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.

[1]  Michael Greenberg,et al.  Hazardous Waste Sites: The Credibility Gap , 1984 .

[2]  Samuel J. Ratick,et al.  A Risk-Sharing Model for Locating Noxious Facilities , 1988 .

[3]  R. G. Shuff 'Bribes' work in Wisconsin , 1988 .

[4]  R. Gregory,et al.  Public perceptions of electric power transmission lines , 1988 .

[5]  Sanford V. Berg,et al.  Impacts of Domestic Joint Ventures on Industrial Rates of Return: A Pooled Cross-Section Analysis, 1964-1975 , 1981 .

[6]  Michael K. Lindell,et al.  How Close Is Close Enough: Public Perceptions of the Risks of Industrial Facilities , 1983 .

[7]  E. D. Copenhaver,et al.  Incentives and nuclear waste siting: Prospects and constraints , 1983 .

[8]  V. Smith,et al.  The value of avoiding a LULU: hazardous waste disposal sites. , 1986 .

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

[10]  Richard N. L. Andrews,et al.  Facility Siting and Public Opposition, Michael O'Hare, Lawrence Bacow, Debra Sanderson. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, New York (1983) , 1983 .

[11]  Jon Soderstrom,et al.  Sweet for the sour: Incentives in environmental mediation , 1984 .

[12]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Property Rights, Protest, and the Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities , 1986 .

[13]  William M. Bowen,et al.  Resolving Locational Conflict , 1991 .

[14]  Joel S. Hirschhorn,et al.  Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities , 1984 .

[15]  D. Morell,et al.  Siting hazardous-waste facilities: local opposition and the myth of preemption , 1984 .

[16]  Michael O'Hare,et al.  Facility siting and public opposition , 1983 .