Hazardous Decisions. The Siting of Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities in Canada and the United States

Abstract

Hazardous waste disposal facilities pose risks to their environment, and finding locations for them is a difficult task. Siting decisions have met much public resistance – sometimes referred to as ‘NIMBYism’ – and this has led to siting gridlock. This chapter explores the ways in which Canadian provinces and states in the United States have responded to the challenge posed by citizen resistance. A secondary analysis of six studies on the topic reveals interesting patterns. Researchers have identified three distinct approaches to decision-making: regulatory, market and voluntary siting. Regulatory siting centralises decision-making processes and places emphasis on expert knowledge and pre-empting local resistance. Market-led siting emphasises due process and compensation for negative impacts. Finally, voluntary siting processes highlight the role of local input and dialogue in decision-making. ‘Voluntary’ siting is the only approach that leads to siting success, and if it is assumed that facilities are actually needed, the ‘voluntary’ siting processes thus leads to better decisions. Four observations may tone down this optimistic conclusion. First, the few facilities that have actually been built after a voluntary siting process are being underutilised. Second, the success of ‘voluntary siting’ may not be exclusively linked to its voluntary character, but partly to compensation. Also, since only one community is involved other communities feel abused. Finally it is hard to motivate citizens to become involved in a highly participatory process and although they may understand the complex issues, they have difficulty is determining gaps in the information that is presented to them.