IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v17y1999i4p379-389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reversing NIMBY: An Assessment of State Strategies for Siting Hazardous-Waste Facilities

Author

Listed:
  • O O Ibitayo

    (Department of Public Policy and Administration, School of Liberal Arts, Jackson State University, Jackson, MS 39211, USA)

  • K D Pijawka

    (School of Planning and Landscape Architecture, and Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, Tempo, AZ 85287-2005, USA)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • O O Ibitayo & K D Pijawka, 1999. "Reversing NIMBY: An Assessment of State Strategies for Siting Hazardous-Waste Facilities," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 17(4), pages 379-389, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:17:y:1999:i:4:p:379-389
    DOI: 10.1068/c170379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c170379
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c170379?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. K. David Pijawka & Alvin H. Mushkatel, 1991. "Symposium on the Development of Nuclear Waste Policy: Siting the High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository1," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 10(4), pages 88-89, December.
    2. K. David Pijawka & Alvin H. Mushkatel, 1991. "Public Opposition To The Siting Of The High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository: The Importance Of Trust," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 10(4), pages 180-194, December.
    3. James Flynn & William Burns & C.K. Mertz & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High‐Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 417-429, September.
    4. Richard G. Peters & Vincent T. Covello & David B. McCallum, 1997. "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 43-54, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patthanasak Khammaneechan & Kamolnetr Okanurak & Pornchai Sithisarankul & Kraichat Tantrakarnapa & Poonsup Norramit, 2011. "Community concerns about a healthcare-waste incinerator," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(7), pages 847-858, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    4. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    5. Hye‐Jin Paek & Thomas Hove, 2019. "Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation‐Contaminated Seafood in South Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2653-2667, December.
    6. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    7. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    8. Nick Allum, 2007. "An Empirical Test of Competing Theories of Hazard‐Related Trust: The Case of GM Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 935-946, August.
    9. Annukka Vainio & Riikka Paloniemi & Vilja Varho, 2017. "Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources, Perceived Risks, and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 557-569, March.
    10. Yeonjae Ryu & Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Does Trust Matter? Analyzing the Impact of Trust on the Perceived Risk and Acceptance of Nuclear Power Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    11. Therese A Joiner & Lynne Leveson & Kim Langfield-Smith, 2002. "Technical Language, Advice Understandability, and Perceptions of Expertise and Trustworthiness: The Case of the Financial Planner," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 27(1), pages 25-43, June.
    12. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    13. Vern R. Walker, 1995. "Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 603-609, October.
    14. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    15. Dutt, Dwarkeshwar, 2020. "Understanding the barriers to the diffusion of rooftop solar: A case study of Delhi (India)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    16. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    17. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2002. "The Perceived Risk of Terrorism," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2002:11, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 16 Jan 2004.
    18. David Fang & Chen-Ling Fang & Bi-Kun Tsai & Li-Chi Lan & Wen-Shan Hsu, 2012. "Relationships among Trust in Messages, Risk Perception, and Risk Reduction Preferences Based upon Avian Influenza in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    19. Taneja, Shilpa & Ali, Liaqat, 2021. "Determinants of customers’ intentions towards environmentally sustainable banking: Testing the structural model," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    20. Roman Seidl & Corinne Moser & Michael Stauffacher & Pius Krütli, 2013. "Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1038-1048, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:17:y:1999:i:4:p:379-389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.