draft kevin mcmahan research proposal 3 13 2012

Kevin J. McMahan – Continued Use of the DAD Approach when Siting LULUs

1 of 31

Kevin J. McMahan

Applicant for the International Doctoral Studies Program (IPID) “Advanced Research in Urban Systems” (ARUS)

(DRAFT – 3/13/2012)


2 of 31

Why do Decision Makers continue to use the Decide – Announce – Defend (DAD) Approach when siting Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs)?

Abstract

Prior to 1970, there was no requirement to include the public in the facility siting process,

in the U.S. With the passing of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), decision makers

were required to allow input from those who “bear the economic, social, and environmental

impacts of government policy and land use decisions” (Depoe, Delicath, & Elsenberg, 2004, p.

99). Although it is appropriate to include the public, it has often been viewed as merely “a

compliance hoop through which agencies must jump prior to moving forward with an already

decided action” (Depoe, Delicath, & Elsenberg, 2004, p. 100). Despite being required, inclusion

of the public in the siting of Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs) continues to be a problem.

Kuhn and Ballard (1998) explain, “There are two basic approaches to facility siting: open

and closed” (p. 535). The closed approach, or DAD (Decide – Announce – Defend), “relies

heavily on technical aspects, and is the most common siting process used by proponents”

(Kunreuther, Fitzgerald, & Aarts, 1993, as cited, p. 535). The fallacy of the DAD approach is

that it “does not give adequate attention to social and political considerations” (Kuhn & Ballard,

1998, p. 535). In contrast, the open approach, or ECFD (Establish Criteria – Consult – Filter –

Decide), has emerged as a method for “overcoming the social and political constraints that result

in conflictive siting problems” (Kuhn & Ballard, 1998, p. 536).

If the open approach is the law, has been proven to be effective, and seems to be

appropriate – then why do some decision makers continue to use the closed approach when siting

LULUs? The first goal of this research project is to learn the reasons why decision makers

choose the DAD approach, and then determine whether these explanations are appropriate. It is

hypothesized that the findings will show decision makers have some valid concerns for not


3 of 31

including the public. For example, the general public does not possess the same technical

understanding as engineers who design these facilities. On the other hand, it is likely to be

proven that the positive reasons for including public input far outweigh the negative. For

example, costly legal battles are more likely to be avoided when public input is invited from the

early stages of siting a LULU.

The second goal of this project is to create a set of findings that support the open

approach to siting LULUs, and then provide these findings to decision makers still using the

DAD method. The intention is to influence future actions; leading to more inclusion of the

public in facility siting decisions.

Research Objective

The objective of the first part of this research project is to answer the question, “Why do

decision makers continue to use the DAD approach when siting LULUs?” Once various

explanations are gathered, the second part of this project will examine whether these are valid

reasons for avoiding a more open approach when siting LULUs. If these concerns are found to

be invalid, then those findings may be used to amend the facility siting approaches used by

decision makers.

From the preliminary literature review work conducted, it is clear there have been

attempts to answer the question of why a particular siting technique is used. Despite these

attempts, as Schively states in her 2007 literature review, “there is still a need to understand how

LULU-siting processes influence NIMBY responses and perceptions” (p. 264). Schively

continues, “A clearer understanding of how people (including decision makers) think about

impacts, information, other participants, and siting processes could inform the creation of more

effective LULU-siting processes” (2007, p. 264).


4 of 31

Research Question and Hypotheses

A preliminary review of the literature has shown clear differences between the closed and

open approaches to siting LULUs. Also, the literature presents specific reasons why decision

makers choose one approach, instead of the other. This research project will analyze why some

decision makers continue to choose the closed approach.

The hypothesis is that proponents continue to choose the DAD approach for the

following reasons:

1. It meets the minimum requirements of the law 2. Enables the balance of decision-making power to remain with the proponent

3. It appears to be a quicker process 4. In an effort to preempt potential challenges from opposition groups

5. The belief that opponents have an incorrect perception of the “risks” and “impacts”

involved

6. The belief that the general public is unable to understand the science or technology of the facility

All of these reasons for avoiding an open-siting approach stem from decision makers’

fear that the opposition will succeed in preventing their project from moving forward

(Kunreuther, Susskind, & Aarts, date unknown).

Current State of Research

An initial review of available literature does not indicate a clear understanding of why

some decision makers continue to use the DAD approach to siting LULUs. In 1990, the

Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania hosted a “National Facility Siting Workshop.”

Dr. Howard Kunreuther was among the practitioners and researchers attending this workshop;

working to develop a set of guidelines for siting noxious and hazardous facilities which would be


5 of 31

more open to public participation. The result was the creation of the “Facility Siting Credo.”

Following up on the workshop, Kunreuther, Fitzgerald, and Aarts conducted a test of the Credo’s

guidelines which involved the completion of a questionnaire by stakeholders in 29 waste facility

siting cases (1993). In a 2012 email, Kunreuther explained that these stakeholders had not been

asked why they had chosen to use the DAD approach when siting their facilities (email

correspondence with Kunreuther, 2012).

Although decision makers are able to successfully site LULUs using the DAD approach,

a more open approach is preferable. Allowing the public to participate, and ensuring their

concerns are adequately addressed, reduces the amount of opposition to the siting of a facility.

At the conclusion of her literature review, Schively explains, “There remains a need for

additional literature relative to perceptions and methods to address NIMBY responses”

(Schively, 2007, 263).

Schively continues, “There appears to be minimal research related to how LULU-siting

processes themselves influence Not-In-My-Back Yard (NIMBY) responses and perceptions.

Future research might investigate variations in levels of participation and in perceptions of

impacts in different types of siting processes or institutional arrangements (e.g., public hearing-

based processes, consensus-based efforts, and intervenor processes). Researchers might also

assess whether siting outcomes vary in the context of different levels of participation and in

different types of processes” (Schively, 2007, 264).

Schively further explains, “Thus far, work being done in the areas of social psychology

and risk analysis related to risk perception, trust, and risk communication has not been linked to

the research being conducted related to methods to address NIMBY responses. A clearer

understanding of how people think about impacts, information, other participants, and siting


6 of 31

processes has the potential to inform the creation of more effective LULU-siting processes”

(Schively, 2007, 264).

Schively concludes, “Overall, bringing together our knowledge of perceptions and

methods to address NIMBY responses has great potential to enlighten our understanding of why

NIMBY responses emerge and how we might respond to them more effectively. This

knowledge has the potential to serve the range of researchers studying the NIMBY phenomenon

and the planners involved in the NIMBY-siting processes” (Schively, 2007, 264).

Methodological Implementation

Research for this report will take a mixed-methods approach; combining the quantitative

and qualitative research designs. This approach will be used for the purpose of “development,”

as mentioned by Greene et al. (1989, p. 259, as cited in Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006, 319). The

results from the first method will inform the second method. The quantitative study, used to

identify a specific population, will be secondary. This initial questionnaire will identify a set of

decision makers to be contacted for follow-up qualitative interviews. The second questionnaire

will include qualitative questions; allowing for an in-depth understanding of why decision-

makers continue to use the DAD approach to siting LULUs (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006, 323-

324).

Depending on availability, questionnaires will be administered through the mail, through

email, over-the-phone, and through in-person interviews. The first questionnaire is expected to

produce easily quantifiable data. After it is determined which decision makers used the DAD

siting approach, those individuals will be included in the second part of the data gathering

process. Answers to the second questionnaire will be examined, with conclusions being made as

to their level of appropriateness. Additional research of available research will provide guidance


7 of 31

on how to determine the “appropriateness” of the answers given by the decision makers for their

continued use of the DAD approach. These findings will enable the researcher to persuade

decision makers to consider the open approach when siting LULUs.

During the information collection phase, attention will be paid to the data that is to be

analyzed. The question guiding this work will be, “Will this data provide an understanding of

the research question?” Transcripts and databases will be created to manage, organize, and store

the data being collected. Using a “grounded theory approach,” the researcher will “code” the

qualitative data as it is collected; locating themes, patterns, ideas, and concepts (Hesse-Biber &

Leavy, 2006, 344-374).

This research project will adhere to the following process:

1. Determine proposed project is acceptable and is to be conducted 2. Conduct a literature review 3. Create list: Colleagues and professors to assist with research 4. Create list: Types of facilities to include in the research 5. Create list: Recent LULU sitings (include successful and unsuccessful attempts at

siting LULUs) 6. Create list: Decision makers involved in siting these LULUs (include contact

information) 7. Create questionnaire #1: Questions to ask decision makers (will allow a

determination to be made as to which siting technique was used) 8. Administer questionnaire #1: Have decision makers answer questions as honestly as

possible. 9. Analyze results of questionnaire #1: Will result in the creation of a set of decision

makers who utilized the Decide – Announce – Defend (DAD) approach (who will then be further questioned)

10. Create questionnaire #2: Questions to ask decision makers who used the DAD

method (will allow for a clear understanding as to why they chose the DAD method)


8 of 31

11. Administer questionnaire #2: Have decision makers answer questions as honestly as

possible 12. Analyze results of questionnaire #2: Will result in the creation of a set of findings as

to the appropriateness of the answers 13. Provide conclusions to decision makers, and gauge their responses 14. Attempt to further conclude whether decision makers intend to implement a more

open approach to siting LULUs 15. Publish results of findings (this will include a reflection on the process, in order to

offer suggestions for future research)

Current State of Preparation

In creating this research proposal, the underlying goal has been to narrow the proposal to

a question that has not yet been answered. A significant amount of time has been spent

researching existing literature pertaining to this topic. More than 40 relevant journal articles

have been downloaded and preliminarily reviewed. Also, numerous books on the research

subject have been scanned. Several emails have been exchanged with at least four prominent

professors who have worked with the issue of siting locally unwanted land uses. Some early

discussions, concerning the proposed research, have taken place between the researcher and

these professors.

To organize the proposed research, and help ensure the project remains on track and all

deadlines are met, a project time line (which includes the entire six semesters in the PhD

program; from October 2012 to September 2015) (Appendix A) and a flowchart (Appendix B)

were created. Also, a preliminary attempt to calculate the costs of the research project was made

(Appendix C and Appendix D). To gain a more realistic understanding of how the actual

research and data gathering would be conducted, the two draft research questionnaires were

created (Appendix E and Appendix F). These questionnaires will be provided to the decision


9 of 31

makers, in order to gather the data to be analyzed. To allow for analysis of the data, an early

version of a transcript / database was created (Appendix G). As part of the “coding” of the

qualitative data, a chart to record the themes, patterns, ideas, and concepts was created, in order

to allow a determination of the “appropriateness” of the reasons given by those decision makers

for using the DAD approach (Appendix H). In addition, the researcher began to complete the

following lists:

• List of Professors (Appendix I)

• Types of Facilities to Include in the Research (Appendix J) • Useful Websites for Locating Facilities (Appendix K)

• Types of Individuals to Include in the Research (Appendix L)

• Specific Facilities Involved in Recent LULU Sitings and Contact Information

(Appendix M)


10 of 31

Appendix A: Project Time Line

Description of Step Duration

Study period (1st semester) 1st week Oct. 2012 – 5th week Mar. 2013

Become acquainted with University of Essen-Duisberg and ARUS program 1st week Oct. 2012 – 2nd week Oct. 2012

Discuss proposed research project with colleagues, professors, faculty, and academic advisors 1st week Oct. 2012 – 2nd week Oct. 2012

Be appointed an academic advisor 3rd week Oct. 2012

Determine proposed project is acceptable and is to be conducted (funding is to be provided by the University of Duisberg-Essen) 4th week Oct. 2012

Conduct literature review 1st week Nov. 2012 – 5th week Sep. 2013

Create list: Colleagues and professors to assist with research 1st week Nov. 2012

Create list: Types of facilities to include in the research 1st week Nov. 2012

Create list: Recent LULU sitings (include successful and unsuccessful attempts at siting LULUs) 1st week Nov. 2012 – 2nd week Nov. 2012

Create list: Decision makers involved in siting these LULUs (include contact information) 1st week Nov. 2012 – 2nd week Nov. 2012

Create questionnaire #1: Questions to ask decision makers (will allow a determination to be made as to which siting technique was used)

3rd week Nov. 2012 – 4th week Nov. 2012

Administer questionnaire #1: Have decision makers answer questions as honestly as possible 1st week Dec. 2012 – 5th week Mar. 2013

Evaluate progress (end of 1st semester) 5th week Mar. 2013

Research period (2nd semester) - empirical field studies; literature studies; & laboratory analysis 1st week Apr. 2013 – 5th week Sep. 2013

Analyze results of questionnaire #1: Will result in the creation of a set of decision makers who utilized the DAD approach (who will then be further questioned)

1st week Apr. 2013 – 5th week Jun. 2013

Create questionnaire #2: Questions to ask decision makers who used the DAD method (will allow for a clear understanding as to why they chose the DAD method)

1st week Apr. 2013 – 2nd week Apr. 2013

Administer questionnaire #2: Have decision makers answer questions as honestly as possible 3rd week Apr. 2013 – 5th week Sep. 2013


11 of 31

Evaluate progress (end of 2nd semester) 5th week Sep. 2013

Study period (3rd semester) 1st week Oct. 2013 – 5th week Mar. 2014

Analyze results of questionnaire #2: Will result in the creation of a set of findings as to the appropriateness of the answers 1st week Oct. 2013 – 5th week Dec. 2013

Provide conclusions to decision makers; gauge their responses 1st week Jan. 2014 – 5th week Mar. 2014

Colloquium (end of 3rd semester) - present and discuss the topic of dissertation 5th week Mar. 2014

Evaluate progress (end of 3rd semester) 5th week Mar. 2014

Research period (4th semester) - empirical field studies; literature studies; & laboratory analysis 4th week Apr. 2014 – 4th week Sep. 2014

Attempt to further conclude whether decision makers intend to implement a more open approach to siting LULUs 1st week Apr. 2014 – 4th week Apr. 2014

Publish results of findings. This will include a reflection on the process, in order to offer suggestions for future research 1st week May 2014 – 5th week Jun. 2014

Evaluate progress (end of 4th semester) 4th week Sep. 2014

Writing period (5th semester) - present thesis and findings to peers and experts in doctoral colloquium (Young Researchers' Forum) 1st Oct. 2014 – 5th week Mar. 2015

Evaluate progress (end of 5th semester) 5th week Mar. 2015

Writing period (6th semester) - present thesis and findings to peers and experts in doctoral colloquium (Young Researchers' Forum) 1st week Apr. 2015 – 4th week Sep. 2015

Colloquium (beginning 6th semester) - present and discuss the topic of dissertation 1st week Apr. 2015

Evaluate progress (end of 6th semester) 4th week Sep. 2015

Conferences ???

Workshops ???

Review of dissertation (assessment and defense) ???

Committee confirms successful completion of doctoral studies program ???

Dissertation review procedure: Follow regulations of the doctoral study regulations relevant to individual candidate ???


12 of 31

Appendix B: Flowchart

Step 1: Conduct a literature review

Step 2: Create list: Colleagues and professors to assist with research

Step 2: Create list: Types of facilities to include in the research

Step 2: Create list: Recent LULU sitings (successful and unsuccessful attempts)

Step 2: Create list: Decision makers involved in siting these LULUs

Step 3: Create questionnaire #1

Step 4: Administer questionnaire #1

Step 5: Analyze results of questionnaire #1

Step 6: Create questionnaire #2

Step 7: Administer questionnaire #2

Step 8: Provide conclusions to decision makers (gauge responses)

Step 9: Attempt to further conclude whether decision makers intend to implement a more open approach

Step 10: Publish results of findings


13 of 31

Appendix C: Estimated Cost of Research (Per Item)

Per Item Costs

Description of Item Costs (U.S. $) Attend the PhD program at the University of Duisberg-Essen (includes: tuition, housing / living, etc.) ???

Conduct a literature review $15 per hour

Create a list $15 per hour

Create questionnaire #1 $15 per hour

Administer questionnaire #1 (includes: printing, mailing, internet usage, telephone usage, travel, actual man-hours, etc.) ???

Analyze the results of questionnaire #1 $15 per hour

Create questionnaire #2 $15 per hour Administer questionnaire #2 (includes: printing, mailing, internet usage, telephone usage, travel, actual man-hours, etc.) ???

Analyze the results of questionnaire #2 $15 per hour

Provide conclusions to decision makers; gauge their responses $15 per hour

Writing period $15 per hour

Colloquium - present and discuss the topic of dissertation ???

Young Researcher's Forum ???

Conferences ???

Workshops ???

Review of dissertation (assessment and defense) ???

Appendix D: Estimated Cost of Research (Per Step)

Per Step Costs

Step Description of Step When to Conduct Time Needed Cost (U.S. $)

1 Be accepted into, and then complete the PhD program at the University of Duisberg-Essen

1st week Oct. 2012 - 4th week Sep. 2015

6 semesters (156 weeks) ???

2 Conduct literature review 1st week Nov. 2012 - 5th week Sep. 2013 48 weeks (20 hr/wk) $14,400

3 Create list: Colleagues and professors to assist with research 1st week Nov. 2012 1 week (20 hr/wk) $300

4 Create list: Types of facilities to include in the research 1st week Nov. 2012 1 week (20 hr/wk) $300


14 of 31

5 Create list: Recent LULU sitings 1st week Nov. 2012 - 2nd week Nov. 2012 2 weeks (20 hr/wk) $600

6 Create list: Decision makers involved in siting these LULUs

1st week Nov. 2012 - 2nd week Nov. 2012 2 weeks (20 hr/wk) $600

7 Create questionnaire #1 3rd week Nov. 2012 - 4th week Nov. 2012 2 weeks (20 hr/wk) $600

8 Administer questionnaire #1 1st week Dec. 2012 - 5th week Mar. 2013 18 weeks ???

9 Analyze the results of questionnaire #1 1st week Apr. 2013 - 5th week Jun. 2013 13 weeks (20 hr/wk) $3,900

10 Create questionnaire #2 1st week Apr. 2013 - 2nd week Apr. 2013 2 weeks (20 hr/wk) $600

11 Administer questionnaire #2 3rd week Apr. 2013 - 5th week Sep. 2013 24 weeks ???

12 Analyze the results of questionnaire #2 1st week Oct. 2013 - 5th week Dec. 2013 13 weeks (20 hr/wk) $3,900

13 Provide conclusions to decision makers; gauge their responses

1st week Jan. 2014 - 5th week Mar. 2014 13 weeks (20 hr/wk) $3,900

14 Attempt to further conclude whether decision makers intend to implement a more open approach to siting LULUs

1st week Apr. 2014 - 4th week Apr. 2014 4 weeks (20 hr/wk) $1,200

15 Publish results of findings 1st week May 2014 - 5th week May 2014 9 weeks ???

16 Writing period 1st week Oct. 2014 - 4th week Sep. 2015 52 weeks (20 hr/wk) $15,600

misc Colloquium - present and discuss the topic of dissertation 5th week Mar. 2014 1 week ???

misc Young Researcher's Forum ??? ??? ???

misc Young Researcher's Forum ??? ??? ???

misc Colloquium - present and discuss the topic of dissertation 1st week Apr. 2015 1 week ???

misc Conferences ??? ??? ???

misc Workshops ??? ??? ???

misc Review of dissertation (assesment and defense) ??? ??? ???


15 of 31

Appendix E: Questionnaire #1

Questionnaire #1 Explanation of Questionnaire: This questionnaire is part of a PhD research project seeking to answer the question, “Why do decision makers continue to use the Decide – Announce – Defend (DAD) approach when siting Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs)?” This project includes two questionnaires. This initial questionnaire will determine those decision makers who continue to use the DAD approach. The second questionnaire will then follow-up with those individuals, to understand their reasons for continuing to use the DAD approach. DATE: NAME: TITLE: ORGANIZATION: CONTACT INFORMATION: PHONE: EMAIL: MAILING ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION OF RECENT ATTEMPT TO SITE A FACILITY TITLE OF PROJECT: LOCATION: DATES OF PROJECT: START OF INITIAL PLANNING: DATE PROJECT WAS MADE PUBLIC: DATE FACILITY SITE WAS APPROVED: (IF UNSUCCESSFUL) – DATE PROJECT WAS ABANDONED:


16 of 31

DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY SITING APPROACH USED: IN YOUR OPINION, WAS AN “OPEN” OR “CLOSED” APPROACH USED WHEN SITING THIS FACILITY? OPEN: CLOSED: WHY DO YOU FEEL THIS WAY? ARE YOU AVAILABLE FOR FURTHER QUESTIONING? YES: NO:


17 of 31

Appendix F: Questionnaire #2

Questionnaire #2 Explanation of Questionnaire: This questionnaire is part of a PhD research project seeking to answer the question, “Why do decision makers continue to use the Decide – Announce – Defend (DAD) approach when siting Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs)?” This project includes two questionnaires. This is the second questionnaire, which follows-up with those decision makers who continue to use the DAD approach. The purpose of this questionnaire is to understand the reasons for continued use of the DAD approach. DATE: NAME: TITLE: ORGANIZATION: CONTACT INFORMATION: PHONE: EMAIL: MAILING ADDRESS:

DESCRIPTION OF RECENT ATTEMPT TO SITE A FACILITY TITLE OF PROJECT: LOCATION: DATES OF PROJECT: START OF INITIAL PLANNING: DATE PROJECT WAS MADE PUBLIC: DATE FACILITY SITE WAS APPROVED: (IF UNSUCCESSFUL) – DATE PROJECT WAS ABANDONED:


18 of 31

DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY SITING APPROACH USED: EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE ABOVE DESCRIBED APPROACH WAS USED:


19 of 31

DO YOU INTEND TO CONTINUE TO USE THE ABOVE DESCRIBED APPROACH WHEN SITING FACILITIES, IN THE FUTURE? YES: NO: EXPLANATION FOR WHY YOU INTEND TO CONTINUE TO USE THE ABOVE DESCRIBED APPROACH WHEN SITING FACILITIES, IN THE FUTURE: WHAT ARE THE POSITIVE REASONS FOR USING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED APPROACH WHEN SITING FACILITIES?


20 of 31

WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF USING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED APPROACH WHEN SITING FACILITIES? HOW COULD THE PROCESS OF SITING FACILITES BE IMPROVED?


21 of 31

Appendix G: Transcript / Database (“Coding”)

Coding of the Qualitative Data Collected

Interviewee Reason for Using DAD Approach "Code" Comments

Appendix H: Chart recording “Appropriateness”

Determining the Appropriateness of Reasons for Using the DAD Approach "Code" Appropriate? Explanation


22 of 31

Appendix I: List of Professors

Name Affiliation Email Phone #

Dr. J. Alexander Schmidt Univ. of Duisburg-Essen [email protected] (+49) 0201-183-2799

Prof. Dr. Jens Martin Gurr Univ. of Duisburg-Essen [email protected] (+49) 0201-183-3427

Elke Hochmuth Univ. of Duisburg-Essen [email protected] (+49) 0201-183-2595

Prof. Frank Popper Rutgers Univ. [email protected] / [email protected] (848) 932-2790

Dr. Larry Susskind MIT-Harvard [email protected] (617) 253-2026

Dr. Carissa Schively Slotterback Univ. of Minnesota [email protected] (612) 625-0640

Dr. Howard Kunreuther Univ. of Pennsylvania [email protected] (225) 898-4589

Dr. Michael Greenberg Rutgers Univ. [email protected] (732) 932-0934

Dr. Richard Kuhn Univ. of Alberta [email protected] (519) 824-4120

Appendix J: Types of Facilities to Include in Research 1. Chemical Companies

List of Chemical Companies (2/21/2012) http://wiki.ask.com/Category:Chemical_companies_of_the_United_States

2. Hazardous Material Facilities 3. Hazardous Waste Landfills 4. Highway Projects

List of U.S. State Highway Departments http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/webstate.htm

5. Homeless Shelters

http://www.homelessshelterdirectory.org/


23 of 31

6. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

List of U.S. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (2/21/2012): http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/section3.pdf

7. Nuclear Power Plants

List of Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. (2/21/2012) http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/#listAlpha

8. Paper Sludge Landfills 9. Recycling Facilities

http://www.ecolife.com/recycling/tips-basics/where-to-recycle.html 10. Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants 11. Solid Waste Transfer Facilities 12. Toxic Waste Landfills 13. Waste Incinerators

“Several old generation incinerators have been closed; of the 186 MSW incinerators in 1990, only 89 remained by 2007, and of the 6200 medical waste incinerators in 1988, only 115 remained in 2003. No new incinerators were built between 1996 and 2007.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration

Appendix K: Useful Websites for Locating Facilities 1. United States Environmental Protection Agency

http://www.epa.gov/ 2. European Union

http://europa.eu/index_en.htm 3. European Union Environment

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.htm 4. List of Environmental Protection Agencies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_organizations


24 of 31

Appendix L: Types of Individuals to Contact 1. Developers 2. Government Officials 3. Land Use Attorneys 4. Members of Environmental Groups 5. Owners of Facilities Appendix M: Specific Facilities Involved in Recent LULU Sitings (Contact Information) # Name of Facility Contact

Individual Title Phone # Email Mailing Address


25 of 31

List of Resources:

Abbot, C. (2009). Enforcing Pollution Control Regulation – Strengthening Sanctions and Improving Deterrence. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.

Armour, A. M. (1992). The siting of locally unwanted land uses: Towards a cooperative

approach. Progress in Planning, 35, 1-74 (as cited in Kuhn & Ballard, 1998). Baltes, H. & Schmidt, J. A. (2010). Proceedings from Real Corp 2010. Der low-carbon-index:

ein instrument zur beurteilung der energieeffizienz stadtebaulicher planungen. Vienna, Austria.

Baughen, S. (2007). International Trade and the Protection of the Environment. Michigan:

Routledge-Cavendish Beckmann, S. C. & Madsen, E. K., (Eds.). (2001). Environmental Regulation and Rationality:

Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Denmark: Aarhus University Press. Beyerlin, U. & Marauhn, T. (2011). International Environmental Law. Oxford, UK: Hart

Publishing. Brooks, R. O., Jones, R., & Virginia, R. A. (2002). Law and Ecology: The Rise of the Ecosystem

Regime. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. Bruns, D. F. W. & Schmidt, J. A. (1997). City edges in Germany: Quality growth and urban

design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 36, 347-356. Burnie, P. W. & Boyle, A. E. (2002). International Law & the Environment (2nd ed.). Oxford,

UK: University Press. Burningham, K., Barnett, J., & Thrush, D. (2006). The limitations of the NIMBY concept for

understanding public engagement with renewable energy technologies: A literature review. Machester, UK: The School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester.

Caplan, A., Grijalva, T., & Jackson-Smith, D. (2007). Using choice question formats to

determine compensable values: The case of a landfill-siting process. Ecological Economics, 60, 834-846.

Castle, G. (1993). Hazardous waste facility siting in Manitoba: A case study of success. Journal

of Air and Waste Management, 43, 963-969 (as cited in Kuhn & Ballard, 1998). Chapin, P. G. (2004). Research Projects and Research Proposals: A Guide for Scientists Seeking

Funding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


26 of 31

Christie, E. (2008). Finding Solutions for Environmental Conflicts: Power and Negotiation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

Chung, J. B. & Kim, H. K. (2009). Competition, economic benefits, trust, and risk perception in

siting a potentially hazardous facility. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91, 8-16. Coles, R. W. & Taylor, J. (1993). Wind power and planning: The environmental impact of

windfarms in the U.K. Land Use Policy, 205-226. Cowell, R. (2010). Wind power, landscape and strategic, spatial planning: The construction of

“acceptable locations” in Wales. Land Use Policy, 27, 222-232. Davy, B. (1997). Essential Justice. Vienna, Austria: Springer-Verlag. Depoe, S. P., Delicath, J. W., & Elsenbeer, M. A. (2004). Communication and Public

Participation in Environmental Decision Making. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press,

Ducsik, D. (Ed.). (1970). Power, Pollution, and Public Policy: Issues in Electric Power

Production, Shoreline Recreation, and Air and Water Pollution Facing New England and the Nation. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.

Field, P., Raiffa, H., & Susskind, L. (1996). Risk and justice: Rethinking the concept of

compensation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management, 545, 156-164.

Frey, B. S. & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1996). Fair siting procedures: An empirical analysis of their

importance and characteristics. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15, 353-376.

Gerrard, M. (1994). Whose Backyard, Whose Risk: Fear and Fairness in Toxic and Nuclear

Waste Siting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (as cited in Christie, 2008). Gilpin, A. (2000). Evolution of environmental law. Dictionary of Environmental Law.

Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 130-131. Gonzalez, G. A. (2001). Corporate Power and the Environment. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Greenberg, M. (1993). Proving environmental inequity in siting locally unwanted land uses.

RISK – Issues in Health & Safety, 235. Hatch, M. T. (Ed.). (2005). Environmental Policymaking: Assessing the Use of Alternative

Policy Instruments. Albany, NY: State University of the New York Press.


27 of 31

Henderson, S. R. (2005). Managing land-use conflict around urban centres: Australian poultry farmer attitudes towards relocation. Applied Geography, 25, 97-119.

Hesse-Biber, S. & Leavy, P. (2006). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousands Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc. Hoch, C. J., Dalton, L. C., & So, F. S. (2000). The Practice of Local Government Planning (3rd

ed.). Washington, D.C.: International City / Council Management Association, 195-200. Islam, N., Martinez, I., Mgbeoji, I., & Xi, W. (2001). Environmental Law in Developing

Countries. Cambridge, UK: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Jenkins-Smith, H. C. & Silva, C. L. (1998). The role of risk perception and technical information

in scientific debates over nuclear waste storage. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 107-122.

Kemp, R. (1992). The Politics of Radioactive Waste Disposal. Manchester, UK: Manchester

University Press. Kearney, R. C. & Smith, A. A. (1994). The low-level radioactive waste siting process in

Connecticut: Anatomy of a failure. Policy Studies Journal, 22 (4), 617-631. Kikuchi, R. & Gerardo, R. (2009). More than a decade of conflict between hazardous waste

management and public resistance: A case study of NIMBY syndrome in Souselas (Portugal). Journal of Hazardous Materials, 172, 1681-1685.

Kiss, A. C. (1976). Survey of Current Developments in International Environmental Law.

Morges, Switzerland: IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper. Kogut, B. & Kunreuther, H. (2001). Introduction to focused issue: Risk, managers, and options

in organizations. Organization Science, 12 (5), 579-581. Kuhn, R. G. & Ballard, K. R. (1998). Canadian innovations in siting hazardous waste

management facilities. Environmental Management, 22 (4), 533-545. Kuhnreuther, H. (2007). Procedures for dealing with transboundary risks in siting noxious

facilities. Facility Siting in the Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Knowledge, Production, and Utilisation. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton University of Pennsylvania.

Kunreuther, H. (2012). Email response to Kevin McMahan. Kunreuther, H. & Angell, P. (1993). Personal communication between Howard Kunreuther and

Philip Angell, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.


28 of 31

Kunreuther, H., Fitzgerald, K., & Aarts, T.D. (1993). Siting noxious facilities: A test of the facility siting credo. Risk Analysis, 13, 301-318. Accessed on February 1, 2012 at http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/downloads/archive/arch105.pdf

Kunreuther, H., Slovic, P., & MacGregor, D. Spring (1996). Risk perception and trust:

Challenges. Risk Health, Safety and Environment, 7. Accessed on February 1, 2012 at http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/downloads/archive/arch119.pdf

Kunreuther, H., Susskind, L., & Aarts, T. D. (date unknown). The facility siting credo:

Guidelines for an effective facility siting process. Wharton School’s Risk & Decision Processes Center. University of Pennsylvania: Publications Services.

Lake, R. W. (Ed.). (1987). Resolving Locational Conflict. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban

and Policy Research (as cited in Schively, 2007). Lam, K. C. & Woo, L. Y. (2009). Public perception of locally unwanted facilities in Hong Kong:

Implications for conflict resolution. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 14 (9), 851-869.

Lejano, R. P. & Smith, C. S. (2005). Incompatible land uses and the topology of cumulative risk.

Environmental Management, 37 (2), 230-246. Lichtenstein, E. C. (1986). The Global Environment: Challenges, Choices, and Will. Linnerooth, J. & Davy, B. (1994). Hazardous waste cleanup and facility siting in central europe:

The Austrian case. Lind, N. (2002). Social and economic criteria of acceptable risk. Reliability Engineering and

System Safety, 78, 21-25. Lindley, D. (1994). The future for wind energy development in the U.K.: Prospects and

problems. Renewable Energy, 5 (1), 44-57. Liu, F. (1997). Forum: Dynamics and causation of environmental equity, locally unwanted land

uses, and neighborhood changes. Environmental Management, 21 (5), 643-656. Lober, D. J. (1995). Why protest?: Public behavioral and attitudinal response to siting a waste

disposal facility. Policy Studies Journal, 23 (3), 499-518. Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. 2000. Proposals that Work: A guide for

Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals (4th ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Lotz, S., Okimoto, T. G., Schlosser, T., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2011). Punitive versus

compensatory reactions to injustice: Emotional antecedents to third-party interventions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 477-480.


29 of 31

Maantay, J. (2002). Zoning law, health, and environmental justice: What’s the connection?

Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30, 572-593. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc. Mattes, M. A. (1977). Premarket Testing of Industrial Products: A Means of Controlling

Unrecognized Environmental Hazards. Mays, I. D. (1994). Wind energy prospects for the future. Renewable Energy, 5 (1), 718-729. Mitchell, M. L. & Jolley, J. M. (2010). Research Design Explained. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Murphy, B. L. & Kuhn, R. G. (2001). Setting the terms of reference in environmental

assessments: Canadian nuclear fuel waste management. Canadian Public Policy, 27 (3), 249-266.

Ogden, T. E. (2002). Research Proposals: A Guide to Success. O’ Looney, J. (1993). Framing a social market for community responsibility: governing in an age

of NIMBYs and LULUs. (not-in-my-backyard syndrome; locally unwanted land uses). National Civic Review, 82 (1), 44.

O’Riordan, T., (Ed.). (2000). Environmental Science for Environmental Management. Essex,

U.K.: Prentice Hall. Padgett, D. (1993). Technological methods for improving citizen participation in locally

unacceptable land use (LULU) decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 17 (6), 513.

Pellizzoni, L. & Ungaro, D. (2000). Technological risk, participation and deliberation: Some

results from three Italian case studies. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 78, 261-280. Pequegnat, W., Stover, E., & Boyce, C. A., (Eds.). (2011). A Guide for Social and Behavioral

Scientist (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. Peters, A. D. (2003). Winning Research Funding. Popper, F. J. (1992). Thinking globally, acting regionally. Technology Review, 95 (3). Portney, L. G. (2009). Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. Raab, J. & Susskind, L. (2009). New approaches to consensus building and speeding up large-

scale energy infrastructure projects. Conference: The Expansion of the German Transmission Grid. Gottingen, Germany.


30 of 31

Rabe, B. G. (1994). Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States. Rabe, B. G., Becker, J., & Levine, R. (2000). Beyond siting: Implementing voluntary hazardous

waste siting agreements in Canada. American Review of Canadian Studies, 30 (4). Redgwell, C. (2009) Rogers, G. O. (1998). Siting potentially hazardous facilities: What factors impact perceived and

acceptable risk? Landscape and Urban Planning, 39, 265-281. Rossi, M. A. (1982). The department of defense and the construction industry: Leadership

opportunities in hazardous waste remediation innovation. Thesis – Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Rundle, W. L. (1986). Teaching negotiation skills: A simulation game for low level radwaste

facility siting. Environmental Impact Assess Rev. 1986: 6: 255-263. Sexton, K., Marcus, A. A., Easter, K. W., & Burkhardt, T. D. (1999). Better Environmental

Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Businesses, and Communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Schneider, J. (1979). World Public Order of the Environment. Schively, C. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our

knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21 (3). Springer, A. L. (1983). The International Law of Pollution. Susskind, L. (date unknown). Environmental Diplomacy. Susskind, L. E. (1985). “The siting puzzle: balancing economic and environmental gains and

losses.” Environ Impact Assess Rev 1985; 5: 157-163. Susskind, L., Mnookin, R., Rozdeiczer, L., and Fuller, B. (2005). What we have learned about

teaching multiparty negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 395-408. Vogler, J. (2000). The Global Commons: Environment and Technological Governance. Vrijling, J. K., van Hengel, W., & Houben, R. J. (1998). Acceptable risk as a basis for design.

Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 141-150. Walker, P. (2009). Dinosaur DAD and enlightened EDD: Engaging people earlier is better. The

Environmentalist, 71, 12-13.


31 of 31

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Yosie, T. F. & Herbst, T. D. (1998). Using stakeholder processes in environmental decision

making: An evaluation of lessons learned, key issues, and future challenges. [On-line]. Accessed February 5, 2012. Available: http://gdrc.org/decision/nr98ab01.pdf (as cited in Depoe, Delicath, & Elsenbeer, date unknown).

Zeiss, C. & Lefsrud, L. (1995). Developing host community siting packages for waste facilities.

Environmental Impact Assess Rev 1995; 12: 157-178. Zhenghua, T. & Wolfrum, R. (2001). Implementing International Environmental Law in

Germany and China.

draft kevin mcmahan research proposal 3 13 2012

Documents