Sweet for the sour: Incentives in environmental mediation

The siting of facilities with undesirable environmental characteristics often leads to public conflict. Efforts to resolve the conflict and make siting decisions frequently exacerbate the problem. Environmental mediation, the process of negotiating an agreeable settlement, is an accepted approach to resolving conflict. This paper explores the use of incentive systems as a means of achieving equity in environmental mediation. Obnoxious and noxious characteristics of facilities are discussed as the basis of conflicts. Four types of incentives—mitigation, compensation, reward, and participation—are discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion of the utility and application of incentives for solving environmental conflicts.     

Canadian Innovations in Siting Hazardous Waste Management Facilities

/ Siting hazardous waste facilities is an extremely complex and difficult endeavor. Public aversion to the construction of these facilities in or near their community often results in concerted opposition, referred to as the NIMBY syndrome. For the most part, siting processes do not fail because of inadequate environmental or technical considerations, but because of the adversarial decision-making strategies employed by the proponents. Innovative siting processes used in the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba offer tangible evidence of the successful application of an innovative siting approach based on the principles of decentralization of decision-making authority and full and meaningful public involvement. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate four Canadian siting processes from the perspective of public participation and access to decision-making authority. Examples of siting processes related to hazardous waste management facilities are provided from the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia, and Ontario. Siting has evolved from approaches dominated by top-down decision making to increasing decentralized and pluralistic approaches. Focusing on social and political concerns of potentially affected communities and on the process of decision making itself are fundamental to achieving siting success. In Alberta initially, and later in Manitoba, this new "open approach" to siting has resulted in the construction of the first two comprehensive hazardous waste treatment facilities in Canada.KEY WORDS: Hazardous waste facilities; Siting methodologies; Public participation     

Compensation for risks: host community benefits in siting locally unwanted facilities

This article analyzes the recent negotiations connected with siting 24 solid-waste landfills in Wisconsin. We examine the association between the type and amount of compensation paid to host communities by facility developers and the size of facilities, certain facility characteristics, the timing of negotiated agreements, the size of the host community, and the socioeconomic status of the host area. Our findings suggest that the level of compensation after adjusting for landfill capacity is positively associated with the percentage of total facility capacity dedicated to host community use, positively associated with the percentage of people of the host area who are in poverty, and larger for public facilities that accept municipal wastes. Other explanatory variables we examined, whose association with levels of compensation proved statistically insignificant, were facility size, facility status (new vs expansion), facility use (countyonly vs multicounty), timing of negotiation, host community size, and the host area education level, population density, and per capita income. We discuss the policy implications of our principal findings and future research questions in light of the persistent opposition surrounding the siting of solid-waste and other waste-management facilities.     

A comparative analysis of the psychosocial impacts of waste disposal facilities

This paper reports the results of a comparative analysis of the psychosocial impacts of municipal solid waste disposal facilities (both landfills and incinerators) in six communities in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Telephone surveys were administered to random samples of residents living around each facility between 1990 and 1995 (total n=1203). The results of logistic regression analyses show that type of facility was the strongest predictor of residents' awareness, concern, and actions taken in response to site concerns. Essentially, residents living in close proximity to a landfill had a higher probability of reporting awareness, concern or actions than residents living around an incinerator site. There was little evidence of differences in reactions between Ontario and British Columbia (BC) residents, despite variations in provincial policies on waste disposal. The effects of other predictors, with the exception of involvement in the local community, were not consistent, supporting previous findings that the determinants of facility impacts are outcome‐specific. It is essential that environmental managers take this constellation of factors into account in the operation of existing, or siting of new, facilities.     

Conflicting views on opposition to LULUs: distributive justice in three Japanese cases of waste disposal facility siting

Local residents often oppose some types of facilities because of their negative side effects, even though they are claimed to be necessary for the public good. These facilities are known as locally unwanted-land-uses, and local opposition to them is often referred to as not-in-my-backyard, usually with a pejorative connotation. However, some studies have challenged this conventional view of local opposition. Given these conflicting views, the present article explores how local mobilisation should be evaluated, focusing particularly on distributive justice. First, the study illuminates how different interpretations of distributive justice lead to difference in views on local opposition. Then, by comparing three waste disposal facility cases in Japan, a distinction between cost sharing and cost overlapping cases is illuminated. The study further develops discussions by pointing out the limits of using this distinction to evaluate local opposition movements and provides insights that can contribute to a fuller understanding of siting conflicts.     

Public opinion and siting solid waste landfills in Kuwait

Siting municipal solid waste landfills in Kuwait had not considered public concerns about the location of such facilities. Kuwait Municipality has disposed urban waste in abandoned sand quarries for the past 20 years in an unplanned fashion. Due to this improper siting criteria, environmental and health problems have risen from old landfills that are located in residential areas. In an effort to help responsible decision-makers in assessing public support for siting landfills a structured, yet simple, questionnaire was designed and distributed to a random sample of heads of households. Statistical techniques were employed to examine trends and relationships between the sample public responses concerning landfill siting criteria. The findings of the research indicated that a significant percentage of the responding sample did not know about the various landfill impacts and less than 50% were aware of the negative impacts of landfills on the public health and the environment. The visual appearance of the landfill scored the lowest impact in the opinion of the sample public while the most important aspect in siting a landfill appeared to be its economic consideration. The research findings also directed attention to the important role that the media could play in increasing public awareness. Results from the cross-classification analysis demonstrated the existence of differences in awareness levels according to age, nationality, martial status, education, and occupation of the responding sample. Statistically, these differences were significant at the 95% significance level, as supported by the test of the χ-square.     

Making or breaking waste facility siting successes with a siting framework

Waste facility siting successes depend on many linked factors of facility design and impacts, site characteristics, and community beliefs and values. A facility siting framework is constructed to combine important elements and cause–effect linkages that affect the siting outcome. The framework consists of three main components: (1) core elements of facility design, effects, and community beliefs, attitude and response; (2) contributing factors of site and community characteristics, community beliefs and values that affect the interpretation of the facility and its effects; and (3) siting management interventions to manage the process and facility impacts. The framework is applied in an unsuccessful and a successful siting case to determine the key elements that contribute to siting outcome: (1) thorough need justification for the facility from the proponent's and the community's perspective; (2) careful facility design and prediction of the impacts and to select impact management compensation measures; (3) screening and selection of communities where the beliefs and values are compatible with the type of facility and its effects, (4) cooperatively selected impact reduction (i.e., prevention, control, and mitigation) measures followed by compensation and incentives; and (5) intensive process management to balance the community characteristics and values with the proponent's efforts to plan, design, assess and manage impacts, and ultimately, gain approval of the facility. The siting framework provides a comprehensive and robust structure of key factors that contribute to siting outcome and, therefore, provides the tool to identify, evaluate, and design siting interventions to enhance the chances of successful siting outcome.     

Host community attitudes towards solid waste landfill infrastructure: comprehension before compensation

One of the most controversial planning issues internationally is the siting of waste disposal infrastructure in local communities. Compensation is viewed as a possible solution to siting difficulties in many countries. However, existing empirical evidence is conflicting as to whether or not compensation-based siting has reduced opposition to such developments. Thus, before compensation policy can be considered as the solution for recognising social costs and introducing equity into the waste planning system, it is important to understand why people reject waste disposal infrastructure developments and if this rejection continues over the lifetime of facility operations. This paper utilises information gathered through surveys to examine the effects of distance, local authority consultation efforts, experience and other factors, on attitudes towards non-hazardous solid waste landfill developments in two examples of a potential and actual host communities. Our findings suggest distance proxies expectations of environmental risk in communities with no experience of living with landfill infrastructure. Community consultations by authorities are consistently important, even after a landfill has been in operation for a number of years. This suggests to policy makers to consult thoroughly and adequately before pursuing compensation policies.     

Beyond self‐interest: a model of public attitudes towards waste facility siting

This study examines the attitudinal and demographic determinants of public preferences towards siting solid waste disposal facilities in the United States. Survey data is collected from a random sample of 400 individuals selected from the population of the State of Connecticut. A logit statistical model of public preferences towards siting is created. The results are consistent with previous research indicating the importance of variables reflective of self‐interest motivations, such as perceptions of costs and benefits, in influencing attitudes. However, it is also revealed that more longstanding values, in addition to narrowly defined personal costs and benefits, influence siting preferences. These include widely‐shared norms concerning need for the facility and the appropriate sphere of government influence. Effective, efficient and equitable siting policy must consider and respond to these additional public motivations.     

How much do people who live near major nuclear facilities worry about those facilities? Analysis of national and site-specific data

Large nuclear waste management, laboratory and electric power generating complexes are a daunting challenge for state, regional and local planners. A survey of 2101 residents who lived near 11 nuclear power plants and US Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear waste management sites and laboratories was conducted to determine how much nearby residents worried about accidents and chronic emissions at the nuclear sites, how much they trusted the sites’ responsible parties, and actions that they wanted responsible parties to take to reduce public concern. Six hundred other people who lived elsewhere in the US were a comparison group. Nuclear site-related issues were a greater concern among the 2101 who lived near the sites than the comparison group. Yet many were more concerned about global warming, traffic congestion, and loss of open space than nuclear technologies. Monitoring the environment and people were the actions deemed most likely to reduce public concern. The results pose a challenge to owner-operators of nuclear facilities, government entities and especially to locally based environmental planners and managers to establish partnerships with each other and diverse communities that will allow them to manage some of these risks for decades and in some cases into perpetuity.     

A struggle for distributive fairness in waste disposal: Koto Ward and In-Ward Waste Disposal in the 23 wards of Tokyo

This study explores the politics of distributive fairness in Locally-Unwanted-Land-Uses (LULUs) siting by looking into how a movement in LULU disputes changes its attitude towards a frame of distributive fairness over a long period of time. Some kinds of facilities are often opposed by local residents because of negative side-effects, even as they are claimed to be necessary for the well-being of the wider public. Framing refers to actors’ signifying work, and how to frame distributive fairness plays a significant role in conflicts over such controversial land uses. In the 23 wards of Tokyo, distributive fairness in waste disposal among the wards has been a crucial issue. In the early 1970s, Koto Ward, which suffered a disproportionate burden of waste disposal, launched a campaign to rectify the unfairness. In-Ward Waste Disposal (IWWD), a frame of distributive fairness, played a central role in this movement. However, Koto Ward’s attitude towards this frame of distributive fairness changed over time. By examining why Koto Ward’s advocacy for IWWD varied over time, this study shows how Koto Ward’s stance on IWWD changed in conjunction with economic, policy, and political circumstances, thereby illuminating the importance of integrating socio-politico-economic contexts in framing analysis.     

The importance of context for effective public engagement: learning from the governance of waste

This paper takes a new look at the importance of context – institutional and political – in effective public engagement processes. It does so through a rare comparative opportunity to examine the effectiveness of processes of public engagement in two UK waste authorities, where the same waste company was involved as both the primary contractor for the delivery of the waste management service (including new energy-from-waste facilities) and, furthermore, the same staff delivered the public engagement. Interrogating these cases affords the opportunity to place flesh on the bones of the sometimes ‘abstract’ skeleton of context. While engagement processes support effective local governance in an era of partnerships and deliberative democracy, the paper identifies that the methods adopted cannot be played out devoid of detailed understanding and response to local context, including the strength of partnership working between the public and private sector, the degree of political support for engagement, and the extent to which a traditional institutional paternalism still dominates.     

Environmental Management of Quarries as Waste Disposal Facilities

Problems associated with the disposal of municipal solid waste have become a source of public concern worldwide as awareness of potential adverse environmental impacts and health threats from solid waste has increased. Communities are concerned about the generation and management of solid waste to the extent of refusing to allow new disposal facilities near their homes, often after witnessing the legacy of existing facilities. Under these conditions, the development of national policies for the management of solid waste becomes highly political, all while requiring appropriate technical solutions that ensure environmental protection and proper management plans that support an acceptable solution for the disposal of municipal solid waste. In some locations, the conversion of old quarries into well-engineered and controlled landfills appears as a promising solution to a continuously increasing problem, at least for many decades to come. This paper describes the environmental impacts associated with solid waste disposal in a converted quarry site and the mitigation measures that can be adopted to alleviate potential adverse impacts. Environmental management and monitoring plans are also discussed in the context of ensuring adequate environmental protection during and after the conversion process.     

Failing to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities Voluntarily: Implications for the Production of Sustainable Goods

A current approach to the process of siting hazardous waste facilities is to seek 'willing host' communities that will not oppose but rather voluntarily accept risky facilities. Voluntary siting strategies have been put forward as the solution to hazardous waste location problems, and there have indeed been a small number of siting successes achieved voluntarily. This paper argues that, despite claims about voluntary processes, there are indications that few 'willing host' sites will be found in response to the many that are proposed. Instead, it suggests that the limited success of siting attempts, voluntary or otherwise, signals a new phase in hazardous waste management, a shift in focus from where to site a facility to whether a good is worth producing at all if its wastes are not siteable. A characteristic of this phase is the growing influence that the disposal potential of the generated waste can have on future management decisions to produce a good. In practice, siting failure may be one of the critical turning points on the road to sustainable production. It can accomplish what technology and environmental assessments have generally been unable to do: foresee the sustainability of a good. In this way, siteability can be seen as one indicator of sustainable production. A good can be considered sustainable if the wastes associated with its production are siteable.     

Public perception of locally unwanted facilities in Hong Kong: implications for conflict resolution

This paper aims to investigate factors affecting public attitude towards the siting of locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) and to explore the possible strategies to resolve such conflicts. Three questionnaire surveys were undertaken in communities with different siting experiences and socio-economic profiles. Over 750 individuals were successfully interviewed in each study district. The three communities were found to share similar risk beliefs but show variations in the level of awareness of and response to LULUs. In communities with a disproportionate share of LULUs, many residents did not trust the government in handling LULU issues and thought that the siting process was unfair. The results of the binary logistic regression analysis show that people are likely to oppose the siting of a LULU in their community if they have a negative siting experience, do not perceive the need, accord a high risk to the facility and have a low level of trust in government. The resolution strategies preferred by the public are greater public participation and effective mitigation of risks and impacts, rather than provision of compensation and incentives. All these call for policy-makers to be sensitive to local concerns, engage the public in the process, communicate risks effectively and foster trust building.     

Waste Management Strategy Development: A Case Study of Community Involvement and Consensus-Building in Hampshire

Public opposition to the siting of waste facilities has been partly explained by a failure to directly involve communities in fundamental policy decisions about waste management. Public participation at the local level is primarily reactive, based upon the premise of consultation on preferred strategies rather than direct involvement in their derivation. This paper presents the findings of a study into the effectiveness of a more proactive community involvement programme adopted by one English county council. The paper suggests some opportunities and barriers to public involvement in waste management strategy development and the potential effectiveness of consensus-building approaches.     

Approaches and Methods of Siting Locally Unwanted Waste Facilities

The siting of waste facilities is a popular subject but one constrained by a tendency to advocate a single solution regardless of context. This effort to address the siting of waste facilities from a broader perspective describes three major siting approaches and a range of site selection methods. The application of siting approaches and methods in 10 waste siting examples are described, general conclusions are advanced and suggestions for further initiatives are offered.     

An Expert System for Waste Management

Management of hazardous waste is an increasing problem for both the companies that generate the waste and for the communities that eventually experience the consequences of the management decisions. Thus, both social and political aspects must be considered when solving these problems. It is thus important that waste management technologies are evaluated by a panel of experts with various backgrounds. The methodology for developing an expert system for waste treatment technology evaluation was discussed. An expert system was developed to select the “best” waste treatment alternatives. This expert system includes two different knowledge bases: one for the economic and technical parts of the problem and another for the social and political aspects. This expert system was developed on an IBM personal computer using Turbo Prolog™. The pulp and paper industry was selected as an example problem for developing this expert system, which system was tested using two example waste streams from the pulp and paper industry. The results agree with the current treatment facilities the companies are using.     

Using citizen science in environmental justice: participation and decision-making in a Southern California waste facility siting conflict

Uses of science by environmental justice (EJ) activists reflect struggles to challenge professional scientific expertise, achieve fair outcomes, and effectively participate in decision-making processes. This qualitative research analyses the relationship between citizen science and EJ in a new waste facility siting conflict in urban Los Angeles, namely connections between citizen science and four dimensions of EJ: fair distribution, respect and recognition, participation in decision-making, and community capabilities. Citizen science is one tactic in EJ, yet little research investigates its role in a new facility siting conflict, particularly in relation to multi-faceted EJ goals. The research reveals opportunities for individual empowerment and community capacity building using citizen science, and a small measure of improved respect and recognition for participants who brought their own knowledge, research, and voices to the table. At the same time, the work identifies limitations on citizen science to improve local participatory procedures and decision-making, which also constricted the achievement of outcomes most desired by the EJ group: to prevent approval and construction of the new waste facility. This paper argues that uses of citizen science contributed to partial achievement of EJ goals, while hindered by governance processes that call for public participation yet shield decision-makers from substantive engagement with the volume or content of that participation.     

Siting and Routing Assessment for Solid Waste Management Under Uncertainty Using the Grey Mini-Max Regret Criterion

Solid waste management (SWM) is at the forefront of environmental concerns in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV), South Texas. The complexity in SWM drives area decision makers to look for innovative and forward-looking solutions to address various waste management options. In decision analysis, it is not uncommon for decision makers to go by an option that may minimize the maximum regret when some determinant factors are vague, ambiguous, or unclear. This article presents an innovative optimization model using the grey mini-max regret (GMMR) integer programming algorithm to outline an optimal regional coordination of solid waste routing and possible landfill/incinerator construction under an uncertain environment. The LRGV is an ideal location to apply the GMMR model for SWM planning because of its constant urban expansion, dwindling landfill space, and insufficient data availability signifying the planning uncertainty combined with vagueness in decision-making. The results give local decision makers hedged sets of options that consider various forms of systematic and event-based uncertainty. By extending the dimension of decision-making, this may lead to identifying a variety of beneficial solutions with efficient waste routing and facility siting for the time frame of 2005 through 2010 in LRGV. The results show the ability of the GMMR model to open insightful scenario planning that can handle situational and data-driven uncertainty in a way that was previously unavailable. Research findings also indicate that the large capital investment of incineration facilities makes such an option less competitive among municipal options for landfills. It is evident that the investment from a municipal standpoint is out of the question, but possible public–private partnerships may alleviate this obstacle.