IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v15y1997i3p241-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Social Distrust in Risk-Benefit Analysis: A Study of the Siting of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility

Author

Listed:
  • Groothuis, Peter A
  • Miller, Gail

Abstract

Distrust of social institutions is becoming an important component of risk communication and policy analysis. To assess the impact of social distrust on decision making, we examine the role of distrust of information sources on the willingness to accept a hazardous waste disposal facility in one's neighborhood. Using a prospective-reference utility model, distrust of information sources is analyzed a possible influence on individual choice in a risk-benefit tradeoff. Using contingent valuation survey data on the siting of a hazardous waste disposal facility, we find that respondents are particularly distrustful of both governmental officials and waste disposal businesses. We find that social distrust increases the perceived risk of a facility and influences the likelihood of accepting a referendum to site a hazardous waste disposal facility. The level of compensation offered in the contingent valuation scenario also is found to influence a respondent's risk perception. Copyright 1997 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Groothuis, Peter A & Miller, Gail, 1997. "The Role of Social Distrust in Risk-Benefit Analysis: A Study of the Siting of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 241-257, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:15:y:1997:i:3:p:241-57
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Authelet, Manon & Subervie, Julie & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Asquith, Nigel & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2021. "Economic, pro-social and pro-environmental factors influencing participation in an incentive-based conservation program in Bolivia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    2. Sangsomboon Ploywarin & Yan Song & Dian Sun, 2018. "Research on Factors Affecting Public Risk Perception of Thai High-Speed Railway Projects Based on “Belt and Road Initiative”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    3. Giuseppe Pignataro & Giovanni Prarolo, 2020. "Learning, proximity and voting: theory and empirical evidence from nuclear referenda," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 117-147, June.
    4. Agovino, Massimiliano & Cerciello, Massimiliano & Musella, Gaetano, 2019. "The effects of neighbour influence and cultural consumption on separate waste collection. Theoretical framework and empirical investigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Anna Rita Graziani & Lucia Botindari & Michela Menegatti & Silvia Moscatelli, 2023. "Adaptive Coping Strategies at the Time of COVID-19: The Role of Social and General Trust," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(15), pages 1-19, August.
    6. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    7. Nikoleta Jones, 2010. "Investigating the influence of social costs and benefits of environmental policies through social capital theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 43(3), pages 229-244, September.
    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. Peter A. Groothuis & George Van Houtven & John C. Whitehead, 1998. "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a Lulu: the Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility," Public Finance Review, , vol. 26(3), pages 231-249, May.
    10. Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2000. "Environmental Risk Management and the Business Firm," CIRANO Working Papers 2000s-23, CIRANO.
    11. Xi Du & Zhijiao Zhang & Lei Dong & Jing Liu & Alistair G. L. Borthwick & Renzhi Liu, 2017. "Acceptable Risk Analysis for Abrupt Environmental Pollution Accidents in Zhangjiakou City, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13, April.
    12. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Kountouris, Yiannis & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2012. "Is the value of an environmental public good sensitive to the providing institution?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 381-395.
    13. Miguel Ángel López-Navarro & Jaume Llorens-Monzonís & Vicente Tortosa-Edo, 2013. "The Effect of Social Trust on Citizens’ Health Risk Perception in the Context of a Petrochemical Industrial Complex," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    14. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill & William P. Anderson, Jr. & Chuanhui Gu, 2020. "Measuring the Direct and Indirect Effect of Scientific Information On Valuing Stormwater Management Programs: A Hybrid Choice Model," Working Papers 20-02, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    15. Guo, Yue & Ren, Tao, 2017. "When it is unfamiliar to me: Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 113-125.
    16. G. Pignataro & G. Prarolo, 2012. "One more in my backyard? Insights from the 2011 Italian nuclear referendum," Working Papers wp837, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    17. Coppens, Tom & Van Dooren, Wouter & Thijssen, Peter, 2018. "Public opposition and the neighborhood effect: How social interaction explains protest against a large infrastructure project," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 633-640.
    18. Mei‐Fang Chen, 2008. "Consumer Trust in Food Safety—A Multidisciplinary Approach and Empirical Evidence from Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1553-1569, December.
    19. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    20. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    21. Sanya Carley & Stephen Ansolabehere & David M Konisky, 2019. "Are all electrons the same? Evaluating support for local transmission lines through an experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:15:y:1997:i:3:p:241-57. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.