With an ever-expanding stream of solid waste, and limited possibilities for disposal, communities increasingly have to make difficult decisions about where to store these by-products of daily living. The authors use survey data from seven counties in Florida that have recently dealt with solid waste location decisions to assess the extent to which citizen attitudes reflect a NIMBY perspective to these facilities. Contrary to what the NIMBY phenomena predicts, respondents who lived closer to existing or proposed facilities were not more likely to perceive them as dangerous as those living further away. In addition, the respondents were able to list problems and benefits to support their perceptions of danger posed by these facilities. These findings suggest that citizens do not always respond to environmental risks by gut reaction or without information as is sometimes suggested in the NIMBY literature.
BoholmA.LofstedtR. (1999). Issues of risk, trust and knowledge: The Hallandsas tunnel case. Ambio, 28, 556-661.
2.
BraithwaiteV.LeviM. (Eds.). (1998). Trust and governance. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
3.
CarnevaleD. G. (1995). Trustworthy government: Leadership and management strategies for building trust and high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
DaltonR. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
DurenbergerD. (1991). A dissenting voice. EPA Journal, 17, 49-51.
6.
EasterlingD.KunreutherH. (1995). The dilemma of siting a high-level nuclear waste repository. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
7.
ElliottS. J.McClureJ. (2009). There’s just hope that no one’s health is at risk: Residents’ reappraisal of a landfill siting. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 52, 237-255.
8.
FlynnJ.BurnsW.MertzC. K.SlovicP. (1992). Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 12, 417-429.
9.
FreyB. S.Oberholzer-GeeF.EichenbergerR. (1996). The old lady visits your backyard: A tale of morals and markets. Journal of Political Economy, 104, 1297-1313.
10.
GillroyJ. M.ShapiroR. Y. (1986). The polls: Environmental protection. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 270-279.
11.
HamerG. (2003). Solid waste treatment and disposal: Effects on public health and environmental safety. Biotechnology Advances, 22, 71-79.
12.
HunterS.LeydenK. M. (1995). Beyond NIMBY: Explaining opposition to hazardous waste facilities. Policy Studies Journal, 23, 601-619.
13.
InhaberH. (1998). Slaying the NIMBY dragon. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
14.
JarrettJ. G. (2008). Garbage, garbage everywhere. Tennessee Bar Journal, 44, 24-27.
15.
JasanoffS. (1996). The dilemma of environmental democracy. Issues in Science and Technology, Fall, 63-70.
16.
JohnsonR. J.ScicchitanoM. J. (2009). Willing and able: Explaining individuals’ engagement in environmental policymaking. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52, 833-846.
17.
KadvanyJ. (1996). Taming chance: Risk and quantification of uncertainty. Policy Sciences, 29, 1-27.
18.
KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
KaspersonR. E.GoldingD.TulerS. (1992). Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 61-187.
20.
KraftM. E.ClaryB. B. (1991). Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal. Western Political Quarterly, 44, 299-328.
21.
KramerR.TylerT. (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
KrimskyS.GoldingD. (Eds.). (1992). Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger Press.
23.
La PortaR. (1997). Trust in large organizations. American Economic Review, 87, 333-338.
24.
LoberD. J.GreenD. P. (1994). NIMBY or NIABY: A logit model of opposition to solid-waste-disposal facility siting. Journal of Environmental Management, 40, 33-50.
25.
LutonL. S. (1996). The politics of garbage: A community perspective on solid waste policy making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
26.
MarrisC.LangfordI. (1996). No cause for alarm. New Scientist, 2049, 36-39.
27.
MartinR.MyersD. L. (2005). Public response to prison siting: Perceptions of impact on crime and safety. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 143-171.
28.
McAvoyG. E. (1998). Partisan probing and democratic decisionmaking: Rethinking the Nimby syndrome. Policy Studies Journal, 26, 274-292.
29.
NyeJJr.ZelikowP.KingD. (Eds.). (1997). Why people don’t trust government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
PendallR. (1999). Opposition to housing. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 112-136.
31.
PiatM. (2000). The NIMBY phenomenon: Community residents’ concerns about housing for deinstitutionalized people. Health & Social Work, 25, 127-138.
32.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
33.
RabeB. G. (1994). Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous waste siting in Canada and the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
34.
SahaR.MohaiP. (2005). Historical context and hazardous waste facility siting: Understanding temporal patterns in Michigan. Social Problems, 52, 618-648.
35.
SchivelyC. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21, 255-266.
36.
TakahashiL. M.DearM. J. (1997). The changing dynamics of community opposition to human service facilities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 79-93.
37.
TverskyA. J.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
38.
YorkJ. (2008). The next step in revitalizing RCRA: Maine people’s alliance and the importance of citizen intervention in EPA actions. Ecology Law Quarterly, 35, 405-425.
