NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: U.S. national and 11 site-specific surveys

Risk Analysis

Volumn 29, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 1242-1254

  Greenberg, Michael R ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Facility siting; Nuclear power; Nuclear research; Nuclear waste; Trust

Indexed keywords

GENERATING STATIONS; LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; LOGICAL LOCATIONS; NUCLEAR FACILITIES; NUCLEAR POWER; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; NUCLEAR RESEARCH; NUCLEAR SITES; NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY; NUCLEAR WASTE; SITE-SPECIFIC; TRUST; WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY;

ENERGY CONVERSION; LOCATION; NUCLEAR ENERGY; NUCLEAR INDUSTRY; NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; POWER PLANT LABORATORIES; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; RESEARCH; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; POWER GENERATION; RADIOACTIVE WASTE; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; EDUCATION; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR INDUSTRY; NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; ORGANIZATION; POLICY; UNITED STATES; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

DATA COLLECTION; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; NUCLEAR ENERGY; UNITED STATES;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 69049088860     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01262.x     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Popper F. Siting LULUs. Planning, April (reprinted in American Planning Association, The Best of Planning, 1981 [Chicago: Planners Press, 1989]).
2. O'Hare M, Bacow L, Sanderson D. Facility Siting and Public Opposition. New York : Van Nostrand and Reinhold, 1983.
3. Boholm A. Facility Siting: Risk, Power and Identity in Land Use Planning. Sterling, VA : Earthscan Publisher, 2005.
4. Portney K. Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities: The NIMBY Syndrome. New York : Auburn House, 1991.
5. Heiman M. From "not in my backyard" to "not in anybody's backyard!" APA Journal, 1990 Summer 359 362.
6. Sjoberg L. Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Analysis, 2004 24 : 737 749.
7. Macfarlane M, Ewing R eds). Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nations High-Level Nuclear Waste. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 2006.
8. Greenberg M, Isserman A, Frisch M, Krueckeberg D, Lowrie K, Mayer H, Simon D, Sorenson D. Questioning conventional wisdom: The regional economic impacts of major U.S. nuclear weapons sites, 1970-1994. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 1999 33 : 183 204.
9. Office of Environmental Management (OEM), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom (EM-4). Washington, DC : DOE, 1995.
10. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. The Nuclear Industry. Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1174-73-UC-2, 1973.
11. Makhijani A. Carbon-free and nuclear-free: A roadmap for U.S. energy policy. Science for Democratic Action, 15 (1 August, 2007.
12. Cravens G. Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Power. New York : Alfred Knopf, 2007.
13. Smith D. Industrial Location. New York : John Wiley & Sons, 1971.
14. Mitchell for the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. Public Opinion on Environmental Issues: Results of a National Public Opinion Survey. Washington, DC : U.S. Governmental Printing Office, 1980.
15. Lindell M, Earle T. How close is close enough: Public perceptions of the risk of industrial facilities. Risk Analysis, 1983 3 : 245 253.
16. Atomic Industrial Forum. Nuclear Power Plant Siting - A Generalized Process. New York : Atomic Industrial Forum, 1974.
17. Stern P, Vice-President of Northeast Utilities. Paper presented at Environmental Planning Seminar, Drexel University, December 9-13, 1974.
18. Dames & Moore. Siting Considerations for Offshore Nuclear Power Plants, Report 42, Los Angeles, CA, 1973.
19. Lapp R. One answer to the atomic energy puzzle - Put the atomic energy power plants in the ocean. New York Times Magazine, June 4, 1972, 20 22, 80 84, 90.
20. Burwell C, Ohanian M, Weinberg A. A siting policy for an acceptable nuclear future. Science, 1979 204 (4937 1043 1051.
21. Meier P, Morell D. Issues in Clustered Nuclear Siting: A Comparison of a Hypothetical Nuclear Energy Center in New Jersey with Dispersed Nuclear Siting. Brookhaven, NY : National Center for Analysis of Energy Systems, 1976.
22. Greenberg M, Krueckeberg D, Kaltman M, Metz W, Wilhelm C. Local planning v. national policy: Urban growth near nuclear power stations in the United States. Town and Planning Review, 1986 57 : 225 238.
23. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Expected new nuclear power plant applications, updated March 19, 2008. Available at : http://www.nrc.gov/ reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf, Accessed on March 27, 2008.
24. Earle T, Cvetkovich G. Social Trust, Towards a Cosmopolitan Society. London : Praeger, 1995.
25. Pew Research Center. Deconstructing Distrust: Americans View Government. Washington, DC : Pew Research Center, 1998.
26. Poortinga W, Pidgeon N. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003 23 : 961 972.
27. Finucane M, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Satterfield T. Gender, race, and perceived risk: the "white male" effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2000 2 : 159 172.
28. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 1994 14 : 1101 1108.
29. Kahan D, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2007 4 : 465 505.
30. Clay P, Hollister R eds). Neighborhood Policy & Planning. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books, 1983.
31. Halpern-Felsher B, Millstein S, Ellen J, Adler N, Tschann J, Biehl M. Role of behavioural experience in judging risks. Health Psychology, 2001 20 : 120 126.
32. Kivimaki M, Kalimo R. Risk perception among nuclear power plant personnel: a survey. Risk Analysis, 1993 13 : 421 425.
33. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M, Mayer JH. The ultimate LULU? Public reaction to new nuclear activities at major weapons sites. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2007 173 : 346 351.
34. Barringer F. Old foes soften to new reactors. New York Times, May 15, 2005, A1.
35. Hinman G, Rosa E, Kleinhesselink R, Lowinger T. Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States. Risk Analysis, 1993 13 : 449 456.
36. Weart S. Fears, fantasies and fallout. New Scientist, 1992 136 : 34 37.
37. Koren G, Klein N. Bias against negative studies in newspaper reports of medical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991 266 : 1824 1826.
38. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Analysis, 2001 21 : 199 206.
39. Skowronski J, Carlston D. Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletine, 1989 105 : 131 142.
40. Nemich C. Boise state survey shows statewide support for INL. Available at : http://news.boisestate.edu/newsrelease/032006/0302INLrelease.html. 2006. Accessed on August 26, 2006.
41. Bisconti Research, Inc. National Survey of Nuclear Power Plant Communities for Nuclear Energy Institute, July-August, 2007. Available at : http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/nuclearpowerplantneighborsaccept. html, Accessed on November 26, 2007.
42. Bisconti Research, Inc. U.S. Public Opinion About Nuclear Energy. Report for Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, DC : May 5-9, 2005.
43. Gertner J. Atomic balm New York Times, July 16, 2006, section six, 36-47, 56, 62, 64.
44. Rosa E. The Future Acceptability of Nuclear Power in the United States. Paris : Institute Francias des Relations Internationales, 2004.
45. Rosa E. Public acceptance of nuclear power: Déjà vu all over again Physics and Society, 2001 30 : 1 5.
46. Poortinga W, Pidgeon N, Lorenzoni I, et al. Public perceptions of nuclear power, climate change and energy options in Britain; Summary findings of survey conducted during October and November 2005, Understanding risk working paper 06-02
47. Ansolabehere S. Public Attitudes Toward America's Energy Options: Insights for Nuclear Energy. MIT-NES-TR-08, 2007.
48. Pasqualetti MJ. Decommissioning as a neglected element of nuclear power plant siting policy in the US and UK 9. Pp. 196 216 in Blowers A, Pepper D (eds). Nuclear Power in Crisis: Politics and Planning for the Nuclear State. New York : Nichols Publishing Company, 1987.
49. Zukin C. The future is here! Where are we now? And how do we get there Public Opinion Quarterly, 2006 70 : 426 442.
50. U.S. Department of Energy. FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request, Environmental Management. Available at : http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/09budget/ content/volumes/volume5.pdf, Accessed on July 7, 2008.
51. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Krueckeberg D, Mayer H, Simon S. Bombs and butterflies: A case study of the challenges of post cold-war environmental planning and management for the United States' nuclear weapons sites. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1997 40 : 739 750.
52. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Hollander J, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M. Citizen board issues and local newspaper coverage of risk remediation, and environmental management: Six U.S. nuclear weapons facilities. Remediation, 2008 Summer, 72 90.
53. Frisch M, Solitare L, Greenberg M, Lowrie K. Regional economic benefits of environmental management at the U.S. Department of Energy's major nuclear weapons sites. Journal of Environmental Management, 1998 54 : 23 37.
54. Stuckey M. New nuclear power wave - Or just a ripple MSNBC, January 23,2007, Available at : http://www.msnbc.com/id/162722910, Accessed on June 26, 2008.
55. Teichler S, Whitney C. Nuclear Power is Coming Back to Life: While Obstacles Remain, the Industry Sees a Brighter Future. Legal Times 28. June 12, 2006. Accessed on June 26, 2008.
56. Economist. Nuclear power: The shape of things to come. July 9, 2005.
57. Ahearne J. Nuclear power after Chernobyl. Science, 1987 236 : 673 679.
58. Gerrard M. Whose Backyard, Whose Risk. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 1994.
59. Kemp R. Why not in my backyard? A radical interpretation of public opposition to the deep disposal of radioactive waste in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning A, 1990 22 : 1239 1258.
60. Kunreuther H, Fitzgerald K, Aarts T. Siting noxious facilities: A test of the facility siting credo. Risk Analysis, 1993 13 : 301 318.
61. Lake R. Negotiating local autonomy. Political Geography, 1994 13 : 423 442.
62. U.S. General Accounting Office. The Federal Government Should Encourage Early Public, Regulatory and Industry Cooperation in Siting Energy Facilities. EMD-82-18, Washington, DC : GAO, November 1981.