Competition, economic benefits, trust, and risk perception in siting a potentially hazardous facility

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 91, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 8-16

  Chung, Ji Bum ^a   Kim, Hong Kyu ^b  

^a Korea Institute of Public Administration   (South Korea)

^b Yonsei University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Competition; Economic benefit; Potentially hazardous facility; Risk perception; Trust

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; HAZARDS;

DISPOSAL FACILITIES; ECONOMIC BENEFITS; LOCAL ACCEPTANCE; POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS FACILITIES; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; TRUST; TRUST LEVEL;

RISK PERCEPTION;

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; COMPETITION (ECONOMICS); ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; RISK PERCEPTION; SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT; WASTE DISPOSAL; WASTE FACILITY;

ASIA; EURASIA; FAR EAST; GYEONGJU; KOREA; NORTH KYONGSANG; SOUTH KOREA;

EID: 63349087495     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.11.005     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Armour A.M. The siting of locally unwanted land uses: Towards a cooperative approach. Prog. Plann. 35 (1991) 1-74
2. Bassett Jr. G.W., Jenkins-Smith H.C., and Silva C. On-site storage of high level nuclear waste: attitudes and perceptions of local residents. Risk Anal. 16 (1996) 309-319
3. Cha Y.J. An analysis of nuclear risk perception: with focus on developing effective policy alternatives. Int. Rev. Public Admin. 8 2 (2004) 33-47
4. Chung J.B., Kim H.K., and Rho S.K. Analysis of local acceptance of a radioactive waste disposal facility. Risk Anal. 28 4 (2008) 1021-1032
5. Dawson J.I., and Darst R.G. Meeting the challenge of permanent nuclear waste disposal in an expanding Europe: transparency, trust and democracy. Environ. Pollut. 15 4 (2006) 610-627
6. European Commission, 2005. Special Eurobarometer 227-Radioactive waste.
7. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Litenstein S., Read S., and Comb B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 9 (1978) 127-152
8. Freudenburg W.R. Can we learn from failure? Examining US experiences with nuclear repository siting. J. Risk Res. 7 2 (2004) 153-169
9. Gyeongju City Hall. Gyeongju Statistical Annual Report (2006), Gyeongju City hall, Gyeongju, Korea
10. Kim K.S. AMOS Analysis of Structural Equation Modeling (2004), Hannarae, Seoul
11. Kim Y.P., Choi B.S., So Y.G., and Jung I.J. Risk perception in Korea and policy implications. Korean Public Admin. Rev. 29 3 (1995) 935-956
12. Kuhn R.G., and Ballard K.R. Canadian Innovations in Siting Hazardous Waste Management Facilities. Environ. Manage. 22 4 (1998) 533-545
13. Kunreuther H., Easterling D., Desvousges W., and Slovic P. Public attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Anal. 10 4 (1990) 469-484
14. Lee N.K., and Lee Y.A. Factors affecting decision making concerning the location of a nuclear waste repository. Korean J. Exp. Psychol. 17 4 (2005) 461-475
15. Lidskog R., and Sundqvist G. On the right track? Technology, geology and society in Swedish nuclear waste management. J. Risk Res. 7 2 (2004) 251-268
16. Ibitayo O.O., and Pijawka K.D. Reversing NIMBY: an assessment of state strategies for siting hazardous-waste facilities. Environ. Plann. C 17 4 (1999) 379-389
17. Lima M.L., Barnett J., and Vala J. Risk perception and technological development at a societal level. Risk Anal. 25 5 (2004) 1229-1239
18. Lober D.J., and Green D.O. NIMBY or NIABY: a logit model of opposition to solid-waste-disposal facility siting. J. Environ. Manage. 49 1 (1994) 33-50
19. MORI, 2002. Attitudes to Risk: Research Study Conducted for Centre for Environmental Risk. University of East Anglia, London.
20. Popper F.J. The environmentalist and the LULU. Environment 27 1 (1985) 7-11 37-40
21. Salisbury W.D., Pearson R.A., Pearson A.W., and Miller D.W. Perceived security and World Wide Web purchase intention. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 101 4 (2001) 165-176
22. Sandman P.M. Getting to maybe: some communications aspects of siting hazardous waste facilities. Seton Hall Legis. J. 9 2 (1986) 442-465
23. Schively C. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. J. Plan Lit. 21 3 (2007) 255-266
24. Schumacker R.E., and Lomax R.G. A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey
25. Sjöberg L. Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Anal. 24 (2004) 739-751
26. Sjöberg L., and Drottz-Sjöberg B.M. Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. J. Risk Res. 4 (2001) 75-102
27. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 236 (1987) 280-285
28. Slovic P. The Perception of Risk (2001), Earthscan, London
29. Slovic P., Layman M., Kraus N., Flynn J., Chalmers J., et al. Perceived risk, stigma, of a high-level nuclear and potential economic impacts waste repository in Nevada. Risk Anal. 11 4 (1991) 683-696