s Package is also available as a free download from the description page of most role simulations and case studies. There is no need to order participant materials as well as a Teacher’s Package, as all Teacher’s Packages include copies of all participant materials. In addition, some Teacher’s Packages (but not all) include additional teaching materials such as teaching notes or overhead masters. Please note that the materials in Teacher’s Packages are for the instructor’s review and reference only, and may not be duplicated for use with participants.

Ordering copies for multiple participants

If you wish to order multiple copies of a role simulation for use in a course or workshop, simply enter the total number of participants in the box next to “Participant Copies.” There is no need to calculate how many of each role is required; the Teaching Negotiation Resource Center will calculate the appropriate numbers of each role to provide, based on the total number of participants. For example, if you wish to order a 2-party role simulation for use with a class of 30 students, you would enter “30” in the box next to “Participant Copies.” You then would receive 15 copies of one role and 15 copies of the other role, for use with your 30 participants. As another example, if you ordered 30 participant copies of a 6-party role simulation, you would receive 5 copies of each role.

In the event that the number of participant copies you order is not evenly divisible by the number of roles in the simulation, you will receive extra copies of one or more roles. Participants receiving the extra roles may partner with other participants playing the same role, thus negotiating as a team. So, for instance, if you ordered 31 copies of a 2-party role simulation, you would receive 15 copies of the first role and 16 copies of the second role. One of the participants playing the second role would partner with another participant playing that same role, and the two would negotiate as a team.