10.2190/5R2C-8XDT-G5AM-V0C5 5R2C8XDTG5AMV0C5 1 Impact Management Priorities at Waste Facilities: Differences Between Host Community Residents' and Technical Decision Makers' Values 1 23 20020509 20020509 20020509 20020509 5R2C8XDTG5AMV0C5.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=5R2C8XDTG5AMV0C5 1 Chris Zeiss Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Host-community residents often oppose waste disposal facilities despite well intentioned efforts by technical decision-makers to address impacts. Conflicts over facility siting may stem from differences in impact management priorities between residents and technical decision-makers. Underlying these differences may be disparities in valuing facility impacts, as indicated by recent studies. This study tests for value differences by presenting three sets of impact management measures to host-community residents and technical decision-makers. Generally, residents more strongly than engineers favor a preventive approach despite higher costs. Preferences for specific measures are blurred, but residents follow a preventive rationale, while technical decision-makers consider cost effectiveness. As a result, engineers and planners must be aware of their own empirical tendency to undervalue impacts (losses) and overvalue benefits (gains) from waste facilities. Hence, technical decision-makers must take into account the higher sensitivity and resistence to changes among personally affected persons in selecting impact management measures for undesirable facilities. C. Zeiss, <i>Siting Waste Disposal Facilities: Impacts and Acceptance</i>, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B. C., 1988. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, <i>Econometrica, 47</i>:2, March 1979. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, Choice, Values, and Frames, <i>American Psychology, 39</i>:4, April 1984. R. Thaler, Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice, <i>Marketing Science, 4</i>:3, Summer 1985. J. Marshall, J. Knetsch, and J. Sinden, Agents' Evaluations and the Disparity in Measures of Economic Loss, <i>Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 7</i>, pp. 115-127, 1986. D. Von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards, <i>Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research</i>, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U. K., 1986. C. Zeiss and J. Atwater, Waste Facilities in Residential Communities: Impacts and Acceptance, <i>ASCE—Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 113</i>:1, pp. 19-34, May 1987. M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, <i>Risk and Culture</i>, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1982. P. Fleming, <i>Stress Reduction by Social Support for Victims of a Technological Disaster</i>, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maryland, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1985. U. Madisso, A Synthesis of Social and Psychological Effects of Exposure to Hazardous Substances, <i>Report to Water Planning and Management Branch Inland Water Directorate</i>, Environmental Protection Service, Ontario Region, Burlington, Ontario, 1985. D. Fox and K. Guire, Documentation for MIDAS, Statistical Research Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1976. R. Nisbett, et al., Popular Induction: Information Is Not Necessarily Informative, in <i>Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases</i>, D. Kahnemann, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U. K., Chapter 7, 1982. C. Zeiss and J. Atwater, Property Value Guarantees for Waste Facilities, <i>ASCE—Journal of Urban Planning and Development</i>, December 1989.