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.

[1]  Robin R. Jenkins,et al.  Host Community Compensation and Municipal Solid Waste Landfills , 2004, Land Economics.

[2]  Gary H. McClelland,et al.  The Effect of Risk Beliefs on Property Values: A Case Study of a Hazardous Waste Site1 , 1990 .

[3]  T. Cameron Directional heterogeneity in distance profiles in hedonic property value models , 2006 .

[4]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Entanglement of Interests and Motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on Facility Siting , 1994 .

[5]  Erik Skärbäck,et al.  Environmental compensation in planning: a review of five different countries with major emphasis on the German system , 2003 .

[6]  Toshiaki Sasao,et al.  An estimation of the social costs of landfill siting using a choice experiment. , 2004, Waste management.

[7]  K. L. Guntermann,et al.  Sanitary Landfills, Stigma and Industrial Land Values , 2009 .

[8]  Arthur J. Caplan,et al.  Using Choice Question Formats to Determine Compensable Values: The C ase of a Landfi ll Sitt ing Process , 2007 .

[9]  Marie Lynn Miranda,et al.  Talking trash about landfills: Using quantitative scoring schemes in landfill siting processes , 2000 .

[10]  N. Powe,et al.  Industrial location and residential disamenity: a case study of the chemical industry in Castleford, England , 1998 .

[11]  Susan Hunter,et al.  Beyond NIMBY. Explaining Opposition to Hazardous Waste Facilities , 1995 .

[12]  L. Frewer The public and effective risk communication. , 2003, Toxicology letters.

[13]  Hank C. Jenkins-Smith,et al.  Nuclear Waste Transport and Residential Property Values: Estimating the Effects of Perceived Risks , 2001 .

[14]  A. L. White,et al.  Risk, compensation, and regional equity in locating hazardous facilities , 1989 .

[15]  Katherine A. Kiel,et al.  House Prices during Siting Decision Stages: The Case of an Incinerator from Rumor through Operation , 1995 .

[16]  Richard Cowell,et al.  Stretching the Limits: Environmental Compensation, Habitat Creation and Sustainable Development , 1997 .

[17]  R. Likert “Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, A” , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[18]  Jeff Jensen,et al.  The economic impact of a transient hazard on property values: The 1988 Pepcon explosion in Henderson, Nevada , 1996 .

[19]  Kate Burningham,et al.  Using the Language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers , 2000 .

[20]  D. Green,et al.  NIMBY or NIABY: a logit model of opposition to solid-waste-disposal facility siting , 1994 .

[21]  Christopher Snary,et al.  Understanding Risk: The Planning Officers' Perspective , 2004 .

[22]  R. Cowell Environmental Compensation and the Mediation of Environmental Change: Making Capital out of Cardiff Bay , 2000 .

[23]  Roland K. Roberts,et al.  Estimating External Costs of Municipal Landfill Siting Through Contingent Valuation Analysis: A Case Study , 1991, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[24]  Susan J. Elliott,et al.  From Siting Principles to Siting Practices: A Case Study of Discord among Trust, Equity and Community Participation , 1999 .

[25]  Clyde Hertzman,et al.  A comparative analysis of the psychosocial impacts of waste disposal facilities , 2004 .

[26]  B. Frey,et al.  The Old Lady Visits Your Backyard: A Tale of Morals and Markets , 1996, Journal of Political Economy.

[27]  A. D. Masso,et al.  Psychological parameters to understand and manage the NIMBY effect , 2006 .

[28]  D. Streiner,et al.  ‘IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE IT ANY BETTER...’: RESIDENTS' REAPPRAISAL OF A LANDFILL SITE☆ , 1997 .

[29]  V. Maclaren,et al.  Community concerns about landfills: A case study of Hanoi, Vietnam , 2005 .

[30]  D. Dillman Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[31]  Massimiliano Mazzanti,et al.  Municipal Waste Kuznets Curves: Evidence on Socio-Economic Drivers and Policy Effectiveness from the EU , 2009 .

[32]  J. Hamilton Politics and Social Costs: Estimating the Impact of Collective Action on Hazardous Waste Facilities , 1993 .

[33]  A. L. White,et al.  Risk, compensation, and regional equity in locating hazardous facilities , 1989 .

[34]  Jeremy Raemaekers,et al.  Environmental Compensation: Can the British Planning Regime Learn from Germany? , 2000 .

[35]  B. Frey,et al.  The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding-Out , 1997 .

[36]  Geraint Ellis,et al.  Discourses of Objection: Towards an Understanding of Third-Party Rights in Planning , 2003 .

[37]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Risk Perception, Valuation and Policy: Introduction , 2006 .

[38]  Peter A. Groothuis,et al.  Locating Hazardous Waste Facilities: The Influence of NIMBY Beliefs , 1994 .

[39]  Douglas J. Lober,et al.  Why not here?: The importance of context, process, and outcome on public attitudes toward siting of waste facilities , 1996 .

[40]  Carlos F. Daganzo,et al.  Multinomial Probit: The Theory and its Application to Demand Forecasting. , 1980 .

[41]  Richard G. Kuhn,et al.  Canadian Innovations in Siting Hazardous Waste Management Facilities , 1998, Environmental management.

[42]  Géke Kuiper Compensation of environmental degradation by highways: a Dutch case study , 1997 .