Show simple item record

Alternatives to NIMBY gridlock: voluntary approaches to radioactive waste facility siting in Canada and the United States

dc.contributor.authorRabe, Barry G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGunderson, William C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHarbage, Peter T.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T20:16:39Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T20:16:39Z
dc.date.issued1994-12en_US
dc.identifier.citationRabe, Barry G.; Gunderson, William C.; Harbage, Peter T. (1994). "Alternatives to NIMBY gridlock: voluntary approaches to radioactive waste facility siting in Canada and the United States." Canadian Public Administration 37(4): 644-666. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73397>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0008-4840en_US
dc.identifier.issn1754-7121en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73397
dc.description.abstractNeither Canada nor the United States has sited a new radioactive waste management facility in more than two decades, despite the continuous generation of new waste and the paucity of reliable disposal capacity. Both nations have stirred up considerable political controversy in attempting to site such facilities, with aggressive local collective action consistently blocking proposals. Building on provincial experience in gaining public support for hazardous waste facility siting tlirough a voluntary, comprehensive process, both Ontario and Nebraska Show signs of devi˜ting from the classic Not-in-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) response for low-level radioactive waste. Through a variation of the process used successfully in Alberta and Manitoba for hazardous waste, Ontario and Nebraska have demonstrated the potential applicability of these alternative siting principles for radioactive waste. Sommaire : Ni le Canada, ni les États-Unis n'ont construit de nouvelles installations de gestion des dÉchets radioactifs depuis plus de deux dÉcennies, malgrÉ la production continuelie de dÉchets supplÉmentaires et malgrÉ la faible capacitÉ d'Élimination fiable. Les deux nations ont dÉclenchÉ des controverses politiques considÉrables en essayant de mettre en place de telles installations, et leurs propositions ont ÉtÉ bloquÉes systÉmatiquement et agressivement par les collectivitÉs locales. Forts de certaines expÉriences provinciales pour gagner le soutien du public ewers l'emplacement d'une installation de dÉchets dangereux grÂce À un processus volontaire et extensif, l'Ontario et le Nebraska semblent dÉvier de la rÉaction classique “ pas dans ma cour ” en ce qui concerne les dÉchets faiblement radioactifs. Par l'entremise d'une variante du processus utilisÉ avec succÈs pour les dÉchets dnngereux en Alberta et au Manitoba, l'Ontario et le Nebraska ont dÉmontrÉ qu'on pourrait Éventuellement appliqucr ces principes de rechanpe pour l'emplacement des installations traitant les dÉchets radioactifs.en_US
dc.format.extent1618831 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights1994 Institute of Public Administration of Canadaen_US
dc.titleAlternatives to NIMBY gridlock: voluntary approaches to radioactive waste facility siting in Canada and the United Statesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEconomicsen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelBusinessen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumAssociate professor of health politics in the School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumGraduate student, the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherProfessor in the Deprtment of Political Science, Carthage College, Kenosha Wisconsin.en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73397/1/j.1754-7121.1994.tb00885.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1754-7121.1994.tb00885.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceCanadian Public Administrationen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarry G. Rabe, “ Beyond the NIMBY Syndrome in Hazardous Waste Facility Siting: The Albertan Breakthrough and the Prospects for Cooperation in Canada and the United States,” Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 4, no. 2 ( April 1991 ), pp. 184 – 206.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceM. Paul Brown, “ Environmental Canada and the Pursuit of Administrative Decentralization,” Canadian Public Administration 29 ( 1986 ), pp. 218 – 236.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRichard C. Kearney and Robert B. Garey, “ American Federalism and the Management of Radioactive Wastes,” Public Administration Review 42, no. 1 ( January/February 1983 ), pp. 12 – 24.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRichard C. Kearney, “ Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management: Environmental Policy, Federalism, and New York,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 23, no. 3 ( Summer 1993 ), pp. 57 – 73.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.