IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envval/v16y2007i2p187-208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exchange Relationships and the Environment: The Acceptability of Compensation in the Siting of Waste Disposal Facilities

Author

Listed:
  • Edmundo Claro

Abstract

Within siting literature there is strong agreement that compensation for environmental risks is a necessary condition for local acceptance of waste treatment facilities. In-kind compensation is commonly pushed forward as being more effective than financial benefits in reducing local opposition. By focusing on the siting of a sanitary landfill in Santiago, Chile, this paper explores the performance of both types of compensation and relates the analysis to the notion of social norms of exchange. These are understood as being based on three main types of social relations: care, justice and freedom. Whereas monetary compensation is associated with market relations based on freedom and the offer of in-kind compensation to egalitarian relations based on justice, the absence of compensation is linked to fraternal relations based on care. It is argued that in-kind compensation is more acceptable than monetary payments or no compensation because people tend to understand siting conflicts more as matters of justice rather than as matters of freedom or care.

Suggested Citation

  • Edmundo Claro, 2007. "Exchange Relationships and the Environment: The Acceptability of Compensation in the Siting of Waste Disposal Facilities," Environmental Values, , vol. 16(2), pages 187-208, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envval:v:16:y:2007:i:2:p:187-208
    DOI: 10.3197/096327107780474519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3197/096327107780474519
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3197/096327107780474519?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. Pommerehne, Werner W & Hart, Albert & Schneider, Friedrich, 1997. "Tragic Choices and Collective Decision-Making: An Empirical Study of Voter Preferences for Alternative Collective Decision-Making Mechanisms," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(442), pages 618-635, May.
    2. Hank Jenkins‐Smith & Howard Kunreuther, 2001. "Mitigation and Benefits Measures as Policy Tools for Siting Potentially Hazardous Facilities: Determinants of Effectiveness and Appropriateness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 371-382, April.
    3. Peter A. Groothuis & George Van Houtven & John C. Whitehead, 1998. "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a Lulu: the Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility," Public Finance Review, , vol. 26(3), pages 231-249, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Dolan, Paul & Edlin, Richard & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan, 2007. "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it: Characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 157-170, September.
    2. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    3. Bakkenbüll, Linn-Brit & Dilger, Alexander, 2016. "Willingness to pay and accept for hosting Olympic Games in Germany," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 11/2016, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    4. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    5. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    6. Bruce K. Johnson & Peter A. Groothuis & John C. Whitehead, 2000. "“The Value of Public Goods Generated by a Major League Sports Team: The CVM Approach,”," Working Papers 0014, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    7. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    8. Isabelle Leroux & Éric Rigamonti, 2017. "The French new-prisons as local economic development tools? Socio-economics of impacts on local communities and new territorial challenges [Les nouvelles prisons françaises, objets de développement," Post-Print hal-02799255, HAL.
    9. Joséphine Süptitz & Christian Schlereth, 2017. "Fracking: Messung der gesellschaftlichen Akzeptanz und der Wirkung akzeptanzsteigernder Maßnahmen [Fracking: Measuring Social Acceptance and the Effect of Acceptance Increasing Measures]," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 405-439, November.
    10. Dilger, Alexander & Bakkenbüll, Linn-Brit, 2016. "Zahlungsbereitschaften für deutsche Erfolge bei den Olympischen Winterspielen 2014 in Sotschi und die Austragung Olympischer Spiele in Deutschland," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 05/2016, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    11. Groothuis, Peter A. & Groothuis, Jana D. & Whitehead, John C., 2008. "Green vs. green: Measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1545-1550, April.
    12. Bruce K. Johnson & Peter A. Groothuis & John C. Whitehead, 2001. "The Value of Public Goods Generated by a Major League Sports Team," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 2(1), pages 6-21, February.
    13. Peter Groothuis & John Whitehead, 2002. "Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(15), pages 1935-1940.
    14. Cho, Sangmin & Kim, Jihyo & Park, Hi-Chun & Heo, Eunnyeong, 2015. "Incentives for waste cooking oil collection in South Korea: A contingent valuation approach," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 63-71.
    15. Polinori, Paolo, 2019. "Wind energy deployment in wind farm aging context. Appraising an onshore wind farm enlargement project: A contingent valuation study in the Center of Italy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 206-220.
    16. Gawande, Kishore & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Yuan, May, 2013. "The long-run impact of nuclear waste shipments on the property market: Evidence from a quasi-experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 56-73.
    17. Naveed Paydara, Olga Schenk, Ashley Bowers, Sanya Carley, John Rupp and John D. Graham, 2016. "The Effect of Community Reinvestment Funds on Local Acceptance of Unconventional Gas Development," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    18. Rachel M. Krause & Sanya R. Carley & David C. Warren & John A. Rupp & John D. Graham, 2014. "“Not in (or Under) My Backyard”: Geographic Proximity and Public Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 529-540, March.
    19. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2021. "Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How we are not yet “hitting the right keys”," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, 2007. "Does Concern‐Driven Risk Management Provide a Viable Alternative to QRA?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 27-43, February.

    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:envval:v:16:y:2007:i:2:p:187-208. 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.