Siting strategies to instill legitimacy: The case of high-level nuclear waste

This study explores the dilemma associated with high-level waste disposal, first by recounting the history of the siting effort, then by assessing the determinants of public opposition, and finally by evaluating a variety of remedial siting strategies that have been advanced to subdue local opposition. Most analysts in the siting field have relied on policy tools such as compensation and mitigation. However, these approaches have so far proven inadequate in the high-level waste case. The basic premise of the current study is that policy tools must address the perceived legitimacy of the siting process if they are to overcome public opposition. The following dimensions of legitimacy are tested: (a) the problem is severe enough to require some technological solution, (b) the proposed facility is the best technology, and (c) the process for choosing sites is fair. These three effects are supported by an analysis of various surveys of public attitudes regarding high-level waste. The finding that public opposition to a risky facility is moderated by assessments of fairness leads to clear implications regarding siting policy. The major task facing the siting agent is to construct a strategy that leads the public to regard the outcome as legitimate. The approach advocated here is to recruit volunteers to solve the high-level waste problem. The choice of technology is left open, as it is crucial for locally affected residents to come to their own decisions as to how this problem should be solved