IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v15y1996i4p601-622.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of compensation in siting hazardous facilities

Author

Listed:
  • Howard Kunreuther

    (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

  • Doug Easterling

    (University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado)

Abstract

Empirical evidence indicates that compensation can prove effective in gaining public acceptance for siting facilities on the benign end of the spectrum (e.g., landfills, prisons), but is subject to serious limitations when it comes to facilities that the public regards as particularly risky or of questionable legitimacy such as nuclear waste repositories. These facilities require creative mitigation measures such as independent inspections of the facility and local shutdown power. Even then they may be viewed as too risky to be acceptable with or without compensation. This article proposes a two-stage siting process which recognizes the importance of regulations and safety standards (Stage 1) while employing a voluntary process with compensation to address concerns with equity and efficiency (Stage 2).

Suggested Citation

  • Howard Kunreuther & Doug Easterling, 1996. "The role of compensation in siting hazardous facilities," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 601-622.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:15:y:1996:i:4:p:601-622
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199623)15:4<601::AID-PAM6>3.0.CO;2-L
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas Easterling, 1992. "Fair rules for siting a high-level nuclear waste repository," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 442-475.
    2. Kunreuther, Howard & Easterling, Douglas, 1990. "Are Risk-Benefit Tradeoffs Possible in Siting Hazardous Facilities?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 252-256, May.
    3. Howard Kunreuther & Kevin Fitzgerald & Thomas D. Aarts, 1993. "Siting Noxious Facilities: A Test of the Facility Siting Credo," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 301-318, June.
    4. Elster, Jon, 1991. "Local justice : How institutions allocate scarce goods and necessary burdens," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(2-3), pages 273-291, April.
    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. Frey, Bruno S & Oberholzer-Gee, Felix & Eichenberger, Reiner, 1996. "The Old Lady Visits Your Backyard: A Tale of Morals and Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1297-1313, December.
    2. Richard O. Zerbe, 2013. "Ethical benefit–cost analysis as art and science: ten rules for benefit–cost analysis," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 8, pages 264-293, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Robin Gregory & Howard Kunreuther & Doug Easterling & Ken Richards, 1991. "Incentives Policies to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 667-675, December.
    4. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    5. Richard Benjamin & Jeffrey Wagner, 2006. "Reconsidering the law and economics of low-level radioactive waste management," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(1), pages 33-53, December.
    6. Romina Boarini & Jean-François Laslier & Stéphane Robin, 2009. "Interpersonal comparisons of utility in bargaining: evidence from a transcontinental ultimatum game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 341-373, October.
    7. Mary Riddel & W. Douglass Shaw, 2003. "Option Wealth and Bequest Values: The Value of Protecting Future Generations from the Health Risks of Nuclear Waste Storage," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 537-548.
    8. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    9. Bringedal, Berit, 1992. "Distribution Principles in Health Care," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt3vw1z4g8, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    10. Louise K. Comfort & Laurence E. Lynn, 1999. "Taking complexity seriously: Policy analysis, triangulation, and sustainable development," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 181-184.
    11. Olivier Godard, 2011. "Climate justice, between global and international justice -Insights from justification theory," RSCAS Working Papers 2011/56, European University Institute.
    12. Neuteleers, Stijn & Mulder, Machiel & Hindriks, Frank, 2017. "Assessing fairness of dynamic grid tariffs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 111-120.
    13. Pfeifer, Christian, 2004. "Fairness und Kündigungen : eine theoretische und empirische Analyse (Fairness and layoffs * a theoretical and empirical analysis)," Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung - Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 37(2), pages 127-145.
    14. Ruixia Chao & Desheng Xue & Benshuo Wang, 2024. "Evaluating Human Needs: A Study on the Spatial Justice of Medical Facility Services in Social Housing Communities in Guangzhou," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-22, July.
    15. Howard Kunreuther & Douglas Easterling & William Desvousges & Paul Slovic, 1990. "Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 469-484, December.
    16. Howard Kunreuther & Kevin Fitzgerald & Thomas D. Aarts, 1993. "Siting Noxious Facilities: A Test of the Facility Siting Credo," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 301-318, June.
    17. 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.
    18. Susan Cleary & Gavin Mooney & Di McIntyre, 2010. "Equity and efficiency in HIV‐treatment in South Africa: the contribution of mathematical programming to priority setting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1166-1180, October.
    19. Christian Oltra & Paul Upham & Hauke Riesch & Àlex Boso & Suzanne Brunsting & Elisabeth Dütschke & Aleksandra Lis, 2012. "Public Responses to Co2 Storage Sites: Lessons from Five European Cases," Energy & Environment, , vol. 23(2-3), pages 227-248, May.
    20. Isadore Rosenthal & Patrick J. McNulty & Lyse D. Helsing, 1998. "The Role of the Community in the Implementation of the EPA's Rule on Risk Management Programs for Chemical Accidental Release Prevention," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 171-179, April.

    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:wly:jpamgt:v:15:y:1996:i:4:p:601-622. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    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.