IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v16y1996i6p821-832.html

Developing and Testing a Facility Location Model for Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin R. Ballard
  • Richard G. Kuhn

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to develop and test a facility location model for the siting of a nuclear fuel waste disposal facility in Canada. The model is based on successful Canadian siting processes related to hazardous waste and low level radioactive waste facilities, as well as attributes of facility siting found in the literature. The proposed model was presented to a sample of participants in the federal environmental assessment review of the technical feasibility of the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Concept (CNFWDC) held throughout Canada in 1990. Results demonstrate that despite the fact that over half of the survey respondents did not support the CNFWDC during the public hearings, the majority favorably rated the proposed facility location model. Components of the model that were tested included siting criteria and goals, decision‐making groups, and siting safeguards. On the basis of these results, it is concluded that the siting of a nuclear fuel waste disposal facility must make the decentralization of decision‐making authority to local communities and governments a priority.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin R. Ballard & Richard G. Kuhn, 1996. "Developing and Testing a Facility Location Model for Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 821-832, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:6:p:821-832
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb00833.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb00833.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb00833.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    2. Robin Gregory & Howard Kunreuther & Doug Easterling & Ken Richards, 1991. "Incentives Policies to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 667-675, December.
    3. Howard Kunreuther & Kevin Fitzgerald & Thomas D. Aarts, 1993. "Siting Noxious Facilities: A Test of the Facility Siting Credo," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 301-318, June.
    4. Susan G. Hadden, 1991. "Public Perception of Hazardous Waste," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 47-57, March.
    5. Howard Kunreuther, 1991. "Managing Hazardous Waste: Past, Present, and Future," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 19-26, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2014. "Growing Pains: How Risk Perception and Risk Communication Research Can Help to Manage the Challenges of Global Population Growth," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1378-1390, August.
    2. Susan J. Elliott & Donald C. Cole & Paul Krueger & Nancy Voorberg & Sarah Wakefield, 1999. "The Power of Perception: Health Risk Attributed to Air Pollution in anUrban Industrial Neighbourhood," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 621-634, August.
    3. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    4. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    5. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    6. John Eyles & S. Martin Taylor & Jamie Baxter & Doug Sider & Dennis Willms, 1993. "The Social Construction of Risk in a Rural Community: Responses of Local Residents to the 1990 Hagersville (Ontario) Tire Fire," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, June.
    7. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    9. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    10. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    11. Hayashi, Reona & Kato, Ryutah & Watanabe, Rin & Kawaguchi, Hirofumi & Morikawa, So & Komatsuzaki, Shunsaku, 2026. "When economic incentives become repugnant: Moderating roles of construction probability and initial acceptance in high-level radioactive waste siting," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 209(PB).
    12. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    13. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    14. Evangelia Karasmanaki & Evangelos Grigoroudis & Spyridon Galatsidas & Georgios Tsantopoulos, 2023. "Satisfaction with Media Information about Renewable Energy Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.
    15. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    16. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    17. Susan Mello & Robert C. Hornik, 2016. "Media Coverage of Pediatric Environmental Health Risks and its Effects on Mothers’ Protective Behaviors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 605-622, March.
    18. Yu‐Ru Lin & Drew Margolin & Xidao Wen, 2017. "Tracking and Analyzing Individual Distress Following Terrorist Attacks Using Social Media Streams," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1580-1605, August.
    19. Asim Zia & Katherine Lacasse & Nina H. Fefferman & Louis J. Gross & Brian Beckage, 2024. "Machine Learning a Probabilistic Structural Equation Model to Explain the Impact of Climate Risk Perceptions on Policy Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-25, November.
    20. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.

    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:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:6:p:821-832. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.