Incentives and the siting of radioactive waste facilities

Abstract

The importance of social and institutional issues in the siting of nuclear waste facilities has been recognized in recent years. Limited evidence from a survey of rural Wisconsin residents in 1980 indicates that incentives may help achieve the twin goals of increasing local support and decreasing local opposition to nosting nuclear waste facilities. Incentives are classified according to functional categories (i.e., mitigation, compensation, and reward) and the conditions which may be prerequisites to the use of incentives are outlined (i,e., guarantee of public health and safety, some measure of local control, and a legiti mation of negotiations during siting). Criteria for evaluating the utility of incentives in nuclear waste repository siting are developed. Incentive packages may be more useful than single incentives, and non monetary incentives, such as independent monitoring and access to credi ble information, may be as important in eliciting support as monetary incentives. Without careful attention to prerequisites in the siting process it is not likely that incentives will facilitate the siting process. vi LIST OF TABLES Fa"orability to siting a nuclear waste facility in the respondent's community after exposure to incentives ... 9 Distribution of. persons who changed their position to accept a waste repository in their community by type of incentive package Distribution of the acceptance of incentives to site a nuclear waste repository among Wisconsin residents .... Distribution of persons who changed their position to accept a waste repository in their community by type of incentive package Favorability to siting a nuclear waste facility in the respondent's community after exposure to incentives by selected demographic and social characteristics Favorability to siting a nuclear waste facility in the respondent's community after exposure to incentives by community setting v11

The potential of host community compensation in facility siting

“…A considerable amount of research has examined the effectiveness of monetary compensation, often by contrasting this type of compensation with non-monetary types of compensation (Bacot et al, 1994;Carnes et al, 1982Carnes et al, , 1983Claro, 2007;Ferreira and Gallagher, 2010;Field et al, 1996;Frey et al, 1996;Groothuis et al, 2008;Jenkins-Smith and Kunreuther, 2001;Kunreuther and Easterling, 1996;Kunreuther et al, 1990;Mansfield et al, 2002;O'Hare et al, 1983;Portney, 1985Portney, , 1991. While some studies suggest that direct monetary payments to individuals or communities can increase facility acceptance (Bacot et al, 1994;Groothuis et al, 2008), the more common finding is that monetary compensation does not lead to a substantial increase in local support for proposed facilities (Claro, 2007;Ferreira and Gallagher, 2010;Frey et al, 1996;Kunreuther et al, 1990).…”

“…That is, when people are concerned about the facility creating severe risks to health, safety, or the environment, compensation offers may be more effective when preceded or accompanied by risk mitigation measures (Carnes et al, 1982;Jenkins-Smith and Kunreuther, 2001;Kunreuther and Easterling, 1996;Kunreuther et al, 1991Kunreuther et al, , 1993O'Hare et al, 1983;Portney, 1985;Rogers, 1998). In support of this claim, Carnes et al (1983, as described in Kunreuther andEasterling, 1996) found that local acceptance of a nuclear waste repository increased from 26 percent to 41 percent when a monetary incentive (i.e.…”

“…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.…”

“…That is to say, the perceived harms associated with a proposed facility may differ between respondents and so may their interpretations and perceptions of identical compensation measures (cf. Carnes et al, 1982;Schively, 2007;Sorensen et al, 1984). For instance, if explicit information about the function of compensation is missing, some may interpret compensation in the form of the built of a new hospital as a reward (i.e.…”

“…the construction of a park, a cultural center, local infrastructure). Compensation measures can further differ in function (Carnes et al, 1982;Sorensen et al, 1984): some measures serve to mitigate potential problems resulting from the construction or operation of a facility (e.g. property value guarantees), while others serve to compensate for (actual or perceived) costs incurred in the case of an incident (e.g.…”