The Paradox of the Rational Comprehensive Model of Planning: Tales from Waste Management Planning in Ontario, Canada

Journal of Planning Education and Research

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 382-395

  Hostovsky, Charles ^a  

^a ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

environmental impact assessment; planning theory; waste management

Indexed keywords

EID: 84990397308     PISSN: 0739456X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X05282831     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Alexander, Ernest. 1996. After rationality: Towards a contingency theory for planning. In Explorations in planning theory, ed. Seymour Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert Burchell. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
2. Allan, C. J., and G. R. Simmons. 1996. Canada's nuclear fuel waste management program: The environmental assessment of the disposal concept. In Geological problems in radioactive waste isolation: The second world wide review, ed. P. A. Witherspoon. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
3. Anderson, Richard F., and Michael R. Greenberg. 1982. Hazardous waste facility siting: A role for planners. AIP Journal 48 (2): 204-218.
4. Andrews, Richard N.L. 1971. Three fronts of federal environmental policy. AIP Journal 37 (3): 258-266.
5. Atomic Energy Canada Limited. 1994. Environmental impact statement on the concept for disposal of Canada's nuclear fuel waste. Ottawa, Canada: AECL.
6. Baum, Howell S. 1996. Why the rational paradigm persists: Tales from the field. Journal of Planning Education and Research 15:127-134.
7. Beanlands, Gordon E., and Peter N. Duinker. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment in Canada. Halifax, Canada: Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies-Dalhousie University.
8. Blumberg, L., and R. Gottlieb. 1989. War on waste'Can America win its battle with garbage? Washington, DC: Island Press.
9. Bower, Blair T. 1971. Residuals and environmental management. AIP Journal 37 (3): 218-220.
10. Briassoulis, Helen. 1989. Theoretical orientations in environmental planning: An inquiry into alternative approaches. Environmental Management 13 (4): 381-392.
11. Bryson, John M., and Barbara C. Crosby. 1989. Finding a home for Minnesota's hazardous waste. Journal of Planning and Education Research 8 (2): 115-124.
12. Burkart, Roland. 1994. Consensus oriented public relations as a solution to the landfill conflict. Waste Management and Research 12:223-232.
13. Couch, William J. 1985. Environmental assessment in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers.
14. Davey, Tom. 1996. Editorial'Sex, lies and videotapes'Do TV journalists really cover their subjects? Environmental Science and Engineering, September. http://www.esemag.com/0996/0996ed.html/.
15. Day, Diane. 1997. Citizen participation in the planning process: An essentially contested concept. Journal of Planning Literature 11 (3): 421-434.
16. Dearden, Philip, and Mitchell, Bruce. 1998. Environmental change and challenge: A Canadian perspective. Toronto, Canada: Oxford University Press.
17. Faludi, Andrea, and Willem Korthals Altes. 1997. Evaluating communicative planning. In Evaluating theory-practice and urban-rural interplay in planning, ed. Dino Borri, Abdul Khakee, and Cosimo Lacirignola. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
18. Finsterbusch, Kurt, and C. P. Wolf, eds. 1981. Methodology of social impact assessment. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson Ross.
19. Friedmann, John. 1973. Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. New York: Doubleday-Anchor.
20. Gibson, Robert B., and Beth Savan. 1986. Environmental assessment in Ontario. Toronto: Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation.
21. Glasson, John, Riki Therivel, and Andrew Chadwick. 1995. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. Norwich, UK: UCL Press.
22. Healey, Patsy. 1996. Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. In Reading in planning theory, ed. Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
23. Hostovsky, Charles. 1986. A review and comparison of the Ontario Hydro and the OWMC site selection planning process overviews. Internal Report no. 86081. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Hydro.
24. Hostovsky, Charles. 1990. Analysis of impact assessment methods in Ontario waste management master plans. Unpublished master's in environmental studies major paper. Toronto, Canada: York University, Faculty of Environmental Studies.
25. Hostovsky, Charles. 2000. Integrating planning theory and waste management'An annotated bibliography. Journal of Planning Literature 15 (2): 305-332.
26. Hostovsky, Charles. 2005. Evaluation in integrated waste management: Understanding the crisis and improving practice through planning theory. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 14 (1): 81-101.
27. Hudson, Barclay. 1979. Comparisons of current planning theories: Counterparts and contradictions. Journal of the American Planning Association 45 (4): 387-406.
28. Hunter, Bob. 1993. So farewell then, Ruth Grier. Eye, February 11.
29. Jackson, John. 1991. Citizen's groups perspectives on integrated waste management planning. In Municipal solid waste management: Making decisions in the face of uncertainty, ed. Murray Haight. Waterloo, Canada: University of Waterloo.
30. Jackson, John, and Cameron Wright. 1987. Waste management master plans: What you should know. Waterloo, Canada: Waterloo Public Interest Research Group.
31. Joint Board. 1994. Ontario Waste Management Corporation application: Reasons of decision and decision. Toronto, Canada: The Joint Board under the Consolidated Hearings Act.
32. Levy, Alan D. 2002. A review of environmental assessment in Ontario. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 11 (2): 173-282.
33. MacLaren, Virginia W. 2004. Waste management: Integrated approaches. In Resource and environmental management in Canada: Addressing conflict and uncertainty, ed. Bruce Mitchell. Toronto, Canada: Oxford University Press.
34. Maskoll, Phillip. 2004. Toronto Star, September 8.
35. McCombie, Charles. 1999. Developments in the disposal of highlevel radioactive wastes. Presented at the Third Australian Uranium Summit, March 30, in Darwin.
36. McGaritty, Megan. 2000. Ontario City makes wet-dry work. Biocycle 41 (3): 60-64.
37. Ministry of the Environment. 1984. Blueprint for Waste Management in Ontario'Appendix 9: Terms of reference for a waste management master plan. Toronto, Canada: MOE.
38. Ministry of the Environment. 1989. Review under the Environmental Assessment Act: Review of the Waste Management System Environmental Assessment submitted by the Ontario Waste Management Corporation. Toronto, Canada: MOE.
39. Ministry of the Environment. 1995. August 31, 1995 press release'Elliott announces end of Ontario Waste Management Corporation. Toronto, Canada: MOE.
40. Ministry of the Environment. 1999. Municipal 3Rs in Ontario'Fact sheet. Toronto, Canada: MOE.
41. Ministry of the Environment and Energy. 1994. Waste management planning: Sectoral environmental assessment proposal for waste management planning. Toronto, Canada: MOEE.
42. Ministry of the Environment and Energy. 1998. Inventory of landfills under the Environmental Assessment Act. Toronto, Canada: MOEE, EA Branch.
43. Munn, R. E. 1979. Environmental impact assessment'Principals and procedures. Toronto, Canada: John Wiley.
44. Murphy, B. L., and R. G. Kuhn. 2001. Setting the terms of reference: Nuclear fuel waste management in Canada. Canadian Public Policy 27:249-266.
45. Ontario Power Generation. 2000. Nuclear waste management'Managing Ontario Power Generation's nuclear waste safely and responsibly. Toronto, Canada: Nuclear Waste Management Division.
46. Pushchak, Ronald, and Cecilia Rocha. 1998. Failing to site hazardous waste facilities voluntarily: Implications for the production of sustainable goods. Journal of Environmental Management and Planning 41 (1): 25-43.
47. R. Cave & Associates Engineering Ltd. 1994. Ontario Hazardous Waste Survey: Draft deport. Submitted to the Ontario Waste Management Corporation, Toronto, Canada.
48. Rabe, Barry G. 1994. Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous waste siting in Canada and the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
49. Review Panel. 1998. Review of the environmental impact statement on the concept for disposal of Canada's nuclear fuel waste. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
50. Robbins, Walter. 1998. The great Canadian nuclear waste saga. http://www.web.net/robbins/.
51. Rowe, Steven. 1992. Landfill planning in Ontario'Bringing in the public. Plan Canada, March, pp. 22-25.
52. Rowe, Steven. 1995. Hazardous waste at centre of debate. Plan Canada, March, p. 42.
53. Seasons, Mark. 2003. Monitoring and evaluation in municipal planning: Considering the realities. Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (4): 430-440.
54. Shaw, Kantil L. 2000. Basics of solid and hazardous waste management technology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
55. Simon, H. A. 1976. Administrative behaviour: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. New York: Free Press.
56. Tarr, Joel A. 1985. Historical perspectives on hazardous wastes in the United States. Waste Management and Research 3:95-102.
57. Temmemagi, Hans. 1999. The waste crisis: Landfills, incinerators and the search for a sustainable future. New York: Oxford University Press.
58. Zeiss, Christopher. 1996. Directions for engineering contributions to successfully siting hazardous waste facilities. In Siting by choice: Waste facilities, NIMBY, and volunteer communities, ed. Don Munton. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.