Waste Facilities in Residential Communities: Impacts and Acceptance
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 113, Issue 1
Abstract
Large metropolitan areas experience resistance to waste disposal facilities because of physical and social impacts on typical rural host communities. The perception of the impacts is amplified by the perceived lack of host‐community control, familiarity, confidence and the unfair distribution of the facility benefits and costs. The small benefits that accrue to the host community do not offset the losses. To develop incentives for the host community to accept the facility, impacts are combined to define the acceptance criterion. This criterion requires that the net impacts (i.e., the total impacts minus the benefits) be minimized to within the narrow tolerance range of the host community. Acceptance, therefore, can be achieved either by reducing the impacts or increasing the benefits to the host community. Since losses are generally perceived to outweigh gains, the reduction rather than the compensation of the losses to the host community is hypothesized to be the most effective method of achieving facility acceptance. This hypothesis is validated by analyzing 22 case studies of facility siting attempts.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Armour, A. (1983). “The not in my backyard syndrome.” Symposium Proceedings, York Univ., Toronto, Ontario, May 13–14.
2.
Bealer, R., Martin, K., and Crider, D. (1982). “Sociological aspects of siting facilities for solid waste disposal.” Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Penn. State Univ., University Park, Pa.
3.
Becker, J. (1982). “The use of incentives and compensation to overcome public opposition to the siting of hazardous waste landfills,” thesis presented to the University of Wisconsin, at Milwaukee, Wisc. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
4.
Boyle, S. B. (1982). “An analysis of siting new hazardous waste management facilities through a compensation and incentives approach.” Environmental Health Planning Training Program, Dept. of City and Regional Planning and the Program in Urban and Regional Studies, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.
5.
Centaur Associates Inc. (1979). Siting of hazardous waste management facilities and public opposition. Report SW‐809, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C.
6.
Connor, O., and Svendson, A. (1986). “Overcoming the barriers to public acceptance of waste management facilities.” Proc. 8th Canadian WM Conference, Halifax, N.S., Sep. 3–5.
7.
Coughlin, R., et al. (1973). “Perceptions of landfill operations held by nearby residents.” RSRI Discussion Paper Series No. 65, Philadelphia, Pa.
8.
Douglas, M., and Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, Calif.
9.
Earle, T., and Lindell, M. (1983). “Public perception of industrial risks: a freeresponse approach.” Low Probability—High Consequence Risk Analysis, R. Walker and T. Corello, Eds., Plenum Press, New York, N.Y.
10.
Freeman, A. (1979). The benefits of environmental improvement. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md.
11.
Goldmann, L. (1986). Personal Communication, California State Dept. of Health Services, Berkeley, Ca. 94704.
12.
Gregory, R. (1982). “Valuing non‐market goods: an analysis of alternative approaches,” thesis presented to the University of British Columbia, at Vancouver, British Columbia, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
13.
Harford, J. (1978). “Firm behaviour under imperfectly enforceable pollution standards and taxes.” J. Envir. Economics and Management. 5, 26–43.
14.
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.” Econometrica. 47(2), 263–291.
15.
Knetsch, J., and Sinden, J. (1984). “Willingness‐to‐pay and compensation‐demanded: Experimental of an unexpected disparity in measures of value.” Quarterly J. of Econ., Aug., 507–521.
16.
Knetsch, J. (1983). Property rights and compensation. Butterworth & Co., Toronto, Ont., Canada.
17.
L.M.R.P. (1985). A draft report on the lower mainland refuse project and a draft solid waste management plan for the lower mainland of British Columbia. Surrey, B.C.
18.
Madisso, U. (1985). A synthesis of social and psychological effects of exposure to hazardous substances. Water Planning and Management Branch, Inland Water Directorate, Ontario Region, Burlington, Ont., Canada.
19.
Michelman, F. I. (1962). “Properties, utility, and fairness: comments on the ethical foundations of first compensation law.” Harvard Law Review. 80, 1165–12581.
20.
O'Hare, M. L., Bacon, L., and Sanderson, D. (1983). Facility Siting and Public Opposition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, N.Y.
21.
O'Hare, M. (1979). “Not on my block you don't: facility siting and strategic importance of compensation.” Public Policy, 25(4), 407–458.
22.
Redhead, R. (1986). “Tricil's Sarnia application public participation, an exercise in frustration—or was it?” Proceedings of the 8th Canadian Waste Management Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, Sep. 3–5.
23.
Schmalensee, R., et al. (1975). “Measuring external effects of solid waste management.” USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C., Project 600‐5‐75‐010: Report R‐80–1673.
24.
Sinden, J., and Worrell, A. (1979). Unpriced values: decisions without market prices. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
25.
Slovic, P. (1984). “Behavioural decision‐theory perseptives on risk and safety.” Acta Psychologica, 56(1–3), 183–203.
26.
Starr, C. (1969). “Social benefit vs. technological risk.” Science, 165, Sep. 19, 1232–1238.
27.
Stern, R. (1977). “Locational parameters for nuisance land uses: establishing sanitary landfills in the urban setting,” thesis presented to Northeastern Illinois University, at Chicago, Ill., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.
28.
Zeiss, C., and Atwater, J. (1986). “The impacts of waste disposal facilities on residual communities: a perspective for research.” Proceedings of the 8th Canadian Waste Management Conference, Halifax. N.S., Sep. 3–5.
29.
Zeiss, C. (1984a). “The financial and social costs of waste disposal,” thesis presented to the University of British Columbia, at Vancouver, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
30.
Zeiss, C. (1984b). “Social cost assessment of the proposed waste disposal facilities.” Lower Mainland Refuse Project of British Columbia, Surrey, B.C., Canada.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 113 • Issue 1 • May 1987
Pages: 19 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 ASCE.
History
Published online: May 1, 1987
Published in print: May 1987
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.