Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

The role of compensation in siting hazardous facilities

Contents:

Author Info

  • Howard Kunreuther

    (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

  • Doug Easterling

    (University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Empirical evidence indicates that compensation can prove effective in gaining public acceptance for siting facilities on the benign end of the spectrum (e.g., landfills, prisons), but is subject to serious limitations when it comes to facilities that the public regards as particularly risky or of questionable legitimacy such as nuclear waste repositories. These facilities require creative mitigation measures such as independent inspections of the facility and local shutdown power. Even then they may be viewed as too risky to be acceptable with or without compensation. This article proposes a two-stage siting process which recognizes the importance of regulations and safety standards (Stage 1) while employing a voluntary process with compensation to address concerns with equity and efficiency (Stage 2).

    Download Info

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.

    Volume (Year): 15 (1996)
    Issue (Month): 4 ()
    Pages: 601-622

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:15:y:1996:i:4:p:601-622

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Elster, Jon, 1991. "Local justice : How institutions allocate scarce goods and necessary burdens," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(2-3), pages 273-291, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Euston Quah, 2005. "Pursuing Green Growth: Some Conflicts and Necessary Conditions for a Pragmatic Environmental Policy," SCAPE Policy Research Working Paper Series 0504, National University of Singapore, Department of Economics, SCAPE.
    2. Keith Waehrer, 2003. "Hazardous Facility Siting When Cost Information Is Private: An Application of Multidimensional Mechanism Design," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 5(4), pages 605-622, October.
    3. Stéphanie Souche & Charles Raux, 2006. "Perception of the fairness of pricing," Post-Print halshs-00109055, HAL.
    4. Amitrajeet Batabyal & Hamid Beladi, 2012. "A simple auction mechanism for locating noxious facilities," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-6, March.
    5. Lejano, Raul P. & Davos, Climis A., 2002. "Fair Share: Siting Noxious Facilities as a Risk Distribution Game under Nontransferable Utility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 251-266, March.
    6. F. Velasco & F.J. André, 2004. "Intertemporal and Spatial Location of Disposal Facilities," Computing in Economics and Finance 2004 153, Society for Computational Economics.
    7. O'Garra, Tanya & Mourato, Susana & Pearson, Peter, 2008. "Investigating attitudes to hydrogen refuelling facilities and the social cost to local residents," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2074-2085, June.
    8. Shackley, Simon & Mander, Sarah & Reiche, Alexander, 2006. "Public perceptions of underground coal gasification in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3423-3433, December.
    9. Vajjhala, Shalini P. & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2007. "Quantifying siting difficulty: A case study of US transmission line siting," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 650-671, January.
    10. Martin Besfamille & Jean-Marie Lozachmeur, 2010. "NIMBY and mechanism design under different constitutional constraints," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 114-132, April.
    11. Amihai Glazer & Stef Proost, 2007. "Earmarking: Bundling to Signal Quality," Working Papers 060713, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:15:y:1996:i:4:p:601-622

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.