KENT E. PORTNEY is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Citizen Survey Program at Tufts University. He is co-author of The Distributional Impact of Public Policies and author of Approaching Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction to Policy and Program Research. He has also written articles for Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, Policy Studies Journal, and the Journal of Voluntary Action Research.

Some Pieces to the Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility Siting Puzzle
Understanding the Hazardous Waste Dilemma: What Works and What Doesn't Work in Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility Siting
The Politics of Treatment Facility Siting: A Dilemma of Democracy in State and Local Efforts
Correlates of Public Opposition: What We Know and Don't Know About the Influences on Peoples' Attitudes Toward Treatment Facility Siting
Correlates of Changes in Public Opposition: What Changes Minds
The Social, Cultural, and Psychological Construction of Opposition to Facility Siting: The Normative Bases of Conflict
Solutions to Treatment Facility Siting in an Era of the NIMBY Syndrome: Risk Substitution as a Viable Alternative
References
Index

Since the 1960s and 70s, a wave of environmental awareness has swept the United States. News reports of oil spills, DDT damage to wildlife, and the nuclear near-disaster at Three Mile Island have, along with other incidents, contributed to a widespread distrust of industry and a collective fear of all chemical processing facilities. This fear has been translated, according to Kent Portney, into local political opposition to the siting of much needed hazardous waste treatment plants--the NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome. The failure of federal, state, and local governments to effectively control improper hazardous waste disposal has further strengthened the NIMBY syndrome. Portney argues that once it is understood what motivates the array of local attitudes toward hazardous waste treatment facilities, and the political constraints placed on the search for solutions, effective compromises can be reached.
The book begins by focusing on the facility siting dilemma and what can be done to find new policies that work. Chapter two analyzes what does and does not work in easing the effects of the NIMBY syndrome. Democratic political processes are investigated in chapter three, especially those that contribute to the development of NIMBY opposition. Chapters four and five present empirical correlates of changes in peoples' attitudes and explain how people can ultimately be convinced to support local hazardous waste treatment facilities. Social, cultural, and psychological construction of opposition to facility siting is studied in chapter six. Portney presents viable solutions to the facility siting problem, in light of the NIMBY syndrome, in the concluding chapter. This important book will be of great value to practitioners facing actual siting decisions, members of statewide siting boards, private sector parties wishing to site facilities, and those teaching courses in environmental policy or politics.