Beyond NIMBY: explaining opposition to hazardous waste facilities.
by Susan Hunter , Kevin M. Leyden Introduction In the past decade or so, a virtual cottage industry has grown up and around the issue of siting noxious facilities. What is clear is that it has become increasingly difficult to site such facilities. Nationwide, the EPA reports that only 6 out of 81 applications for facilities designed to treat hazardous wastes resulted in operating facilities between 1980 and 1987 (Kunreuther, Fitzgerald, & Aarts, 1993). What also is clear is that the main reason such facilities are not being built is that the public opposes them (Lake, 1987; O'Hare, Bacow, & Sanderson, 1988; Himmelberger, Ratick, & White, 1991). What is much less clear is why. On the one hand, much of the empirical work in this area is informative; we now know a great deal about the reasons for public opposition. On the other hand, there still is a lack of consensus as to the underlying explanation for public opposition. In addition, the literature, in our view, is encumbered unnecessarily and perhaps misdirected by an overreliance on the term NIMBY (Not In My Backyard), which seems to mean too many things to too many scholars (for a similar view see Kraft & Clary, 1991, and Freudenburg & Pastor, 1992). This research examines, in two ways, the reasons for public opposition toward the siting of a hazardous waste facility. First, using an open-ended survey question we examine the concerns of citizens whose community is faced with a decision to site a hazardous waste facility. In doing so, we will argue for the need to reexamine the usage of the term NIMBY. We argue that developers and other industry proponents need to place more emphasis on addressing the concerns that citizens actually express, and less emphasis on the assumption that those who opposed their projects are part of an overarching NIMBY syndrome. Second, we use our survey data and a multivariate model to reexamine the reasons scholars offer for public opposition to siting. The model allows us to test simultaneously competing explanations of public opposition to siting. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of how this analysis contributes to a more general understanding of public opinion. More specifically, we reiterate the argument of scholars who have stressed the need to consider both self-interest and ideological or political predispositions when seeking to explain public attitudes (Mansbridge, 1990; Sears & Funk, 1990; Lober & Green, 1994). Previous Studies on Opposition to Siting This research examines why citizens oppose (or support) a proposed hazardous waste incinerator. In many ways, our work is similar to other studies that examine opposition to siting. Examples include efforts to explain opposition to proposed nuclear waste facilities (Flynn, Burns, Mertz, & Slovic, 1992; Kunreuther, Desvousges, & Slovic, 1988; Benford, Moore, & Williams, 1993), offshore drilling facilities (Marks & von Winterfeldt, 1984), various solid waste/disposal facilities (Lober & Green, 1994), and hazardous waste facilities (Portney, 1984, 1988). Our work complements and builds upon the work of previous studies in several ways. First, we use survey data from citizens whose community was (and currently is) faced with a decision to site a hazardous waste incinerator. Several existing studies examine citizens' reactions to hypothetical proposals (e.g., Marks & von Winterfeldt, 1984; Portney, 1988; Lober & Green, 1994), or examine elite attitudes to explain the conditions that mark successful siting (Kunreuther, Fitzgerald, & Aarts, 1993). The weight of a real-world decision adds to the external validity of our design. Second, we present a model that examines simultaneously several of the competing explanations that have been found (or hypothesized) to be related to opposition to siting. Thus, our model includes demographic independent variables (gender, age, education, and income), as well as psychological/ideological attributes (such as those specified by Wildavsky & Dake, 1990), measures of belief in government, measures of what we feel are classic self-interested NIMBY attitudes, a measure of knowledge (Wright, 1993), and measures of risk perceptions (Flynn, Burns, Mertz, & Slovic, 1992). Multivariate models, of course, have been used to investigate public opposition to siting (e.g., Mitchell, 1984; Benford, Moore, & Williams, 1993; Lober & Green, 1994), but as far as we are aware there have been no comprehensive multivariate models examining opposition to an hazardous waste incinerator. Finally, our analysis contributes to understanding the siting process due to our reexamination of the NIMBY construct. The NIMBY syndrome is used almost universally in the siting literature to categorize people who are opposed to siting. The problem with the use of NIMBY is that rarely is it defined the same way by different researchers. In fact, it is used sometimes as a catchall term to label the opposition - or worse, to imply that citizens have illegitimate or irrational selfish (or narrow) reasons for opposing facilities. On the most fundamental level, NIMBY refers to a public that wants the benefits of technology but does not want to pay the costs associated with a facility in their midst (or backyard). There is considerable disagreement, however, over the actual concerns or worldviews that fuel this public opposition. For example, some scholars emphasize that NIMBY is due to a distrust of science and technology, a lack of confidence or trust in project managers or government regulators, and/or public misinformation (Mazmanian & Morell, 1994; Pijawka & Mushkatel, 1991/1992; Visocki & Breman, 1993; Kunreuther, Fitzgerald, & Aarts, 1993). Other scholars emphasize that the NIMBYists are concerned with either property values, aesthetics, or health and safety risks (O'Hare, 1977; Matheny & Williams, 1985; Davis, 1987; Peele & Ellis, 1987). Finally, many existing studies suggest that a primary reason for opposition lies with a faulty siting process; that is, if governmental agencies or facility developers would address community concerns adequately through open meetings, then public concerns would dissipate.(1) In our analysis we examine respondents' open-ended responses, to examine empirically to what extent each of the characterizations commonly labeled as NIMBY actually are expressed. In general, we find that our respondents express many different types of concerns. By demonstrating the diversity of expressed concerns, we echo the sentiments of researchers who have held that successful siting will require the use of multiple innovate strategies that go beyond traditional approaches aimed at economic compensation and public education (Elliott, 1984; Portney, 1985; Kunreuther, Desvousges, & Slovic, 1988; Hadden, 1991; Flynn, Burns, Mertz, & Slovic, 1992; Davis, 1987, 1993). The Data Data for this study were drawn from a scientific survey of adult residents in Putnam County, West Virginia. This population was chosen because in 1992 an area of land near the towns of Winfield and Eleanor (which are in Putnam County)(2) had been designated as contaminated with hazardous waste. In early 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers decided to build new locks and a dam on the Kanawha fiver near Winfield and Eleanor. The Corps purchased a site along the fiver from a company that had used the site formerly for a railroad tank car cleaning operation. When construction of the locks and dam began, the Corps discovered that the soil at the site was contaminated with dioxin, and that several areas on the site contained lagoons of unidentified chemicals. The Corps met with Environmental Protection Agency officials to determine the best solution to the problem, and were informed that a hazardous waste incinerator designed to destroy dioxin was the only commercially viable technology for eradicating the problem. The Corps then met with officials from Winfield and Eleanor, and informed them of the problem and the proposed "cleanup" solution. The cleanup entailed a buyout of the city of Eleanor's water wells (located adjacent to the site), and a temporary hazardous waste incinerator. Congressmen Bob Wise (D-WV) also was informed of the plans. He objected to building an incinerator without public involvement in the decision. As citizens in the area learned of the problem, they expressed concern and demanded public involvement. The data for this analysis were attained through telephone interviews during the months of March and April 1993 with a random sample of 416 citizens living in Putnam county.(3) At the time of our survey, EPA and Corps officials were giving serious thought to using a temporary hazardous waste incinerator to get rid of the dioxin and other chemicals present at the site. An Examination of Public Concern toward the Siting of a Hazardous Waste Incinerator In this section we analyze the concerns expressed about the cleanup of hazardous waste in Winfield and Eleanor.(4) Our purpose is to demonstrate that many of the attitudes commonly attributed to NIMBY were expressed infrequently in our sample, and that other attitudes that were expressed frequently need to be understood better by those wishing to overcome public opposition to noxious facilities. We avoided any preconceived notions of what NIMBY is or is not, and simply coded the concerns we found in as many discrete categories as necessary. Using a closed-ended question, respondents were asked how concerned they were about the proposed cleanup of land near Eleanor and Winfield for the locks and dam project. Respondents who reported feeling either "extremely concerned" or "somewhat concerned" were asked the following open-ended question: "What concerns you about the cleanup project?" Respondents were probed, to be as clear as possible about why they were concerned. Table 1 lists the categories of concern. | |
Table 1
Concerns About the Clean-up
Concern Percentage
Nothing/Not Concerned 45.7%
Health and Safety 25.5%
Efficiency 7.2%
Process 6.3%
Incinerator 3.1%
Lack of Information 2.4%
Aesthetics & Property Values 2.4%
Ambiguous Response 7.4%
Source: Survey conducted by the authors.
Note: n = 416
| | The category labeled "nothing" reflects the percentage of respondents who did not report being either somewhat concerned or extremely concerned about the cleanup. Interestingly, almost half (45.7%) of those surveyed reported being relatively unconcerned. Respondents who reported being either somewhat concerned or extremely concerned comprised 54.3% of the sample. We coded seven distinct categories for respondents who expressed concern. By far the largest category was comprised of respondents who reported being concerned about "health and safety" issues (25.5%). Typical responses in this category included concerns about the health risks the cleanup might impose. Most respondents in this category felt that cleaning up the site would cause "contaminants" or "dioxin" or "chemicals" to get into the air or ground water or river and cause illness or "cancer." Excluding the category "ambiguous response" (discussed below), the second- and third-most common responses were those concerning the "efficiency" of the cleanup (7.2%) and what we have labeled concern over the "process" (6.3%). The efficiency category was something we hardly expected; generally speaking, respondents in this category expressed concern about either the high cost of the project or concern that the project was moving too slowly or inefficiently. Respondents categorized as concerned with the "process" were almost a mirror image of those concerned with efficiency. Respondents in this category primarily were distrustful of the process. There were two dimensions to this distrust. Some respondents felt that the Corps would be too concerned with cost and would "take shortcuts" or do a job that was "half-baked" or "incomplete." Other respondents were concerned that the process would not allow adequate public input. These respondents complained about the lack of public involvement or questioned whether the public knew the truth or whether their input truly would be considered. The category labeled "incinerator" contained respondents who expressed concern over the proposed incinerator. Respondents within this category questioned whether or not the incinerator actually would work as proposed. We categorized this relatively small number of respondents (3.1%) as separate from the "process" or "health and safety" categories because they seemed distrustful specifically of the technology of the incinerator rather than of the overall process or of health issues. That said, this category of respondent was in some sense distrustful much like those in the process category. (Combined, these two categories make up 9.4% of the sample.) The category labeled "lack of information" (2.4%) was made up of respondents who were concerned because they were uncertain about what was going on. Respondents in this category did not express any sense of distrust or betrayal. Instead, they were likely to feel that "they would like to hear more about the pros and cons," "like to know more information," or were concerned because they "didn't know which information to believe." The category "ambiguous response" (7.4%) contained respondents who reported being concerned about the cleanup but were unable really to explain why. About half of these respondents expressed what might be called a general uneasiness about the cleanup, and the remainder made statements that simply were too ambiguous to code adequately. Examples include statements such as "I'm concerned about what they will do with the soil," and "that the whole thing makes people uncomfortable," and questions such as "Can they really clean everything up?" and "How is this going to affect the lives of people around here?" Our final category included respondents concerned with aesthetics and property values (2.4%). Respondents placed in this category feared that the cleanup effort would cause unsightly pollution problems and/or affect property values negatively. Those expressing concern about air pollution made references to its unsightliness, not to its effect on one's health. Also included in this category were those who said they simply did not like the idea of having to live by the proposed incinerator. What have we found? Most obviously, citizens expressed a variety of concerns, and many of the concerns most commonly associated with the emotional or self-interested components of the NIMBY syndrome were expressed infrequently. A notable proportion of respondents expressed a distrust or suspicion with either the process or technologies involved. An additional number expressed concern but could not articulate the reason. (This latter group may be a manifestation of the emotional component of NIMBY.) Yet, not all was as we might expect. A surprisingly small number of people were concerned with either property values and/or aesthetics; and we also found novel categories, mainly those who wanted to have more information and those concerned with efficiency. The largest percentage of concerns centered around health and safety issues. The concern about health and safety issues is corroborated by other studies (Freudenberg, 1984; Rankin, Nealey, & Melber, 1984; Davis, 1987; Kunreuther, Desvousges, & Slovic, 1988). For example, Freudenberg (1984) found similar responses among citizen activists. In a survey of 110 community-based organizations whose focus was "a specific environmental hazard," Freudenberg (1984, p. 445) found that 46% of the groups surveyed "were formed because concerned citizens became alarmed or angry about a suspected health hazard." According to Freudenberg (1984, p. 445): Once the activists had learned about the hazard, they began the task of educating and organizing the broader community. Their usual first step was to assess the concerns that motivated people in the area.... Health fear dominates the list of reported concerns, including fears about the effects on the well-being of future generations and on children. Esthetic concerns or economic fears were rarely mentioned as important inducements to action [emphasis added]. While concerns about health have been recognized by scholars who study opposition to siting, our evidence reaffirms that such concerns merit more attention. We also question whether concerns about health deserve to he categorized as a typical NIMBY attitude. While such concerns arguably are "self-interested," we seriously question whether concerns about health deserve to be lumped together with other kinds of self-interested motivations such as concern over property values. While more research needs to he done, we strongly suspect that developers wishing to site a facility within a community thai perceives that facility as life-threatening are going to have a much more difficult time overcoming opposition than for situations in which a community is concerned primarily with property values or aesthetics. In our estimation, it is more accurate to label people in terms that reflect the kinds of concerns they express than to label such concerns as part of a NIMBY syndrome. Many researchers and facility proponents assume implicitly that NIMBY is an overarching belief system.(5) However, we would warn against such characterizations. While we did find many of the characterizations that often are labeled as NIMBY, we also found that people tended to have one primary concern. Based upon the responses we received, we found little evidence for claiming that people concerned with, say, health and safety are also the same people who are concerned with other traditional manifestations of NIMBY (such as concern about property values, aesthetics, or distrust of technology or facility proponents). We also recommend that facility proponents consider the degree to which various concerns are expressed. While we cannot generalize necessarily beyond the population of this case study, we would expect that many of the NIMBY characterizations often assumed to be problematic are held in fact by a relatively small number of people. Explaining Opposition to Siting: A Multivariate Model In this section we present a multivariate model designed to explain opposition to the siting of a hazardous waste incinerator. As part of this examination, we attempt to break down some of the component parts of NIMBYism to examine which components are most important for explaining opposition. Why use a multivariate model? One reason is that there were significant differences of opinion about the incinerator across all areas of expressed concern. Being concerned did not necessarily imply that a person was opposed to incineration.(6) This led us to conclude that there were additional attitudinal and demographic characteristics that cut across all types of concern that would help better to explain opposition to the proposed incinerator. By modeling opposition in one equation, we can enhance our understanding of the multiple factors that lead to opposition. To some degree, our multivariate model is also used to check the validity of our open-ended responses. While open-ended questions certainly have strengths, it is always possible that respondents could choose to provide a socially acceptable response. We have several reasons to think this is untrue, however. To begin with, respondents' concerns were not associated strongly with one opinion toward the incinerator. In other words, there were not just one or two socially acceptable responses used by those opposed to the incinerator.(7) We received a full range of responses, the vast majority of which have been found to be on people's minds in previous studies (Freudenberg, 1984; Rankin, Nealey, & Melber, 1984; Kunreuther, Desvousges, & Slovic, 1988). We also were surprised to find certain socially acceptable responses missing. In preliminary surveys (see endnote 3), activists told us repeatedly that great harm would be caused to children whose school would be in close proximity to the incinerator. In fact, they made a concerted effort to alarm the community about this issue. Despite their efforts, specific references to the harm of school children were practically nonexistent among our responses. Given that there were some legitimate questions about the ability of the proposed incinerator to destroy dioxins, we suspect that when respondents said they were concerned with issues such as health and safety they were not really masking a concern about something else. Nevertheless, it is plausible that an issue like property values was on the minds of more people than those willing to admit it to an interviewer. To some degree, we test for this possibility by including a measure of distance from the site in our model alongside a measure that taps a respondent's concerns about perceived health risks associated with facilities (see our discussion of forced risk below). While distance from the site probably measures more than just concern about property values, it is a measure that has been used to illustrate such a concern. If, in fact, people are worried about property values, then we could expect that our measure of distance will demonstrate a significant independent effect on our dependent variable (controlling for perceived health risks). In other words, those farther away from the site should demonstrate less opposition toward the incinerator than did those in Winfield and Eleanor. In creating our model we attempted to include independent variables that previous studies have demonstrated to he related to opposition and/or support toward different types of noxious facilities, and to use them to examine opposition to the proposed incinerator. Our dependent variable is an individual's attitude toward the proposed temporary incinerator. The closed-ended responses ranged on a 5-point scale, scored from 1 (strongly support) to 5 (strongly oppose).(8) Because of the ordinal nature of our dependent variable, we use ordered probit analysis (Pindyck & Rubinfeld, 1991, pp. 273-275; McKelvey & Zavoina, 1975).(9) Altogether sixteen independent variables were used to predict attitudes toward the incinerator. Chief among our variables were those designed to measure perceived health risks and belief in government. To measure risk perceptions, we asked respondents about ten activities that could he deemed risky to a person's health, or, more specifically, that have a negative impact on their life expectancy. These included items such as living near a chemical plant or nuclear power plant, or activities such as smoking cigarettes on a regular basis, or keeping a handgun in the home. After each question we asked respondents to tell us if they thought the activity "could shorten a person's lifespan" and, if so, "by how many years." (See the Appendix for a description of this and other key variables). A factor analysis of these responses uncovered two dimensions: one for involuntary risks (which we label forced risk) and the second for voluntary risks (chosen risk). Involuntary risks were activities that referred to living near noxious facilities; voluntary risks were those based upon personal lifestyle choices. For each respondent, forced risk is a measure of the average number of years that forced (or involuntary) activities would shorten a person's lifespan. Individuals who perceive facilities to be life-threatening will have a higher mean than those who do not. Chosen risk is the average number of years that an individual perceives voluntary activities will affect a person's lifespan. For each variable, the greater the mean, the more an individual feels that (either involuntary or voluntary) activities could endanger a person's lifespan. Individuals with high levels of risk perception are hypothesized to be more opposed to the incinerator. Although respondents were asked whether they felt that living near a hazardous waste incinerator was risky, this item was not used to calculate our measure of forced risk. Our intention was to measure health risk perceptions independently of how a person felt about the risks involved with incineration. We feel this measure has distinct advantages over those used in previous studies, where respondents were asked about the risks they associate with facilities that also are the subject of the researcher's dependent variable (e.g., Flynn, Burns, Mertz, & Slovic, 1992).(10) Below, we will be paying particular attention to the performance of our forced risk measure. Individuals who view facilities in general as a risk to their health are expected to oppose the incinerator proposed for Eleanor and Winfield. Belief in government is another variable commonly associated with opposition to siting. Since the cleanup was being conducted by government agencies, we asked respondents to assess the degree to which the government "listens to people like you when it decides what to do." Responses for belief in government were coded along a four-point scale, ranging from "just about always" to "never." In general, we expected a positive relationship; the more a respondent felt the government doesn't listen, the more likely he/she would oppose the proposed incinerator. We also asked respondents to assess their feelings toward other policy actors or groups such as the military, big business, and environmental groups along a five-point continuum, ranging from 1 (very positive) to 5 (very negative). In preliminary analyses only the measure assessing respondents' feelings toward the military proved to be related significantly to attitudes toward incineration. Thus, only the variable assessing feeling toward the military was included in this analysis. Because the Army Corps of Engineers could be associated in respondents' minds with the military, this variable may measure an attitude about the Army Corps of Engineers.(11) We reasoned that it also might measure a cultural or ideological disposition as well, similar to the "longstanding symbolic predispositions" (Sears, 1975, 1983; Sears & Funk, 1990) found to affect public opinion in other studies. In general, we hypothesize a positive relationship: The more negative a person is toward the military, the more likely he/she will oppose siting. Four demographic characteristics were used as independent variables. These include measures of education, income, age, and gender (the latter scored 0 if the respondent was male and 1 if female). A number of studies have found these variables to be related to attitudes toward nuclear and other hazardous facilities (see Benford, Moore, & Williams, 1993, and Mitchell, 1984 for reviews of the literature). We include them in our model to find out if they have an independent effect on attitudes toward incineration, controlling for other factors. Whether an individual lives near a proposed siting has been hypothesized to be a mainstay of the NIMBY syndrome. Thus, we coded distance as a dummy variable, scored 1 if a respondent reported living in either Winfield or Eleanor and 0 otherwise. People living closer to the proposed incinerator are expected to be more prone to oppose siting. As stated above, this variable is used commonly to assess the likely property costs of a facility. By including this variable in the model - particularly alongside our measure of forced risk - we examine whether distance from the site matters, controlling for perceived health risks. If both variables are significant, we can assume that a concern for property values was more important to our respondents than they were willing to admit when asked using an open-ended question. If only forced risk is significant, the model would suggest that health issues were indeed as important as our open-ended methodology suggested. Two additional variables hypothesized to be related to the traditional NIMBY construct also were included. The first is the category of people who said they were concerned about the cleanup because of its negative impact on aesthetics and property values (aesthetics/property). Individuals who expressed these concerns were coded 1, and all other concerns expressed were coded 0. The second variable is a measure of a person's knowledge of the cleanup proposals. Wright (1993) demonstrated a "moderately strong relationship between site-relevant knowledge and NIMBY." His finding was that those most knowledgeable about a siting were most likely to resemble the typical NIMBY characterization, thus challenging the assumption that those opposed to siting are ill-informed.(12) We coded knowledge using an open-ended question that asked respondents to tell us about the cleanup proposals they had heard about. Respondents who could not state any proposals were coded 0, those who could mention at least one were coded 1, and those who offered more than one proposal were coded 2. Four variables designed to measure deep-seated ideological outlooks also were included in the model. The first of these is the standard seven-point party identification scale commonly asked in the University of Michigan-based National Election Study. The scale for party identification ranges from 1 (strong Democrat) to 7 (strong Republican). All other things equal, we expected a negative relationship: The more Republican the respondent, the more he/she would support the incinerator. Of course, this scale measures only one aspect of an individual's ideological outlook; a declared party identification does not tell us a great deal about an individual's belief system. Therefore, we included three "cultural" variables in the model. All three items have been used in analyses that attempt to explain either risk perceptions (Wildavsky & Dake, 1990) or, more specifically, opposition to the siting of a nuclear waste repository (Jenkins-Smith, Rouse, Epsey, & Moland, 1991).(13) The three cultural variables used here are items previous researchers have used to measure hierarchist, individualist, and egalitarian modes of thought. Each of these variables is illustrated in the appendix. Briefly, the more individualistic or hierarchical a respondent's beliefs, the more likely he or she is to support the incinerator. The more egalitarian the beliefs, the more likely is the respondent to oppose incineration. Because of the way these variables are coded, we expect a significant positive relationship between both hierarchist and individualist modes of thought and our dependent variable, and a significant negative relationship for egalitarian attitudes toward incineration. Finally, we included a variable hypothesized to be fairly important, yet possibly unique to the Winfield/Eleanor siting. In preliminary interviews (see endnote 3), a fairly large number of people remarked that they felt a "big deal" was being made out of nothing, or, as some of our respondents remarked, "a mountain was being made out of a molehill." Many of these respondents remarked that the conflict was more about longstanding divisions among townspeople than about the incinerator itself. We included a measure labeled "molehill" to tap this sentiment. "Molehill" measures the degree to which respondents felt that "issues have been blown out of proportion by personality conflicts rather than being a sincere concern over issues." It is coded on a four-point scale ranging from the sentiment that this statement was very likely (1) to very unlikely (4). Those who felt that it was very unlikely that things had been blown out of proportion are expected to oppose siting. Analysis and Discussion Using an ordered probit model, respondents' attitudes toward the temporary incinerator were regressed on our sixteen independent variables. The results are reported in Table 2. All told, six of our independent measures are statistically significant. (All significance levels are for two-tailed tests.) As demonstrated in Table 2, forced risk (p [less than] .10), belief in government (p [less than] .01), and attitudes toward the military (p [less than] .01) are related strongly to attitudes toward the proposed incinerator. All three of these variables perform as hypothesized. Respondents who thought that facilities in general impose notable health risks, who believe the government doesn't listen, and who dislike the military are more likely to oppose the incinerator. These findings underscore once again the importance of perceived health risks and attitudes toward the government that has been found to be important in previous studies on siting (e.g., Matheny & Williams, 1985; Slovic, Flynn, & Layman, 1991; Flynn & Slovic, 1993; Kunreuther, Fitzgerald, & Aarts, 1993; Kraft & Clary, 1991; Flynn, Burns, Mertz, & Slovic, 1992). Interestingly, our measure of chosen risk fails to achieve statistical significance at the .10 two-tailed level. This finding suggests that only one dimension of risk perceptions is relevant for the study of siting noxious facilities. | |
Table 2
Predicting Opposition to a Hazardous Waste Incinerator (Ordered
Probit)
Maximum Likelihood
Independent Estimator
Variables Coefficient t-ratio
Forced Risk .168 1.92(*)
Chosen Risk -.194 -1.39
Belief in government .420 3.34(***)
Military .215 2.71(***)
Distance from Site .072 0.54
Aesthetics/Property .552 1.16
Knowledge -.062 -0.90
Education -.028 -0.39
Income .090 1.15
Age -.140 -2.38(**)
Gender .232 1.56
Party Identification -.036 -1.02
Individualist -.137 -1.31
Hierarchist .172 2.57(***)
Egalitarian -.070 -1.33
Molehill .132 1.97(**)
Constant -.43 -0.76
Source: Survey conducted by the authors.
Notes: n = 291; log-likelihood = -427.47 (p [less than] .0001);
McKelvey & Zavoina pseudo- [R.sup.2] = .25; * p [less than] .10; **
p [less than] .05; *** p [less than] .01.
| | Also statistically significant are our measures of age (p [less than] .05) and molehill (p [less than] .05). Controlling for all other variables in the model, older respondents are more likely to support the incinerator. While further analysis is needed, this variable may be tapping a generational dimension related to the rise of postmaterialist values associated with youth. In addition, we find evidence supporting our hypothesis that to some degree opposition (or support) for the incinerator is based on community-held personality conflicts rather than a sincere concern over the issues at hand. The more respondents felt that conflict over the cleanup was "blown out of proportion by personality conflicts," the more they supported the incinerator. Those who felt the debate was sincere were more likely to oppose the incinerator. To some degree, the significance of this variable suggests that local politics (or longstanding community divisions) may influence citizens' perspectives toward the siting of noxious facilities. Such local conflicts and their impact on the politics of a siting decision are worthy of further investigation, and should be explored in future studies (see Benford, Moore, & Williams, 1993 for further insight). Gender fails to achieve a conventional level of statistical significance, but comes extremely close to being significant at the .10 level (p [less than] .11, two-tail). Given that several existing studies find gender to be a good predictor of attitudes toward facilities or concern (e.g., Benford, Moore, & Williams, 1993; Mitchell, 1984) we feel it unwise to dismiss this variable as "insignificant." Like previous studies, our model suggests that women are more likely than men to oppose a noxious facility. Finally, one of the four items designed to measure ideological worldviews also was significant - our measure of hierarchist values. As demonstrated in Table 2, the hierarchist measure is significant in the predicted direction. According to Wildavsky and Dake (1990, p. 45): Hierarchists ... approve of technological processes and products, provided their experts have given the appropriate safety certifications and the applicable rules and regulations are followed. In hierarchical culture, nature is "perverse or tolerant;" good will come if you follow ... rules and experts, bad if you don't. We find a highly significant relationship (p [less than] .01) between the hierarchist belief (wherein a respondent believes in a strict sense of fight and wrong) and attitudes toward the incinerator. Respondents opposed to hierarchical values are more likely to oppose siting; those who support hierarchical values are more likely to support the incinerator. Finally, we need to comment on the nonsignificance of some of our other variables. Most interesting is the nonsignificance of the variables hypothesized to measure dimensions of the traditional NIMBY construct. Controlling for all other factors, whether or not a respondent lived in Winfield or Eleanor had no bearing on his/her attitude toward the incinerator. This finding differs from those studies that suggest people oppose siting because they do not want such technologies in their own backyards. For example, several studies suggest that opposition decreases as distance from a proposed facility increases (Lober & Green, 1994; Mitchell & Carson, 1986).(14) There are several reasons that might explain why we do not find distance to matter. Putnam County is relatively small; the vast majority of respondents live within about a 15-mile radius from the site in Eleanor and Winfield. To some degree, this may limit the likelihood of finding that distance would matter. Mitchell and Carson (1986) used a distance variable that ranges from less than one mile to more than 100 miles; the additional variability of their distance measure may serve to make distance matter more. Another possibility may be that citizens of Putnam county perceived the proposed incinerator to be more dangerous (or life-threatening) than the types of facilities examined in other studies. Previous studies have found that while distance from a site clearly matters, the relationship depends on the type of facility being investigated. In other words, citizens react to different types of facilities in different ways (Mitchell & Carson, 1986; Lober & Green, 1994). The fact that the proposed incinerator was associated with concerns over health costs (which may make it the kind of facility people fear most) in part may explain the nonsignificance of this variable. We should note, however, that other studies also have challenged the conventional wisdom concerning distance. Examining levels of concern toward a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, Benford, Moore, and Williams (1993) compared levels of concern within a county selected to house a proposed facility (condition of imminent threat) with a statewide sample (hypothetical threat condition). While respondents within the county selected to house the facility were somewhat more concerned than was the statewide sample, Benford, Moore, and Williams also found that citizens within the village closest to the site had the lowest mean concern in that county. We do not find that citizens in Winfield and Eleanor were either more or less opposed to the incinerator compared to the rest of the county; rather, they had about the same level of opposition and support. This is true whether we examine the relationship by itself (as a bivariate relationship) or as part of our multivariate model. We even attempted to break our distance variable down further.(15) At least in this study, distance was not important for explaining opposition to a proposed noxious facility. Although its coefficient is in the predicted direction, our dummy variable for aesthetics/property also fails to achieve statistical significance. While respondents in this category generally were more opposed to the incineration than any of the other groups we categorized (using the open-ended question discussed in Table 1), this concern fails to predict opposition when controlling for all other independent variables. Finally, we also find knowledge (and education level) to be insignificant. At least in this case study, knowledge about cleanup proposals had no real bearing on attitudes toward the proposed incinerator. Implications and Conclusion If we consider NIMBY to be a variable measuring citizens' economic and aesthetic views, it has little to do with attitudes about the siting of the incinerator. Nor do we find one's distance from the site - a traditional element of the Not in My Backyard syndrome - to be relevant for predicting opposition. Citizens of Putnam County were far more concerned with health and safety issues than with immediate economic issues. This was found to be true whether we examine open-ended responses (see Table 1) or our multivariate model (see our measure of forced risk in Table 2). One reason why decisionmakers come to believe that they have a "NIMBY problem" may be that they typically deal with a small subset of the community. Perhaps those who have an economic incentive or a concern with aesthetics are more likely to make theft opposition known in traditional forums, like hearings. This may bias decisionmakers' perceptions of the general community. In addition, decisionmakers, who are professionals and understand the health risks of their projects to be very low, may assume that people who claim to be concerned about health risks really are concerned with property values or aesthetics. At least in this study, that assumption would be invalid. Moving away from the traditional NIMBY characterization, we find that many of the same variables found to be important for understanding opposition to siting in other settings were important in Putnam county. Personality or ideological characteristics do appear to have some influence on attitudes about facility siting. Those who perceive unacceptable health risks, and antihierarchical people, are more likely to oppose facilities than are risk-takers and those with hierarchical personalities. In addition, those who do not think the government listens to them, as well as younger people (and women), are more likely to oppose siting. We also find that local personality conflicts (or perhaps longstanding community divisions) can play an independent role on attitudes about siting decisions. As in previous studies, we find that those who perceive facilities to have health risks, and those who are wary of government, are likely to oppose siting. The current emphasis is on addressing these attitudes by providing more information and improving public access to the decisionmaking process. While these may help, we suggest that decisionmakers get a firm handle on what underlies these attitudes. A first step in improving the decisionmaking process may be to use more scientifically-based survey research methods to determine whether opposition is widespread in the community, and secondly to determine the basis for this opposition. By understanding public opposition better, developers and other officials may be in a better position to address these concerns (Freudenberg, 1984; Benford, Moore, & Williams, 1993). Obviously, this will require multiple strategies. Whereas economic compensation strategies and promoting public participation may allay the fears of some citizens (namely those that express these concerns), such strategies will not please everyone. Indeed, there is some evidence that using the wrong strategy actually can increase opposition (Rogers, 1991; Flynn, Burns, Mertz, & Slovic, 1992). More research is needed to discover the best ways to address different types of concern. This study suggests that facility proponents (and researchers) may need to gain a better understanding of citizens' health and safety concerns. One promising line of inquiry is the work of Paul Slovic (1987), which has aided our understanding as to how and why citizens come to perceive health and safety risks. More research in this area may lead us to understand how such health concerns might be addressed. We wish to conclude by emphasizing that facility proponents would be served better to determine the nature of the opposition they face, and to realize it is more complex than the term NLMBY implies. To a large extent the NIMBY label is grounded in rational choice theory, which assumes that "human behavior is based on serf-interest, narrowly conceived" (Mansbridge, 1990, p. ix). While the rational actor model continues to be a popular paradigm, its usefulness has been challenged. Indeed, there is a vast array of empirical work suggesting that self-interest may be only one factor that influences both public opinion and political behavior. In addition to self-interest, citizens have been found to be motivated by attitudes such as fairness, sympathy, commitment, citizen duty, morality, and longstanding ideological beliefs (for a summary, see Mansbridge, 1990). For example, David Sears and others have demonstrated that one's attitudes toward busing or the Vietnam war were far more likely to be influenced by ideological or political principles - such as how liberal or conservative one was - than by whether one had a child in a school liable to be desegregated through busing or whether one had a relative or friend fighting in Vietnam (Sears & Funk, 1990; Lau, Brown, & Sears, 1978; Sears, Hensler, & Speer, 1979). Sears and Funk (1990) go as far as to theorize that average citizens may have two (or more) standards by which they judge decisions. When judging public policy, they may "don political hats" and "weigh most heavily the collective good," and "weigh their private good most heavily only when dealing with theft personal affairs" (Sears & Funk, p. 169; Sears, Lau, Tyler, & Allen, 1980; Kinder & Kiewiet, 1981). In this study, we find evidence that at least one measure of self-interest (fear of health risks), as well as several ideological or political predispositions, affect attitudes toward the proposed incinerator. It is important to note, however, that concerns over health risks were not isolated among the residents of Winfield and Eleanor. People all over Putnam County expressed concern about the health consequences of the proposed incinerator. Given the insights of Sears and Funk (1990) and of Kinder and Kiewiet (1981), this finding is something we would expect: Citizens who are not directly affected by the incinerator nevertheless may adopt public policy positions that reflect public or collective concerns. The results of this analysis clearly suggest that there is more than simple self-interest motivating the opinions of our respondents. Which factors would influence their actual political behavior, of course, is another question that we do not explore here. In fact, it may be that serf-interest is a more powerful predictor of behavior than a predictor of public opinion, as some studies demonstrate (Green & Cowden, 1992; Walsh & Warland, 1983; Sivacek & Crano, 1982).(16) It very well may be the case that a different calculus or a different set of concerns will motivate actual public opposition in Winfield and Eleanor. Putting aside the important (and understudied) relationship between opinion and action, this study illustrates the complexity of public opinion toward the siting of noxious facilities. Public opposition toward such facilities is far more complex than either the rational actor model or the NIMBY label would suggest. Facility proponents who wish to site their facilities need to be aware of these complexities, determine the actual concerns of the community they are dealing with, and then address these concerns on their merits. In most instances, discrediting real fears by labeling such concerns as self-interested NIMBYism probably will serve only to strengthen the resolve of opponents. Notes The authors will make their data available through the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. The authors wish to acknowledge the advice of Robert Duval, Christopher Mooney, and Alan Collins. We also wish to thank Kristie Camine and Michael Goldcamp for their assistance with data collection, and the National Research Center for Coal and Energy for their funding for the survey portion of this study. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. 1 For example, Leroy and Nadler (1993, p. 103) cite a siting consultant who noted: "The way in which people experience the decision-making process - how they felt they were treated - had more to do with their resistance and anger than anything they thought about the facility." For another example, see Flynn and Slovic, 1993. 2 Putnam county is located between the two largest cities in West Virginia - Huntington, 30 miles to the west, and Charleston (the state capital), 20 miles to the East. Putnam traditionally has been a rural county, although rapid growth, due mainly to its proximity to larger cities, is "changing the county into a suburban area" (Chamber of Commerce, Putnam County, 1993). Its population is 42,835, and it is reported to be one of the fastest-growing counties in the state. The county is 99.2% white, and the median age is 34.2 years. The county per capita income (in 1989) was higher ($13,066) than that of the state ($12,434) as a whole. Its unemployment rate typically is better than the average county in West Virginia. As of March 1995, the unemployment rate was 6.3% (West Virginia Economic Summary). 3 An intentional effort was made to oversample residents of the Winfield and Eleanor communities. Respondents from these communities make up 20% of the sample. The final survey instrument was developed after preliminary interviews (mostly open-ended) were conducted with a sample of 115 citizens from Winfield and Eleanor and from surrounding communities. 4 To a large extent, we were encouraged by the work of Kraft and Clary (1991). 5 For an excellent discussion of belief systems, see Converse (1964). 6 When all types of concern were compared, only those in our aesthetics/property values demonstrated a statistically significant degree of opposition to the incinerator. 7 Respondents noting concerns about health and safety, for example, were far from unified in their opinions about the proposed incinerator. 8 Interestingly, 14.4% of respondents said they strongly supported the incinerator, and an equal percentage said they were strongly opposed. 9 We also ran our model using ordinary least squares. The results were almost identical; in general, the same variables found to be statistically significant predictors using ordered probit were found to be significant using ordinary least squares (OLS). The value of [R.sup.2] for the OLS equation was .20. 10 A standard way that existing studies measure risk perception is by asking survey respondents about the probability and potential consequences of various sorts of accidents involving the particular facility under scrutiny. For example, Flynn, Burns, Mertz, and Slovic (1992) measured "perceived risk" by asking a list of questions concerning the safety of a high-level radioactive waste repository. One problem with this measure is that the investigators asked about the risks associated with the same facility that is the subject of their dependent variable (opposition or support for a radioactive repository). Our purpose was to attain a measure that was similar to those in existing studies (Kunreuther, Easterling, Desvousges, & Slovic, 1990; Marks & von Winterfeldt, 1984), but was not tainted by references to the facility we investigate (the proposed incinerator). In other words, we wanted to attain a measure that was defined independent of our dependent variable. We do this by attaining a measure of how risky a respondent perceived facilities to be in general. By mixing in questions about personal life choices (see the chosen risk items, in the appendix), respondents were able to tell us if they thought a particular activity (such as living near a chemical plant, or smoking) was likely to shorten a person's lifespan, and, if so, to estimate by how many years. By talcing the mean number of years for facilities of different types (excluding a hazardous-waste incinerator) we attain an overview or generalized measure of risk toward such facilities (labeled "forced risk"). In many ways, our measure of forced risk is analogous to the standard measure of party identification. Party identification is used in voting models to attain a measure of a voter's general inclination; the same could be said of forced risk. In neither case does the variable explain all of the variance in the dependent variable (vote for a specific candidate or attitude toward a specific facility). 11 Unfortunately, we did not ask a question about trust in the Army Corps of Engineers. We did ask an open-ended question inquiring if there were any cleanup proposals that the Corps would not consider. Those who listed a proposal were not any more nor less likely to oppose the incinerator. 12 We wish to emphasize that our measure of knowledge is considerably different from that used by Wright (1993). Whereas our measure records the number of proposals a respondent is aware of, Wright's measure determined how knowledgeable a respondent was about six distinct items. 13 Although these researchers used several items and factor analysis to create their cultural variables, our attempt to duplicate their variables was somewhat unsuccessful. Our factor analyses did not replicate the same loadings. Thus, we tried running each component in our model as an independent variable. The model worked best using only the three variables described in the appendix. 14 We should note here that "distance from the site" variables are noticeably absent in many comprehensive studies that attempt to model opposition to facilities (e.g., Mitchell, 1984; Flynn, Burns, Mertz, & Slovic, 1992). 15 We attempted to investigate further the impact of distance by breaking down our respondents into four categories. The first category included respondents living in the towns of Eleanor and Winfield; the remaining respondents were placed into three categories corresponding to three concentric circles, moving away from the proposed incinerator. Thus, the second category included respondents just outside of Winfield and Eleanor, and the fourth category included respondents farthest from the site. Again, we found no significant pattern to suggest that distance mattered. Those in Winfield and Eleanor had a mean opposition level of 2.9, the second grouping had a mean of 3.1, the third, 2.7, and those farthest away had a mean of 3.0. 16 For a comprehensive review of this literature, see Citrin and Green (1990) and Green and Cowden (1992). References Benford, R. D., Moore, H. A., & Williams, Jr., J. A. (1993). In whose backyard?: Concern about siting a nuclear facility. Sociological Inquiry, 63, 30-48. Chamber of Commerce, Putnam County, West Virginia. (1993). Community information and buyer's guide. Citrin, J., & Green, D. P. (1990). The self-interest motive and American public opinion. In S. Long (Ed.), Research in micropolitics (3rd ed.) (pp. 1-28). London: JAI Press. Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York, NY: Free Press. Davis, C. E. (1987). Public involvement in hazardous waste siting decisions. Polity, 19, 296-304. Davis, C. E. (1993). The politics of hazardous waste. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (1992). Trust as a determinant of opposition to high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 12, 417-429. Flynn, J., & Slovic, P. (1993). Nuclear wastes and public trust. Forum For Applied Research and Public Policy, 8, 92-100. Freudenberg, N. (1984). Citizen action for environmental health: Report on a survey of community organizations. American Journal of Public Health, 74, 444-448. Freudenburg, W. R., & Pastor, S. K. (1992). Public responses to technological risks: Toward a sociological perspective. The Sociological Quarterly, 33, 389-412. Green, D. P., & Cowden, J. A. (1992). Who protests: Self-interest and white opposition to busing. Journal of Politics, 54, 471-496. Hadden, S. G. (1991). Public perception of hazardous waste. Risk Analysis, 11, 47-57. Himmelberger, J., Ratick, S., & White, A. (1991). Compensation for risks: Host community benefits in siting locally unwanted facilities. Environmental Management, 15, 647-658. Jenkins-Smith, H., Rouse, A., Epsey, J., & Moland, D. (1991). Perceptions of risk in the management of nuclear wastes: Mapping elite and mass beliefs and attitudes. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11, 129-161. Kraft, M. E., & Clary, B. B. (1991). Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal. The Western Political Quarterly, 44, 299-329. Kunreuther, H., Desvousges, W. H., & Slovic, P. (1988). Nevada's predicament: Public perceptions of risk from the proposed nuclear waste repository. Environment, 30, 17-33. Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., Desvousges, W., & Slovic, P. (1990). Public attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 10, 469-484. Kunreuther, H., Fitzgerald, K., & Aarts, T. D. (1993). Siting noxious facilities: A test of the facility siting credo. Risk Analysis, 13, 301-318. Lake, R. W. (1987). Resolving location conflicts. New Brunswick, NJ: Ringers University Press. Lau, R. R., Brown, T. A., & Sears, D. O. (1978). Self-interest and civilians' attitudes toward the Vietnam war. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42,464-483. Leroy, D. H., & Nadler, T. S. (1993). Negotiate way out of siting dilemmas. Forum For Applied Research and Public Policy, 8, 102-107. Lober, D. J., & Green, D. P. (1994). NIMBY or NIABY: A logit model of opposition to solid-waste-disposal facility siting. Journal of Environmental Management, 40, 33-50. Mansbridge, J. (Ed.). (1990). Beyond self-interest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Marks G., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1984). Not in my back yard: Influence of motivational concerns on judgments about a risky technology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 408-415. Matheny, A. R., & Williams, B. A. (1985). Knowledge vs. NIMBY: Assessing Florida's strategy for siting hazardous waste disposal facilities. Policy Studies Journal, 14, 70-80. Mazmanian, D., & Morell, D. (1990). The NIMBY syndrome: Facility siting and the failure of democratic discourse. In N. Vig & M. Kraft (Eds.), Environmental policy in the 1990s: Toward a new agenda (pp. 233-250). Washington DC: CQ Press. McKelvey, R. D., & Zavoina, W. (1975). A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4, 103-120. Mitchell, R. C. (1984). Rationality and irrationality in the public's perception of nuclear power. In W. R. Freudenburg & E. A. Rosa (Eds.), Public reactions to nuclear power: Are there critical masses? (pp. 137-177). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1986). Property rights, protest, and the siting of hazardous waste facilities. American Economic Review Proceedings, 76, 285-290. O'Hare, M. (1977). Not on my block you don't: Facility siting and the strategic importance of compensation. Public Policy, 25, 407-458. O'Hare, M, Bacow, L., & Sanderson, D. (1988). Facility siting and public opposition. New York, NY: Nostrand Reinhold Company. Pijawka, K. D., & Mushkatel, A. H. (1991/1992). Public opposition to the siting of the high-level nuclear waste repository: The importance of trust. Policy Studies Review, 10, 180-194. Pindyck, R. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1991). Econometric models and economic forecasts. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Co. Portney, K. E. (1984). Allaying the NIMBY syndrome: The potential for compensation in hazardous waste treatment facility siting. Hazardous Waste, 1, 411-421. Portney, K. E. (1988). The role of economic factors in lay perceptions of risk. In C. E. Davis & J. P. Lester (Eds.), Dimensions of hazardous waste politics and policy (pp. 55-63). New York, NY: Greenwood Press. Rankin, W. L., Nealey, S. M., & Melber, B. S. (1984). Overview of national attitudes toward nuclear energy: A longitudinal analysis. In W. R. Freudenburg & E. A. Rosa (Eds.), Public reactions to nuclear power: Are there critical masses? (pp. 41-67). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rogers, K. (1991, November 22). Nevadans firmly oppose nuclear dump. Las Vegas Review-Journal, p. 1A. Sears, D. O. (1975). Political socialization. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science, 2 (pp. 93-153). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Sears, D. O. (1983). The persistence of early political predispositions: The roles of attitude object and life state. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology, 4 (pp. 79116). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1990). Self-interest in Americans' political opinions. In J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest (pp. 147-170). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sears, D. O., Hensler, C. P., & Speer, L. K. (1979). Whites' opposition to busing: Self-interest or symbolic politics? American Political Science Review, 73, 369-384. Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., & Allen, Jr, H. M. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 74, 670-684. Sivacek, J., & Crano, W. D. (1982). Vested interest as a moderator of attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 210-221. Slovic, P. (1987). Perceptions of risk. Science, 236, 280-285. Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254, 1603-1607. Visocki, K., & Breman, S. S. (1993). Regional compacts and waste disposal. Forum For Applied Research and Public Policy, 8, 86-91. Walsh, E. J., & Warland, R. H. (1983). Social movement involvement in the wake of a nuclear accident: Activists and free riders in the TMI area. American Sociological Review, 48, 764-780. West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs. (1995, May). West Virginia Economic Summary. Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990, Fall). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119, 41-60. Wright, S. A. (1993). Citizens' information levels and grassroots opposition to new hazardous waste sites: Are NIMBYists informed? Waste Management, 13, 253-259. Appendix The Dependent Variable: Temporary Incinerator. Although no solutions to the clean-up problem have yet been evaluated, several have been suggested by various sources.... For each, could you tell me whether you support or oppose - strongly or somewhat - or feel neutral. The Temporary Incinerator. 1. Strongly support 2. Somewhat support 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat oppose 5. Strongly oppose 9. Don't know The Independent Variables: Forced risks and chosen risks. There are many things in the world today which some people feel shorten the human life span in one way or another. We would like to get your feelings about the relative danger of activities which some people have said could affect people's life span. Do you think any of the following would be likely to shorten a person's life? If yes, by how many years? Use categories: [less than] 1 year; 1-5 years; 5-10 years; [greater than] 10 years. Forced Risks 1. Living near a garbage landfill 2. Living near a nuclear power plant 3. Living near a hazardous waste landfill 4. Living near a chemical plant 5. Living near a coal-burning power plant Chosen Risks 1. Smoking cigarettes on a regular basis 2. Driving a car 25 miles daily 3. Living near a hazardous waste incinerator 4. Abusing alcohol or other drugs 5. Keeping a handgun in your home 6. Being married, with children (Note: Risk toward "living near a hazardous waste incinerator" also was asked, but was excluded from our measure of forced risks.) Belief in government. In general, how often do you think the government listens to what people like you think when it decides what to do? 1. Just about Always 2. Most of the time 3. Some of the time 4. Never 9. Don't know Military. I would like to get your general emotional feelings toward The Military in today's society. Please tell me whether your feelings are: 1. Very positive 2. Somewhat positive 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat negative 5. Very negative 9. Don't know Molehill. Some people have said that they think that the issues have been blown out of proportion by personality conflicts rather than being sincere concern over issues. How likely do you believe this is to be true? 1. Very likely 2. Somewhat likely 3. Somewhat unlikely 4. Very unlikely 9. Don't know Individualist. If people have the vision and ability to acquire property they ought to be allowed to enjoy it. Indicate how you feel about this statement. Do you: 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree somewhat 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Disagree somewhat 5. Disagree strongly 9. Don't know Hierarchist. I think I am stricter about right and wrong than most people. Indicate how you feel about this statement. Do you: 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree somewhat 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Disagree somewhat 5. Disagree strongly 9. Don't know Egalitarian. I support a tax shift so that the burden falls more heavily on corporations and persons with large incomes. Indicate how you feel about this statement. Do you: 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree somewhat 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Disagree somewhat 5. Disagree strongly 9. Don't know Susan Hunter (Ph.D., Ohio State) is an associate professor of political science at West Virginia University. She teaches environmental policy, energy policy, policy evaluation, and contemporary political theory. Recent research includes studies of water quality enforcement, animal welfare policy, and public perceptions of risk related to the siting of facilities with potential negative environmental impacts. These have included activities at nuclear fuel production facilities (research funded by Argonne Labs), and landfill siting activities. Kevin M. Leyden (Ph.D., Iowa) is an assistant professor of political science at West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, 26506. He has published articles in Political Research Quarterly, American Politics Quarterly, and Legislative Studies Quarterly. His research interests include the study of parties, interest groups, public opinion, and elections. |
|
