Integrating Planning Theory and Waste Management—An Annotated Bibliography

Journal of Planning LiteratureCPL Bibliography 361CPL Bibliography

361

Integrating Planning Theory and WasteManagement—An Annotated Bibliography

Charles Hostovsky

This bibliography explores the body of literature that inter-faces between professional land use planning and the man-agement of waste. The author has been struggling tounderstand the dynamics of waste facility siting failures andthe sustained public opposition that has become ubiquitous inCanada and the United States. Waste planners may have dis-played a general ignorance or intellectual neglect regardingfundamental planning models and theory. This neglect mayhelp us to understand why waste planning appears to beprone to failure. This bibliography provides some founda-tional readings in planning models that may help us linkwaste management and planning theory. A literature reviewwas undertaken, with a focus on refereed journals. Three dis-tinct types of refereed journals were examined: planning,waste management and environmental management.Articles were screened for evidence of six planning models asthey relate to waste management, including the comprehen-sive-rational, incremental, adaptive, contingency, advocacy,and participatory models.

1.0 OBJECTIVE

More than a decade ago, Dalton (1986) challengedthe planning profession by pointing out that utilitarian

and logical positivist interpretations of rationality(Banfield 1955, 1959; Hodge 1991) predominate the pro-cess of professional land use planning. Armour (1987)and Lawrence (1997) have argued that the discipline ofenvironmental impact assessment is also dominated bytechnical rationality. Thus, it appears that waste man-agement planning, an area of practice that creates a syn-thesis between traditional planning models and envi-ronmental impact assessment through the applicationof various environmental impact assessment (EIA)regulations, has also demonstrated a slavish adher-ence to the technical comprehensive rational model(Hostovsky 1999). Indeed, the author’s recent workhighlighted how hundreds of millions of dollars anddecades of recent planning effort in Ontario, Canada,have largely failed to implement waste disposal sitesfor municipal solid, hazardous, and nuclear waste sys-tems despite a total commitment to technical rationality

CHUCK HOSTOVSKY, M.C.I.P., R.P.P., is a midcareer Ph.D. can-didate in the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo, anadjunct professor in the Department of Geography and Program inPlanning at the University of Toronto, and an instructor at RyersonPolytechnic University.

Journal of Planning Literature,Vol.15,No.2 (November2000).Copyright © 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

expressed in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act.These siting failures occurred despite fully integratedparticipatory planning and a strong commitment topublic consultation.

The purpose of this bibliography is to explore thebody of literature that interfaces between professionalland use planning and the management of waste, thusproviding theoretical background for the author’s com-prehensive exam and doctoral research. The author, amidcareer planner with a long history of practice inwaste management, has been struggling to understandthe dynamics of these siting failures and the sustainedpublic opposition that has become ubiquitous in Can-ada and the United States. However, the author hypoth-esizes that waste planners have displayed general igno-rance or intellectual neglect regarding fundamentalplanning models and theory. This neglect may, in part,help us to understand why waste planning appears tobe prone to failure. This bibliography will provide somefoundational readings in planning models that mayhelp us link waste management and planning theory.

1.1 Methodology

A literature review was undertaken, with a focus onrefereed journals, to examine the most likely places thatplanning theorists and academics would publish.Unrefereed trade magazines and government publica-tions were not examined because they are unlikely topublish the results of theoretical research. Three distincttypes of refereed journals were examined, as follows:

Planning journals with a primarily Canadian andAmerican focus; to examine the extent to which plan-ning theory has examined the management of waste,these journals1 included:— Journal of the American Planning Association (JAPA),

formerly American Institute of Planning Journal— Journal of Planning Education and Research (JPER)— Plan Canada

The main interest of the author’s research is to under-stand what planners think about waste management ina North American context. JAPA is associated with thelargest body of professional planners in the world,whereas JPER is an instrument of the Association ofCollegiate Schools of Planning, the governing body bywhich all Canadian and American planning schools arecertified. Plan Canada is a sometimes refereed journalpublished by the Canadian Institute of Planners, fromwhom the author has his professional registration.

Although many other planning journals are pub-lished around the world, they were not examined in theinterest of scoping the literature review to those jour-nals most likely to meet the research goals (there areabout 300 journals of relevance to planning).2

Refereed journals dedicated to waste management; toexamine to what extent engineering and other disci-plines have examined planning theory in the manage-ment of waste, journals included:— Waste Management and Research and— Resources, Conservation and Recycling, formerly

Resources and Conservation, and Resource Recovery andConservation

Although there are dozens and maybe hundreds ofengineering journals that may publish articles relatedto waste management, the author again, with directionfrom his dissertation committee, scoped his review tothe two main refereed journals specializing in waste.

Environmental management journals, to examine towhat extent multidisciplinary environmental manag-ers have addressed waste planning as a subset of theirdiscipline.— Journal of Environmental Management and— Environmental Management

It was determined by the author that many “environ-mental planners,”3 not directly involved with profes-sional land use planning programs but with training inplanning theory, environmental impact assessment,and resource management, may be publishing inmultidisciplinary journals. Although there are many ofthese multidisciplinary journals, these two journals wereexamined as a test because of their direct mandate inenvironmental management.

Originally, a computerized literature search andindexing tools were used, with planning, plan, and wasteas keywords in all commercial databases available inthe University of Waterloo’s library system (e.g., Pollu-tion Abstracts). However, the results of the computer-ized search were disappointing, yielding few results.Only a handful of textbooks, consultant reports, andgovernment documents were identified,4 with most ofthese written from an engineering perspective (e.g.,how to design leachate collection systems).

Many provinces and states have created guidelinesassociated with waste management planning. In theauthor’s home province of Ontario, the Ministry of theEnvironment (MOE) released an exhaustive three-volume set5 that the author previously peer reviewedfor the Ministry. In response to much criticism in theprovince about applying environmental assessment towaste management, the MOE’s “cookbook” providesdetailed step-by-step instructions for proponents tomeet the requirements of the Environmental AssessmentAct. Notwithstanding these government publications,it was not the purpose of the research to review the EIAregulatory process of each individual province andstate, thus the reviewer decided to concentrate on thejournals that would most likely yield appropriate arti-cles on planning theory and models in waste manage-

306 Journal of Planning Literature

ment. The author went through all of the holdings ofthese journals from their earliest publication through tomid-1997, just before the author’s comprehensive examwas scheduled.6 In preparation for publication of thiswork, the author reviewed the same journals from 1997to mid-2000 and plans to submit annotated bibliogra-phies of this research in a follow-up to this bibliography.The appendix contains titles and selected abstracts ofmost of the articles that will be analyzed.

The journals were examined volume by volume,looking for waste planning–related entries. Journal arti-cle abstracts were studied to determine whether thearticle content explored some relationship of planningto waste management. Photocopies were made of allarticles that met the literature search criteria for laterdetailed analysis. An annotated bibliography with afocus on the articles’ planning processes was created.The planning models presented in the literature wereanalyzed vis-à-vis three distinct parameters, as follows:

1. By type of journal:— Planning— Environmental management— Waste management

2. By discipline based on the affiliation of the authorsto university departments, government agencies, orprivate consulting firms:— Planners— Engineering/sciences— Social sciences— Economics— Law— Government employees (i.e., bureaucrats)— Unknown

3. By author’s nationality based on affiliation withuniversity departments, government agencies, orprivate consulting firms:— Canadian— American— European— Developing nations

Finally, a historical analysis was integrated into theanalysis (see Table 1).

1.2 Background—Screening Papers

Two important articles were used as a screeningmechanism to identify the main planning models/the-ories to be identified and any potential relationship ofplanning models to waste management. Of particularimportance was the following:

Briassoulis, Helen. 1989. Theoretical orientations in environmentalplanning: An inquiry into alternative approaches. EnvironmentalManagement 13, 43: 381-92.

This article was recommended by late ProfessorGeorge Priddle,7 and the author concurred that Brias-

soulis’s review could serve as an excellent baseline bywhich the literature could be compared and contrasted.Briassoulis provides a thorough and succinct review ofthe major environmental planning models adaptedfrom accepted planning theory. She identifies six majorenvironmental planning approaches, summarized asfollows:

Comprehensive-Rational modelThe dominant land use planning model in professionalplanningStaged approach: (1) ecological/socioeconomic profile,(2) examine alternative solutions, (3) best solutionvis-à-vis criteria developedReliance on planner as a “technician”

Incremental modelAttention given to the environment when there is acrisis—crisis managementEnvironmental problems handled individuallyPlanning responds to fragmented environmental regu-lations and is highly political

Adaptive (modeling) modelReliance on modeling, especially computerizedtechniquesPrepared responsivenessRecognizes successive and continuous approaches tohuman activityAnticipatory, predicts future eventsRecognizes dynamic character of ecosystem

Contingency modelProduce alternative courses of action to meet unex-pected occurrences that may have adverse environ-mental consequencesMostly used for natural hazards or man-induced hazardsRisk assessment based

Advocacy modelIdeology; planner cannot be neutralCannot serve two mastersPlanning congruent with client values and goalsData may be manipulated to meet client goalsEnvironmental outcome the “survival of the fittest”

Participatory modelParticipatory democracy—public input into decision-making processDispute resolution, mediation, negotiationPluralistic view, looks for “win-win” planningalternativesCompromise does not ensure environmental quality

Although Briassoulis’s article does not explicitlydeal with “waste” planning per se, waste managementplanning can be viewed as a subset of environmentalplanning. As such, these classifications were used inthis reviewer’s literature search to categorize the waste-planning models. In Table 2, the author has cross-referenced the Briassoulis environmental planningmodels with some standard planning theory referenceswith which he is familiar.

Upon the initial review of the literature, it becameevident that many authors combined planning models;

CPL Bibliography 361 307

TABLE 1. Chronology of Waste-Planning Models in the Examined Literature

Journals Disciplines Nationality

Environmental Engineering/ SocialYear Planning Management Waste Planners Science Sciences Economics Law Unknown Bureaucrat Canadian American European Developing

19701971 1P-CR 1CR 1P-CR 1CR 1P-CR 1CR1972197319741975 1I 1CR 1I 1CR 1CR 1I1976 1P-A 1M 1P-A 1M 1M 1PA1977 1P-A 1P-A 1P-A1978 1P-CR 1P-CR 1P-CR1979 1M-I 1I-M 1I-M19801981 1P-CR 1P-CR 1P-CR1982 1P-CR 1P-CR 1P-CR1983 1P-CR (WH) 1I 1P-CR (WH) 1I 1P-CR (WH) 1I1984 1M 1M 1M1985 1CR 1P-CR 1CR 1I 1P-CR 1I 1CR 1CR 1I 2CR 1P-CR198619871988 2CR 2CR 2CR1989 1P-CR (WH) 1I 1P-CR (WH) 1M 1P-CR (WH) 1P-CR (WH) 1M 1I 1P-CR (WH) 1P-CR (WH) 1I 1M1990 2C-A 2C-A 1C-A 1C-A1991 1M 1I-M 1M 1I-M 1M 1I-M1992 1P-CR (WH) 1P-CR 1M 1P-CR (WH) 1M 1P-CR (WH) 1P-CR 1M

1P-CR1993 1CR 1P-CR 2P-A 1P-CR 1CR 2P-A 1P-CR 1P-CR 2P-A 1CR1994 1M 1M 1P-A 1P 1I-M 1M 1I-M 1P-A 1M 1P 1M 1P-A 1P 1I-M 1M1995 1M 1P-CR 2M 1CR 1P-A 1M 1P-CR 1M 1CR 1P-A 1M 1M 1P-CR 3M 1P-A 1CR1996 1CA 1P-CR (WH) 2M 1CR 1M 1M 1P-CR (WH) 2M 1CR 1CR 1M 1P-CR (WH) 2M 1CR 1M 2M1997

NOTE: The number before each abbreviation is the number of planning models per annum.CR = comprehensive-rational.P = participatory.P-CR = participatory comprehensive-rational.P-CR (WH) = participatory comprehensive-rational (willing host).C-A = citizen advocacy.P-A = proponent advocacy.I = incremental.M = adaptive (modeling).I-M = incremental adaptive.

308

for example, the participatory model was most oftenassociated with the comprehensive-rational model. Asa result, the literature review recognized these inte-grated models.

The second background article used for screeningthe literature search was the following:

Abbott, Carl, and Sy Adler. 1989. Historical analysis as a planningtool. Journal of the American Planning Association 55, 4: 467-73.

Abbott and Adler discuss the importance of histori-cal analysis in professional planning. Besides buildingpride, group identity, and solidarity in the planningprofession, historical analysis can be used to “avoidrepeating the past” (p. 468). History can be a valuableanalytical approach to the problems of planning. Rec-ognizing that the past has predictive value was inte-grated into the analytical framework from which the lit-erature on waste management planning was reviewed.


TABLE 2. Standard Planning Theory Cross-References for Briassoulis (1989) Environmental-Planning Models

Model Selected References

Comprehensive-rational Banfield, E. C. 1955. Note on conceptual scheme. In Politics, planning and the public interest,M. Meyerson and E. C. Banfield, eds. New York: Free Press.

Banfield, E. C. 1959. Ends and means in planning. International Social Science Journal 11, 3:361-68.

Hodge, Gerald. 1991. Planning Canadian communities. Scarborough: Nelson Canada.

Incremental Braybrooke, D., and C. E. Lindlom. 1963. A strategy of decision. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Lindblom, C. 1965. The intelligence of democracy: Decision making through mutual adjustment.New York: Free Press.

Stollman, Israel. 1988. The values of the planner. In The practice of local government planning,Frank S. So and Judith Getzels, eds. Washington, DC: International City ManagementAssociation.

Adaptive (modeling) ESSA Environmental and Social Consultants Ltd. 1982. Review and evaluation of adaptive envi-ronmental assessment and management. Vancouver: Environment Canada.

Harris, Britton. 1996. Planning technologies and planning theories. In Explorations in plan-ning theory, Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell., eds. NewBrunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research Press.

Sonntag, N. C. 1983. Adaptive environmental assessment and management (AEAM) as ascoping tool. In Environmental planning for large scale development projects, J. D. Wiebe, E. H.Kustan, and S. Hum, eds. Whistler, BC: Environment Canada.

Contingency Alexander, Ernest. 1988. After rationality: Towards a contingency theory for planning. InExplorations in planning theory, Seymour Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert Burchell,eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research Press.

Christiansen, K. S. 1985. Coping with uncertainty in planning. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 51: 63-73.

Advocacy Davidoff, P. 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute ofPlanners 31: 331-38.

Faludi, Andreas. 1996. Rationality, critical rationalism, and planning doctrine. In Explora-tions in planning theory, Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell, eds.New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research Press.

Marris, P. 1994. Advocacy planning as a bridge between the professional and the political.Journal of the American Planning Association 60: 143-46.

Participatory Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute ofPlanners 34: 216-24.

Lucy, William H. 1996. APA’s ethical principles include simplistic planning theories. InReading in planning theory, Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein, eds. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.

Susskind, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the impasse. New York: BasicBooks.

Based on this reviewer’s sixteen years of professionalpractice and graduate research, it seemed that wasteplanners have continually repeated mistakes of thepast.

2.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of fifty-two journal articles were reviewedand incorporated into the annotated bibliography.Table 1 contains a chronological breakdown of thesearticles. There were fourteen articles in the three plan-ning journals, nine articles in the two environmentalmanagement journals, and twenty-nine articles in thetwo waste management journals.8

2.1 Planning Journals

The comprehensive-rational (CR) planning modelwas the predominant model among planning authors.Nine of the fourteen articles presented this model asapplicable to waste planning. Furthermore, the partic-ipatory model was fully integrated with the CR model,appearing in eight of the nine articles, including theearliest article (1971). The lone article that did not dis-cuss the inclusion of public involvement into a CRwaste-planning process was Bower (1971). Further-more, the other 1971 paper (Andrews) discussed a par-ticipatory approach by calling for increased “access forcitizens,” thereby implying that the public had littleaccess to the planning process. It is not surprising thatplanners’ earliest waste-related publications promotedthe CR approach, as this approach has indeed beenthe dominant land use planning paradigm for manydecades.

No articles addressed incremental planningapproaches in the planning journals, possibly reflectingthe professional planner’s aversion to this type of plan-ning. Incremental approaches can be viewed as “firefighting,” reacting to situations as they develop.Planning schools, on the other hand, stress the CRapproach, viewing fire fighting as a lack of prepared-ness, the antithesis of planning. Only one article dealtwith adaptive planning (i.e., modeling), and it was avery recent article (Lober 1995). Lober advocated theuse of geographic information systems to model publicopposition to landfill siting proposals. This authorassumes planners have also had an aversion to hightechnology; as a result, there was little discussion on theuse of such powerful technological tools as geographicinformation systems (GIS) despite their widespread usein waste facility site selection. Furthermore, modelingin general requires mathematical and statistical skillsnot usually associated with planning as a profession. Asthis literature review discovered, other journals anddisciplines embraced adaptive modeling approaches.

Historically, it must be noted that after the twoAmerican articles of 1971, no publications appeared in

these planning journals until the late 1970s. Of thosethree articles, two present an advocacy model of wasteplanning, especially proponent-based advocacy. Thesetwo articles both discuss the alternative of waste-to-energy incineration, questioning why waste plannershad not embraced this technology as the solution tothe waste and energy crisis. Certainly this was to beexpected as the Arab oil embargo had taken place justprevious to these publications. Indeed, the other jour-nals also saw much attention to energy recovery as aresult of the alleged energy crisis.

Articles published in the 1970s also indicated thatplanners were not yet comfortable with the “technol-ogy” of waste management. Some of these articlesincluded descriptions of waste technologies designedto educate planners. The thrust of these earlier writingswas also to encourage land use planners to get involvedin waste planning because of the skills sets plannershave, including the ability to make value-ladentrade-offs in controversial planning issues. Attitudes topublic involvement were somewhat tentative, possiblyreflecting old paternalistic attitudes from the postwargeneration. For example, Greenburg (1977) points outthat planners have the responsibility to help propo-nents with “adverse citizen reaction” (the term not inmy backyard [NIMBY] was not yet in widespread use).There was little discussion in the 1970s about helpingcitizens.

In the early 1980s, two other planning journal articlesappeared. Of particular note was the first article toadvocate a “willing-host” concept into the CR planningmodel. This idea was a logical extension of the partici-patory approach, giving more power to local citizens insite selection processes. Almost half of the CR papers(four) addressed the willing-host approach, most withglowing account of success stories in siting hazardous-waste or nuclear treatment facilities. Curiously, noneproposed using the willing-host approach for munici-pal solid waste landfill sites or incinerators.

By the early 1990s, there was a complete shift in theplanning literature to more “progressive” planningapproaches. Two articles dealt with advocacy planning.However, instead of a proponent-based advocateapproach, citizen advocacy was prescribed. Lang (1990)discussed the need for equity in waste site selection pro-cesses and the need for planners to represent the lessprivileged sectors of our society (i.e., those that usuallyend up hosting waste facilities). Heiman (1990) calledon planners to abandon altogether their tradition ofsocial harmony to represent those who are unjustly dis-placed by waste proposals. MacDonald (1996) pointedout that black communities in the United States oftenend up bearing the undue burden of waste disposal.

Overall, articles on waste management in the plan-ning literature seemed to be cyclical in nature, with


gaps of four or five years with no waste-related articles,followed by several publications. This may reflect thecyclical nature of waste management, as waste “crises”come and go. More research is needed to correlate plan-ners’ reactions to these historical cycles.

2.2 Environmental-Management Journals

Adaptive (modeling) planning techniques wereclearly favored in the environmental management liter-ature. Four of the nine articles outlined various models.Two outlined modified input-output models, one pro-moted expert systems (i.e., artificial intelligence), andone discussed a “multi-objective mixed integer pro-gramming technique.” Almost all of these articles reliedon the use of the computer as a valuable modeling tool,for obvious reasons.

One of the models was used as an incrementalapproach, thereby implying the use of models to meetnew regulatory standards. Bishop and Narayanan(1979) pointed out that their model would help todesign a residuals management system that could meetthe myriad of new environmental regulations. Twoother articles dealt with incremental approaches towaste planning. Choi (1983) pointed out that U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agengy (EPA) regulations werenot being met. Lemons and Malone (1989) overviewedthe nuclear waste repository siting process’s lack ofcomprehensive approach (i.e., McHargian siting andEIA techniques) and the need to meet the nuclear wastecrisis through a focus on geology only.

Three articles addressed the CR model to waste plan-ning, and two of them integrated a participatoryapproach. This reviewer was in general surprised to seean overall lack of public involvement planning in theenvironmental management journals. Some authorstook positions that are totally incongruous withaccepted planning practice. Choi (1983), for example,pointed out that education of the public was needed.This may be partially explained by the scientific-technical background of these authors. None of theenvironmental management authors were from theplanning profession.

Historically, environmental management journalsprinted waste-related articles every couple of years,with little evidence of any particular shift in focus dur-ing the period reviewed (1979 to 1997).

2.3 Waste Journals

The most common type of planning advocated in thewaste journals was adaptive modeling. Eleven of thearticles described various techniques, most involvinglinear and/or nonlinear programming algorithms. Thefocus of the models was on minimizing costs and trans-portation distances between waste systems compo-nents. Few models took ecological conditions into

account. Most developed waste systems and technolo-gies with the help of a computer. A few could predictpotential site locations. Two articles dealt with expertsystems/artificial intelligence, essentially distillingexperts’ knowledge and decision-making processesinto a computer database.

Three modeling articles dealt with life-cycle analysis(LCA). There was much criticism about the use of LCAin waste management and discussion of problems ofcomparing “apples to oranges”; however, the authorswere unanimous that this tool held much promise fordesigning waste systems and reducing waste-relatedenvironmental impacts. Craighill and Powell (1996)used LCA to demonstrate that recycling created moreimpacts than waste planners had assumed.

None of the modeling advocates addressed publicinput and social impacts into their planning process in ameaningful way. A few addressed public opposition asa function of distance from the proposed facility, essen-tially reducing public participation to a linear program-ming algorithm (Koo et al. 1991; Or and Akgul 1994).

Almost as many articles, ten, addressed waste plan-ning in a CR approach. However, only three integrateda participatory approach. McHargian mapping tech-niques were common in site selection processesdescribed. Many of the CR waste-planning articlesfocused on the use of multicriteria decision-making(MCDM) techniques. Most of these techniques wereLeopoldian in nature, converting impacts and relativeimportance into numeric (cardinal) values, typically ona scale of one to ten. Some discussed ordinal (e.g.,pairwise comparisons) MCDM techniques. Reliance onexperts in conducting MCDM techniques was clear.Advocating public input into MCDM processes wassadly lacking. Only one CR process overviewed awilling-host methodology (McQuaid-Cook and Simons1989).

None of the waste journal articles containedcitizen-based advocacy approaches. Four articles, all ofthem in the 1990s, described proponent-based advo-cacy approaches. These articles seemed to indicate alevel of frustration with the NIMBY syndrome, andthey seemed to be written as a backlash against citizenactivists. Kovacs (1993) even called on the U.S. federalgovernment to enact legislation that could force imple-mentation of waste facilities regardless of the level andferocity of public opposition. All of these authors sug-gested there was too much federal and state interfer-ence in the planning process and that the industry wasoverregulated. Kovacs was certainly ambiguous on thispoint. Burkart, as recently as 1994, viewed communica-tions with the public solely as a “public relations” prob-lem requiring more public education.

Tarr (1985) overviewed the history of waste manage-ment in the United States starting from the mid-


nineteenth century. Until 1965, waste was planned in anad hoc manner. He pointed out that incrementalchanges were made in waste planning as regulationswere passed, starting with the Solid Waste Disposal Act of1965. Two other authors described incrementalapproaches based on regulatory changes. It seems clearthat there seems to be a strong correlation betweenwaste-planning process change and regulatory change.

There were only three articles dealing with wasteplaning in the waste management journals in the 1970sthrough to the mid-1980s. This seems to indicate wasteprofessionals had little regard for planning processesduring those decades. However, several articlesappeared in the late 1980s with a relative flurry of plan-ning-related articles published in the 1990s. Thisreviewer hypothesizes that the waste community rec-ognized waste facilities and plans were being defeatedand abandoned on a regular basis due to grassrootsopposition. The frustration associated with dealingwith the politics and social dimensions of NIMBY mayhave been a primary factor in garnering more attentionto planning processes.

2.4 Disciplines

The planning journal articles were written by plan-ners. However, even though the environmental man-agement and waste journals are multidisciplinary, onlyone planner published a waste article in the reviewednonplanning journals. Conn (1976) promoted the use ofincineration with energy recovery.

As previously mentioned, planners predominatelyembraced the CR planning model. Most integrated aparticipatory approach. Again, this was not unexpecteddue to the emphasis on the CR approach in professionalplanning school and practice. It only seems natural thatwe would import this model into waste planning. Fur-thermore, effective and meaningful public participationhas become synonymous with “good planning practice”;therefore, there was no surprise to this reviewer that par-ticipatory approaches were well integrated.

Advocacy planning was also common among plan-ners, split evenly between representing proponents andcitizens. It is interesting to note that planners’ vestedinterests in proponents were written about in the late1970s, with citizen advocacy appearing in the 1990s.Furthermore, willing-host methodologies were dis-cussed by planners in the 1980s and into the 1990s, indi-cating a concern for community impacts, fairness, andequity in site selection processes. Possibly it has becomepassé for professional planning to be seen to “be in bedwith proponents,” or it may be that planning hasmatured as a discipline. Regardless, these are topics forfurther in-depth investigation. It is also worth notingthat planners wrote about participatory CR approacheslong before the other disciplines addressed this model.

Clearly the engineers and the physical science pro-fessions embraced modeling as the overwhelmingplanning model of choice. Sometimes these adaptivetechniques were associated with incremental responsesto regulatory changes. However, the literature demon-strates there was some interest in the CR model throughthe late 1970s and into the 1980s. By the 1990s, modelingwas the exclusive planning approach in the sciences.There was only a small body of evidence in the sciencespointing to involving the public in consensus building.The sciences were also silent on the issue of thewilling-host concept. Again, the technocrats may feelcomfortable returning to what they do best (i.e., quanti-tative methods). They may have also become disen-chanted with the longtime horizons required for CRmodels of waste planning.

Three social scientists, in the last half of the temporalanalysis, wrote about three different planning models,none of them involving modeling or quantitative meth-ods. Five economists presented articles in the 1990sonly. Goddard (1995) argued that waste planning hasbeen traditionally viewed as an engineering problem,when in reality it is an economic problem. Three econo-mists embraced the CR approach; one wrote aboutadaptive modeling, and one economist was an advo-cate for proponents. Of course, economics was thedecided slant to their work.

One lawyer and nine authors of unknown back-ground presented articles beginning in the mid-1980s.Clearly, these disciplines had not traditionally beeninvolved in waste planning, which explains the lag timein their involvement in the literature.

Four articles were associated with government agen-cies and not a discipline. Again, these articles appearedlater in the literature (1980s and 1990s). Two, not sur-prisingly, discussed incremental approaches requiredto meet new government regulations. Nine authorswere not identifiable to a discipline.

2.5 Nationality

Canadian authors, most of them planners, fullyembraced the participatory CR approach. Not one CRapproach was presented without the integration ofmeaningful public involvement as a centerpiece togood waste planning. Two-thirds of these articles advo-cated the integration of the willing-host concept. Over-all, Canadian waste planners were committed to a par-ticipatory approach and demonstrated eagerness tofind waste facilities that minimized environmental aswell as social impacts. Historically, this finding did notwaiver throughout the time period examined, althoughCanadian authors did not appear until almost halfwaythrough the historical analysis.

American authors were the most represented groupin the review, and they were evenly split between the


CR approach and adaptive modeling. This split wasdivided along disciplinary lines, as discussed previ-ously. Most of the CR approaches described integratedparticipatory approaches, although acquiescence tomeaningful public involvement came later than it didfor Canadian authors. Only one American authorsuggested willing-host techniques. Incrementalapproaches appeared in four American articles.

Except for an article in 1975, Europeans authored tenarticles late in the literature review: three in themid-1980s and the bulk in the 1990s. None of theseauthors represented the planning profession. Possibly,language held back potential authors, although this isdisappointing as it is well documented that WesternEuropeans developed integrated waste managementsystems and aggressive 3Rs programs well beforeNorth Americans did. Again, the CR model was pre-ferred by Europeans; however, there was very little dis-cussion of participatory approaches. Only one authordiscussed the importance of meaningful publicinvolvement. Modeling and incremental approacheswere represented by two articles each.

Nine articles were presented by authors from devel-oping countries, including India, Nigeria, Tanzania,Korea, Taiwan, the Middle East, and Turkey. Theseauthors overwhelming favored adaptive modelingapproaches. Only two proposed a CR model. There wasvirtually no discussion of public involvement. Further-more, ecological considerations took a low priority, asenvironmental concerns were equated primarily withpublic health and safety. Clearly, we can see cultural dif-ferences in the public-government interface, withpaternalism the modus operandi of these regimes.However, one could speculate that economic prosper-ity plays a major role in increasing participatorydemocracy in waste planning. The Korean article(Koo, Shin, and Yoo 1991), for example, acknowledgedNIMBY and built concessions into their modeldesigned to reduce social stress. This may be an indica-tion that the growth in living standards in Korea isresulting in a Western-style social phenomenon,including the NIMBY syndrome.

2.6 Conclusion

Overall, preferences in waste-planning models weredivided along disciplinary lines, with planners favor-ing the CR model and those in engineering/sciencefavoring adaptive modeling. Modeling rarelyaddressed social concerns and public input.

Participatory approaches were well integrated intothe CR model, with the “willing-host” concept receiv-ing a surprising amount of attention. Chronologically,the CR approach appeared throughout the time line;however, the intensity of discussion about participa-tory approaches grew in more recent years.

Advocacy planning occurred earlier in the historicalanalysis, with a shift from proponent-based to citizen-based advocacy later in the time line.

Canadians unanimously favored a CR approachwith full commitment to meaningful participatorymodels. Americans preferred the CR model and adap-tive techniques, but they wrote less about consensusbuilding with the public and gave a fair bit of attentionto tying incremental approaches to changes in govern-ment regulations. Europeans were less concerned withthe public than Americans were. Authors affiliatedwith universities in developing countries appearedmore recently in the reviewed journals, and they tendedto favor adaptive and incremental approaches, with noprovision whatsoever for Western-style public partici-pation campaigns. The author speculates that may be acorrelation between interest in waste managementresearch and the more recent introduction of EIA regu-lations in the developing world. No indication of con-tingency planning was found in any of the journals.

2.7 Notes

1. The Journal of Planning Literature was also examined; however,no relevant articles were found.

2. A 1999 survey conducted on the PLANET Listserv by ProfessorJack Nasar, Ohio State University.

3. Academics and professionals primarily associated with facul-ties of environmental studies and geography programs.

4. In stark contrast, the author used “waste management” as asearch parameter at www.amazon.com on May 11, 2000. This searchyielded 1,070 book matches on the Internet’s largest online bookretailer.

5. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1994. Waste ManagementPlanning—Sectoral Environmental Assessment Proposal for Waste Man-agement Planning.

6. He passed his comprehensive exams with much travail!7. University of Waterloo, Faculty of Environmental Studies.8. In the initial 1997 to 2000 update (see the appendix), only one

article could be found in the three planning journals, whereas thewaste and environmental management journals yielded more than 40articles.

2.8 References

Annotated bibliographies are presented as follows:

Armour, Audrey. 1987. Resolving facility siting conflicts. Paper sub-mitted for doctoral comprehensive examination, School of Urbanand Regional Planning, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Banfield, E. C. 1959. Ends and means in planning. International SocialScience Journal 11, 3: 361-68.

. 1955. Note on conceptual scheme. In Politics, planning and thepublic interest, M. Meyerson and E. C. Banfield, eds. New York: FreePress.

Dalton, Linda C. 1986. Why the rational planning paradigm per-sists—The resistance of professional education and practice toalternative forms of planning. Journal of Planning Education andResearch 5: 147-52.

Hodge, Gerald. 1991. Planning Canadian communities. Scarborough:Nelson Canada.

Hostovsky, Charles. 1999. Persistence of the rational planning para-digm in waste management: Tales from the field. Paper presentedat the annual conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of


Planning, Chicago. (Available for viewing at http://www.ryerson.ca/~chostovs/acsp.html)

Lawrence, David. 1997. Reforming the EIA planning process. Ph.D.thesis, University of Waterloo, School of Urban and RegionalPlanning, Ontario, Canada.

3.0 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

3.1 Planning Journals

3.1.1 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNINGASSOCIATION (FORMERLY AMERICAN INSTITUTEOF PLANNING JOURNAL)

3.1.1.1 Andrews, Richard N. L. 1971. Three fronts of federalenvironmental policy. AIP Journal 37, 3: 258-66.

Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational

Andrews gives us some interesting insights into thethoughts of the planning profession in the late 1960s andearly 1970s. The article was written shortly after theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed in theUnited States (1969). While making comments about pol-lution in general, which the authors describes as “residualsmanagement,” the article does point out that the manage-ment of wastes is hampered by “free” air, land, and waterfor disposal (p. 259), vis-à-vis Harding’s “Tragedy of theCommons.” Andrews points out that prior to NEPA in1969, residuals management was planned in an ad hocmanner and as a separate issue (e.g., Solid Waste DisposalAct of 1965, Refuse Act of 1899). He calls upon planners totake a more “comprehensive” approach to environmentalplanning on public lands and federal actions. Finally, theauthor points to the need for increased “access of citizensat all levels of government,” hinting at a “participatory”approach.

3.1.1.2 Bower, Blair T. 1971. Residuals and environmentalmanagement. AIP Journal 37, 3: 218-20.

Planning Model: Comprehensive-Rational

Bower views environmental planning as the managementof “residuals” and the recognition of the assimilativecapacity of ecological externalities. This reviewer was sur-prised to see that a planner viewed the problem of solidresiduals (garbage) as a problem of overconsumption ofgoods and a throwaway philosophy demanded by anaffluent society. Not much is mentioned by the author interms of waste planning other than to point out to fellowplanners that alternatives be examined (eluding to the“rational-comprehensive” approach) and that we seek to“articulate the multiple trade-offs among societal valuesinvolved.” Twenty-seven years later, we are still wrestlingwith those trade-offs.

3.1.1.3 Greenburg, Michael R. 1977. Suggestions for evalu-ating resource recovery proposals. AIP Journal 43, 1:24-32.

Planning Model: Proponent Advocacy

Professor Greenburg’s article was intended to provideguidance to local and county planning boards in theirreview of resource recovery (i.e., waste-to-energy) facilityproposals. As an “advocate” for incineration, he providesfive criteria for the planning profession to assess propos-als—technical, by-product strategies, legal/institutional,economics, and site characteristics. While lacking in analy-sis of planning theory and models, he provides some inter-esting insights into how the planning profession viewedwaste management in the mid-1970s. For example, hepoints out that planning boards and planners in generallack the expertise or desire to review the technical nature ofwaste facilities. Also significant is Greenburg’s naive state-ment regarding public attitudes toward waste manage-ment: “The public attitude toward solid waste has beenthat it should go away. The destination has been consid-ered irrelevant” (p. 29). However, Greenburg does pointout that it is the planner’s responsibility to discuss “possi-ble adverse citizen reaction” to the site with the proponent.Overall, the article suggests that in the mid-1970s, plannersin the United States had little to no involvement in wastemanagement other than to react to proposals under wayand assist the proponent with dealing with the public.

3.1.1.4 Conn, W. David. 1978. Planning for resource recovery:Lessons from the California experience. AIP Journal 44, 2:200-8.


Conn’s primary purpose in his article was to explore whyresource recovery (i.e., waste-to-energy) had not beenimplemented in most of the waste management plansdeveloped in California in the 1970s. He points out thateven though the American waste planner was respondingto the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976(i.e., states or regions should prepare a comprehensivesolid waste plan), in California comprehensive wasteplans have been required since 1972. California legislationalso called for a 25 percent reduction in waste going tolandfill, with primary emphasis on waste-to-energytechnologies.

The author reviewed twenty-seven such plans con-ducted between 1972 and 1977. Although the primaryfocus of Conn’s review was to examine waste-to-energyimplementation, he also made some interesting commentsabout the integration of public involvement in the Califor-nia waste plans (i.e., participatory planning). Despite therequirement that public involvement be an essential ingre-dient in the plan preparation process, Conn found littleevidence that the public had exerted significant influenceon the planning process. He pointed out that this waseither an omission in reporting/documentation or a seri-ous inadequacy in the planning process.

This article points out there was an assumption ofrational/comprehensive waste planning integrated withparticipatory planning in the United States, especially Cal-


ifornia, by the late 1970s. However, effective implementa-tion of these planning models by county waste boards wasquestionable.

3.1.1.5 Anderson, Richard F., and Michael R. Greenburg. 1982.Hazardous waste facility siting: A role for planners. AIPJournal 48, 2: 204-18.


This article gives this reviewer significant insight into howplanners viewed waste planning in the early 1980s. Ander-son and Greenburg provide the planning profession withan overview of the “crisis” of hazardous-waste disposal inthe United States and the failure to site new environmen-tally appropriate disposal facilities. These failures weredue to ad hoc procedures that rely more on marketing (i.e.,least cost on cheap land). The assumption is made thatplanners know little about hazardous-waste legislation(e.g., NEPA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act[RCRA]); therefore, the article provides a brief educationfor the profession. They point out that planners can play animportant role through their familiarity with land use andmethodological approaches. Thus, the profession “offers asubstantial opportunity to help resolve the critical prob-lems posed by hazardous wastes” (p. 217).

The authors then use a review of “environmental impactassessment literature” to overview a typical site selectionprocess for a landfill using McHargian overlay techniquesfor site identification and Leopold’s matrix system forevaluation/ranking alternative sites. Historically, it seemsthat planning did not start to embrace EIA methods forsome ten to fifteen years after their development by suchpioneers as McHarg and Leopold. The article also pointsout that site selection is part of the overall waste-planningprocess, albeit a very important component. They warn ofthe problem of NIMBY and call for integrated public par-ticipation into the planning process. Thus, from a planningtheory perspective, comprehensive-rational and participa-tory models of waste planning are implied.

It is also interesting to note that the authors refer to alter-native methods of waste treatment and disposal as “engi-neering plans” and that “planners will work with engi-neering experts” (p. 217), indicating some degree ofdiscomfort with the technical side of waste management.

3.1.1.6 Heiman, Michael. 1990. From “Not in my backyard” to“Not in anybody’s backyard!” Grassroots challenge to haz-ardous waste facility siting. APA Journal 56, 3: 359-62.

Planning Model: Citizen Advocacy

Heiman’s commentary is the first waste managementarticle in JAPA after an eight-year hiatus. Clearly, a movefrom a participatory comprehensive-rational model toadvocacy planning is made. Heiman takes a cynical viewof traditional public participation, maintaining that thepractice is intended “primarily to reduce the public’s fearof the siting process” (p. 360). He points out that theNIMBY phenomenon has given the public de facto vetopower over waste facility siting through citizens who are

“well armed with facts, figures and tactics.” He calls forplanners to abandon their liberal planning tradition ofseeking social harmony and questions why the “state” iscommitted to facility siting. He also questions the prevail-ing wisdom of consensus, negotiation, and compensationdemanded by the participatory model, calling planners tomove beyond that old notion to a new practice of a planneras a “social advocate” because of the “socially unjust andenvironmentally unstable” practice of managing hazard-ous waste.

3.1.1.7 Lober, Douglas J. 1995. Resolving the siting impasse:Modeling social and environmental location criteria with ageographic information system. APA Journal 61, 4: 482-95.

Planning Model: Adaptive

Douglas Lober presents an informative and in-depth anal-ysis of weaknesses associated with site selection processesthat rely on exclusionary McHargian overlay techniques.These techniques result in NIMBY responses that inevita-bly lead to the defeat of most siting proposals for wastefacilities. He points to the failure of McHargian overlays toeffectively integrate social criteria with environmen-tal/ecological criteria. The use of GIS is presented as apowerful and predictive tool for planners to use in sitingwaste facilities that has the potential to effectively inte-grate social criteria. However, despite the extensive litera-ture on the use of GIS for land use analysis, little informa-tion exists on the synthesis of social and biophysicaloverlays in GIS modeling. Lober suggest the use of his“public opposition model,” where he has developed a spa-cial predictive model that can determine the level of publicopposition based on distance to undesirable/noxiousfacilities. A case study for a recycling center is presented inwhich GIS identifies environmentally acceptable regionsand also predicts “publicly” acceptable regions, based onhis spatial public opposition model. The intent was tolocate an environmentally acceptable site that also mini-mizes public opposition (i.e., NIMBY). However, this tech-nique is fraught with political and ethical dilemmas.

Lober demonstrates great sensitivity to public valuesthrough challenging planners to also integrate environ-mental ethics into the modeling scenario. He points out theconflict between Bentham and Mill’s “utilitarian”approach (majority rights) versus minority rights as anissue that must be addressed by decisionmakers. AlthoughLober points out the need for public participation in plan-ning decisions, he admits that the modified McHargainGIS approach combined with public opposition modelingis essentially a “decide-announce-defend” strategy.Clearly, the planning process he describes is “adaptive” innature, advocating the modeling and prediction of futureevents. The role for planner is one of technician, not advo-cate, in this scenario. However, this reviewer, who is some-what familiar with Lober’s work on recycling behavior,was very impressed with the author’s insight into plan-ning’s ethical trade-offs, knowledge of waste manage-ment, and understanding of the role of high technology.


3.1.1.8 MacDonald, Marrianne L. 1996. Bias issues in the utili-zation of solid waste indicators. APA Journal 62, 1: 236-42.


MacDonald delves into the technical aspects of waste plan-ning in terms of evaluating waste systems and technolo-gies. She points out that the “indicators” waste plannersand decisionmakers have historically used are too simplis-tic, rely on “end-of-pipe solutions,” and contain biases—biases that can lead to unequitable site selection processes(i.e., siting in black communities) and biases that can leadto inappropriate technologies. The author suggests thatrecycling has environmental and economic costs that areoften overlooked due to an unwavering commitment toachieving recycling goals. She calls for a more holistic,materials management approach and suggests a new,more comprehensive, set of indicators for waste planningthat can remove biases and inequities.

The article also suggests that planners have becomecomfortable with the “technology” of waste management.As a result, we are more prepared to use planning tech-niques for waste technology selection, rather than a focusonly on land use, site selection, and social criteriadevelopment.

3.1.2 JOURNAL OF PLANNING AND EDUCATIONRESEARCH

3.1.2.1 Bryson, John M., and Barbara C. Crosby. 1989. Findinga home for Minnesota’s hazardous waste. Journal ofPlanning and Education Research 8, 2: 115-24.

Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational(Willing-Host)

The authors outline in detail the repeated failures ofMinnesota to site a hazardous-waste management facilityduring a fourteen-year period (1975 to 1989). The earliesteffort was an ad hoc planning process that used theannounce-and-defend approach (with no public consulta-tion). The state abandoned the siting process due to publicoutrage. The state then embarked on a “participatory com-prehensive-rational” planning process with publiclydeveloped siting criteria. However, due to unrelentingprotesting, the shortlist of two sites was abandoned in1978. The authors then go on to explore in detail a third sit-ing process. This newer process involved a myriad of com-mittees, board, public meetings, and hearings too compli-cated to review in this article’s short space. The WasteManagement Plan eventually developed twenty-one pre-ferred sites across the state. However, by 1984, confusionand hostility toward the siting process forced the legisla-ture to abandon the plan. The state also saw that reduction,reuse, and recycling had resulted in significant reductionin waste quantities and that, therefore, the alleged “need”for the facility had passed. Notwithstanding need, a fourthsite selection process was initiated in 1986 based on thewilling-host compensation model. Thirteen countiesexpressed an interest, but by 1988, only two counties werestill negotiating with the state to host the facility. Unfortu-

nately, the authors do not finish this most interestingaccount.

The article points to the inherent weakness of the com-prehensive model—the plan may become redundant dur-ing the long planning time frame required to conduct suchplans. It is also interesting to note that Minnesota was sev-eral years ahead of Ontario in hazardous-waste planning.Ontario’s fourteen-year, $140 million hazardous-wasteplan failed in 1994. It is unfortunate that we did not learnfrom Minnesota’s example.

3.1.3 PLAN CANADA (1959 TO 1997)

3.1.3.1 Pushchak, Ronald, and Ian Burton. 1983. Risk and priorcompensation in siting low-level nuclear waste facilities:Dealing with the NIMBY syndrome. Plan Canada 23, 3:68-79.


Pushchak and Burton present a model of waste manage-ment planning that relies on mediating and negotiating acompensation agreement with a potential host commu-nity. Their methodology is especially useful for site selec-tion of low-level nuclear waste facilities due to the dispar-ity between overall social benefits (i.e., regional/provincial users of nuclear power) versus the perceivedrisks to the host community. They point to the ubiquitousnature of the NIMBY syndrome and that the public’s “abil-ity to oppose projects is not limited by lack of resources ortime” (p. 68). Financial compensation is the simplest formof mitigating unavoidable impacts as prescribed by envi-ronmental impact assessment legislation and policies.Thus, the waste planner’s role is to negotiate among com-peting host communities that have met basic technical/health and safety standards for the potential site. The selec-tion of the preferred bidder is one that represents the truesocial costs of producing nuclear power due to the down-ward bidding pressures (i.e., eliminate exaggerated bidsfor compensation).

Postscript: This reviewer finds it ironic that EnergyMine’s and Resources Canada’s Siting Task Force recentlyfailed in its attempt to negotiate a prior compensationagreement with the town of Chalk River, Ontario, despitemany years of planning.

3.1.3.2 Lang, Reg. 1990. Equity in siting solid waste manage-ment facilities. Plan Canada 30, 2: 5-13.


Reg Lang (this reviewer’s former master’s adviser), clearlymakes a case for “advocacy” planning in the managementof solid waste in Canada. He points out that “technicalrationality,” based on the scientific method, dominates theplanning of waste in Canada. However, this technicalrationality is “especially unsuited to complex situationssuch as waste management, in which conflicts are oftenabout values and where a multiplicity of perspectivesmust be respected” (p. 7).


As a result of the above, planners are faced with theNIMBY syndrome: a symptom of inequity in planning.The waste crisis is not a capacity/technical crisis; rather, itmust be viewed as a moral and philosophical crisis. Langadvocates the use of “equity” in waste planning thatinvolves distributive justice and procedural fairness.Despite a code of ethics in our profession, planners have an“aversion” to equity planning. Equity involves recogniz-ing that

some parts of society generate much more wastethan others, and some members of society benefit alot more from the economic growth that producesthis waste, yet these individuals and groups do notbear a proportionate share of the costs representedby waste. (P. 7)

Lang urges planners to give equity up-front considerationin waste management decisions, to integrate equity princi-ples openly into the planning process (he presents ten prin-ciples), and to include equity impacts as criteria for theenvironmental and social impact assessments associatedwith the waste plan.

3.1.3.3 Rowe, Steven. 1992. Landfill planning in Ontario—Bringing in the public. Plan Canada, March 1992, 22-25.


In this nonrefereed article, Rowe presents a critique of theOntario Waste Management Master Plan program. Essen-tially, the article is a critique of the comprehensive-rationalplanning model used in Ontario waste planning duringthe 1980s and early 1990s. Besides the usual complaintsabout the high cost and long time lines in producing awaste plan, he points out that the participatory compo-nents of the planning process are flawed. This results in aprocess that is unfair (i.e., urban waste being disposed inrural communities) and flawed. He makes several sugges-tions for improvement, including earlier public involve-ment, accurate and full documentation of public input,smaller-scale public input techniques, earlier peer review,hiring a public consultation coordinator, and using a coop-erative siting process based on willing-host/compensa-tion, such as described by Burton and Pushchak above.Overall, Rowe believes there is a need to “minimize thestress induced by landfill site selection processes” (p. 25).

3.1.3.4 . 1995. Hazardous waste at centre of debate.Plan Canada, March 1995, 42.


In this short news brief to the planning profession, Rowepoints out why Ontario’s Joint Board turned down anapplication by the Ontario Waste Management Corpora-tion to implement a hazardous-waste treatment and dis-posal facility in the Region of Niagara. The environmentalassessment (EA) took fourteen years and spent more than

$80 million in planning. The author points to “flaws” in theplanning process used under the Ontario EA Act, specifi-cally the failure to consider reasonable alternatives to theundertaking (e.g., salt mine disposal). As such, the plan-ning process (a participatory comprehensive-rationalprocess) was not traceable. Rowe called for time and costlimits to the EA Act that will not sacrifice an open compre-hensive planning process.

3.1.3.5 Richards, Alun. 1996. Implementing a voluntary pro-cess for difficult-to-site projects. Plan Canada, January 1996,31-32.


Richards, in this nonrefereed article, overviews a casestudy using a voluntary sting process as described abovein Burton and Pushchak and in Rowe. The case studyinvolves the Manitoba Hazardous Waste ManagementCorporation. Using the standard overlay mapping(GIS-based) technique, sites that met a minimal environ-mental and technical standard were identified. The prov-ince then entered into negotiations with about sixty com-munities, selecting the rural area of Montcalm as thepreferred community (based on a compensation package).A referendum was held in Montcalm with a 67 percent votein favor of the site. After three days of EIA hearings in 1992,the site was approved. Richards attributes the “success” tothe voluntary nature of the siting process, the ability toplan for perceived impacts as opposed to objectiveimpacts, and a focus on communities rather than sites.

This reviewer has to question the so-called success of theproject in light of Ontario abandoning its hazardous-wastefacility and the well-publicized overcapacity of the Mani-toba and the Alberta hazardous-waste facilities. If “will-ing-host” had not been implemented and the siting andplanning process had taken more time, an unnecessaryfacility would not have been built in light of substantiallyreduced hazardous-waste production in Canada.

3.2 Environmental Management Journals

3.2.1 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

3.2.1.1 Bishop, A. Bruce, and Rangesan Narayanan. 1979.Combined management of air, water and solid waste. Jour-nal of Environmental Management 9: 103-21.

Planning Model: Adaptive-Incremental

Bishop and Narayanan, civil engineers at Utah State, pres-ent an overview and case study (Uintah Basin, Utah) of theuse of input-output models combined with linear pro-gramming models in determining systems for “residualsmanagement.” They point out that residuals (i.e., solidwaste, air permissions, water effluents) have traditionallybeen managed separately and that an integrated approachwas necessary to meet the myriad of new environmentalregulations being introduced in the United States duringthe 1970s. The modeling was intended to identify solutions


that were “the least cost, while meeting environmentalquality constraints” (p. 105).

Clearly from a planning perspective, the approach isboth incremental in its thrust to meet regulatory demandsand adaptive in providing for a predictive tool, albeit onethat is based on maximizing economic efficiency (i.e., justmeeting minimum regulations).

It was interesting to note that the model recommendedindividual landfills be implemented for most of the dozenor so communities in the region, rather than one central-ized regional site. This may reflect the fact that landfills inthe 1970s had only rudimentary pollution controls; essen-tially, they were “holes in the ground.” It is doubtful thatthis recommendation would have been made by the modelif inputs were required reflecting 1990s cost levels associ-ated with the planning of fully engineering landfills.

3.2.1.2 Sobral, Maria M., Keith W. Hipel, and Grahame J.Farquhar. 1981. A multi-criteria model for solid waste man-agement. Journal of Environmental Management 12: 97-110.


Sobral, Hipel, and Farquhar, engineers at the University ofWaterloo, report on the failure of two landfill site selectionprocesses, in 1974 and 1977, for the Regional Municipalityof Waterloo. They contend that public opposition to thesesites resulted from a failure to integrate environmental andsocial concerns. Economics was the driving force behindthe site selection procedure, and no public consultationwas employed in the planning process. In the third attemptat developing a regional waste plan, a public advisorycommittee was set up to provide advice on the waste-plan-ning process. Typical Leopoldian multicriteria deci-sion-making techniques were used on the committeebased on assigning relative importance on a ten-pointscale. A Delphi technique and pairwise comparisons ofalternatives were employed on a panel of experts (engi-neering professors at the University of Waterloo) to makethe final selection of alternatives for a waste managementsystem. Clearly, the rudiments of a participatory processwere being developed. However, it was interesting to notethat the engineering professors suggested it may not bewise to use an “average response” from interest groupsdue to their polarization of responses. They suggest that“modified pessimistic aggregation may prove to be use-ful.” This technique involves massaging the scores toreflect a more moderate viewpoint, thus the implication ismade by the authors that special interest groups are not tobe trusted with making value-laden trade-offs. In fact, themodified pessimistic aggregation was employed by thestudy team. A preferred hierarchy for waste managementwas identified that included, in rank order, resource recov-ery (energy-from-waste [EFW] and recycling), compost-ing, and then landfill. However, their technique did nottackle the problem of site selection. History in the regionshows that the problem was never adequately tackled. NoEFW plant or greenfield landfill were implemented. Theexisting landfill was expanded along with a blue-box pro-

gram with material recovery facility (MRF) (sited adjacentto the landfill).

Clearly, the authors advocated a participatory approachand the need for a more comprehensive-rational waste-planning model. However, their approach was rather lim-ited in both regards.

3.2.1.3 Guruswamy, L. D. 1985. Waste management planning.Journal of Environmental Management 21: 69-84.


The author, a lawyer in Great Britain, presents a conceptualframework for managing waste designed to influenceenvironmental policy. He calls for legal and administrativeframeworks that take an integrated approach to the envi-ronmental planning of waste, whether they are solid, liq-uid, gaseous, hazardous, or nonhazardous. His approachinvolves two tiers, pollution control and resource manage-ment. He admonishes British and European policymakersand lawmakers of taking “tentative and ad hoc measures,”believing that land use planning must play a central role inthis new framework. He makes a number of legal sugges-tions in that regard, particularly the amalgamation of thePollution Control Act and the Town and Country PlanningAct, 1971. This reviewer notes that this suggestion wouldbe akin in Ontario to the integration of the EnvironmentalProtection Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, and thePlanning Act. Overall, a comprehensive rational approachis advocated.

3.2.1.4 Huang, Guo, William P. Anderson, and Brian W. Baetz.1994. Environmental input-output analysis and its appli-cation to regional solid waste planning. Journal of Environ-mental Management 42: 63-79.


Huang, Anderson, and Baetz (geographers and civil engi-neers, McMaster University, Canada) present a regionalwaste-planning approach that is clearly “adaptive” plan-ning. They advocate the use of a modified input-outputanalysis (a common technique used by geographers) topredict relationships between economic development andregional solid waste management alternatives. Their pro-posed model, unlike traditional input-output analysis, isable to integrate economics with environmental impacts.However, despite a cautionary note, they advocate theconversion of environmental and ecological impacts intomonetary values. Ecological inputs are defined as the con-sumption or degeneration of natural resources resultingfrom waste treatment and disposal. Ecological outputs aredefined only as waste generation composition and quanti-ties. A very complex statistical model is presented andapplied to a hypothetical region. The authors point out thatthis type of modeling has never been used in solid wasteplanning. This reviewer notes that it still has not been usedfor the obvious reasons: (1) the model is not traceable—that is, the public would not tolerate decision makingbased on this extreme level of scientific rationality—and


(2) politicians/ decisionmakers would not understandhow the model works.

3.2.1.5 Wei, Meng-Shium, and Frederick Weber. 1996. An ex-pert system for waste management. Journal of Environmen-tal Management 46: 345-58.


The authors open this article by stating a truism: “Engi-neering alternatives have traditionally evaluated on thebasis of economic or cost analysis” (p. 345). Wei and Weber(engineers) present an “expert system” computer programusing Turbo Prolog. They argue that engineers need toincorporate nonquantifiable parameters into their deci-sion making. Thus, their artificial intelligence system inte-grates technical, economic, social, and political criteria intothe program to determine the “best” waste treatment alter-natives for hazardous waste. Using a case study (pulp andpaper industries), the expert system found that the existingtreatment methods, developed through traditional engi-neering paradigms, were consistent with the computermodel’s predictions. This reviewer cynically notes that itseems engineers have been doing it correctly all along.

3.2.1.6 Chang, Ni-Bin, and S. F. Wang. 1996. Solid waste man-agement system analysis by multiobjective mixed integerprogramming model. Journal of Environmental Management48: 17-43.


In another article outlining an “adaptive” planning model-ing technique, Chang and Wang (engineers in Taiwan)describe the use of multiobjective mixed integer program-ming techniques. The computerized model incorporateseconomics, noise control, air pollution, and traffic conges-tion to determine the optimal siting of landfills, incinera-tors, and transfer stations. The city of Kaohsiung, Taiwan,is used as a case study. Obviously, the criteria used reflectthe values and realities of life in Taiwan. The North Ameri-can public would not respond well to this type of scientificrationality in site selection.

3.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

3.2.2.1 Choi, Yearn Hong. 1983. Policy without implementa-tion: Solid waste. Environmental Management 7, 3: 209-10.

Planning Model: Incremental

In this short article, Choi, a federal bureaucrat with the U.S.Department of Defense, presents an “incremental”approach to solid waste management. He complains thatfederal departments have not been responding to new EPAregulations regarding solid waste management. Federalagencies that produce more than one hundred tons of solidwaste per day were required to conduct a resource recov-ery plan for incineration and energy recovery. Federalagencies could work together on regional plans. As anexample, the Philadelphia plan projected the savings of

23 million gallons of fossil fuel per year from area federaldepartment waste generation. Rather than promoting a“participatory” approach, the author suggests that thepublic, administrators, and politicians need “solid wasterecovery education.”

3.2.2.2 Lemons, John, and Charles Malone. 1989. Siting Amer-ica’s geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste: Im-plications for environmental policy. Environmental Man-agement 13, 4: 435-41.


Lemons (a biologist) and Malone (a bureaucrat) provide anoverview of the site selection process used to that date forthe selection of a repository for high-level nuclear waste.Their description of the planning process is a classic exam-ple of “incremental” planning. They complain that theusual CR approach for an EA required under NEPA wasavoided by the Department of Energy (DOE). Under nor-mal circumstances, a “traditional, comprehensive andinterdisciplinary environmental review for siting nuclearprojects” would have been required. This would haveincluded an environmental analysis of alternative technol-ogies/strategies and alternative sites. Instead, the passingof the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 exempted the DOEfrom most of these requirements.

The planning process was classically incrementalbecause of the following factors:

Crisis management: “technologies that have created largequantities of wastes for which a proven and acceptablemanagement solution does not exist” (p. 435)Highly political: several states had been selected aspotential repositories, and intense lobbying and publicoutcry chose a state that had originally ranked fifth ontheir ranking process, all facilitated by the new actIndividual problem: site selection was primarily based onone set of criteria—technical; in terms of deep geologicdeposit of waste, other environmental criteria wereignored

Needless to say, the siting was not participatory, givingonly token opportunities for public involvement. Overall,the authors give an excellent historical overview of the sit-ing process.

3.2.2.3 Vinning, Joanne, Nancy Linn, and Rabel J. Burdge.1992. Why recycle? A comparison of recycling motivationsin four communities. Environmental Management 16, 6:785-97.


This article (written by environmental planners and a psy-chologist) dealt with motivations for recycling vis-à-viswaste-planning processes. The underlying assumptionwas that waste planning increases recycling behavior (as areaction to siting/NIMBY). Four communities in Illinoiswere surveyed. A survey instrument was used in a randomsample of adults. Results indicated that waste manage-


ment planning (i.e, CR in style), under way in all four com-munities at various stages (including site selection forincinerators), had no significant effect on recycling behav-ior. Altruistic reasons for recycling were the dominantmotivators.

3.3 Waste Management Journals

3.3.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH

3.3.1.1 Maimone, Mark. 1985. An application of multi-criteriaevaluation in assessing municipal solid waste treatmentand disposal systems. Waste Management and Research 3:217-31.


The author (an engineer) describes the problem withmunicipal solid waste management in the Netherlands.He points out that planning has been somewhat ad hoc,with “no explicit comprehensive planning method” in usein the country to date. He makes two main suggestions: (1)the separation of systems (technologies) from site selectionand (2) the use of multicriteria decision-making tech-niques to combine multidisciplinary criteria.

The MCDM technique suggested is a computer pro-gram, EVAMIX. It has the ability to combine ordinal datawith interval data, a common problem with criteria thatcannot be easily quantified. The results of his case studyindicated that no single system was dominant (i.e., mix ofrecycling, composting, incineration, landfill, etc.) and thatsource separation had a positive effect on all systems.

3.3.1.2 Wilson, David. 1985. Long term planning for solidwaste management. Waste Management and Research 3:203-16.


The author (discipline unknown) laments the lack of com-prehensive waste planning in the United Kingdom at thetime. Old mines are quickly becoming scarce as locationsfor waste disposal and disposal capacity has become scarcein urban areas. He suggests that NIMBY is a result of thelack of long-term planning. The development of waste sys-tems chosen from a set of alternative plans is the solution.Typically, a multicriteria decision-making technique is rec-ommended for identifying the preferred system. The useof computerized decision support systems can greatlyenhance the waste manager’s ability to select that pre-ferred system, based on his experience developing a wasteplan for Hong Kong in 1983. No mention is made regard-ing involving the public.

3.3.1.3 Tarr, Joel A. 1985. Historical perspectives on hazardouswastes in the United States. Waste Management and Research3: 95-102.


Tarr (a social scientist) gives a detailed account of the his-tory of municipal solid- and hazardous-waste manage-ment in the United States from the mid-nineteenth centuryto the 1980s. He also gives an interesting account of shiftsin public concerns and attitudes during that century oftime. Essentially, organized waste disposal came aboutover a concern for public health and the birth of the sani-tary movement at the turn of the century. However, Tarroutlines a history of ad hoc and laissez-faire planning untilthe Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. After this seminal pieceof legislation, he implies that waste has been planned in anincremental manner due to a myriad of regulations andguidelines that have come about as a result of increasedenvironmental concerns (e.g., Resource Recovery and Con-servation Act).

3.3.1.4 Al-Bakri, D., W. Shublaq, W. Kittanch, and Z.Al-Sheikh. 1988. Site selection of a waste disposal facility inKuwait, Arabian Gulf. Waste Management and Research 6:363-77.


The authors (earth scientists) provide a detailed account ofthe site selection process for a landfill site in Kuwait. Theypoint out that until this point in time (1988), wastes weredisposed of in a relatively uncontrolled and unregulatedmanner. The case study was to serve as a basis for thedevelopment of regulations for the federal government ofKuwait. Based on a literature search of Western site selec-tion processes, the project used a typical multidisciplinaryCR planning model. McHargian overlay mapping wasconducted using biogeophysical and social criteria andcandidate sites identified. Using field research, aLeopoldian evaluation methodology was used to rankorder the sites. A preferred site was thus selected. It is inter-esting to note that no mention is made in the article regard-ing involving the public in the planning process. Thisreviewer assumes the process was not in any way partici-patory, possibly reflecting the authors’ social values.

3.3.1.5 Rushbrook, P. E., and E. E. Finnecy. 1988. Planning forfuture waste management operations in developing coun-ties. Waste Management and Research 6: 1-21.


Rushbrook and Finnecy (environmental safety specialists)overview the problem of lack of waste-planning initiativesin developing countries. They point to the benefits ofWestern-style planning processes, especially the compre-hensive waste-planning model and computerized tech-niques. However, they do make concessions for local ideas.They also provide a caveat regarding the use of Westerntechnologies. They suggest that several conditions areneeded at a national level to prepare waste plans, includ-ing national objectives, policies, legislation, infrastructure,and organizations. They also suggest that it would be agood idea for the federal government to provide “sites


where waste treatment and disposal can occur,” suggest-ing that the public need not be involved in decision mak-ing (p. 2). The implied benefit—avoidance of NIMBY prob-lems. Thus, their concessions to a participatory process arelimited. They suggest informing the public “where neces-sary” and to “educate them.”

3.3.1.6 McQuaid-Cook, J., and C. S. Simons. 1989. Develop-ment and operation of a waste management system in Al-berta, Canada. Waste Management and Research 7: 219-27.


McQuade-Cook (a consultant) and Simons (an ASWMCemployee) give a very enthusiastic overview of the muchpublicized “willing-host” site selection process for theAlberta Special Waste Management Corporation(ASWMC). They point out that a highly participatoryapproach with the public, using “full disclosure,” wasused as the key to success. A typical McHargian overlaytechnique was used to identify suitable areas. Of the sev-enty municipal jurisdictions invited to bid for the facility,fifty-two requested inclusion in the site selection process.Following a host of public meetings and workshops, fiveshort-listed sites were identified. All five communitiesheld a referendum, and all five voted in favor of the wastefacility proposal. In a process not described by the authors,the province somehow selected the preferred site. Theauthors also point out that “so comprehensive was theenvironmental site selection approach that the govern-ment did not require an Environmental Impact Assess-ment to be prepared for the chosen site” (sic) (p. 221).

This reviewer finds it difficult to believe that forgoing anEIA could be considered good planning by the authors.

3.3.1.7 Shekdar, A. V., K. N. Krishnaswamy, V. G. Tikekar, andA. D. Bhide. 1991. Long-term planning for solid wastemanagement in India. Waste Management and Research 9:511-23.


The authors (engineers, a management specialist, and amathematician) express the need for rational plans forwaste management in India with its rapidly growingurban population and reduced waste disposal capacity(i.e., crisis, therefore incremental). They point out that fur-ther minimization of collection and disposal distances areparamount in a very hot country where “the waste, whichcontains a considerable amount of degradable organicmatter, starts decomposing in the generation area posing adanger to public health” (p. 512).

They suggest the use of a mathematical model (adaptiveplanning), based on least travel distances and costs, todevelop waste management systems and sites for disposal.In fact, disposal sites are selected on the basis of their close-ness to collection areas. So prevailing is the need to protectpublic health (i.e., pathogens) that no provision is made foreither ecological considerations or for public participationin the planning process. This emphasizes the profound cli-

matic, social, economic, and environmental differencesbetween Indian and Western realities.

3.3.1.8 Koo, Ja-Kong, Hang-Sik Shin, and Hee-Chan Yoo. 1991.Multi-objective siting planning for a regional hazardouswaste treatment center. Waste Management and Research 9:205-18.


Koo, Shin, and Yoo (civil engineers) describe the selectionof a regional hazardous-waste facility for the central part ofKorea required due to the high rate of growth in waste gen-eration rates (resulting from “fast industrialization andhigh standard of living”). The site selection process wasbased on a computerized model (the Waste ResourcesAllocation Program): “This program is able to select, locateand size optimally the solid waste management facilitiesthrough the fixed charge linear programming algorithmby compromising the trade-offs between haulage and pro-cessing costs” (p. 206).

They point out that their “optimal” solution was notpossible due to social and political factors; therefore, thedecisionmakers and experts decided that a suboptimalsolution would be designed into the computer model. Themodel was redesigned to include the quantification of “theequity of route choice which is inversely proportional toresidents feelings of injustice” and “the public objectionNIMBY to the potential site,” which is assumed to be pro-portionate to the population density of the site. No provi-sion was made for environmental impacts. Overall, in thisnonparticipatory adaptive planning model, public partici-pation is reduced to linear programming algorithms.Although cultural differences may explain theirnonparticipatory approach, the acknowledgment ofNIMBY and concessions to reduce social stress may be anindication that the growth in living standards is also result-ing in a Western-style social phenomenon, the NIMBY syn-drome. One would assume the public may start demand-ing a role in their decision-making processes.

3.3.1.9 Yhdego, Michael, Rene V. V. Vidal, and Christian M.Overgaard. 1992. Planning of disposal sites in Dar Es Sa-laam, Tanzania—A decision support system approach.Waste Management and Research 10: 141-52.


The authors (mathematicians) discuss problems withplanning waste in developing countries, especially Africa.They highlight an adaptive approach—the ability ofmicrocomputers and software programs to add efficiencyto the decision-making process for landfill site selection. Itis also important that these models be simple to use forwaste planners in developing countries. Because spread-sheets are easy to learn, they are the software programs ofchoice. Through the use of Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets, a pre-ferred site was chosen from a shortlist of three candidatesites. It is unclear how the three candidate sites were identi-fied. The model integrates political (i.e., public acceptance)and environmental factors. Environmental factors include


only the provision of public health and safety. Ecology isnot included in the matrix. No provision is made for publicinput, despite the acknowledgment of public opposition.

3.3.1.10 Frantzis, Ionnis. 1993. Methodology for municipallandfill sites selection. Waste Management and Research 11:441-51.


Frantzis points out that landfill site selection in Greece hashad some difficulties due to “irrational” planning. Shesuggests the use of McHargian site selection techniquesalong with a Leopoldian evaluation matrix to rank orderthe sites on the basis of economic, environmental, andengineering criteria. However, the site identified as the“ideal one” may not be the one ranked first: “The finalselection is a matter of compromise between: the impactsof each site as quantified in the Grand Matrix; the cost pertonne of waste disposal in each site; and the social accep-tance of the site” (p. 447).

No suggestions are made regarding public involvement.Overall, the author believes the typical CR model will pro-vide the solution to “irrational planning” despite heracquiescence to social acceptance, which experience tellsus may not be rationally based. It is also interesting to notethat the author suggests that one person should score all ofthe impacts and weighting in the matrix in order for thematrix ranking to be “objective.” Obviously, a high level ofexpertise would be required from that individual.

3.3.1.11 Wichelns, Dennis, James J. Opaluch, Stephen K.Swaloow, Thomas F. Weaver, and Christopher W. Wessells.1993. A landfill site evaluation model that includes publicpreferences regarding natural resources and nearby com-munities. Waste Management and Research 11: 185-201.


The authors (resource economists and a bureaucrat)describe the efforts of Rhode Island to select new landfillsites for the entire state. A typical GIS-based McHargianprocess was used to identify a long list of technically feasi-ble sites. However, the state used an ambitious and uniquesystem to rank order and select a shortlist of sites. Recog-nizing that value-laden trade-offs have to be made in amultidisciplinary evaluation method, a statewide surveywas conducted to develop a model that would simulate areferendum (i.e., vote) on a preferred site. The surveyinstrument was derived from “consumer utility theory”and presents a series of pairwise comparisons for therespondents to evaluate. The survey allows the state todetermine overall public preferences regarding environ-mental and economic trade-offs, including “willingness-to-pay” scenarios. A booklet was prepared, with many dia-grams and illustrations, based on the results of nine focusgroup sessions and an in-person pretest of the surveyinstrument. A six-minute technical, bias-free videotape onwaste management in the state was prepared and, alongwith the booklet (twenty-eight versions with 308 pairedcomparisons), distributed to the public. Sampling was

overrepresented in rural areas to statistically represent res-idents most likely to be involved in siting decisions. Morethan 1,100 questionnaires with 11,327 observations wereanalyzed in the regression analysis. The authors point outthat the data will be applied in the short-listing process.The NIMBY syndrome will not be eliminated; however,the authors believe they have been able to statically modeland predict statewide referendum results. Ultimately, thisrepresents the top of Sherry Arnstien’s ladder of citizenparticipation—citizen control. This reviewer asks a simplequestion: Why didn’t the state simply hold a referendum?Unfortunately, the article does not describe the results ofthe siting process.

3.3.1.12 Or, Ilhan, and Mustafa Akgul. 1994. An optimizationapproach for locating a hazardous waste disposal facilityin Istanbul Province. Waste Management and Research 12:495-506.


The authors (discipline unknown) overview the rapidpopulation and industrial growth in Istanbul Province,Turkey. Citizens, however, view facilities for the manage-ment of Turkey’s waste as “undesirable” and feel that theyshould not be located near their communities. In this arti-cle, a nonlinear programming model using Turbo Pascalon a 386 personal computer is described. This adaptiveplanning model seeks to “maximize the minimum dis-tances of the location to be selected, to a set of predeter-mined, environmentally sensitive entities” (p. 495).

In a very simplistic assumption, negative impacts are adirect function of distance from sensitive land use. Weightsare applied on the basis of the relative importance of thesensitive areas. A sensitivity analysis with ten differentweighting scenarios was performed. Site Q7 was preferredin seven of the ten scenarios. Economics was factored intothe model by restricting the maximum distance from thecentroid of waste generation. However, social and politicalcriteria were not explicitly used, although the authorspoint out that these criteria could be built into the model.No comments are made about direct public involvement.

3.3.1.13 Burkart, Roland. 1994. Consensus oriented public re-lations as a solution to the landfill conflict. Waste Manage-ment and Research 12: 223-32.


Burkart (a journalist) describes “advocacy” planning interms of the proponent’s interests. Using a case study for ahazardous-waste site selection process in lower Austria, hedescribes a consensus-oriented public relations process.The process used is designed to reduce or eliminate theNIMBY phenomenon. He unabashedly asks landfill oper-ators, companies, and proponents to “direct more atten-tion to public relations [PR]” when there is conflict withresidents. Use of the “two-way symmetric model” is advo-cated in which mutual understanding is sought. The PRpractitioner must only select that information to offer thepublic that will create a consensus (obviously, this is the


antithesis of full disclosure). The author describes a cam-paign of pamphlets, postal information packets, pressreleases (with resultant newspaper and television cover-age), citizen advisory boards, discussion sessions, meet-ings with experts, and field excursions. Although theauthor describes these activities as “very positive,” helaments, “Nevertheless, up to this point an agreeable solu-tion has not been found” (p. 227).

The second half of his article is devoted to trying toexplain why the consensus-oriented PR program has notworked. A public opinion poll indicated that 70 percent ofthe area residents were against the landfill, even in theevent of a favorable EIA review. He postulates that citizensare judging the project without adequate knowledge of theproject. In fact, he stipulates that “those who were betterinformed about the landfill project were more willing toaccept it.” The problem, as he sees it, is that PR practitio-ners were not able to communicate with most of the resi-dents because residents did not want to learn more aboutthe project. The author insultingly stated that “the majorityof those rejecting the landfill argued from a lower judge-ment level” (p. 230).

Finally, the author, speaking cynically to PR profession-als, suggests that they must live with the fact that manypeople cannot be reached or do not want to be educated.He was amazed that “people still knowingly forego oppor-tunities to inform themselves,” thus implying that theycould better themselves by embracing the hazardous-wastelandfill.

Postscript—this reviewer found it refreshing that a prac-titioner would even admit that a “public consultation”program was a de facto “public relations” program. Cer-tainly he has never seen an admission of this sort in his pro-fessional practice in Canada.

3.3.1.14 Petts, Judith. 1994. Effective waste management: Un-derstanding and dealing with public concerns. Waste Man-agement and Research 12: 207-22.

Planning Model: Participatory

Petts (discipline unknown) provides an insightful andwell-researched overview of the continuing challenge ofwaste planners in the United Kingdom as they face theNIMBY syndrome in their planning practice. She chal-lenges the prevailing wisdom of proponents, as follows:

many industrialists have (in the past at least) seenthe NIMBY syndrome as a public relations problem,the answer being to provide people with informa-tion. However, some recent research which hastested this theory indicates that the more peopleknow, in terms of non-technical but issue-relevantinformation, the more likely they are to exhibitNIMBY attitudes. (P. 214) (see Burkart above for anopposing view)

She points to a host of other problems, including the lack ofskill and professionalism in communications, the loss ofexpert credibility, and problems with risk assessment and

perception. She prefers a “participatory” American modelinvolving proactive conflict management—consensusbuilding and mediation. However, she does provide thisinsightful caveat: “The fundamental nature of public con-cerns is unlikely to differ significantly” (p. 208).

Notwithstanding the above, the author argues that aparticipatory approach results in better decision making.

3.3.1.15 Sunberg, J., P. Gipperth, and C. O. Wene. 1994. A sys-tems approach to municipal solid waste management: Apilot study of Goteborg. Waste Management and Research 12:73-91.

Planning Model: Incremental Adaptive

Sunberg, Gipperth, and Wene (energy technologists) pro-vide both an “incremental” and “adaptive” approach tosolid waste management. They point to new waste regula-tions in Sweden (1990) and the requirement for all munici-palities to develop and implement a waste plan with man-datory source separation. The goal of the legislation is toprevent any unseparated waste from reaching landfill orincineration. The use of the MIME/WASTE model isdescribed. This model uses both linear and nonlinear pro-gramming algorithms in a system that exchanges energy,material flow with potential impacts on the environment.Although the model addresses waste systems, it does notselect sites. In a case study of Göteborg, Sweden, the modelsuggested source separation, composting, recycling, andreuse. No mention is made of public or political concerns.

3.3.1.16 Basri, H. B., and E. I. Stentiford. 1995. Expert systemsin solid waste management. Waste Management and Re-search 13: 67-89.


Basri and Stentiford (civil engineers) promote the use of an“adaptive” planning model to develop waste plans. Theyadvocate the use of “expert systems” (i.e., artificial intelli-gence). The authors give a brief overview of expert systemsdevelopment from the 1960s to the publication date andthen proceed to explain applications to solid waste man-agement. They point out that previous linear program-ming models used in waste planning have suffered fromthe inability to integrate multidisciplinary data and a lackof credibility, implying that expert systems indeed havecredibility. Expert systems can be used to select waste tech-nologies, collection, and transport systems and conductsite selection processes. A “knowledge engineer” isrequired (i.e., an individual who can compile all of the nec-essary data and program the model) and a “domain engi-neer” (i.e., an individual who is an expert in waste manage-ment). However, they point out that in a post-FORTRANworld, the need for the knowledge engineer will disap-pear. Domain experts will be able to use more user-friendlyand intuitive interfaces being developed by software pro-grammers. The authors believe that expert systems will beparticularly useful in developing countries where no localexpertise exists. While this reviewer has a profound fond-ness for computer technology, he doubts that these sys-


tems will ever receive credibility in any country as a primafacie means for waste site selection.

3.3.1.17 Hokkanen, J., P. Salminen, E. Rossi, and M. Ettala.1995. The choice of solid waste management system usingthe Electre II Decision-Aid Method. Waste Management andResearch 13: 175-93.


The authors (economics/management specialists)describe a commonly used Leopoldian multicriteriadecision-making technique, Electre II. The methodologyinvolved sending a questionnaire to weigh the relativeimportance (using a ten-point scale) of criteria to munici-pal employees involved in environmental affairs.Fifty-three of seventy survey instruments were returned.A separate questionnaire to predict impact magnitudes(also a ten-point scale) was sent to twenty-one Finnishtechnical experts; seventeen questionnaires were returned.A sensitivity analysis was performed using equal weights,average weights, and plus/minus 20 percent weighingschemes. The technique recommended a centralized incin-eration system for the case study—Uusimaa, Finland.Despite the recommendation, the second “best” alterna-tive was chosen and implemented—refuse derived fuel(RDF) and intermediate landfill. No discussion on publicinvolvement or site selection was presented by theauthors. These evaluation methodologies are typicallypart of an overall CR planning model.

3.3.1.18 Powell, Jane C. 1996. The evaluation of waste manage-ment options. Waste Management and Research 14: 515-26.


This is the second article in this journal that describes theuse of EVAMIX, a “relatively cheap” (p. 524) multicriteriadecision-making technique. Powell (social/economicsspecialist) points out the failures of economic techniques,especially cost-benefit analysis, in light of the United King-dom’s new policy on best available technology not entail-ing excessive cost (BATNEEC). EVAMIX has the ability tocombine ordinal and cardinal data and uses a pairwisecomparison of all alternative waste management technolo-gies. RDF with recycling was recommended, in the genericcase study, as best suited to the United Kingdom situation.Despite the recommendation, the author points out thatthe technique may be better at structuring and under-standing the problem rather than a means to find a solutionto the problem; therefore, the technique should be usedwith caution.

3.3.2 RESOURCES, CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING(FORMERLY RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION, ANDRESOURCE RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION)

3.3.2.1 Bridgewater, A. V., S. A. Gregory, C. J. Mumford, and E. L.Smith. 1975. A systems approach to the economics of wastehandling. Resource Recovery and Conservation 1: 3-23.


The authors (chemical engineers) present an “incremen-tal” approach to recent legislation in the United Kingdom.They point out the need to organize and operate efficientlya waste-handling system as a result of several pieces ofnew legislation. Overall, they propose the use ofcost-benefit analysis as a means of developing the mostefficient waste system. No provisions were made for envi-ronmental or social considerations.

3.3.2.2 Fenton, Richard. 1975. Current trends in municipalsolid waste disposal in New York City. Resource Recoveryand Conservation 1: 167-76.


Fenton (an engineer) gives a very interesting account of thehistory of waste management in New York city from thenineteenth century to the 1970s. He points out that a solidwaste task force has been created with the mandate to pro-duce a comprehensive plan for waste management by theend of 1975. Up until that point, changes were made inwaste planning in an incremental fashion, largely respond-ing to emergency situations and public and political pres-sure. The first crisis occurred in 1895 when the city startedto implement landfills rather than a total reliance on oceandumping. Shore communities have started legal actionagainst the city and the Supreme Court ordered all oceandumping to cease. However, “there was substantial publicopposition to those early landfills.” In 1981, there was“strenuous public opposition” to garbage reduction (con-version to grease and fertilizer) because of odor problems,creating a disposal capacity crisis. The opposition to land-fills led to the extensive use of incineration throughout thecity. Again, in 1966, new laws forbidding apartment incin-erators created a capacity crisis. The author also givessome interesting insights into early recycling and waste-to-energy efforts at the turn of the century.

3.3.2.3 Purcell, Arthur H. 1976. Energy and environmental im-pacts of material alternatives: An assessment of quantita-tive understanding. Resource Recovery and Conservation 2:93-102.


The authors (an engineer and a bureaucrat) present a liter-ature review of an adaptive modeling technique—envi-ronmental profile analysis (now commonly know as life-cycle analysis). The authors viewed the energy crisis as amaterials’ crisis, with a need to quantify and better under-stand materials and energy flows. The lack of understand-ing, as well as sound quantitative data on energy environ-mental impacts of materials production, was a majorobstacle to policymakers. The literature review revealedthat most studies attempted a systems approach (nowknown as the “cradle-to-grave” approach). Most studiesalso calculated total energy consumption; however, crosscomparison was very difficult due to the lack of clearboundaries of the system being evaluated. Most studies


also pointed to the benefits of recycling paper, steel, alumi-num, and glass in terms of reducing overall environmentalimpacts. Finally, the authors call for the standardization ofprecise methodologies for environmental profile analysis.This reviewer notes that twenty years passed before theCanadian Standards Association (CSA) and InternationalOrganization for Standardization (ISO) 14,000 standardswere developed.

3.3.2.4 Conn, W. David. 1976. The treatment of resource recov-ery in solid waste plans. Resource Recovery and Conservation2: 365-72.


Conn (an urban planner) overviews the “comprehensive”waste plans that were under way in California at the time.He points out that the state required each plan to includean analysis on energy recovery, recycling/source separa-tion, and economics. Furthermore, each plan was intendedto address the state’s diversion goal of 25 percent by 1980.Much of the article sees the author lamenting the lack ofwaste-to-energy incinerator proposals in the Californiaplans. He hypothesized that “existing biases” againstincineration were to blame. He believed the 25 percent goalwas not reachable without incineration. Social, environ-mental, and public input into the planning process was notdiscussed in the article.

3.3.2.5 Chapman, Robert E., and Havey Yakowitz. Havey.1984. Evaluating the risks of solid waste management pro-grams: A suggested approach. Resources and Conservation11: 77-94.


The authors (federal government bureaucrats) present an“adaptive” approach to waste planning through a comput-erized modeling technique known as the Resource Recov-ery Planning Model (RRPLAN). They point out that thistype of modeling is required because of the need to benefitfrom economies of scale in waste planning. These benefitscan only be achieved through regionalizing waste man-agement systems and facilities. There has been a prolifera-tion of mathematical models used in the past. These mod-els have been largely disappointing in their performance.RRPLAN uses a set of cost categories, energy categories,and commodities to develop the least cost system: “themathematical exposition of the model will proceed underthe assumption that cost minimization is the sole objectiveof the decision-maker” (p. 81).

3.3.2.6 Owolabi, Comfort Adebisi, and Harvey Alter. 1989. Amethod of planning resource recovery in a developingcountry to deal with uncertainty. Resources, Conservationand Recycling 2: 99-118.


The authors (disciplines unknown) present an overview ofwaste planning in Lagos, Nigeria. They point out that

urban areas in developing countries are growing rapidly(6 percent per annum in Lagos) and that the present wasteproblem of indiscriminate dumping will grow worse.These countries can benefit from “fundamental solidwaste planning and techniques.” This reviewer assumesthey mean American techniques. They recommend the useof an “adaptive” style planning model known as Afford-able Capital Cost (ACC). ACC is a type of break-even anal-ysis, where cost is set equal to revenues at the indifferencepoint of the tipping fee. Essentially, the model will only rec-ommend waste technology alternatives that do not cost thecity more than their present dumping-only system. Themodeling suggests RDF with ferrous metal recovery forLagos. Environmental, social, and public input into theplanning process is not discussed.

3.3.2.7 Chilton, Kenneth. 1993. Solid waste policy should bedirected by fundamental principals, not ill-founded feel-ings. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 8: 1-20.


“Each new comprehensive approach to federal legislationaddressing the so-called garbage-crisis seems to be moreinterventionist than its predecessor” writes Chilton, abusiness lobbyist. In his article, the author ascribes prob-lems in the effective management of America’s waste topolitical interference at both state and federal levels. Hebelieves that federal requirements for solid waste plansand other 3Rs initiatives represent excessive interferencein the efficient management of waste. Of course, theefficient management of waste should be determinedby the market (i.e., economic principle of scarcity). He alsobelieves that governments are reacting to the public’sill-founded perception of risk as a result of the “unsavorypast” of dumps and incinerators. He points out that EPAcomputer modeling has calculated the population risk ofcontracting cancer from 6,000 landfills in the United Statesto be “virtually zero.”

3.3.2.8 Kovacs, William L. 1993. Solid waste management:Historical and future perspectives. Resources, Conservationand Recycling 8: 113-30.


“Do we really want to eliminate industrial capacity andour ability to compete as a commercial nation?” writesKovacs, an American lobbyist for industry. The author, asan “advocate” for industry, laments failed leadership at thefederal level. Essentially, he points out that comprehensiveplanning required by the federal government on the stateshas resulted in a worsening of the so-called waste crisis.The work of NIMBYists and environmentalists has givenmunicipal and state politicians the excuse not to imple-ment much needed disposal capacity (waste- to-energyand landfill). He suggests several improvements to these“regulatory inefficiencies,” including “solid waste facilitysiting laws” that would force the siting and developmentof landfill/EFW sites on communities despite activistobjections.


3.3.2.9 Goddard, Haynes C. 1995. The benefits and costs of al-ternative solid waste management policies. Resources, Con-servation and Recycling 13: 183-213.


Goddard, an economist, argues that the solid waste crisisin North America and Europe is not a technical problem;rather, it is an economic problem. Essentially, the crisis hasarisen from a failure to “get the prices right.” Federal andstate government interference has created a “governmentfailure” rather than a “market failure.” As an advocate forindustry and a free-market economy, Goddard calls fordecentralization of waste regulations. Furthermore, a thor-ough cost-benefit analysis (i.e., scarcity) is required todevelop appropriate waste management systems. Hebelieves cost-effective systems will also be environmen-tally beneficial.

Solid waste management nearly everywhere has tra-ditionally been viewed as a technical (engineering)problem . . . the problem is usually left to the engi-neering community to define and so it is no surprisethat the problem has nearly always been defined as atechnical one. (P. 188)

3.3.2.10 Ayres, Robert U. 1995. Life cycle analysis: A critique.Resources, Conservation and Recycling 14: 199-223.


Ayres (discipline unknown, economist suspected) pres-ents an excellent overview and thorough critique of LCA,one of the most common forms of “adaptive” planningused in waste management in the 1990s. He points out thata fundamental approach in LCA is the assumption thatevery material will eventually become waste. Therefore, ifone can accurately measure cumulative environmentalimpacts from “cradle to grave,” environmentally responsi-ble choices can be made. He points out that LCA had itroots in the 1970s when there was great concern aboutenergy availability. As a result, early LCAs tended to useinput-output models that converted all units into energyunits. Despite the passing of the energy crisis, LCAs con-tinue to use net-energy analysis even though the use ofenergy is not a good “proxy for environmental damage.”The author believes this is a fundamental flaw of the pro-cess, and he suggests it is worthwhile to integrate econom-ics into the evaluation. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) isbetter able to compare “chalk versus cheese”; therefore,CBA is a better “evaluation methodology” because envi-ronmental damage can be compensated. Furthermore, hepoints out that “willingness to pay” can be determinedthrough survey methodology. Despite all of the problemsidentified in the author’s literature review, he still believesLCA has utility even if the evaluation technique isimperfect.

3.3.2.11 Craighill, Amelia L., and Jane C. Powell. 1996.Lifecycle assessment and economic evaluation of recy-

cling: A case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 17:75-96.


The authors (discipline unknown) present a discussion onthe use of LCA as an “adaptive” method of planning wastemanagement systems. An overview of LCA is presentedalong with caveats about LCA’s use. From their research,the authors point out that “the [European Union’s] wastehierarchy does not appear to reflect the actual environ-mental impacts of waste management techniques, and theranking appears to be based on intuition rather than a sci-entific assessment” (p. 76).

They point out that recycling may have more impactsoverall than is believed. Furthermore, they point out thateconomics need to be integrated in the LCA process, ratherthan a focus on conversion to energy units. Externalitiesare better accounted for through economic principles. Inan LCA case study of the waste management system inMilton Keynes, England, they found that overall, the recy-cling program (source separation) had less impact than thelandfill disposal system, although some of the impacts oflandfill could be reduced through waste-to-energy inciner-ation. However, there were a few anomalies. In terms ofsurface water pollution, steel and plastics recycling con-tributed more impacts than disposal. Plastics do poorlyoverall in the recycling stream because of their highvolume-to-weight ratio, thus producing more transporta-tion-related impacts. In terms of economic evaluation, thenet benefits of recycling different materials are rankordered in pounds sterling: aluminum/1769, steel/238,paper/1226, glass/188, HDPE/-3, PVC/-4, PET.

AUTHOR INDEX

Paper No. Author

3.3.1.12 Akgul, Mustafa3.3.1.4 Al-Bakri, D.3.3.1.4 Al-Sheikh, Z.3.3.2.6 Alter, Harvey3.1.1.5 Anderson, Richard F.3.2.1.4 Anderson, William P.3.1.1.1 Andrews, Richard N. L.3.3.2.10 Ayres, Robert U.3.2.1.4 Baetz, Brian W.3.3.1.16 Basri, H. B.3.3.1.7 Bhide, A. D.3.2.1.1 Bishop, A. Bruce3.1.1.2 Bower, Blair T.3.3.2.1 Bridgewater, A. V.3.1.2.1 Bryson, John M.3.2.2.3 Burdge, Rabel J.3.3.1.13 Burkart, Roland3.1.3.1 Burton, Ian3.2.1.6 Chang, Ni-Bin3.3.2.5 Chapman, Robert E.3.3.2.7 Chilton, Kenneth3.2.2.1 Choi, Yearn Hong3.1.1.4, 3.3.2.4 Conn, W. David


3.3.2.11 Craighill, Amelia L.3.1.2.1 Crosby, Barbara C.3.3.1.17 Ettala, M.3.2.1.2 Farquhar, Grahame J.3.3.2.2 Fenton, Richard3.3.1.5 Finnecy, E. E.3.3.1.10 Frantzis, Ionnis3.3.1.15 Gipperth, P.3.3.2.9, 3.1.1.3 Goddard, Haynes C.3.1.1.5 Greenburg, Michael R.3.3.2.1 Gregory, S. A.3.2.1.3 Guruswamy, L. D.3.1.1.6 Heiman, Michael3.2.1.2 Hipel, Keith W.3.3.1.17 Hokkanen, J.3.2.1.4 Huang, Guo3.3.1.4 Kittanch, W.3.3.1.8 Koo, Ja-Kong3.3.2.8 Kovacs, William L.3.3.1.7 Krishnaswamy, K. N.3.1.3.2 Lang, Reg3.2.2.2 Lemons, John3.2.2.3 Linn, Nancy3.1.1.7 Lober, Douglas3.1.1.8 MacDonald, Marrianne L.3.3.1.1 Maimone, Mark3.2.2.2 Malone, Charles3.3.1.6 McQuaid-Cook, J.3.3.2.1 Mumford, C. J.3.2.1.1 Narayanan, Rangesan3.3.1.11 Opaluch, James J.3.3.1.12 Or, Ilhan3.3.1.9 Overgaard, Christian M.3.3.2.6 Owolabi, Comfort Adebisi3.3.1.14, 3.3.1.18 Petts, Judith3.3.2.11 Powell, Jane C.3.3.2.3 Purcell, Arthur H.3.1.3.1 Pushchak, Ronald3.1.3.5 Richards, Alun3.3.1.17, 3.1.3.3 Rossi, E.3.1.3.4 Rowe, Steven3.3.1.5 Rushbrook, P. E.3.3.1.17 Salminen, P.3.3.1.7 Shekdar, A. V.3.3.1.8 Shin, Hang-Sik3.3.1.4 Shublaq, W.3.3.1.6 Simons, C. S.3.3.2.1 Smith, E. L.3.2.1.2 Sobral, Maria M.3.3.1.16 Stentiford, E. I.3.3.1.15 Sunberg, J.3.3.1.11 Swaloow, Stephen K.3.3.1.3 Tarr, Joel A.3.3.1.7 Tikekar, V. G.3.3.1.9 Vidal, Rene V. V.3.2.2.3 Vinning, Joanne3.2.1.6 Wang, S. F.3.3.1.11 Weaver, Thomas F.3.2.1.5 Weber, Frederick

3.2.1.5 Wei, Meng-Shium3.3.1.15 Wene, C. O.3.3.1.11 Wessells, Christopher W.3.3.1.11 Wichelns, Dennis3.3.1.2 Wilson, David3.3.2.5 Yakowitz, Havey3.3.1.9 Yhdego, Michael3.3.1.8 Yoo, Hee-Chan

APPENDIX1997 to 2000 Articles to be Annotated for Future Publication

Journal of Planning Education and Research 16, 3 (spring 1997)Implementing Change in Locally Unwanted Land Use: The Case of

GSXSanda Kaufman and Janet L. Smith

To date, guidelines and strategies for the siting process, includingplanner intervention, have arisen from conflict surrounding locallyunwanted land uses (LULUs). The task of changing an existingunwanted land use has not received equal attention, and this taskposes special problems for parties involved in the decision-makingprocess. The issues, the space of alternative solutions, and some con-sequences of limited planner involvement are illustrated with a case:the closing down of the GSX Chemical Services of Ohio hazard-ous-waste processing facility in Cleveland. The unpredictability andpoor quality of outcomes, as well as the costs of conflict to the hostcommunity, illustrated by this case suggest the need for proactiveplanner participation in such changes. The authors use the GSX caseto examine specific aspects of change in existing unwanted land usesand the potential benefits of using planners’ skills and their positionas active negotiators on behalf of the public interest. They exploresome ways in which planner intervention could enable a transparentdecision-making process that is inclusive of all concerns, whetherrepresented or not, and that is based on accurate and sharedinformation.

Journal of the American Planning Association

No waste-planning articles found

Plan Canada

No waste-planning articles found

Journal of Environmental Management 50, 1 (May 1997)Environmental Impacts of Solid Waste Landfillingpp. 1-25 (doi:10.1006/jema.1995.0131)Mutasem El-Fadel*,1 Angelos N. Findikakis*, James O. Leckie**Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Cal-

ifornia, U.S.A.International Digital Electronic Access Library (IDEAL)-Related

Articles(Received 13 November 1995; accepted 18 December 1995)

Inevitable consequences of the practice of solid waste disposal inlandfills are gas and leachate generation due primarily to microbialdecomposition, climatic conditions, refuse characteristics, andlandfilling operations. The migration of gas and leachate away fromthe landfill boundaries and their release into the surrounding envi-ronment present serious environmental concerns at both existing and


new facilities. Besides potential health hazards, these concernsinclude, but are not limited to, fires and explosions, vegetation dam-age, unpleasant odors, landfill settlement, groundwater pollution, airpollution, and global warming. This article presents an overview ofgas and leachate formation mechanisms in landfills and their adverseenvironmental impacts, and describes control methods to eliminateor minimize these impacts.

Keywords: landfill; solid waste disposal; biodegradation; gas andleachate generation; environmental impacts; control methods.

Journal of Environmental Management 51, 3 (November 1997)ISSN: 0301-4797Economic Evaluation of a Regionalization Program for Solid Waste

Management in a Metropolitan Regionpp. 241-74 (doi:10.1006/jema.1997.0144)Ni-Bin Chang, Y. T. LinIDEAL-Related Articles

The complexity of large-scale solid waste management projects, inthis age of stringent fiscal and disposal space constraints, requires theapplication of a new broad-based management approach that takesfull advantage of the benefits afforded by modern centralized facili-ties. To satisfy this need, this article is designed to evaluate aregionalization program for solid waste management in a metropoli-tan region. An optimization model is applied to identify cost-effectiveexpansion plans through the use of optimal siting strategies. In partic-ular, the procedure considers three potentially conflicting criteria:costs, political and administrative feasibility, and the siting of newtransfer station facilities. Final solutions may optimally direct wastegeneration sources to new transfer station locations, treatment plants,and disposal facilities within each planning stage at a minimal cost.This methodology has been tested extensively through several solidwaste management plans for the Taipei metropolitan region in Tai-wan. The results of the case studies also indicate that by siting newtransfer stations, the optimal strategies of regionalization options canreduce direct costs and help generate satisfactory solid waste man-agement programs if political obstacles are not existing.

Keywords: solid waste management; cost-benefit analysis; regionalplanning; environmental systems analysis.

Journal of Environmental Management 52, 1 (January 1998)ISSN: 0301-4797Unit Pricing of Residential Municipal Solid Waste: Lessons from Nine

Case Study Communitiespp. 79-93 (doi:10.1006/jema.1997.0161)Marie Lynn Miranda, Joseph E AldyIDEAL-Related Articles

Communities across the United States have implemented unit pricingof residential solid waste, or pay-as-you-throw programs, as an inno-vative approach to encourage significant waste reduction and diver-sion. This article provides an analysis of case studies from ninemunicipalities that employ unit pricing for residential waste collec-tion. The article details the economic theory underlying unit pricing,analyses how the various characteristics of the nine unit pricing pro-grams affect program outcomes, and frames unit pricing issues forfurther research. The authors find that communities experiencedecreases in annual residential waste landfilled and incinerated afterimplementation of unit pricing. The communities with largerdecreases tend to have higher unit pricing fees and smaller minimum

container sizes for collection. Complementary programs, such asrecycling and yard waste collections, benefit under unit pricing, ashouseholds increase their diversion behavior. The authors considerthis immediate diversionary behavior the first stage in a household’sresponse to a unit-pricing program. After several years of experiencewith unit pricing, households enter a second stage where sourcereduction behavior becomes more apparent. Unit-pricing programsdo appear to encourage source reduction behavior, and concernsabout undesirable diversion do not appear to be well-founded. Theseresults may provide guidance in statistical analyses of larger sets ofunit-pricing communities.

Keywords: unit pricing; source reduction; solid waste management.

Journal of Environmental Management 52, 4 (April 1998)ISSN: 0301-4797Mass Communication and Pro-Environmental Behaviour: Waste Re-

cycling in Hong Kongpp. 317-25 (doi:10.1006/jema.1998.0189)Kara ChanIDEAL-Related Articles

Treatment of domestic waste has been one of the major environmentalproblems in Hong Kong. The government has a stated policy to advo-cate the minimization of waste disposal through the encouragementof waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. The current study appliesAjzen’s theory of planned behavior to predict behavioral intentionand actual behavior of voluntary use of waste recycling receptacles. Asystematic random sample of 173 household members in a publichousing estate was interviewed. The results indicated that attitudewas the major factor in predicting behavioral intention, followed bybehavioral control and social norms. Attitude, subjective norm, andperceived control together explained 44 percent of the variance ofbehavioral intention. Perception of mass media as a major source ofsubjective norms was first introduced and tested. Mass communica-tion stood out as one of the major sources of influence in establish-ment of subjective norms. The study has the implication that morepublicity messages should be put on the mass media to promotegreen behaviors.

Keywords: waste recycling; Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior; masscommunication; proenvironmental behavior.

Journal of Environmental Management 53, 1 (May 1998)Predicting Recycling Scheme Performance: A Process Simulation

Approachpp. 31-48 (doi:10.1006/jema.1998.0185)Peter Tucker, Grant Murney, Jacqueline LamontIDEAL-Related Articles

One of the key issues facing the environmental manager is the sus-tainable management of solid waste. Recovery of this waste for recy-cling often presents the best practical environmental option, and com-panies, industry, and government have set a number of targets for itsrecycling. A particular challenge is encountered when waste recoverydepends on voluntary action. Currently, there is no means of predict-ing the performance of these voluntary schemes in advance. This arti-cle presents a new mathematical model of waste recovery that canpotentially enable these predictions to be made. The model uses a pro-cess simulation approach to describe the material balance from con-sumption to discard. Flow partitions within the balance are governedby human decisions. In the model, these decisions are represented by


probability-distribution functions comprising an explained compo-nent and an unexplained random component. The explained compo-nent is linked to the demographics of the sample population. The keyantecedent factors that affect the human decisions have been delin-eated from a literature survey of the psychological factors affectingrecycling. Their representation in the model is consistent with estab-lished theories of recycling behavior. The new model is able to pro-vide simultaneous time-series predictions of scheme participationrates, total weights of material collected, and the composition of thismaterial. The model has been tested on a newspaper curbside collec-tion scheme and has produced good fits to all measured indicators ofrecycling performance. The model has additionally predicted theexistence and correct scale of observed local variations in recyclingbehaviors between streets. The potential use of the model as an envi-ronmental-management tool is discussed with reference to establish-ing new collection schemes and to the optimization of the perfor-mance of existing schemes.

Keywords: recycling; mathematical model; simulation; curbside col-lection; decision support.

Journal of Environmental Management 53, 2 (June 1998)Green Taxes, Waste Management and Political Economypp. 121-36 (doi:10.1006/jema.1998.0202)R. K. Turner, R. Salmons, J. Powell, A. CraighillIDEAL-Related Articles

Interest among policymakers has recently focused on the role, effi-ciency, and effectiveness of so-called green taxes. This article surveysrecent developments in the context of waste management policy andthe emergence of policy instruments such as recycling credits and thelandfill tax. It is concluded that there is an important role that eco-nomic instruments can play in this policy area. The inherent efficiencygains that economic instruments may provide deserve to be high-lighted. However, the application of such instruments in the currentpolitical economy settings will serve to reduce such efficiency gains,as multiple and conflicting policy objectives are introduced by thepolitical process. Although there are instances where appropriatelydesigned environmental taxes can provide an important element ofenvironmental policy, there is a danger that an ill-conceived compre-hensive “environmental tax reform” could be detrimental. Suchreform could result in a deterioration of environmental quality, anincrease in economic costs, and/or undesirable social consequences.

Keywords: green taxes; waste management; economic instruments; re-cycling credits; landfill tax.

Journal of Environmental Management 53, 4 (August 1998)Does Municipal Solid Waste Composting Make Economic Sense?pp. 339-47 (doi:10.1006/jema.1998.0214)M. Renkow, A. R. RubinIDEAL-Related Articles

Currently there is widespread interest on the part of local govern-ments in incorporating municipal solid waste (MSW) compostinginto their integrated solid waste management systems. However,there is little information on the costs of MSW composting and howthose costs compare with the costs of alternative forms of waste dis-posal (especially traditional land disposal). This article begins to fillthis information gap by reporting the results of a survey of nineteenMSW composting facilities around the United States. Results indicatethat MSW composting generally costs around $50 per ton and thatvery few facilities receive any revenues from the sale of compost to

offset operating costs. Additional economic analysis indicates that, atpresent, MSW composting cannot be justified on financial grounds inmost parts of the United States but may be competitive with land dis-posal where the cost of land filling is high (such as the Northeast).

Keywords: MSW composting; solid waste management; cost analysis.

Journal of Environmental Management 55, 1/2 (January 1999)How Much Do Money, Inconvenience and Pollution Matter? Ana-

lyzing Households’ Demand for Large-Scale Recycling andIncineration

pp. 27-38 (doi:10.1006/jema.1998.0245)A. HuhtalaIDEAL-Related Articles

Dwindling landfill space and environmental problems with old land-fills have forced municipalities to search for new methods to handlesolid wastes. The contingent valuation method is used to studyhouseholds’ choice between two alternative waste disposal services,large-scale recycling and incineration, which differ in convenienceand air pollution effects. This study seeks to evaluate how intensepeople’s preferences are in monetary terms. To capture the benefits ofwaste management, the willingness-to-pay estimates are thenincluded in the comparison of disposal options. The motivation is thatif only costs are compared and environmental impacts are neglectedin evaluating public provision of waste disposal services, choices thatare unfavorable from a social point of view may be made.

Keywords: contingent valuation; waste management; recycling;incineration.

Journal of Environmental Management 55, 4 (April 1999)Hazardous Waste Indicators for National Decision Makerspp. 249-63 (doi:10.1006/jema.1999.0254)Å. J. Granados, P. J. PetersonIDEAL-Related Articles

Indicators and indices are important tools that assist decisionmakersto formulate and implement plans for management at local, national,and international levels. Four indicators for hazardous-waste man-agement are described that have recently been adopted within theUnited Nations framework of Indicators of Sustainable Develop-ment. Although these four indicators will be useful tools, the need fora broader range of policy-relevant qualitative and quantitative indi-cators, proxy indicators, and indices is outlined. The argument isadvanced that in order for all nations to better manage the range ofhazardous-waste issues, including waste generation, export/import,and disposal, a set of innovative indicators and indices is required.Useful indicators and indices are described that could be used to linkand quantify likely environmental, ecosystem, and health impactsand risks especially from hazardous-waste disposal. Indicators arealso suggested that could be used to illustrate the shift in industrialstrategy away from end-of-pipe processes toward waste recycling,cleaner production, and integrated life-cycle analysis. It was con-cluded that until the lack of reliable and harmonized data on hazard-ous waste is addressed, indicator development and use by nationaland international decisionmakers cannot readily be implemented.

Keywords: hazardous wastes; indicators; policy options;decisionmakers.

Journal of Environmental Management 57, 1 (September 1999)The Effects of Unit Pricing System upon Household Solid Waste Man-

agement: The Korean Experience


pp. 1-10 (doi:10.1006/jema.1999.0286)Seonghoon HongIDEAL-Related Articles

Initial effects of adoption of a unit pricing system paired with aggres-sive recycling programs appear to be substantial. This article exploresthe impact of price incentives under the unit pricing system on house-hold solid waste generation and recycling in Korea. The authorsemploy a simultaneous equation model considering the feedbackeffects between total waste generation and recycling. Estimationresults using 3,017 Korean household survey data indicate that a risein waste collection fees induces households to recycle more wastes.However, this effect is partially offset by decreases in source-reduc-tion efforts due to the feedback effects, resulting in relatively lowerprice elasticity of demand for solid waste collection services. Thisimplies that household demand for solid waste collection serviceswill not decrease much with additional increases in the collection fee,unless further recycling incentives such as more frequent recyclablepickup services are accompanied.

Keywords: solid waste management; recycling; unit pricing system; si-multaneous equation model.

Waste Management & Research 15, 2 (April 1997)Preliminary Landfill Site Screening Using Fuzzy Geographical Infor-

mation Systemspp. 197-215 (doi:10.1006/wmre.1996.0076)Krerkpong Charnpratheep, Qiming Zhou, Barry GarnerIDEAL-Related Articles

This article explores the prospect of coupling fuzzy set theory and theanalytic hierarchy process (AHP) into a raster-based geographicinformation system (GIS) for the preliminary screening of landfillsites in Thailand. The theory of linguistic variable is used to representimprecision of spatial data and human cognition over the criteriaused for the screening process. Proximity of geographic objects, slope,and elevation are criteria used for this investigation. The priorityweights reflecting the preferences on the screening criteria, account-ing for seventeen map layers, are derived by the method of the AHP.The general method of GIS intersection based on binary logic is con-ducted to compare with the fuzzy min-operator intersection and theproposed convex combination model. The results show that the firstmethod, in relation to the fuzzy methods, fails to recognize 35.6 per-cent of the study area as potential areas for waste disposal. The pro-posed convex combination model has an advantage over the fuzzymin-operator intersection with respect to the ability to integrate crite-ria’s preferences into the screening process. It also yields agreeableresults with the recommendations from a previous study in the samearea.

Keywords: Preliminary landfill site screening; geographic informationsystems; fuzzy set theory; linguistic variable; convex combination;analytic hierarchy process; Thailand.

Waste Management & Research 15, 3 (June 1997)Network Geographic Information System for Landfill Sitingpp. 239-53 (doi:10.1006/wmre.1996.0081)Jehng-Jung Kao, Hung-Yue Lin, Wei-Yea ChenIDEAL-Related Articles

A prototype network GIS was developed to (1) improve the effective-ness of a complex municipal solid waste landfill siting procedure;(2) make siting-related information available to the general public;

(3) assist local environmental protection agencies in maintaining aGIS; and (4) facilitate the central environmental protection agency inmanaging, instructing, and evaluating the progress of a local siting.Siting analysis is performed with computerized mapping analysis tosave time and effort of data processing. A multimedia network inter-face is provided for twenty-four-hour local or remote access to thesystem from anywhere on the Internet. This networking capabilityallows a user without tools to use the system and to avoid the cost ofsystem installation and training appropriate personnel to manage thesystem. Moreover, a case study for Miaoli is described. Environmen-tal, social, economic, and engineering feasibility issues are evaluatedfor the suitability of a candidate landfill site.

Keywords: landfill; siting; geographic information system; municipalsolid waste; mapping analysis; Internet; network; multimedia;hypermedia; Taiwan.

Waste Management & Research 15, 5 (October 1997)Capacity Planning for an Integrated Waste Management System un-

der Uncertainty: A North American Case Studypp. 523-46 (doi:10.1006/wmre.1996.0106)G. H. Huang, B. W. Baetz, G. G. Patry, V. TerlukIDEAL-Related Articles

In this article, a gray integer-programming (GIP) formulation for thecapacity planning of an integrated waste management system underuncertainty is applied to a North American case study. The GIP modelis formulated by introducing concepts of gray systems and gray deci-sions into a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) framework.The approach has an advantage in that uncertain information (pre-sented as interval numbers) can be effectively communicated into theoptimization processes and resulting solutions, such that feasibledecision alternatives can be generated through interpretation andanalysis of the gray solutions according to projected applicable sys-tem conditions. Moreover, the GIP solution algorithm does not lead tomore complicated intermediate models and thus has lower computa-tional requirements than other integer-programming methods thatdeal with uncertainties. The proposed model is used for the long-termplanning of waste management facility expansion/utilization in theRegional Municipality of Hamilton–Wentworth (RMHW), Ontario,Canada. The binary decision variables in the model represent theranges of facility expansion/development alternatives within amultiperiod, multifacility, and multiscale context, and the gray con-tinuous variables represent waste flows along the routes connectingthe municipalities and the waste management facilities. The resultsindicate that reasonable solutions have been generated through thisgray mathematical programming approach. The case study resultsare potentially useful for MSW decisionmakers in the RMHW for thelong-term planning of the region’s waste management activities andfor formulating related local policies/regulations regarding wastegeneration and management, and they may stimulate the interest ofwaste management professionals in other jurisdictions on the use ofthis type of modeling approach for their specific long-range planningapplications.

Keywords: Capacity planning; municipal solid waste management;uncertainty; systems analysis; gray integer programming; decisionmaking; Canada.

Waste Management & Research 15, 6 (December 1997)The Structure of the Dutch Waste Sector and Impediments for Waste

Reduction


pp. 641-58 (doi:10.1006/wmre.1996.0117)Paulien de Jong, Maarten WolsinkIDEAL-Related Articles

The way in which organizations collect, treat, and dispose of waste inthe Netherlands frustrates the achievement of waste reduction goals.The possibility that directed modification of the structure of the wastesector may contribute to stimulating consumers (i.e., all waste pro-ducers using services from collectors) to limit the generation of wasteat the source by means of source reduction, reuse, and recycling is thesubject of research of which the first results are presented here. Thisarticle describes the structure of the Dutch waste sector and indicatesimpediments for waste reduction linked to it. The analysis starts witha categorization of organizations with vested interests in the handlingof waste. The ways in which these organizations manage to gain influ-ence on the manner in which waste is handled will be explained, aswell as the mutual relationships between organizations.

Keywords: municipal solid waste; waste market; waste sector; institu-tional impediments; waste reduction; sector structure; theNetherlands.

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 19, 2, 1997Environmental Decision Making for Recycling Optionspp. 109-35J. B. Legarth

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 19, 3, 1997An Analysis of Recycling Impacts on Solid Waste Generation by Time

Series Intervention Modelingpp. 165-86N. Chang, Y. T. Lin

Comment on Critical Review of Life-Cycle Assessmentpp. 219-20T. Ekvall

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 20, 2, 1997The Adoption of Life-Cycle Approaches by Industry: Patterns and

Impactspp. 71-94F. Berkhout, R. HowesResources, Conservation and Recycling 20, 3, 1997Landfill as a Future Waste Management Option in England: The View

of Landfill Operatorspp. 183-205A. D. Read, P. Phillips, G. Robinson

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 20, 4, 1997Integration of the Recycling Processes to the Life Cycle Analysis of

Construction Productspp. 227-43C. Buhe, G. Achard, J. Francois Le Teno, J. L. Chevalier

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 20, 4, 1997English County Councils and Their Agenda for Waste Minimizationpp. 277-94A. D. Read, P. S. Phillips, A. Murphy

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 21, 4, 1997The Governance of Waste Management in Urban Tanzania: Towards a

Community Based Approach

pp. 213-26J. M. Lusugga Kironde, M. Yhdego

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 22, 1-2, 1998Taxing Virgin Materials: An Approach to Waste Problemspp. 15-29A. Bruvoll

Optimization of the Final Waste Treatment System in the Netherlandspp. 47-82A. Faaij, M. Hekkert, E. Worrell, A. van Wijk

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 22, 3-4, 1998A Comparison of Waste Management in Guangzhou and Hong Kongpp. 203-16S. Chung, C. Poon

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 23, 3, 1998Cost-Benefit Analysis of Resource Material Recyclingpp. 183-92H. Leu, S. H. Lin

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 24, 1, 1998Optimization Analysis for the Development of Short-Term Solid

Waste Management Strategies Using Presorting Process prior toIncinerators

pp. 7-32Y. H. Chang, N. Chang

An Integrated Approach to Municipal Solid Waste Management33-50

E. Daskalopoulos, O. Badr, S. D. Probert

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 24, 2, 1998Development and Implementation of Producer Responsibility Recy-

cling Systempp. 121-35C.-H. Lee, C.-T. Chang, S.-L. Tsai

Solid Waste Management in India: Options and Opportunitiespp. 137-54S. Gupta, K. Mohan, R. Prasad, S. Gupta, A. Kansal

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 24, 3-4, 1998A Model Recycling Program for Alabamapp. 183-90C. Tilman, R. Sandhu

The Future Place of Recycling in Household Waste Policy: The Case ofFrance

pp. 217-33C. Defeuilley, S. Lupton

Life-Cycle Assessment as a Decision-Support Tool—The Case of Re-cycling versus Incineration of Paper

pp. 235-56G. Finnveden, T. EkvallResources, Conservation and Recycling 25, 1, 1999


Environmental Implications Involving the Establishment of SanitaryLandfills in Five Municipalities in Tanzania: The Case of TangaMunicipality

pp. 1-16R.R.A.M. Mato

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 25, 3-4, 1999Energy Flow Analysis as a Tool for Developing a Sustainable Soci-

ety—A Case Study of a Swedish Islandpp. 289-99A. Sundkvist, A. Jansson, A. Enefalk, P. Larsson

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26, 1, 1999An Efficiency Approach to Managing Mississippi’s Marginal Land

Based on the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)pp. 15-24B. Hamdar

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26, 2, 1999Integrated Waste Management Planning and Decision-Making in

New York Citypp. 125-41M. J. Clarke, A. D. Read, P. S. Phillips

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26, 3-4, 1999Methodological Aspects of Life Cycle Assessment of Integrated Solid

Waste Management Systems

pp. 173-87G. FinnvedenMaking Waste Work: Making UK National Solid Waste Strategy Work

at the Local Scalepp. 259-85A. D. Read

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 27, 3, 1999UK Waste Minimisation Clubs: A Contribution to Sustainable Waste

Managementpp. 217-47P. S. Phillips, A. D. Read, A. E. Green, M. P. Bates

STREAMS: A New Method for Analysing Material Flows throughSociety

pp. 249-66L.A.J. Joosten, M. P. Hekkert, E. Worrell, W. C. Turkenburg

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 28, 3-4, 2000Total Assessment Audits (TAA) in Iowapp. 185-98William G. Haman

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 29, 4, 2000Waste Management Techniques for Selected Solid Wastespp. 249-50Nilgun Kiran


Integrating Planning Theory and Waste Management—An Annotated Bibliography

Documents

waste planning

school of planning

traditional planning

planning models asthey

waste management planning

management of waste

professionalland use

waste planners