Compensation for risks: host community benefits in siting locally unwanted facilities

The pitfalls of implementing Host Community Compensation: A power balance perspective

“…Although several studies make the distinction between the state and the private developer as compensators (Hamilton, 1993;Himmelberger et al, 1991), the role of the private sector in offering and implementing HCC is missing. This omission is surprising, since in reality, massive infrastructure often requires private sector financing, as evidenced in public-private partnerships (PPP) (Angelides and Xenidis, 2009).…”

“…Under this dimension, compensation is either motivated by legislation or is simply a voluntary act aimed at softening the effect of a LULU infrastructure. Voluntary compensation may result from a developer's attempt to mollify the siting approval process based on a feeling of moral obligation or simply as a matter of efficiency (Aitken, 2010;Himmelberger et al, 1991).…”

The potential of host community compensation in facility siting

“…a greenfield site) or for the extension of an existing facility (i.e. an expansion site) (Carnes et al, 1982;Ferreira and Gallagher, 2010;Himmelberger et al, 1991). In their research in the context of siting waste disposal infrastructure (i.e.…”

“…Host community compensation can be defined as a form of equity adjustment aimed at correcting imbalances between regional benefits and local burdens associated with the siting of new or expanded facilities (Himmelberger et al, 1991). These local burdens can take various forms (e.g.…”

Host community compensation in a carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) context: Comparing the preferences of Dutch citizens and local government authorities

“…Such an imbalance in the distribution of local costs and benefits has also been suggested to account for difficulties experienced in the siting of (hazardous) waste repositories, wind farms, prisons, and other locally unwanted facilities (O'Hare et al, 1983). Accordingly, it has been suggested (and found) that project developers might be able to avoid or reduce public resistance by implementing compensation measures that, in the eyes of the public, redress the balance between local costs and benefits associated with proposed projects (Gregory et al, 1991;Himmelberger et al, 1991;Kunreuther et al, 1993).…”