Negotiated Compensation for Solid‐Waste Disposal Facility Siting: An Analysis of the Wisconsin Experience

Abstract

Since enacting a unique facility siting law in 1981, Wisconsin has had unusual success in siting solid-waste management facilities. The law mandates a state-level technical review and licensing process and a local-level negotiatiodarbitration process that deals with host community impacts and concerns. Data from the negotiated compensation agreements, a survey of facility proposers, and secondary data for the host communities are analyzed in relation to compensation levels. Concerns with community image and health risks and with facility management and equity issues are found to significantly and substantially increase negotiated compensation levels. In contrast, a focus on logistics and transportation concerns is associated with lower levels of compensation. Compensation increases with facility capacity but at a less than proportional rate. Higher levels of compensation are obtained by communities that accept compensation "in kind" in the form of free or reduced fees for host community waste disposal.

Support for Waste Facility Siting: Differences between Community Leaders and Residents

“…The last two variables in the analysis measured democratic participation concerns, including fairness and participation. Respondents were asked to respond to two questions: Do you think that the siting of the facility was fair to all the parties involved (Halstead et al 1984;Kasperson 1986;Kraft and Clary 1993;Nieves et al 1992); and are you satisfied with the level of participation your community has had in matters concerning operation or siting of the waste facility?…”

Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues

“…The royalties paid to landowners where drilling occurs can be expected to create a strong local constituency in favor of UGD, a phenomenon that distinguishes UGD from conventional “unwanted” facilities such as prisons, incinerators, and landfills . Insofar as a local community or region enjoys some concentrated benefits from UGD, tolerance for risk may be enhanced, as it is for industrial operations and even noxious facilities that stimulate the local economy . We should expect, therefore, that some of the politics around the future of UGD—and the regulation and taxation of UGD—will revolve around the distribution of the economic benefits from development.…”

Willingness to Pay For Improved Environmental Quality among Residents Living in Close Proximity to Landfills in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria

“…In situations where we have a facility that generate negative impact, renters may find it easier to relocate to other locations that are risk free than homeowners. Secondly, the willingness to pay for environmental quality (contingent valuation) in areas that host locally unwanted landuses (LULUs) has been found to be lower among renters than home owners in previous studies (Sims and Baumann, 1983;Nieves et al, 1992).…”

“…There are two major economic models that address elements of the psychological and behavioural processes that generate psychosocial and economic impacts as a result P of perceived risks of noxious facilities (Nieves et al, 1992;Nieves, 1993). One, contingent valuation, provides an ex ante measure of impacts based on survey responses to a hypothetical situation, such as a noxious facility at a given distance from the respondent's residence.…”