Environmental Management

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 93–99 | Cite as

Why not in your backyard? scientific data and nonrational decisions about risk

  • Daniel E. Willard
  • Melinda M. Swenson
Forum

Abstract

The siting of hazardous waste facilities constitutes a special case of the many “no win” environmental decisions we face. They share common features: (a) we must decide something; (b) the decision affects some people more than others; (c) as scientists we are not 100% confident of our research results; (d) elements of the decision remain unquantifiable; and (e) decisions combine both scientific and political elements. In this paper we attempt to illustrate and analyze several examples that combine all of these elements and to suggest methods which would lead toward a scientific valid and politically useful resolution. Using well-known examples such as the public's fear of death from nuclear power, snakebite, and smoking, we attempt to integrate public perception of risks into a decision-making model. Finally, the conclusions deal with the role of policy making, public perception, and science in resolving environmental controversies. We do not, however, solve this perplexing problem.

Key words

Nonrational risk assessment Policy making Decision matrix 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Hanson, D. 1978. Econotes.Audubon 80(1):235.Google Scholar
  2. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons.Science 162:1243–1248.Google Scholar
  3. Just v. Marinette Co. 1972. Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 56 Wisc. 2d7, 201 N.W. 2d 761.Google Scholar
  4. Lichtenstein, S., P. Slanc, B. Fischoff, M. Layman, and B. Combs. 1978. Judged frequency of lethal events.J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 4:551–578.Google Scholar
  5. Luker, K. 1975. Taking chances: abortion and the decision not to contracept. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Mynatt, F. R. 1982. Nuclear reactor safety research since Three Mile Island.Science 216:131–135.Google Scholar
  7. O'Banion, K. 1981. Public reaction to the risks of energy technology.Environ. Mgt. 5(4):329–333.Google Scholar
  8. Popper, F. 1981. Siting LULUs.Planning 47 (4):12–15.Google Scholar
  9. Rassmussen, N. 1975. Reactor safety study—an assessment of accident risks in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. US Nucl. Reg. Comm. Rep. Wash. 1400.Google Scholar
  10. Starr, C., and C. Whipple. 1980. Risks of risk decisions.Science 208:1114–1119.Google Scholar
  11. Upton, A. C. 1982. The biological effects of low-level ionizing radiation.Scientific Amer. 246(2):41–49.Google Scholar
  12. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1979. Healthy people: the Surgeon General's report on health promotion and disease prevention. DHEW Pub. 79-55071. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Siting of hazardous waste management facilities and public opposition. Off. of Solid Waste Mgt. US EPA Pamphlet #SW809.Google Scholar
  14. Weschler, L. F. 1982. Public choice methodological industrialism in politics.Public Admin. Rev. 42(3):288–294.Google Scholar
  15. Willard, D. E., J. T. Harris, and M. J. Jaeger. 1977. A study of the effects of high voltage power lines on waterfowl and habitat. The Public Utility Commission of Oregon.Google Scholar
  16. Wolf, S. 1980. Public opposition to hazardous waste sites.Boston Coll. Environ. Affairs Law Rev. 8:463–540.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel E. Willard
    • 1
  • Melinda M. Swenson
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana UniversityBloomington
  2. 2.School of NursingIndiana UniversityIndianapolis

Personalised recommendations