Abstract
Waste facility siting successes depend on many linked factors of facility design and impacts, site characteristics, and community beliefs and values. A facility siting framework is constructed to combine important elements and cause-effect linkages that affect the siting outcome. The framework consists of three main components: (1) core elements of facility design, effects, and community beliefs, attitude and response; (2) contributing factors of site and community characteristics, community beliefs and values that affect the interpretation of the facility and its effects; and (3) siting management interventions to manage the process and facility impacts. The framework is applied in an unsuccessful and a successful siting case to determine the key elements that contribute to siting outcome: (1) thorough need justification for the facility from the proponent’s and the community’s perspective; (2) careful facility design and prediction of the impacts and to select impact management compensation measures; (3) screening and selection of communities where the beliefs and values are compatible with the type of facility and its effects, (4) cooperatively selected impact reduction (i.e., prevention, control, and mitigation) measures followed by compensation and incentives; and (5) intensive process management to balance the community characteristics and values with the proponent’s efforts to plan, design, assess and manage impacts, and ultimately, gain approval of the facility. The siting framework provides a comprehensive and robust structure of key factors that contribute to siting outcome and, therefore, provides the tool to identify, evaluate, and design siting interventions to enhance the chances of successful siting outcome.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature Cited
Armour, A. M.. 1991. The siting of locally unwanted land uses: Towards a cooperative approach. Progress in Planning 35(1):1–73.
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 NS-32 (6):4466–4472.
Canter, L. 1977. Environmental impact assessment. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Carnes, S. A., E. D. Copenhaver, E. J. Soderstrom, J. Sorensen, E. Peelle, J. H. Reed, and D. J. Bjornstad. 1983. Incentives and the siting of radioactive waste facilities. Regional and Urban Studies Section, Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Centaur Associates Inc. 1979. Siting of hazardous waste management facilities and public opposition. Report SW-809. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
City of Edmonton. 1990. Public health impact assessment— final report, vol I and II. Edmonton Waste Management Centre. The City of Edmonton, Environmental Services, June 1990.
Clean Environment Commission. 1987. Report on public hearing, 10 November, 1986 to 20 January, 1987. CEC, Winnipeg, Manitoba, May 1987, 20 pp.
Clean Environment Commission. 1992. Report on public hearings: Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. Central hazardous waste management facility license application. Easterling, D. 1992. Fair rules for siting a high-level nuclear waste repository. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11(3):442.
Elliott, M. L. P. 1984. Improving community acceptance of hazardous waste facilities through alternative systems for mitigating and managing risk. Hazardous Waste 1(3):397–411.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, and behavior. Wiley, New York.
Hopper, J. R., and J. M. Nielsen. 1991. Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior 23(2):195–220.
Johnson, B. B. 1987. Public concerns and the public role in siting nuclear and chemical waste facilities. Environmental Management 11(5):571–586.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.
Kraft, M. E., and B. B. Clary. 1991. Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal. The Western Political Quarterly 44:299.
Kunreuther, H., and L. Susskind. 1993. Facility siting credo. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Kunreuther, H., D. Easterling, W. Desvousges, and P. Slovic. 1990. Public attitudes towards siting a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis 18(4):469–484.
MAC. 1991. Final report—hazardous waste management facility inpection, May 1990–July 1991. Prepared for Council, RM Montcalm, Montcalm Advisory Committee, August 1991, 92 pp.
MHWMC (Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation). 1992. License application and environmental impact assessment for Manitoba’s central hazardous waste management facility in the rural municipality of Montcalm.
McQuaid-Cook, J., and C. S. Simons. 1989. Development and operation of a waste management system in Alberta, Canada. Water Management and Research 7:219.
Minott, O. 1988. Health risks and the choice between resource recovery facilities and landfills. 4th International conference on urban and waste management, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 6–9 December 1988.
Nieves, L. A., J. J. Himmelberger, S. L. Ratick, and A. L. White. 1992. Negotiated compensation for solid-waste disposal facility siting: An analysis of the Wisconsin experience. Risk Analysis 12(4):505.
Portney, K. E. 1985. The potential of the theory of compensation for mitigating public opposition to hazardous waste treatment facility siting: Some evidence for five Massachusetts communities. Policy Studies Journal 14(1):81–89.
Portney, K. E. 1991. Siting hazardous waste treatment facilities— The NIMBY syndrome. Auburn House, New York.
Reid Crowther and Partners Ltd. 1992. Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation site specific risk assessment, Montcalm site, vol 1—main report.
Stanley & Associates. 1989. Application to the Edmonton Board of Health to develop the landfill component of the Edmonton waste management facility. City of Edmonton, June 1989.
Zeiss, C. 1991. Community decision-making and impact management priorities for siting waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 11:231–255.
Zeiss, C, and J. Atwater. 1991. Waste disposal facilities and community response. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 18:83–96.
Zeiss, C., and J. Atwater. 1993. A case study for municipal waste landfill planning. Environmental Technology 14:1101–1115.
Zeiss, C., and L. Lefsrud. 1994. Developing siting packages for waste facilities. Working Paper, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, 32 pps.
Zeiss, C., and B. Paddon. 1992. Management principles for negotiating siting agreements: A case study of siting hazardous waste transfer stations in Alberta. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 42(10):1296–1304.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zeiss, C., Lefsrud, L. Making or breaking waste facility siting successes with a siting framework. Environmental Management 20, 53–64 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00006702
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00006702