Past research indicates a dismal success rate in the siting of hazardous-waste management facilities. The observation that some facilities have been sited, however, suggests that the siting of these locally unwanted environmental facilities may not be an intractable problem. In this paper, based on a national survey of state siting attempts over the past decade, the strategies adopted by states and the factors and combination of factors associated with the few successful outcomes are examined. The data indicate that public trust (especially in the facility developer), early and continuous public involvement in the facility siting process, and an adaptive strategy that involves incorporating citizens' concerns into siting and operation decisions are associated with a higher likelihood of siting success.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BowmanALesterJ, 1985, “Hazardous waste management: state government activity or passivity”State and Local Government Review (Winter) 155–161
2.
DanticoMMushkatelAPijawkaDIbitayoO, 1991, “Political trust and risk perceptions of the high level nuclear waste repository”, paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC; copy obtainable from Nevada Nuclear Waste Policy Office, Carson City, NV
DavisCLesterJ, 1989, “Federalism and environmental policy”, in Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence Ed. LesterJ (Duke University Press, Durham, NC) pp 57–84
5.
EPA, 1979, “Siting of hazardous waste management facilities and public opposition”, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
6.
FischhoffBLichensteinSSlovicPDerbyLKeeneyR, 1981Acceptable Risk (Cambridge University Press, New York)
7.
FlynnJBurnsWMertzC KSlovicP, 1992, “Trust as a determinant of opposition to high level radioactive waste repository: an analysis of a structural model”Risk Analysis12417–429
8.
FowlerFJr, 1988Survey Research Methods (Sage, Newbury Park, CA)
9.
GregoryRKunreutherHEasterlingDRichardsK, 1991, “Incentives policies to site hazardous waste facilities”Risk Analysis11667–675
10.
HaddenS, 1991, “Public perceptions of hazardous waste”Risk Analysis1147–57
11.
HeimanM, 1990, “From ‘Not in MY backyard’ to ‘Not in anybody's backyard!’: grassroots challenge to hazardous waste facility siting”Journal of the American Planning Association56359–362
12.
HunterSLeydenK M, 1995, “Beyond NIMBY: explaining an opposition to hazardous waste facilities”Policy Studies Journal23601–619
13.
KaspersonR, 1986, “Hazardous waste facility siting: community, firm and government perspectives”, in National Academy of Engineering Hazards: Technology and Fairness (National Academy Press, Washington, DC) pp 119–144
14.
KaspersonRGoldinDTulerS, 1992, “Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous waste facilities and communicating risk”Journal of Social Issues48161–187
15.
KraftMClaryB, 1991, “Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: public response to radioactive waste disposal”Western Social Science Quarterly44299–328
16.
KunreutherHFitzgeraldKAartsT, 1993, “Siting noxious facilities: a test of facility siting credo”Risk Analysis13301–318
17.
La PorteTMetlayD, 1996, “Hazards and institutional trustworthiness: facing a deficit of trust”Public Administration Review56342–347
18.
LesterJFrankeLO'BowmanAKramerK, 1983, “Hazardous waste, politics and public policy: a comparative state analysis”Western Political Quarterly36257–285
19.
MorellD, 1984, “Siting and the politics of equity”Hazardous Waste1555–571
20.
MorellDMagorianC, 1982Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities: Local Opposition and the Myth of Preemption (Ballinger, Cambridge, MA)
21.
NGA, 1981, “Siting hazardous waste facilities”, final report of the National Governors' Association Subcommittee on the Environment, Hall of the States, 444 Capital Street, Washington, DC 20001–1512
22.
NYLC, 1987, “Hazardous waste facility siting: a national survey”, New York Legislative Commission on Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste, Legislative Office Building, Albany, NY 12247
23.
O'HareMBacowLSandersonD, 1983Facility Siting and Public Opposition (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York)
24.
PetersRCovelloVMcCallumD, 1997, “The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study”Risk Analysis17(1) 43–54
25.
PijawkaDMushkatelA, 1991, “Public opposition to the siting of high-level nuclear waste repository: the importance of trust”Policy Studies Review10(4) 180–194
RabeB, 1994Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States (The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC)
28.
RaynerSCantorR, 1987, “How fair is safe enough? A cultural approach to societal technology choices”Risk Analysis73–13
29.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94–580 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
30.
SlovicP, 1993, “Perceived risk, trust and democracy”Risk Analysis13675–682
31.
SlovicPFischhoffBLichensteinS, 1982, “Rating the risk: the structure of expert and lay perception”, in AAAS Selected Symposium 65: Risk in Technological Society Eds HohenemserCKaspersonJ X (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 141–166
32.
SlovicPLaymanMFlynnJ, 1991, “Risk perception, trust, and nuclear waste: lesson from Yucca Mountain”Environment336–30
33.
ZeissCLefsrudL, 1996, “Making or breaking waste facility siting successes with a siting framework”Environmental Management20(1) 53–64
