The authors examined a geographically and economically diverse group of 34 small- and medium-size communities that experienced long periods of economic prosperity built around a major industry or company and that then suffered economic declines when those industries substantially reduced their workforces and in some instances closed. The authors’ interviews with local officials and community leaders found that the response to this weakened economic position was typically delayed: Often, a decade or more was required before a plan of action to attract new business and diversify its employment base was developed. Environmental and labor stigmas also had to be overcome. These places provide a valuable insight into what may lie ahead for other small- and medium-size communities that could be affected by the loss of a dominant employer and others that may be faced with economic stagnation. The lack of leadership and a shared vision within a community is likely to prove economically disastrous.

When the cold war ended, the United States stopped developing,testing and building nuclear weapons at nearly all of its former nuclear weapon sites. The Department of Energy (DoE) began a massive environmental remediation programme, which includes engaging surrounding communities in a future land use planning process. Using the Savannah River site as an example, we show that this process faces large obstacles, especially a legacy of mistrust of the DoE and organizational limitations at the federal and local government scales. These hinder open dialogue about future land use. The authors suggest three planning principles for future land use planning and organizational issues that must be addressed before these can be fruitfully explored.

No abstract

No abstract

A survey of 1351 people who lived within 50 miles of one of six US Department of Energy nuclear weapon sites showed that the vast majority of residents prefer strong public health surveillance and land use controls. The sample was stratified so that the same number of responses was obtained at each site. The strongest correlates of wanting the DOE to restrict on-site activities and maintain and expand its surveillance programs were worries about DOE activities on the site, as well as how those activities could damage the off-site environment. Notably, the exceptions, that is, those who demanded less from the DOE and were not particularly worried about the DOE's activities, tended to live near the site, many worked there or knew people who did, and had high socio-economic status, and trusted the DOE. The findings are mostly, but not entirely, consistent with expectations drawn from the risk perception and organizational trust literatures. The challenge is how to establish a stewardship program that represents a consensus among state and local government, community advisory boards and the public that remediation can go on at the same time that some waste is managed on-site until suitable technologies can be safely deployed, which at some sites means 100 years or in perpetuity.