-
4. LULUs, NIMBYs, and Environmental Justice
- The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
4 LULUs, NIMBYs, and Environmental Justice Bruce Mitchell INTRODUCTION The background information for the International Conference on Siting of Locally Unwanted Facilities highlights that “siting locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) is a major policy problem throughout the industrialized world” and that the focus is “to examine the underlying causes for facility siting impasse in Asia and other countries and to suggest ways and strategies to help resolve siting conflicts .” In that context, key themes are identified: public participation , consideration of options and alternatives, mistrust and trust building, risk perception, communication and management, incentives and compensation , conflict resolution, approach and strategy, and sharing of experiences— successful and not so successful cases . The intent here is to (1) examine the relationship between LULUs and NIMBYs and the concept of environmental justice, (2) explore the way in which governments in North America have interpreted and used environmental justice as one means to address issues related to LULUs and NIMBYs, and (3) provide selected examples from Canada to illustrate different approaches to siting LULUs in that country . LULUs, NIMBYs, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE LULUs AND NIMBYs Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs) and Not in My BackYard (NIMBYs) are interchangeable concepts used to characterize facilities or services that society collectively requires, but usually does not view as desirable to have in proximity to where people live, work, or play . Examples include landfill sites, Facility_final2207.indd 57 22/07/2011 5:32 PM 58 | Facility Siting in the Asia-Pacific incinerators, hazardous waste disposal sites, sewage treatment plants, and airports, all of which are normally viewed as “noxious .” Such phenomena have been well recognized and studied for over 30 years in North America (Wolpert, 1976; Popper, 1983; Matheny & Williams, 1985; Ballard & Kuhn, 1996; Lawrence, 1996; Elliott et al ., 1997; Elliott, 1998; Ali, 1999; Baxter et al ., 1999a, 1999b; Gunderson & Rable, 2000; Rabe, Baker, & Levine, 2000; Wakefield & Elliott, 2000; Hostovsky, 2006; Schively, 2007) . Another term sometimes used is TOADS, standing for Temporarily Obsolete Abandoned Derelict Sites (Greenberg et al ., 1990, 2000) . In the following subsections, attention turns to two aspects addressed by researchers: principles and procedures . Principles In addition to addressing technical matters, investigators have examined principles on which decision makers should base decisions . To illustrate, Baxter et al . (1999a) identified three principles to guide decisions related to LULUs or NIMBYs: trust, equity, and public participation . In their view, trust is a key element for relationships among stakeholders, especially government regulatory agencies, siting agencies (public or private), and the host community . It should be added that trust is particularly important when a community volunteers to host a LULU in expectation of economic benefits at the local level . Conflict and opposition often emerge because people in a proposed host community do not trust the regulatory agency or facility proponent (or neither), or the proposed technology . There is a close connection between (lack of) trust and public participation: Trust is an end to be achieved, and public participation is one means to achieve that end . Both should contribute to achievement of equity, or a fair sharing of risks associated with a LULU . Public participation is likely to be ineffective when regulatory agencies and siting proponents interpret it to mean only or primarily providing information to the host community about the siting process and possible risks, rather than systematically including the public in the decision making process . In that context, Lawrence (1996) argued that various degrees of participation can lead to different degrees of control by the public, including (1) procedural control (influence related to the structure and implementation of the general decision-making process), (2) locational control (authority to decide whether to accept a site for a LULU—critical when a community volunteers to be a host), and (3) facility control (opportunity to accept the need for, and scale and operating characteristics of, a facility) . For many regulatory officials, allocating the above types of control to the host community or general public Facility_final2207.indd 58 22/07/2011 5:32 PM [54.234.45.33] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 15:54 GMT) LULUs, NIMBYs, and Environmental Justice | 59 frequently represents a significant change in power and authority relationships , and some officials can be expected to be unwilling to make such changes . However, a desire or determination by regulatory officials to retain all authority usually is a barrier to building stronger trust and achieving equity . On the other hand, the host community or general public normally is not homogeneous . As a result, when there are basic disagreements between different community groups, the...