Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 1999, volume 17, pages 379 389

Reversing NIMBY: an assessment of state strategies for siting

hazardous-waste facilities

O O Ibitnyo
Department of Public Policy mid Administration, School of Liberal Arts, Jackson State
University, Jackson, MS 39211, USA; e-mail: nibitayo@ccaix.jsums.edu
K D Pijawka
School of Planning and Landscape Architecture, and Center for Environmental Studies* Arizona
State University, Tempo, AZ 85287-2005, USA; e-mail: pijawka@nsu.edu
Received 1 March 1997; in revised form 1 June 1998

Abstract, Past research indicates a dismal success rate in the siting of hazardous-waste management
facilities, The observation that some facilities have been sited, however, suggests that the siting of
these locally unwanted environmental facilities may not be an intractable problem, In this paper,
based on a national survey of state siting attempts over the past decade, the strategies adopted by
states and the factors and combination of factors associated with the few successful outcomes arc
examined. The data indicate that public trust (especially in the facility developer), early and continuous
public involvement in the facility siting process, and an adaptive strategy that involves incorporating
citizens' concerns into siting and operation decisions arc associated with a higher likelihood of siting
success.

Introduction
Since the early 1980s one of the principal concerns in managing hazardous waste (HW)
has been the states' difficulties in implementing of the 1976 Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Under the RCRA, the responsibility of providing adequate
capacity for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste has fallen to
individual states which, under intense local and regional opposition, have attempted
to site HW management facilities. Most of the state facility siting attempts have,
however, failed to provide new facilities or lead to the expansion of existing ones
(Davis, 1993; EPA, 1979; Heiman, 1990). In a 1987 national survey of state HW facility
siting attempts less than 3% of the applications received since 1980 resulted in opera-
tional facilities (Heiman, 1990). On the basis of this past dismal success rate, Heiman
(1990) concluded that it may be impossible to site any HW facility anywhere, a 'not in
anybody's backyard' concept.
Concomitant with state efforts, the environmental policy literature has responded
to the challenge of siting HW facilities by developing innovative strategies and guide-
lines. However, the extent to which states have utilized these strategies is not quite
clear. Have states used a diverse set of guidelines or do they rely on a specific dominant
strategy? Which, if any, of these strategies are used the most and which, if any, tend to
result in facility siting? Given the plethora of innovative siting approaches suggested in
the literature over the past decade, has the HW facility siting situation continued to be
as dismal as noted by Heiman (1990)?
The effectiveness of some of the factors identified as affecting HW facility siting
need to be further explicated. For example, whereas there has been much attention
paid in the siting literature to public participation and 'democratizing' the HW facility
siting process, the role of the quantity versus the quality of public participation
programs has not been adequately explored. In addition, the role of active state
government involvement in the facility siting process—a recently identified factor in
facility siting—needs to be further evaluated. In the past, researchers who investigated
380 O O Ibitayo, K D Pijawka

the role of such institutional factors (Davis and Lester, 1989; Lester et al, 1983) focused
on the implementation of environmental or HW programs in general and not specif-
ically on siting attempts. However, we have also learned that the institutional factors
that have ensured success in promulgating stringent environmental programs may also
serve as constraints to facility siting attempts. For example, Rabe (1994) noted that
states such as North Carolina and Massachusetts that consistently rank high in terms
of stringent environmental regulations and innovativeness have been less successful in
the siting of HW facilities. The need therefore arises for studies that address the
importance of institutional factors specifically in the siting of HW facilities.
The most comprehensive study to address the national trends in the siting of HW
facilities was carried out in 1987 by the New York Legislative Commission on Toxic
Substances and Hazardous Waste. However, as public opposition to these facilities is
closely linked with public perceptions and values, there may have been changes over
time as to the relevance or the saliency of the social factors addressed in the 1987
survey. A more recent survey (Kunreuther et al, 1993) which could have captured such
shifts in societal perceptions and values, however, focused on a broader range of
environmental facilities, including waste-to-energy facilities and municipal solid-waste
landfills. Because factors affecting the siting of a municipal solid-waste landfill or a
waste-to-energy facility may be different from those for a commercial HW facility, the
need therefore arises for a study which is focused solely on HW facilities.
With the notable exception of the New York Legislative Commission (NYLC,
1987), the analysis of state siting strategies has been based on individual or multiple
case studies (Kunreuther et al, 1993; Rabe, 1994; Zeiss and Lefsrud, 1996) and on
speculations or reviews of literature in which critical factors that affect successful
facility siting are identified (Kasperson, 1986). These studies have generally failed to
address national trends in siting, the strategies adopted by the states, the success rate
of applying these different strategies to the siting problem, and the extent to which
states have attempted to adopt the strategies suggested in the scholarly literature. This
paper, based on a national survey of states, is designed to address such issues.

Overview of variables affecting the siting of noxious facilities

A myriad of physical, economic, and environmental constraints are often confronted,
but public opposition has been identified as the central problem in the siting of
HW facilities (EPA, 1979; NGA, 1981). Past implementation research on the siting of
such facilities has therefore focused mostly on public perceptions and responses. Some
authors (Morell, 1984; Morell and Magorian, 1982; Rayner and Cantor, 1987) have
emphasized the role of both distributional and procedural equity; some (Fischhoff
et al, 1981; Gregory et al, 1991; Hunter and Leyden, 1995; Slovic, 1993; Slovic et al,
1982; 1991) have addressed public perceptions of risk; several (Hadden, 1991; Kraft and
Clary, 1991; Rabe, 1994) have focused on the level of public participation in the siting
process; and others (Dantico et al, 1991; Flynn et al, 1992; La Porte and Metlay, 1996;
Pijawka and Mushkatel, 1991) have looked at the role of public trust in the siting of
waste treatment facilities.
Typically, the siting problem has been characterized as an imbalance between
locally concentrated costs or risks and dispersed societal benefits (Davis, 1993; O'Hare
et al, 1983; Rayner and Cantor, 1987). The basis for many host communities' opposition
is that they bear most of the potential costs such as health and environmental risks,
tarnished community image, and reduced property value, yet receive minimal benefits
in terms of jobs and tax revenue (O'Hare et al, 1983; Rayner and Cantor, 1987). The
granting of compensation has therefore been suggested as a strategy for alleviating the
inequity and thereby generating host community support for the facility.
Reversing NIMBY 381

The compensation strategy is based on rational choice theory in which it is

assumed that local opposition will be lessened if residents perceive that the economic
benefits of the facility outweigh the risks. In contrast to this hypothesis, Kasperson
(1986) has argued that compensation may be construed as a bribe, and be immoral and
unethical, especially when the risks are large, but he recommended the establishment of
standardized procedures which should "provide assurance that uncertainty, and unfore-
seen events will not go uncompensated" (page 142).
Addressing the interrelationships between public trust and public participation,
Madden (1991) and Rabe (1994) argued that the involvement of the host communities
in the early stages of the siting process will tend to generate public trust and subsequently
lead to a higher likelihood of siting success. Also, public mistrust of governmental
institutions or of treatment or disposal technology has recently been shown to be
associated with heightened public perceptions of risk which in turn reduces the public
acceptability of waste-treatment facilities (Dantico et al, 1991; Hunter and Leyden,
1995; Kasperson et al, 1992; Pijawka and Mushkatel, 1991; Slovic, 1993). The role of
public trust, and the use of risk mitigation strategies that include public input, have
therefore recently been highlighted in facility siting.
Past research also suggests the adoption of a systems approach as a viable strategy
in the siting of HW facilities (Kasperson, 1986; Rabe, 1994). For example, Kasperson
(1986) argued that the failure to site HW facilities is partly a result of the use of a
piecemeal siting approach. He suggested that facility siting ought to be part of a
systems or comprehensive HW management program which includes waste minimiza-
tion and simultaneous multiple-facility siting, among other factors. His contention was
that simultaneous multiple-facility siting increases equity and that waste minimization
reduces risk. More recently, Rabe (1994) argued for a multifaceted approach which
included waste minimization and equity-based burden-sharing through a regional net-
work of HW transfer, storage and treatment facilities, and drop-off stations.
Apart from public reaction issues, researchers have looked at the role of institu-
tional factors such as the extent of state government involvement and state institutional
capacities in HW management programs. Lester et al (1983), in a comparative analysis of
states'environmental programs (one of the earliest studies designed to examine variations
in state HW management programs), found that the severity of pollution and state
organizational capability encouraged the development of stringent HW regulations. More
recently, Davis and Lester (1989) investigated the role of state institutional capacity in the
implementation of HW programs. They operationalized institutional capacity as states'
financial and managerial capabilities and the willingness to commit these resources to
environmental management. States with high institutional capacities are more likely to
implement HW programs successfully.
The earliest national and comparative study covering HW facility siting attempts
was undertaken by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1979). The study
involved the evaluation of twenty-one cases of unsuccessful siting attempts, and the
following factors were identified as being important: lack of an established need for the
facility, the perceived inequities of waste importation, the lack of complete or accurate
information on the operation of the facility, an apparent lack of substantive public
input, and lack of public trust in the facility developer.
In a comprehensive national survey of HW facility siting programs, the New York
Legislative Commission (NYLC, 1987) examined the success rates of the strategies
utilized by states and addressed the factors affecting siting outcomes. States which
ranked high on the 'state initiative' variables were found to be more successful in issuing
RCRA permits to new facilities. In contradiction of the findings in most studies at the
time, the Commission concluded that the application of various public involvement
382 O O Ibitayo, K D Pijawka

indicators did not necessarily result in facility approval. For example, none of the
states that ranked high on public involvement experienced a successful outcome. On
the other hand, states that ranked low in public participation in general but provided
for negotiation and for technical assistance to the host communities had more success.
The Commission concluded that the efficacy of public participation in the siting of
HW facilities depended more on the quality and the specific nature of the public
participation programs.
Another important effort that addressed HW facility siting experiences was that of
the National Workshop on Facility Siting, held at the University of Pennsylvania in
1990. The workshop report, "Guidelines for facility siting", was subsequently tested by
Kunreuther et al (1993). Questionnaires were sent to 281 individuals that were involved
in establishing environmental facilities across the USA and Canada. Three factors were
identified as being critical to the siting of HW facilities: the establishment of public
trust; host community acceptance of the facility as being the best solution to the HW
problem; and involvement of the public in the siting process.

Method and study procedures

The national survey which was the basis for this paper was designed to identify the
siting strategies utilized by states and the success rates of these strategies and to
examine any differences between the successful and unsuccessful siting experiences.
Questionnaires were sent to all fifty state environmental regulatory agencies. The list
of the respondents for the questionnaire was generated from two sources: the USEPA
Solid Waste Division and the list of the participants at the National Governors'
Association Conference on the siting of HW facilities. The list obtained from the
EPA contained the name of a contact person within each state's environmental agency
who would be integrally involved in the granting of permits for HW management
facilities.
The contact person was telephoned regarding the objectives of the survey and
asked whether that contact person was the appropriate person to complete the survey.
In a few instances, the contact suggested the name of another person with greater
experience in the state siting process, and the person suggested was then contacted.
The prospective respondent was requested to involve in completing the questionnaire
other officials who may have been integrally involved with the specific HW facility
process. The use of the 'best-informed' agency official and the provision for involving
other officials in responding to the questionnaire were designed to enhance the validity
of the survey (Fowler, 1988; Kunreuther et al, 1993).
Unlike several earlier efforts, this study utilized the actual siting outcome: that is,
the dichotomy 'success' and 'failure' as the dependent variable rather than an outcome
based on the likelihood that an ongoing siting attempt would result in an actual facility.
The rationale for using the dichotomy was that a high likelihood of success is not a
guarantee that the siting attempt will ultimately result in a successful outcome. The key
siting factors found in the literature were utilized as independent variables in designing
the questionnaire. The variables included: state political leadership or state activism in
the siting process, the use of the systems approach, the granting of compensation or
benefits to the host communities, public participation, and the perceived level of public
trust. To confirm and improve the reliability of the survey instrument, formal and
informal discussions were held with state environmental agency officials and researchers,
especially regarding the dimensions of each of the variables. As a result of such
discussions, the operationalization of many of the variables utilized in this study
went beyond previous research.
Reversing NIMBY .W

State activism
The New York Legislative Commission (NYLC, 1987) study defined state activism as
the "aggressiveness'of a states' political institutions in establishing facility siting policies
and in initiating the siting process, but in this study we went beyond this definition and
included 'monitoring of the facility process'. The justification for including monitoring
was that the promulgation of siting guidelines and the initiation of a siting process may
not be the only necessary conditions for implementation. Implementation may require
active political oversight designed to respond continuously to the concerns expressed
by the public.
Public participation
Defining "public participation' as a single variable, one cannot uncover the efficacy of
the different dimensions of this variable. We therefore identified several dimensions
of the variable and investigated the importance of each dimension in HW facility
siting. The subunits utilized for public participation included: the extent of the public's
involvement in initiating the siting process, assessment of the adverse impacts of the
facility, and the extent to which public concerns were incorporated into risk mitigation
programs. Other elements included whether or not the state provided: public forums
(apart from public hearings), public education on hazardous waste, a local veto of the
facility, and mediation or negotiation between the host community and the facility
developer. In addition, open-ended questions required the respondents to indicate the
specific actions taken to incorporate public concerns into the facility siting decision
process a useful variable in determining the quality of public participation.
Other independent variables
The compensation variable was examined along the following dimensions: provisions
for postclosurc liability, provisions for the host community to propose benefits, and
whether employment and noncmployment benefits were granted to the host com-
munity. Public trust was measured by asking the respondents to indicate the perceived
level of public trust in the facility developer, confidence in the safety oC the facility's
technology, and trust in the institutions of government to monitor safety of the facility.
Another variable, the systems approach, was defined as the extent to which waste-
minimization programs—waste source reduction, waste recycling, and waste
exchanges—were pursued by the states before and during the siting process, and
whether simultaneous multiple siting was considered.

Results
Completed surveys were received from 42 states—a response rate of 84%. Of these
42 states, 5 states reported successful facility siting outcomes, 12 had unsuccessful
outcomes, and 13 respondents indicated that siting processes were still ongoing at the
time of the survey. The remaining 12 states had either not attempted to site HW
treatment facilities or facility siting attempts were associated with municipal landfills,
which were not the purview of this study. The comparison of the responses from the
states with successful siting experiences and those with unsuccessful experiences were
used in the data analyses.
Public participation
In table 1 we display a comparison of successful and unsuccessful outcomes regarding
public participation measures. The most obvious differences between the two groups
include the extent of involvement of public interest groups and the general public in
initiating the states' siting processes, the extent to which the public education programs
were established, the granting of a local veto, and the provision of technical assistance
384 O O Ibitayo, K D Pijawka

Table 1. Comparison of successful and unsuccessful outcomes regarding public participation,

state activism, systems approach, public trust, and the use of compensation or benefits measures.
Measures adopted Percentage positive response
successful unsuccessful
Public participation:
Involved in initiating facility siting process
public interest groups 100 44.4
the general public 100 22.2
Public education on hazardous waste 80 30
Local community granted veto power over facility 80 27.3
Technical assistance or funds provided to host community 80 50
State activism:
Active in initiating the facility siting process
House of Representatives 80 36.4
state senate 60 36.4
state governor 60 27.4
oversight committee 100 37.4
Active in monitoring the facility siting process
House of Representatives 20 30
state senate 20 30
state governor 20 40
Systems approach:
Waste source reduction 75 72.8
Waste recycling 75 63.7
Waste exchange 50 33.3
Simultaneous multiple siting considered 0.0 27.3
Perceived level of trust:
Level of trust in facility contractor 80 18.2
Level of trust in the technology adopted at facility 40 18.2
Level of trust in government (to monitor safety at facility) 40 18.2
Compensation or benefits:
Facility perceived as providing employment 100 63.6
Facility to provide other benefits 75 40
Financial benefits granted to host communities 100 40
Postclosure liability fund established 60 54.6

or funds to the host community. States with successful outcomes tended to have
utilized those factors more than had states that experienced unsuccessful outcomes.
A Mest analysis of the difference of the means (table 2) indicated two significant
differences in responses by the two groups of states. These are the extent of the
involvement of the general public in establishing the process for siting a HW facility
and the extent to which public education programs on HW management were pursued
during the siting process.
Open-ended questions allowed for a further elucidation of the differences between
successful and unsuccessful states. For example, one question required the respondent
to indicate how public concerns were incorporated into the siting process. The responses
of states such as New York that reported successful outcomes indicated that specific
actions were taken. Such actions included changing the traffic patterns, providing
onsite monitors, and increasing the number of the local residents that served on siting
commissions. In contrast, most of the states that reported failed outcomes did not
indicate that any specific mitigating actions were taken. These states indicated that
public concerns were incorporated into reports which were handed over to the agency
Reversing NIMBY 385

Tnhle 2. Results of /-test to compare successful and unsuccessful outcomes regarding public
participation and public trust measures.
Variable Mean /-value /;- value
successful unsuccessful

Public participation:
Involved in initiating facility siting process
environmental groups 3.50 3.22 0.60 0.56
public interest groups 3.50 3.87 -0.98 0.35
the general public 3.00 1.78 2.45 0.03*
Public education pursued during the 3.20 2.30 2.26 0.04*
siting process
Host communities encouraged to assess 3.60 3.36 0.48 0.64
the facility's adverse effects
Host communities encouraged 3,00 2.36 0.33 0.74
to develop mitigation measures
Perceived level of public trust:
Trust in the facility contractor 3.00 1.81 2.40 0.03*
Trust in the technology of the facility 2.50 1.81 1.20 0,22
Trust in government 2.40 2.09 0.67 0.51
* Significant at the 0.05 level.

or to the facility developer for necessary action. In these cases, no direct connections
were made between public concerns and a specific mitigation activity.
Another successful state, Utah, indicated that the county government was very
active in initiating and monitoring the facility siting process and that the county had
zoned a remote area for noxious facilities. Successful states, such as New York, Utah,
Colorado, and Illinois reported establishing siting commissions which were active in
monitoring the siting process. None of the states that reported on unsuccessful siting
attempts indicated that the local or county government was actively involved in initiat-
ing or monitoring the siting process and only two indicated that siting commissions
had been established. The influence of the host communities in the facility siting
decisionmaking process was therefore high in the states that reported successful out-
comes. Additional information provided by both Utah and Colorado indicated that
most of the benefits granted and risk mitigation strategies adopted resulted from direct
negotiations between the host counties and the developers of the HW facilities.
The observations made in this study regarding the efficacy of specific elements of
public participation such as public education, community veto or oversight of the
facility, and the provision of technical assistance or funds in the few successfully sited
HW facilities is consistent with previous research findings. Hadden (1991) and Rabe
(1994), argued that involvement of the affected communities in the early stages of the
siting process generates public trust in the process and support for the facility. Also, in
a case study of the successful siting of a facility that Rabe (1994, page 61) described as
"the most comprehensive waste treatment and disposal facility in North America", he
noted that a high degree of openness, the establishment of a liaison officer to handle
citizens' concerns, public oversight of the facility, and public education regarding the
nature and the extent of the HW problem were pertinent to the successful outcome of
the siting attempt.
386 O O Ibitayo, K D Pijawka

Public trust and confidence

The survey data (table 1) indicate that states with unsuccessful siting outcomes
reported low levels of public trust on the three trust dimensions investigated in this
study. In contrast, successful states indicated relatively high levels of public trust,
especially in the facility operator. A /-test analysis (table 2) shows that a significant
difference occurs between the two groups of states regarding the level of public trust in
the facility developer.
Past research (Kunreuther et al, 1993; Pijawka and Mushkatel, 1991; Portney, 1991)
has demonstrated the importance of public trust in the siting of HW facilities. In this
study, however, we go beyond previous studies by showing that even if the public
continues to have low levels of trust in the institutions of government and in HW
facilities in general, facilities may still be built if the public has a relatively high level
of confidence in a specific operator. Establishment of public trust in the facility
developer represents a more practicable solution than those offered in most past
research on HW facility siting. For example, it may be easier to generate public trust
in a facility operator than in the institutions of government, especially if the facility
operator has a relatively good record in managing hazardous waste or similar facilities
or is known locally or regionally as being committed to the safety and welfare of host
communities. As Peters et al (1997) argued, public trust in industry can be enhanced by
public perceptions of high levels of industry concern for public safety and welfare.
State activism
In table 1 we compare the responses of the successful and unsuccessful states by the
level of state activism in the siting attempts. From the data it can be seen that the level
of state activism indicated by successful and unsuccessful states regarding the over-
sight of the siting process are similar and relatively low. Regarding initiating the siting
process, the elected officials of states that experienced successful outcomes seem to be
more active than those of states that experienced unsuccessful outcomes. A /-test
analysis did not, however, yield any significant differences between the responses of
successful outcomes and those of unsuccessful outcomes. Of particular significance,
however, are the observations that in the successful and unsuccessful states the involve-
ment of the state's elected officials in monitoring the facility siting process dropped
precipitously after initiating the siting process.
The effectiveness of state activism especially in providing oversight of HW facility
siting cannot be determined in this study because of the low level of involvement
indicated by successful and unsuccessful states alike. The importance of state activism
in HW facility siting was, however, observed by the New York Legislative Commission
(NYLC, 1987). Although states may not spearhead the siting process (the response to
our survey questionnaire indicated that none of the state-owned, private-developer-
managed facility siting attempts was successful), a state's political institutions can serve
as an impartial link between the developer and the public and provide important
information related to the credibility of the facility operator. The credibility of the state
political institutions as a facilitator and conflict resolution entity, however, depends on
a state's commitment to the protection of public health. Such a commitment, or public
perceptions of such a commitment, according to Peters et al (1997) often results in
increased public trust and confidence in governments or political institutions.
Systems approach and waste minimization
Except for waste exchange programs (table 1) the two groups of states were similar
regarding the extent to which HW minimization programs were adopted. A /-test analysis
did not indicate any significant differences between the successful and unsuccessful states
regarding any waste-minimization indicator. The efficacy of a simultaneous multiple
Reversing NIMBY 387

siting strategy cannot be ascertained in this study because the strategy was rarely
utilized by the states. This is hardly surprising because, notwithstanding the distribu-
tional equity associated with this strategy, the loss of economies of scale in operating
several small facilities instead of a single mullitechnology facility may have precluded
any interest in multiple facility siting. The strategy may, however, be relevant to states
that generate large quantities of hazardous waste. Successful waste-minimization pro-
grams may, however, lead to a reduced need for a facility, and earlier research (Bowman
and Lester, 1985; Kunreuther et al, 1993) suggests that establishing a clear need for the
facility is critical to successful siting.
Compensation ami benefits
In table 1 we present a comparison of successful and unsuccessful states regarding the
granting of compensation and benefits to the host communities. The results indicate that
both groups are fairly similar but that states reporting on successful siting attempts were
slightly more inclined to grant benefits to the host communities. In addition, in two of
the successful states, Utah and Colorado, the host counties or communities directly
negotiated with facility developers regarding the types and amount of benefit.
The effectiveness of compensation to host communities as a strategy for siting HW
facilities is still not entirely clear. Kaspcrson (1986) and Gregory ct al (1991), however,
argued that compensation is effective only after all possible mitigation measures have
been implemented. If public assurance or confidence is so lacking that risk mitigation
steps arc necessary, compensation may be viewed as a bribe and therefore unacceptable.
The value of compensation in HW facility siting may depend on the extent to which
other variables such as risk mitigation and public trust are incorporated into the
facility siting process.

Conclusions
The survey findings demonstrate that very few states incorporated most of the strategics
suggested in the literature over the past decade. In fact, none of the states in our survey
utilized the multiple siting approach which was recommended by both Kasperson
(1986) and Rabe (1994). As we stated earlier, the reticence on the part of the states
in using this strategy may be because of a loss of economies of scale associated with
multiple siting. Also, the findings of past research on the effectiveness of granting of
compensation to host communities are not definite. Although compensation may
reduce inequity, the use of this strategy, according to Kasperson (1986), may be
construed as a bribe and therefore generate more intense public opposition unless the
strategy is coupled with risk mitigation measures. As a result, we could not, on the
basis of this study, establish definite relationships regarding all literature guidelines and
siting success. However, we observed that several variables—public trust, especially
in the facility developer, and the quality of public participation—that were addressed in
the literature are critical to siting success.
In line with previous research, the findings of this study suggest that public opposi-
tion to the siting of HW facilities is grounded in values and perceptions. The success of
any strategy depends on the extent to which the strategy deals with issues such as
public trust, early and continuous public involvement in the siting process, public
education on hazardous waste, empowerment of host communities, and the incorpora-
tion of citizens' concerns into risk mitigation plans.
Local empowerment that allows for substantial and meaningful citizen input to the
siting process seems to be a prominent factor in the few cases of successful outcomes
included in this study. Public involvement ought not to be limited to environmental
and/or public interest groups but should include the general public and especially the
388 O O Ibitayo, K D Pijawka

residents and public officials of the communities immediately surrounding the proposed
facility. Also, genuine efforts must be made to incorporate citizen concerns as inputs
into risk mitigation plans. On the basis of citizen concerns, states with successful siting
outcomes modified facility plans, including changes in facility capacity, design, and
operation. An adaptive siting process is more likely to succeed than a fixed and
structured process.
The observations of the New York Legislative Commission (NYLC, 1987) suggest
that the active involvement of state political institutions in initiating the facility siting
process may be pertinent to the success of the process. The tendency, as observed in
this study, is for state political institutions to shy away from such a controversial issue
as HW facility siting. The distancing of state political institutions from this issue may
not be appropriate because, in the final analysis, the responsibility for providing
adequate HW management capacity belongs to the states and not to the private
developers.
In view of the importance of public trust in the facility developer in successful
siting, the state must focus on the past records and the experience of the facility
operators in managing HW and similar facilities. In addition, the facility operator
should respond promptly and forthrightly to public concerns and be involved in public
education programs about the safety of the facility and about risk mitigation measures.
The observation by Rabe (1994) that the most prominent HW firms in the USA are
held in low esteem by the public because of the companies' track records needs to be
taken seriously and corrected by the industry. Also, facility operators ought to move
away from the traditional mindset of being an exogenous investor to being a community
partner who has a stake in the welfare and safety of the community. The embodiment
of an environmental ethic as part of corporate philosophy may serve to generate public
trust and support.
After two decades of siting gridlock and the contention that HW facilities may not
be sited in anybody's backyard, we were intrigued to find that as many as five states
have recently been successful in siting these facilities. Although these few cases may not
serve as blueprints, we observed in these cases some commonalities—the quality of
public participation and the perceived level of public trust, especially in the facility
developers—that are consistent with recommendations in past research. The siting
strategies suggested here are therefore based on those adopted by states that have
been successful in siting HW facilities in recent years. These successes, though few in
number, suggest that the problem of siting such facilities may not be intractable. States
need to move away from the traditional coercive policies such as preemption of local
veto—and even the more conciliatory decide, announce, and defend—to procedures
that allow for public input into all phases of the siting process. Our findings suggest that
efforts in sociopolitical issues such as building trust relationships, early public involve-
ment, and the incorporation of citizen concerns into the process may have the effect of
reversing NIMBY-based outcomes.
References
Bowman A, Lester J, 1985, "Hazardous waste management: state government activity or passivity"
State and Local Government Review (Winter) 155 -161
Dantico M, Mushkatel A, Pijawka D, Ibitayo 0,1991, "Political trust and risk perceptions of the high
level nuclear waste repository", paper presented at the annual conference of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC; copy obtainable from Nevada
Nuclear Waste Policy Office, Carson City, NV
Davis C, 1993 The Politics of Hazardous Waste (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)
Davis C, Lester J, 1989, "Federalism and environmental policy", in Environmental Politics and
Policy: Theories and Evidence Ed. J Lester (Duke University Press, Durham, NC) pp 57 - 84
Reversing NIMBY 389

HPA, 1979, "Siting of hazardous waste management facilities and public opposition", US
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC
Fisehhoff H, Liehenstein S, Slovic l\ Derby L, Kecney R, 1981 Acceptable Risk (Cambridge
University Press, New York)
Flynn J, Burns W, Mcrtz C K, Slovic P, 1992, "Trust as a determinant of opposition to high level
radioactive waste repository: an analysis of a structural model" Risk Analvsis 12 417 429
Fowler F Jr, 1988 Survey Research Methods (Sage, Newbury Park, CA)
Gregory R» Kunrcuther II, Fosterling D, Richards K» 1991, "Incentives policies to site hazardous
waste facilities** Risk Analysis 11 667-675
Madden S, 1991, "Public perceptions of hazardous waste" Risk Analysis 11 47 - 57
I leiman M, 1990, "From 'Not in MY backyard* to'Not in anybody's backyard!*: grassroots challenge
to hazardous waste facility s\i\n&% Journal of the American Planning Association 56 359-362
Hunter S, Leydcn K M, 1995, "Beyond NIMBY: explaining an opposition to hazardous waste
facilities'* Policy Studies Journal 23 60! -619
Kasperson R, 1986, "Hazardous waste facility siting: community, firm and government
perspectives", in National Academy of Engineering Hazards: Technology and Fairness
(National Academy Press, Washington, DC) pp 119- 144
Kaspcrson R, Goldin D, Tiller S, 1992, "Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous waste
facilities and communicating risk" Journal of Social Issues 48 161» 187
Kraft M» Clary B, 1991, "Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: public response to
radioactive waste disposal" Western Social Science Quarterly 44 299 - 328
Kunrcuther H, Fitzgerald K, AarlsT, 1993, "Siting noxious facilities: a test of facility siting credo"
Risk Analysis 13 301-318
La Porte T, Metlay D, 1996, "Hazards and institutional trustworthiness: facing a deficit of trust"
Public Administration Review 56 342-347
Lester J, Frankc L, O'Bowman A, Kramer K, 1983, "Hazardous waste, politics and public policy:
a comparative state analysis" Western Political Quarterly 36 257-285
Morcll D, 1984, "Siting and the politics of equity" Hazardous Waste I 555-571
Morcll D, Magorian C, 1982 Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities: Local Opposition and the Myth
of Preemption (Ballingcr, Cambridge, MA)
NGA, 1981, "Siting hazardous waste facilities", final report of the National Governors*
Association Subcommittee on the Environment, Flail of the States, 444 Capital Street,
Washington, DC 20001-1512
NYLC, 1987, "Hazardous waste facility siting: a national survey", New York Legislative Commission
on Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste, Legislative Office Building, Albany, NY 12247
OT-Iarc M, Bacow L, Sanderson D, 1983 Facility Siting and Public Opposition (Van Nostrand
Rcinhold, New York)
Peters R, Covcllo V, McCallum D, 1997, "The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental
risk communication: an empirical study" Risk Analysis 17(1) 43-54
Pijawka D, Mushkatcl A, 1991, "Public opposition to the siting of high-level nuclear waste repository:
the importance of trust" Policy Studies Review 10(4) 180-194
Portney K, 1991 Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities: The NIMBYSyndrome{Auburn House, Boston, MA)
Rabe B, 1994 Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States (The
Brookings Institution, Washington, DC)
Rayner S, Cantor R, 1987, "How fair is safe enough? A cultural approach to societal technology
choices" Risk Analysis 7 3-13
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-580 (US Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC)
Slovic P, 1993, "Perceived risk, trust and democracy" Risk Analysis 13 675 - 682
Slovic P, FischhoffB, Lichenstein S, 1982, "Rating the risk: the structure of expert and lay
perception", in A A AS Selected Symposium 65: Risk in Technological Society Eds C Hohenemser,
J X Kasperson (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 141 -166
Slovic P, Layman M, Flynn J, 1991, "Risk perception, trust, and nuclear waste: lesson from
Yucca Mountain" Environment 33 6-30
Zeiss C, Lefsrud L, 1996, "Making or breaking waste facility siting successes with a siting
framework" Environmental Management 20(1) 53 - 64