Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public concerns and the public role in siting nuclear and chemical waste facilities

  • Forum
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nuclear and chemical waste facilities can be successfully sited, despitenimby responses, if siting programs account for the sources of public concern. Irrational fear is not the main source; instead, waste managers must deal with perceived inequities in the distribution of benefits and costs, and concern about facility safety. Benefit-cost inequities may be dealt with in part by keeping wastes where they are generated, through political restrictions, or by providing economic compensation and political incentives (for example, a local veto). Assuring people of facility safety includes allowing local control (monitoring, health assessment, regulation), and enhancing trust of facility managers through such means as rectifying past mistakes, individual-oriented education campaigns, and negotiation of compensation packages with local residents. These means should reduce —without eliminating—public opposition to local siting of nuclear and chemical waste facilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature cited

  • Black, J. S. 1987. Regulation and public involvement: the case of hazardous wastes. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 14–18 February 1987, Chicago, Illinois, 7 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bord, R. J. 1987. Public cooperation as a social problem: the case of risky wastes. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 14–18 February 1987, Chicago, Illinois, 29 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bord, R. J., P. J. Ponzurick, and W. F. Witzig. 1985. Community response to low-level radioactive waste: a case study of an attempt to establish a waste reduction and incineration facility.IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 32:4466–4471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., J. Henderson, and J. Fielding. 1983a. Differing perspectives on nuclear related risks: an analysis of social psychological factors in the perception of nuclear power. Operational Research Society, 27–30 September 1983, University of Warwick, England, 25 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., T. Lee, and J. Henderson. 1983b. Public perception of nuclear power. British Psychological Society, 19–20 December 1983, London, 30 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, J. E. 1971. Impact of highways on urban neighborhoods: a model of social change. Pages 85–94in Highway research record, no. 356. Highway Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. E. 1984. Striking a reasonable balance. Pages 185–200in M. Harthill (ed.), Hazardous waste management: in whose backyard? (AAAS selected symposium 88). Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 212 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabresi, G., and P. Bobbitt. 1978. Tragic choices. W. W. Norton, New York, 244 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. L., and I.-S. Lee. 1979. A catalog of risks.Health Physics 36:707–722.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M. 1985. DOE, states reheat nuclear waste debate.Science 230:150–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, S. 1985. The public and nuclear power. American Psychological AssociationMonitor 16:1+.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dew, M. A., and E. J. Bromet. 1985. A matter of perspective: community residents' and nuclear power plant workers' long-term reactions to the Three Mile Island accident. Social Studies of Science, 24–27 October 1985, Troy, New York, 28 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downey, G. L. 1985. Federalism and nuclear waste disposal: the struggle over shared decision making.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5:73–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • DuPont, R. L. 1980. Nuclear phobia: phobic thinking about nuclear power. Pages 23–41in Nuclear power in American thought. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle, T. C., and M. K. Lindell. 1982. Public perception of industrial risks: a free-response approach. Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, Seattle, Washington, 16 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farhar-Pilgrim, B., and W. R. Freudenburg. 1984. Nuclear energy in perspective: a comparative assessment of the public view. Pages 183–203in W. R. Freudenburg and E. A. Rosa (eds.), Public reactions to nuclear power: are there critical masses? (AAAS selected symposium 93). Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 300 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitchen, J., J. Heath, and J. Fessenden-Raden. 1987. Risk perception in community context: a case study.In B. B. Johnson and V. T. Covello (eds.), The social and cultural construction of risk: essays in the perception and selection of risks. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 500 pp. (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Foa, E. B., and U. G. Foa. 1980. Resource theory: interpersonal behavior as exchange. Pages 77–94in K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, and R. H. Willis (eds.), Social exchange: advances in theory and research. Plenum, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forcade, B. S. 1984. Public participation in siting. Pages 111–122in M. Harthill (ed.), Hazardous waste management: in whose backyard? (AAAS selected symposium 88). Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 212 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowlkes, M., and P. Miller. 1987. Community and risks at Love Canal.In B. B. Johnson and V. T. Covello (eds.), The social and cultural construction of risk: essays in the perception and selection of risks. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 500 pp. (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, B. A. 1987. Report terms mistrust threat to atomic power.New York Times, 8 March 1987, Y-17.

  • Freudenburg, W. R. 1985. Waste not: the special impacts of nuclear waste facilities. Pages 75–80in R. G. Post (ed.), Waste isolation in the U.S., vol. 3: Waste policies and programs. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg, W. R., and R. K. Baxter. 1984. Host community attitudes toward nuclear power plants: a reassessment.Social Science Quarterly 65:1129–1136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg, W. R., and R. K. Baxter. 1985. Nuclear reactions: public attitudes and policies toward nuclear power.Policy Studies Review 5:96–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M. R., and R. Anderson. 1984. Hazardous waste siting. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 276 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensler, D. R., and C. P. Hensler. 1979. Evaluating nuclear power: voter choice on the California nuclear energy initiative. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California, 157 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holden, C. 1984. Fear of nuclear power: a phobia?Science 226:814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. B. 1987. Citizen risk assessment (a research proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation). Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. B., and B. Baltensperger. 1986a. Perceived dimensions of natural, technological, and social hazards. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 25–30 May 1986, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. B., and B. Baltensperger. 1986b. Reassessing locus-of-control in hazard perception research. Manuscript, 28 pp.

  • Johnson, B. B., and B. Baltensperger. 1987. Community risk perception: a pilot study.In L. Lave (ed.), Enhancing risk management. Plenum, New York (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E. 1986a. Hazardous waste facility siting: community, firm, and governmental perspectives. Pages 118–144in Hazards: technology and fairness. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E. 1986b. Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication.Risk Analysis 6:275–281.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E., and M. Berberian (eds.), 1983. Equity issues in radioactive waste management. Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 416 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E., and B. L. Rubin. 1983. Siting a radioactive waste repository: what role for equity?. Pages 118–136in R. E. Kasperson and M. Berberian (eds.), Equity issues in radioactive waste management. Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 416 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E., G. Berk, D. Pijawka, A. B. Sharaf, and J. Wood. 1979. Public opposition to nuclear energy: retrospect and prospect. Pages 259–292in C. T. Unseld, D. E. Morrison, D. L. Sills, and C. P. Wolf (eds.), Sociopolitical effects of energy use and policy. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kates, R. W., and B. Braine. 1983. Locus, equity, and the West Valley nuclear wastes. Pages 94–117in R. E. Kasperson and M. Berberian (eds.), Equity issues in radioactive waste management. Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 416 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuklinski, J. H., D. S. Metlay, and W. D. Kay. 1982. Citizen knowledge and choices on the complex issue of nuclear energy.American Journal of Political Science 26:615–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lackey, L. L., T. O. Jacobs, and S. R. Stewart. 1973. Public attitudes toward hazardous waste disposal facilities (EPA-670/2-73-086). US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legator, M., B. L. Harper, and M. J. Scott (eds.). 1985. Health detective's handbook: a guide to the investigation of environmental health hazards by nonprofessionals. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, A. G. 1982. Love Canal: science, politics, and people. D. C. Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts, 252 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, W., P. Freeman, and M. R. Fitzgerald. 1986. Public opinion and the legislative response to the hazardous waste challenge. American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 26–31 August 1986, 25 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A. 1981. Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies.Journal of Communication 31:106–115.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A. 1975. Opposition to technological innovation.Minerva 13:58–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A., and B. Conant. 1978. Controversy over a local nuclear waste repository.Social Studies of Science 8:235–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Department of Management and Budget. 1985. Citizen's guide for community health studies. Michigan Toxic Substance Control Commission, Lansing, Michigan, 169 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C. 1984. Rationality and irrationality in the public's perception of nuclear power. Pages 137–179in W. R. Freudenburg and E. A. Rosa (eds.), Public reactions to nuclear power: are there critical masses? (AAAS selected symposium 93). Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 300 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson. 1986. Protest, property rights, and hazardous waste.Resources 85:6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moldenhauer, D. 1982. A case study of victim-centered political action: Jackson Township, New Jersey. Pages 193–231in Morell and Magorian (eds.), Siting hazardous waste facilities: local opposition and the myth of preemption. Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 266 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morell, D., and C. Magorian (eds.). 1982. Siting hazardous waste facilities: local opposition and the myth of preemption. Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 266 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. P., J. J. Harrington, and R. Wilson. 1982. Risks of hazardous chemical and nuclear waste: a comparison. Discussion Paper E-82-11. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 128 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council; Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources; Board on Radioactive Waste Management; Panel on Social and Economic Aspects of Radioactive Waste Management. 1984. Social and economic aspects of radioactive waste disposal. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 175 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nealey, S. M., B. D. Melber, and W. L. Rankin. 1983. Public opinion and nuclear energy. D. C. Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts, 224 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Needleman, C. 1986. Ritualism in communicating risk information. Society for Risk Analysis, Boston, 11 November 1986, 21 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • New York Times. 1985. U.S. tests health near A-bomb plant. 16 December 1985, Y-18.

  • O'Hare, M., and L. Bacow. 1983. Facility siting and public opposition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 240 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahner, P. D. 1976. A psychological perspective of the nuclear energy controversy (RM-76-67). International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 21 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peelle, E. 1980. Social impact mitigation and nuclear waste repository siting. Pages 4–7in The socioeconomic effects of a nuclear waste storage site on rural areas and small communities (Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d Session). US Subcommittee on Rural Development, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, F. J. 1981. Siting LULUs.Planning 47:12–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, F. J. 1983. LP/HC and LULUs: the political uses of risk analysis in land-use planning.Risk Analysis 3:255–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, S. 1987. Risk and relativism in science for policy.In B. B. Johnson and V. T. Covello (eds.), The social and cultural construction of risk: essays in the perception and selection of risks. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 500 pp. (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, G. O. 1983. Toward a sociology of risk: values, experience, perceived and acceptable risk. PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 229 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, G. O. 1984. Residential proximity, perceived and acceptable risk. Pages 507–520in R. A. Waller and V. T. Covello (eds.), Low-probability/high-consequence risk analysis: issues, methods, and case studies. Plenum, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, W. A. 1983. The politics of public participation in hazardous waste management. Pages 176–195in J. P. Lester and A. O'M. Bowman (eds.), The politics of hazardous waste management. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, D. 1978. Social and economic consequences of energy facility siting in New England (Energy Impacts Project, Laboratory of Architecture and Planning). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seley, J. E., and J. Wolpert. 1983. Equity and location. Pages 69–93in R. E. Kasperson and M. Berberian (eds.), Equity issues in radioactive waste management. Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 416 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shabecoff, P. 1985. Ruling may stall efforts to block toxic dumps.New York Times. 6 November 1985, Y-10.

  • Sigmon, E. B. 1987. Achieving a negotiated compensation agreement in siting: the MRS case.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 6:170–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1984. Perception and acceptability of risk from energy systems. Pages 115–135in W. R. Freudenburg and E. A. Rosa (eds.), Public reactions to nuclear power: are there critical masses? (AAAS selected symposium 93). Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 300 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soderstrom, E. J., J. H. Sorenson, E. D. Copenhaver, and S. A. Carnes. 1984. Risk perception in an interest group context: an examination of the TMI restart issue.Risk Analysis 4:231–244.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science, Technology, and Society Program, Michigan Technological University, 49931, Houghton, Michigan, USA

    Branden B. Johnson

Authors
  1. Branden B. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, B.B. Public concerns and the public role in siting nuclear and chemical waste facilities. Environmental Management 11, 571–586 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01880156

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01880156

Key words

Search

Navigation