Negotiated Compensation for Solid-Waste Disposal Facility Siting: An Analysis of the Wisconsin Experience

Since enacting a unique facility siting law in 1981, Wisconsin has had unusual success in siting solid-waste management facilities. The law mandates a state-level technical review and licensing process and a local-level negotiation/arbitration process that deals with host community impacts and concerns. Data from the negotiated compensation agreements, a survey of facility proposers, and secondary data for the host communities are analyzed in relation to compensation levels. Concerns with community image and health risks and with facility management and equity issues are found to significantly and substantially increase negotiated compensation levels. In contrast, a focus on logistics and transportation concerns is associated with lower levels of compensation. Compensation increases with facility capacity but at a less than proportional rate. Higher levels of compensation are obtained by communities that accept compensation "in kind" in the form of free or reduced fees for host community waste disposal.     

Mitigation and Benefits Measures as Policy Tools for Siting Potentially Hazardous Facilities: Determinants of Effectiveness and Appropriateness

How do mitigation and benefits measures affect public acceptance for siting different kinds of potentially hazardous facilities? What kinds of benefits measures are seen as most (or least) appropriate for different kinds of facilities? This study used a nationwide telephone survey consisting of 1,234 interviews with randomly selected respondents to test for the effects of packages of safety and benefits measures for siting a landfill, prison, incinerator and nuclear waste repository. The experimental design used in the survey permits analysis of the fractions of respondents who are willing to change their initial levels of acceptance (or opposition) when presented with a sequence of the safety and benefit measures. The measures vary significantly in their impact on levels of acceptance for the facilities, and some measures that would at face value appear to reassure residents of facility safety turn out to lack credibility and therefore diminish facility acceptance. Ordering of the benefits versus safety measures significantly affects changes in acceptance in surprising ways. The perceived appropriateness of different kinds of benefits measures varies systematically by the type of facility under consideration. It appears that successful benefits packages will directly address the underlying dimensions of concern caused by the facility. These findings point to the importance of further research on “commensurable” benefits measures.     

Developing and Testing a Facility Location Model for Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste

The purpose of this paper is to develop and test a facility location model for the siting of a nuclear fuel waste disposal facility in Canada. The model is based on successful Canadian siting processes related to hazardous waste and low level radioactive waste facilities, as well as attributes of facility siting found in the literature. The proposed model was presented to a sample of participants in the federal environmental assessment review of the technical feasibility of the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Concept (CNFWDC) held throughout Canada in 1990. Results demonstrate that despite the fact that over half of the survey respondents did not support the CNFWDC during the public hearings, the majority favorably rated the proposed facility location model. Components of the model that were tested included siting criteria and goals, decision-making groups, and siting safeguards. On the basis of these results, it is concluded that the siting of a nuclear fuel waste disposal facility must make the decentralization of decision-making authority to local communities and governments a priority.     

Voluntary Siting and Equity: The MRS Facility Experience in Native America

This article focuses on aspects of intragenerational and intergenerational equity in the context of a unique policy experiment: the effort of the U.S. government to site a monitored, retrievable storage (MRS) facility for high-level civilian nuclear waste. This process and its outcomes are examined from both normative and subjective perspectives. While the MRS siting process was designed to be equitable, its eventual focus on Native American communities raises profound questions about environmental justice, as well as procedural, outcome, and intergenerational equity in cross-cultural contexts. The diverse reactions among Native American tribes demonstrate that translating theoretical concepts of equity into practice is an extraordinarily complex exercise. The MRS siting process, instead of being a bold policy experiment that promoted equity, emerges substantially flawed after its implementation in the Native American context.     

Attitudes and Risk Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Nuclear Waste Siting Issue

Stakeholders are often regarded as a critically important group in such issues as the siting of nuclear facilities. In this article, stakeholders were identified on the basis of self-reported activities with regard to a nuclear waste siting issue under debate in four communities. Data were obtained in an extensive mailed survey from a total of 2,548 respondents, approximately an equal number from each community. The overall response rate was 43.9%. Some of the results and telephone interviews with a sample of the nonrespondents indicated that the data are reasonably representative of the respective populations. Stakeholder activities were measured by 20 questions and combined with an index of stakeholder activity level, dichotomized at the 90th percentile. Stakeholders were found to have a higher level of education than others, but otherwise they did not differ in demographics. They did not tend to see risks in general as high, but were quite interested and involved in the nuclear waste siting issue. The stakeholder activity level correlated with risk perception and attitudes in the waste siting issue, but with different signs for those who were for and those who were opposed: stakeholders of both types had more extreme views than others, but in different directions. In addition, stakeholder opponents were much more likely to strongly espouse extreme statements regarding the project than were supporters who also were stakeholders. Implications for risk management and communication are discussed.     

Fair Processes for Societal Decisions Involving Distributional Inequalities

We investigate fair processes for societal decisions that involve different risks and benefits to different groups. A fair decision-making process is particularly important for decisions such as siting hazardous facilities. We experimentally evaluate the impact of alternative decision processes on the final choice of hypothetical facility sites and the resulting benefit and risk distribution to groups. The experimental task required choice among many alternative sites for a hazardous facility. Sites differ by the distribution of risks and benefits to each of two communities, and in the attractiveness of the sites to each community. Subjects were divided into three groups: individuals who judged the best site in the role of arbitrators, pairs of negotiators with one person representing each of the two communities, and trios who identified the best site in the role of a siting jury. We found the choices of negotiating and siting jury groups tended to emphasize the communities'preferences compared to the individual arbitrators who tended to focus on balancing the distribution of risks and benefits. Also, undergraduate psychology students, regardless of the dispute resolution mechanism, tended to display more emphasis on the risks and benefits, and graduate business students tended to focus more on the communities'preferences.     

The Decline of Deference: The Political Context of Risk Communication

Risk communication is seen as an important adjunct to the process of siting locally noxious facilities. To understand how risk communication might function in such a process, one needs to understand the political context that gives rise to public opposition to such facilities in the first place. This analysis draws on a variety of data to describe the decline of deference, a situation in which a hostile and alienated public is mobilized primarily through ad hoc voluntary organizations, and is increasingly reluctant to defer important decisions to institutional elites. Risk communication programs must be designed to offset the trends that result in the decline of deference. This conclusion differs markedly from the conventional wisdom that risk communication is merely a device for providing information to citizens so sthat they may make more rational decisions.     

Information Needs Concerning a Planned Waste Incineration Facility

Waste management has become a major environmental issue in Germany. The siting of waste incineration especially arouses strong local opposition. The study presented here is related to such a case (i.e., a planned waste incineration facility in a small West German village). The study is based on a telephone survey aimed at the information needs of the residents. Two topics are stressed: (1) the thematic relevance of the siting project as seen by the public; and (2) the residents'information needs. The results show that a majority of residents are concerned about the planned facility, and the most important topics of their information needs refer to the risks and the safety systems of the planned facility, as well as information about waste management alternatives. Furthermore, the information needs depend on the personal relevance of the issue and the perceived knowledge deficit about it. Conclusions are drawn with regard to the design of a risk communication program. Here, four groups of residents are distinguished in terms of knowledge and motivation and, thus, need to be approached in different ways.     

How Close Is Close Enough: Public Perceptions of the Risks of Industrial Facilities

Public opinion poll data have consistently shown that the proportion of respondents who are willing to have a nuclear power plant in their own community is smaller than the proportion who agree that more nuclear plants should be built in this country. Respondents' judgments of the minimum safe distance from each of eight hazardous facilities confirmed that this finding results from perceived risk gradients that differ by facility (e.g., nuclear vs. natural gas power plants) and social group (e.g., chemical engineers vs. environmentalists) but are relatively stable over time. Ratings of the facilities on thirteen perceived risk dimensions were used to determine whether any of the dimensions could explain the distance data. Because the rank order of the facilities with respect to acceptable distance was very similar to the rank order on a number of the perceived risk dimensions, it is difficult to determine which of the latter is the critical determinant of acceptable distance if, indeed, there is only one. There were, however, a number of reversals of rank order that indicate that the respondents had a differentiated view of technological risk. Finally, data from this and other studies were interpreted as suggesting that perceived lack of any other form of personal control over risk exposure may be an important factor in stimulating public opposition to the siting of hazardous facilities.     

Incentives Policies to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities

This paper addresses the use of mitigation and compensation as incentives policies to stimulate agreement between parties interested in siting a hazardous waste facility and potential host communities. We develop a model of facility siting that distinguishes five key factors which influence the acceptability of a proposed facility when considered in relation to status quo conditions. This model then is used to examine the effectiveness of different incentives policies with regard to (a) mitigating the perceived risks and (b) compensating the adverse impacts of a hazardous waste facility.     

Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility

Nuclear facilities have long been seen as the top of the list of locally unwanted land uses (LULUs), with nuclear waste repositories generating the greatest opposition. Focusing on the case of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in southern New Mexico, we test competing hypotheses concerning the sources of opposition and support for siting the facility, including demographics, proximity, political ideology, and partisanship, and the unfolding policy process over time. This study tracks the changes of risk perception and acceptance of WIPP over a decade, using measures taken from 35 statewide surveys of New Mexico citizens spanning an 11‐year period from fall 1990 to summer 2001. This time span includes periods before and after WIPP became operational. We find that acceptance of WIPP is greater among those whose residences are closest to the WIPP facility. Surprisingly, and contrary to expectations drawn from the broader literature, acceptance is also greater among those who live closest to the nuclear waste transportation route. We also find that ideology, partisanship, government approval, and broader environmental concerns influence support for WIPP acceptance. Finally, the sequence of procedural steps taken toward formal approval of WIPP by government agencies proved to be important to gaining public acceptance, the most significant being the opening of the WIPP facility itself.     

Historical Application of a Social Amplification of Risk Model: Economic Impacts of Risk Events at Nuclear Weapons Facilities

Public perception of risk is being cited as a documented reason to rethink a very contentious congressionally mandated process for siting interim storage and permanent disposal facilities for high-level radioactive waste. Rigorous survey research has shown that the public holds intense, negative images of "nuclear" and "radioactive" technologies, activities, and facilities. Potential host states and opponents claim that these negative images, coupled with an amplification of negative risk events, will potentially stigmatize the area surrounding such facilities and result in significant economic losses. At issue is whether a supporting social amplification of risk model is applicable to communities hosting facilities that are part of the U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Complex. An initial assessment of high-profile discrete and cumulative key negative risk events at such nuclear facilities does not validate that there has been stigmatization or substantial social and economic consequences in the host areas. Before any changes to major national policy are implemented, additional research is required to determine if the nearby public's "pragmatic logic," based on practical knowledge and experience, attenuates the link between public opinion and demographic and economic behaviors.     

基于混合蚁群算法的生产系统设施规划问题研究

设施规划问题主要研究生产设备的布局规划,从而减小厂区内的物料搬运成本。一个有效的设施规划有利于生产过程中整体运作效率的提高。随着市场竞争的日趋激烈,市场环境处于不断的变化之中,制造企业需不断对设施布局进行重新规划来适应不断变化的市场环境对产品需求量的影响,并达到降低成本的目的。这一问题便需要用多阶段设施规划（MFLP）的方法来解决。本文提出了一种改进的混和蚁群算法（HACO）来解决带有财务预算约束的多阶段设施规划问题,并将此方法与其他一些典型的启发式算法进行了对比分析。结果表明,本文提出的HACO算法是求解带有财务预算约束的MFLP问题的一种有效的方法。     

Formatting and presenting quality data to medical staffs and hospital boards

A host of historical and practical precedents have made hospitals responsible for the quality of care rendered within their facilities. The medical staff and the board of trustees share in this responsibility. Increasing demands for demonstrative evidence of the quality of care in an institution have made the process data-based. There is no substitute for specific data on the performance of both the hospital and its providers in the delivery of care. The trick, however, is in presenting this information to the medical staff and the board in a fashion that will be understandable and that will still maintain confidentiality of provider and patient. The authors offer a presentation system that has met with success in their community hospital.     

Low Probability Accidents

Experts frequently differ on their estimates of risk associated with accidents that have a low probability of occurrence. Those who stand to benefit from siting a new facility often perceive it as acceptably safe, using expert opinion to defend their argument. Potential losers find data to suggest that the new technology is too hazardous. This paper contrasts the role of risk assessments of low probability events in siting Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminals in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. In both cases the decision process was a rather lengthy one due to conflicts between interested stakeholders. The paper discusses the potential of compensation and insurance as policy tools for facilitating negotiation. Four criteria for improving the siting process in any country are also outlined.     

Not in My Town: Conflicting Views on the Siting of a Hazardous Waste Incinerator

In recent years a large number of conflicts associated with environmental risks have arisen in Hungary. The case study described here is related to the siting of a hazardous waste incinerator in Dorog. First, the history of the siting procedure is outlined in terms of the multiparty, multiattribute decision framework. Subsequently, the case reveals how stakeholder groups can be identified in the structure of decision-making, how they think about the object causing the conflict, about the conflict itself, and the possibilities of resolving it. In investigating the conflict, a combination of analytical tools were applied. The multiple-perspective model of Linstone and the argumentation analysis of Toulmin provided the frame for analyzing the information collected by interviews in the affected town, Dorog, and two other towns affected to different degrees in environmental problems.     

Siting Bio-Samplers in Buildings

We describe a probabilistic approach to siting samplers for detecting accidental or intentional releases of biological material. In the face of uncertainty and variability in the release conditions, we place samplers in order to maximize the probability of detecting a release from among a suite of realistic scenarios. The scenarios may differ in any unknown, for example, the release size or location, weather, mode of building operation, etc. In an illustrative example, we apply the algorithm to a hypothetical 24-room commercial building, finding optimal networks for a variety of assumed sampler types. The results show how sampler characteristics, most importantly the detection limit, affect the network performance. This suggests using the probabilistic approach to guide the priorities of sampler designers, as well as to site samplers in specific buildings.     

Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities

The paper by Metz challenges the view that stigma associated with a nuclear waste repository might lead to significant economic losses to the host region. We have been invited to comment on the general issues raised by this paper. We find that much of the evidence presented in the paper consists of factual and conceptual errors and misrepresentations of the research literature. Based on our review of evidence documenting the social and economic impacts of perceived risk, we conclude that stigma is an important phenomenon that is symptomatic of fundamental problems with the way in which nuclear waste facilities are sited.     

An approximation algorithm for stochastic multi-level facility location problem with soft capacities

Journal of Combinatorial Optimization - Facility location problem is one of the most important problems in the combinatorial optimization. The multi-level facility location problem and the facility...