Talking trash about landfills: Using quantitative scoring schemes in landfill siting processes
AbstractPolicymakers and the public often turn to scientific experts for help in making decisions about complex policy problems. Such decisions, however, may involve trade-offs among desired goals and so require considerable technical and political judgment. Typically there is no objectively "best" answer, although some answers may be better than others. We use a case study of a landfill siting process in Orange County, North Carolina, to analyze how quantitative scoring schemes may best be used to facilitate site selection processes. Quantitative scoring schemes, used and interpreted properly, can help policymakers and the public focus their attention on central rather than peripheral issues, and thereby conduct a more informed political debate. For the quantitative scoring scheme to fulfill this role, however, the community must be explicit about how the scoring scheme will be used within the larger decisionmaking framework. Clarifying the power and limitations of quantitative scoring schemes shows promise for facilitating decisionmaking regarding other locally unpopular land use siting processes, as well as any public policy decision involving multiple objectives. © 2000 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
Download InfoTo 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 InfoArticle provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Volume (Year): 19 (2000)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home
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.:
- Kunreuther, Howard & Easterling, Douglas, 1990. "Are Risk-Benefit Tradeoffs Possible in Siting Hazardous Facilities?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 252-56, May.
- Massimiliano Mazzanti & Anna Montini & Francesco Nicolli, 2011. "Embedding landfill diversion in economic, geographical and policy settings," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(24), pages 3299-3311.
- Massimiliano Mazzanti & Roberto Zoboli, 2009. "Municipal Waste Kuznets Curves: Evidence on Socio-Economic Drivers and Policy Effectiveness from the EU," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(2), pages 203-230, October.
- Shackley, Simon & Mander, Sarah & Reiche, Alexander, 2006. "Public perceptions of underground coal gasification in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3423-3433, December.
- William D. Leach & Neil W. Pelkey & Paul A. Sabatier, 2002. "Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(4), pages 645-670.
- Massimiliano Mazzanti & Anna Montini & Francesco Nicolli, 2010. "Waste Generation and Landfill Diversion Dynamics: Decentralised Management and Spatial Effects," Working Papers, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei 2010.27, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
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.