CPL Bibliography 361 CPL Bibliography

Journal of Planning Literature

361
Integrating Planning Theory and Waste ManagementAn Annotated Bibliography
Charles Hostovsky

This bibliography explores the body of literature that interfaces between professional land use planning and the management of waste. The author has been struggling to understand the dynamics of waste facility siting failures and the sustained public opposition that has become ubiquitous in Canada and the United States. Waste planners may have displayed a general ignorance or intellectual neglect regarding fundamental planning models and theory. This neglect may help us to understand why waste planning appears to be prone to failure. This bibliography provides some foundational readings in planning models that may help us link waste management and planning theory. A literature review was undertaken, with a focus on refereed journals. Three distinct types of refereed journals were examined: planning, waste management and environmental management. Articles were screened for evidence of six planning models as they relate to waste management, including the comprehensive-rational, incremental, adaptive, contingency, advocacy, and participatory models.

and logical positivist interpretations of rationality (Banfield 1955, 1959; Hodge 1991) predominate the process of professional land use planning. Armour (1987) and Lawrence (1997) have argued that the discipline of environmental impact assessment is also dominated by technical rationality. Thus, it appears that waste management planning, an area of practice that creates a synthesis between traditional planning models and environmental impact assessment through the application of various environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulations, has also demonstrated a slavish adherence to the technical comprehensive rational model (Hostovsky 1999). Indeed, the authors recent work highlighted how hundreds of millions of dollars and decades of recent planning effort in Ontario, Canada, have largely failed to implement waste disposal sites for municipal solid, hazardous, and nuclear waste systems despite a total commitment to technical rationality
CHUCK HOSTOVSKY, M.C.I.P., R.P.P., is a midcareer Ph.D. candidate in the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo, an adjunct professor in the Department of Geography and Program in Planning at the University of Toronto, and an instructor at Ryerson Polytechnic University. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 15, No. 2 (November 2000). Copyright 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

1.0 OBJECTIVE

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

306

Journal of Planning Literature

Refereed journals dedicated to waste management; to examine to what extent engineering and other disciplines have examined planning theory in the management of waste, journals included: Waste Management and Research and Resources, Conservation and Recycling , formerly Resources and Conservation, and Resource Recovery and Conservation

expressed in Ontarios Environmental Assessment Act. These siting failures occurred despite fully integrated participatory planning and a strong commitment to public consultation. The purpose of this bibliography is to explore the body of literature that interfaces between professional land use planning and the management of waste, thus providing theoretical background for the authors comprehensive exam and doctoral research. The author, a midcareer planner with a long history of practice in waste management, has been struggling to understand the dynamics of these siting failures and the sustained public opposition that has become ubiquitous in Canada and the United States. However, the author hypothesizes that waste planners have displayed general ignorance or intellectual neglect regarding fundamental planning models and theory. This neglect may, in part, help us to understand why waste planning appears to be prone to failure. This bibliography will provide some foundational readings in planning models that may help us link waste management and planning theory. 1.1 Methodology A literature review was undertaken, with a focus on refereed journals, to examine the most likely places that planning theorists and academics would publish. Unrefereed trade magazines and government publications were not examined because they are unlikely to publish the results of theoretical research. Three distinct types of refereed journals were examined, as follows:
Planning journals with a primarily Canadian and American focus; to examine the extent to which planning 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

Although there are dozens and maybe hundreds of engineering journals that may publish articles related to waste management, the author again, with direction from his dissertation committee, scoped his review to the two main refereed journals specializing in waste.
Environmental management journals, to examine to what extent multidisciplinary environmental managers have addressed waste planning as a subset of their discipline. Journal of Environmental Management and Environmental Management

The main interest of the authors research is to understand what planners think about waste management in a North American context. JAPA is associated with the largest body of professional planners in the world, whereas JPER is an instrument of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, the governing body by which all Canadian and American planning schools are certified. Plan Canada is a sometimes refereed journal published by the Canadian Institute of Planners, from whom the author has his professional registration. Although many other planning journals are published around the world, they were not examined in the interest of scoping the literature review to those journals most likely to meet the research goals (there are about 300 journals of relevance to planning).2

It was determined by the author that many environmental planners,3 not directly involved with professional land use planning programs but with training in planning theory, environmental impact assessment, and resource management, may be publishing in multidisciplinary journals. Although there are many of these multidisciplinary journals, these two journals were examined as a test because of their direct mandate in environmental management. Originally, a computerized literature search and indexing tools were used, with planning, plan, and waste as keywords in all commercial databases available in the University of Waterloos library system (e.g., Pollution Abstracts). However, the results of the computerized search were disappointing, yielding few results. Only a handful of textbooks, consultant reports, and government documents were identified,4 with most of these written from an engineering perspective (e.g., how to design leachate collection systems). Many provinces and states have created guidelines associated with waste management planning. In the authors home province of Ontario, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) released an exhaustive threevolume set5 that the author previously peer reviewed for the Ministry. In response to much criticism in the province about applying environmental assessment to waste management, the MOEs cookbook provides detailed step-by-step instructions for proponents to meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. Notwithstanding these government publications, it was not the purpose of the research to review the EIA regulatory process of each individual province and state, thus the reviewer decided to concentrate on the journals that would most likely yield appropriate articles on planning theory and models in waste manage-

CPL Bibliography 361 ment. The author went through all of the holdings of these journals from their earliest publication through to mid-1997, just before the authors comprehensive exam was scheduled.6 In preparation for publication of this work, the author reviewed the same journals from 1997 to mid-2000 and plans to submit annotated bibliographies of this research in a follow-up to this bibliography. The appendix contains titles and selected abstracts of most of the articles that will be analyzed. The journals were examined volume by volume, looking for waste planningrelated entries. Journal article abstracts were studied to determine whether the article content explored some relationship of planning to waste management. Photocopies were made of all articles that met the literature search criteria for later detailed analysis. An annotated bibliography with a focus on the articles planning processes was created. The planning models presented in the literature were analyzed vis--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 authors to university departments, government agencies, or private consulting firms: Planners Engineering/sciences Social sciences Economics Law Government employees (i.e., bureaucrats) Unknown 3. By authors nationality based on affiliation with university departments, government agencies, or private consulting firms: Canadian American European Developing nations

307

souliss review could serve as an excellent baseline by which the literature could be compared and contrasted. Briassoulis provides a thorough and succinct review of the major environmental planning models adapted from accepted planning theory. She identifies six major environmental planning approaches, summarized as follows:
Comprehensive-Rational model The dominant land use planning model in professional planning Staged approach: (1) ecological/socioeconomic profile, (2) examine alternative solutions, (3) best solution vis--vis criteria developed Reliance on planner as a technician Incremental model Attention given to the environment when there is a crisiscrisis management Environmental problems handled individually Planning responds to fragmented environmental regulations and is highly political Adaptive (modeling) model Reliance on modeling, especially computerized techniques Prepared responsiveness Recognizes successive and continuous approaches to human activity Anticipatory, predicts future events Recognizes dynamic character of ecosystem Contingency model Produce alternative courses of action to meet unexpected occurrences that may have adverse environmental consequences Mostly used for natural hazards or man-induced hazards Risk assessment based Advocacy model Ideology; planner cannot be neutral Cannot serve two masters Planning congruent with client values and goals Data may be manipulated to meet client goals Environmental outcome the survival of the fittest Participatory model Participatory democracypublic input into decisionmaking process Dispute resolution, mediation, negotiation Pluralistic view, looks for win-win planning alternatives Compromise does not ensure environmental quality

Finally, a historical analysis was integrated into the analysis (see Table 1). 1.2 BackgroundScreening Papers Two important articles were used as a screening mechanism to identify the main planning models/theories to be identified and any potential relationship of planning models to waste management. Of particular importance was the following:
Briassoulis, Helen. 1989. Theoretical orientations in environmental planning: An inquiry into alternative approaches. Environmental Management 13, 43: 381-92.

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

Although Briassouliss article does not explicitly deal with waste planning per se, waste management planning can be viewed as a subset of environmental planning. As such, these classifications were used in this reviewers literature search to categorize the wasteplanning models. In Table 2, the author has crossreferenced the Briassoulis environmental planning models with some standard planning theory references with which he is familiar. Upon the initial review of the literature, it became evident that many authors combined planning models;

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

Journals Year 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Planning Environmental Management Waste Planners Engineering/ Social Science Sciences Disciplines Economics Law Unknown Bureaucrat Canadian Nationality American European Developing 1P-CR 1CR 1P-CR 1CR 1P-CR 1CR 1P-A 1P-A 1P-CR 1M-I 1P-CR 1P-CR 1P-CR (WH) 1I 1CR 1M 1P-CR 1CR 1I 1P-CR 1P-CR (WH) 1P-CR 1I 1CR 1CR 1I 1CR 1M 1P-A 1P-A 1P-CR 1I 1CR 1M 1I-M 1P-CR 1I 1M 1P-CR 1P-CR (WH) 1P-CR 1I 1M 1I 1CR 1M 1PA 1P-A 1P-CR 1I-M 1I 2CR 1P-CR 1P-CR (WH) 2C-A 1P-CR (WH) 1I 2CR 1P-CR (WH) 1M 1M 1I-M 1M 2CR 1P-CR (WH) 2C-A 1P-CR (WH) 1P-CR 1M 1I-M 1M 1P-CR 1M 1I-M 1M 2M 1P-A 1CR 1CR 1P-A 1M 1CR 1CR 2P-A 1M 1P 1M 1P-CR 1M 1M 1P-CR 1P-CR (WH) 1P-CR (WH) 1M 1I 1P-CR (WH) 1C-A 1P-CR (WH) 1P-CR (WH) 1I 1C-A 1P-CR 1P-CR 2P-A 3M 1P-A 2M 1CR 1P-A 1P 1I-M 1CR 1CR 1M 2CR 1M 1M 1I-M 1M 1P-CR 1993 1994 1995 1M 1P-CR 1996 1CA 1P-CR (WH) 1997 1M 2M 1CR 1P-CR 2P-A 1M 1P-A 1P 1I-M 2M 1CR 1P-A 1M 1P-CR 1CR 1M 1M 1P-CR (WH) 1M 2M

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.

CPL Bibliography 361

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

309

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 Management Association.

Adaptive (modeling)

ESSA Environmental and Social Consultants Ltd. 1982. Review and evaluation of adaptive environmental assessment and management. Vancouver: Environment Canada. Harris, Britton. 1996. Planning technologies and planning theories. In Explorations in planning theory, Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell., eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research Press. Sonntag, N. C. 1983. Adaptive environmental assessment and management (AEAM) as a scoping 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. In Explorations 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 American Planning Association 51: 63-73.

Advocacy

Davidoff, P. 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31: 331-38. Faludi, Andreas. 1996. Rationality, critical rationalism, and planning doctrine. In Explorations 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 of Planners 34: 216-24. Lucy, William H. 1996. APAs ethical principles include simplistic planning theories. In Reading in planning theory, Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein, eds. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Susskind, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the impasse. New York: Basic Books.

for example, the participatory model was most often associated with the comprehensive-rational model. As a result, the literature review recognized these integrated models. The second background article used for screening the literature search was the following:
Abbott, Carl, and Sy Adler. 1989. Historical analysis as a planning tool. Journal of the American Planning Association 55, 4: 467-73.

Abbott and Adler discuss the importance of historical analysis in professional planning. Besides building pride, group identity, and solidarity in the planning profession, historical analysis can be used to avoid repeating the past (p. 468). History can be a valuable analytical approach to the problems of planning. Recognizing that the past has predictive value was integrated into the analytical framework from which the literature on waste management planning was reviewed.

310

Journal of Planning Literature these planning journals until the late 1970s. Of those three articles, two present an advocacy model of waste planning, especially proponent-based advocacy. These two articles both discuss the alternative of waste-toenergy incineration, questioning why waste planners had not embraced this technology as the solution to the waste and energy crisis. Certainly this was to be expected as the Arab oil embargo had taken place just previous to these publications. Indeed, the other journals also saw much attention to energy recovery as a result of the alleged energy crisis. Articles published in the 1970s also indicated that planners were not yet comfortable with the technology of waste management. Some of these articles included descriptions of waste technologies designed to educate planners. The thrust of these earlier writings was also to encourage land use planners to get involved in waste planning because of the skills sets planners have, including the ability to make value-laden trade-offs in controversial planning issues. Attitudes to public involvement were somewhat tentative, possibly reflecting old paternalistic attitudes from the postwar generation. For example, Greenburg (1977) points out that planners have the responsibility to help proponents with adverse citizen reaction (the term not in my backyard [NIMBY] was not yet in widespread use). There was little discussion in the 1970s about helping citizens. In the early 1980s, two other planning journal articles appeared. Of particular note was the first article to advocate a willing-host concept into the CR planning model. This idea was a logical extension of the participatory approach, giving more power to local citizens in site selection processes. Almost half of the CR papers (four) addressed the willing-host approach, most with glowing account of success stories in siting hazardouswaste or nuclear treatment facilities. Curiously, none proposed using the willing-host approach for municipal solid waste landfill sites or incinerators. By the early 1990s, there was a complete shift in the planning literature to more progressive planning approaches. Two articles dealt with advocacy planning. However, instead of a proponent-based advocate approach, citizen advocacy was prescribed. Lang (1990) discussed the need for equity in waste site selection processes and the need for planners to represent the less privileged sectors of our society (i.e., those that usually end up hosting waste facilities). Heiman (1990) called on planners to abandon altogether their tradition of social harmony to represent those who are unjustly displaced by waste proposals. MacDonald (1996) pointed out that black communities in the United States often end up bearing the undue burden of waste disposal. Overall, articles on waste management in the planning literature seemed to be cyclical in nature, with

Based on this reviewers sixteen years of professional practice and graduate research, it seemed that waste planners have continually repeated mistakes of the past.
2.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of fifty-two journal articles were reviewed and incorporated into the annotated bibliography. Table 1 contains a chronological breakdown of these articles. There were fourteen articles in the three planning journals, nine articles in the two environmental management journals, and twenty-nine articles in the two waste management journals.8 2.1 Planning Journals The comprehensive-rational (CR) planning model was the predominant model among planning authors. Nine of the fourteen articles presented this model as applicable to waste planning. Furthermore, the participatory model was fully integrated with the CR model, appearing in eight of the nine articles, including the earliest article (1971). The lone article that did not discuss the inclusion of public involvement into a CR waste-planning process was Bower (1971). Furthermore, the other 1971 paper (Andrews) discussed a participatory approach by calling for increased access for citizens, thereby implying that the public had little access to the planning process. It is not surprising that planners earliest waste-related publications promoted the CR approach, as this approach has indeed been the dominant land use planning paradigm for many decades. No articles addressed incremental planning approaches in the planning journals, possibly reflecting the professional planners aversion to this type of planning. Incremental approaches can be viewed as fire fighting, reacting to situations as they develop. Planning schools, on the other hand, stress the CR approach, viewing fire fighting as a lack of preparedness, the antithesis of planning. Only one article dealt with adaptive planning (i.e., modeling), and it was a very recent article (Lober 1995). Lober advocated the use of geographic information systems to model public opposition to landfill siting proposals. This author assumes planners have also had an aversion to high technology; as a result, there was little discussion on the use of such powerful technological tools as geographic information systems (GIS) despite their widespread use in waste facility site selection. Furthermore, modeling in general requires mathematical and statistical skills not usually associated with planning as a profession. As this literature review discovered, other journals and disciplines embraced adaptive modeling approaches. Historically, it must be noted that after the two American articles of 1971, no publications appeared in

CPL Bibliography 361 gaps of four or five years with no waste-related articles, followed by several publications. This may reflect the cyclical nature of waste management, as waste crises come and go. More research is needed to correlate planners reactions to these historical cycles. 2.2 Environmental-Management Journals Adaptive (modeling) planning techniques were clearly favored in the environmental management literature. Four of the nine articles outlined various models. Two outlined modified input-output models, one promoted expert systems (i.e., artificial intelligence), and one discussed a multi-objective mixed integer programming technique. Almost all of these articles relied on the use of the computer as a valuable modeling tool, for obvious reasons. One of the models was used as an incremental approach, thereby implying the use of models to meet new regulatory standards. Bishop and Narayanan (1979) pointed out that their model would help to design a residuals management system that could meet the myriad of new environmental regulations. Two other articles dealt with incremental approaches to waste planning. Choi (1983) pointed out that U.S. Environmental Protection Agengy (EPA) regulations were not being met. Lemons and Malone (1989) overviewed the nuclear waste repository siting processs lack of comprehensive approach (i.e., McHargian siting and EIA techniques) and the need to meet the nuclear waste crisis through a focus on geology only. Three articles addressed the CR model to waste planning, and two of them integrated a participatory approach. This reviewer was in general surprised to see an overall lack of public involvement planning in the environmental management journals. Some authors took positions that are totally incongruous with accepted planning practice. Choi (1983), for example, pointed out that education of the public was needed. This may be partially explained by the scientifictechnical background of these authors. None of the environmental management authors were from the planning profession. Historically, environmental management journals printed waste-related articles every couple of years, with little evidence of any particular shift in focus during the period reviewed (1979 to 1997). 2.3 Waste Journals The most common type of planning advocated in the waste journals was adaptive modeling. Eleven of the articles described various techniques, most involving linear and/or nonlinear programming algorithms. The focus of the models was on minimizing costs and transportation distances between waste systems components. Few models took ecological conditions into

311

account. Most developed waste systems and technologies with the help of a computer. A few could predict potential site locations. Two articles dealt with expert systems/artificial intelligence, essentially distilling experts knowledge and decision-making processes into a computer database. Three modeling articles dealt with life-cycle analysis (LCA). There was much criticism about the use of LCA in waste management and discussion of problems of comparing apples to oranges; however, the authors were unanimous that this tool held much promise for designing waste systems and reducing waste-related environmental impacts. Craighill and Powell (1996) used LCA to demonstrate that recycling created more impacts than waste planners had assumed. None of the modeling advocates addressed public input and social impacts into their planning process in a meaningful way. A few addressed public opposition as a function of distance from the proposed facility, essentially reducing public participation to a linear programming algorithm (Koo et al. 1991; Or and Akgul 1994). Almost as many articles, ten, addressed waste planning in a CR approach. However, only three integrated a participatory approach. McHargian mapping techniques were common in site selection processes described. Many of the CR waste-planning articles focused on the use of multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. Most of these techniques were Leopoldian in nature, converting impacts and relative importance into numeric (cardinal) values, typically on a scale of one to ten. Some discussed ordinal (e.g., pairwise comparisons) MCDM techniques. Reliance on experts in conducting MCDM techniques was clear. Advocating public input into MCDM processes was sadly lacking. Only one CR process overviewed a willing-host methodology (McQuaid-Cook and Simons 1989). None of the waste journal articles contained citizen-based advocacy approaches. Four articles, all of them in the 1990s, described proponent-based advocacy approaches. These articles seemed to indicate a level of frustration with the NIMBY syndrome, and they seemed to be written as a backlash against citizen activists. Kovacs (1993) even called on the U.S. federal government to enact legislation that could force implementation of waste facilities regardless of the level and ferocity of public opposition. All of these authors suggested there was too much federal and state interference in the planning process and that the industry was overregulated. Kovacs was certainly ambiguous on this point. Burkart, as recently as 1994, viewed communications with the public solely as a public relations problem requiring more public education. Tarr (1985) overviewed the history of waste management in the United States starting from the mid-

312

Journal of Planning Literature Clearly the engineers and the physical science professions embraced modeling as the overwhelming planning model of choice. Sometimes these adaptive techniques were associated with incremental responses to regulatory changes. However, the literature demonstrates there was some interest in the CR model through the late 1970s and into the 1980s. By the 1990s, modeling was the exclusive planning approach in the sciences. There was only a small body of evidence in the sciences pointing to involving the public in consensus building. The sciences were also silent on the issue of the willing-host concept. Again, the technocrats may feel comfortable returning to what they do best (i.e., quantitative methods). They may have also become disenchanted with the longtime horizons required for CR models of waste planning. Three social scientists, in the last half of the temporal analysis, wrote about three different planning models, none of them involving modeling or quantitative methods. Five economists presented articles in the 1990s only. Goddard (1995) argued that waste planning has been traditionally viewed as an engineering problem, when in reality it is an economic problem. Three economists embraced the CR approach; one wrote about adaptive modeling, and one economist was an advocate for proponents. Of course, economics was the decided slant to their work. One lawyer and nine authors of unknown background presented articles beginning in the mid-1980s. Clearly, these disciplines had not traditionally been involved in waste planning, which explains the lag time in their involvement in the literature. Four articles were associated with government agencies and not a discipline. Again, these articles appeared later in the literature (1980s and 1990s). Two, not surprisingly, discussed incremental approaches required to meet new government regulations. Nine authors were not identifiable to a discipline. 2.5 Nationality Canadian authors, most of them planners, fully embraced the participatory CR approach. Not one CR approach was presented without the integration of meaningful public involvement as a centerpiece to good waste planning. Two-thirds of these articles advocated the integration of the willing-host concept. Overall, Canadian waste planners were committed to a participatory approach and demonstrated eagerness to find waste facilities that minimized environmental as well as social impacts. Historically, this finding did not waiver throughout the time period examined, although Canadian authors did not appear until almost halfway through the historical analysis. American authors were the most represented group in the review, and they were evenly split between the

nineteenth century. Until 1965, waste was planned in an ad hoc manner. He pointed out that incremental changes were made in waste planning as regulations were passed, starting with the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 . Two other authors described incremental approaches based on regulatory changes. It seems clear that there seems to be a strong correlation between waste-planning process change and regulatory change. There were only three articles dealing with waste planing in the waste management journals in the 1970s through to the mid-1980s. This seems to indicate waste professionals had little regard for planning processes during those decades. However, several articles appeared in the late 1980s with a relative flurry of planning-related articles published in the 1990s. This reviewer hypothesizes that the waste community recognized waste facilities and plans were being defeated and abandoned on a regular basis due to grassroots opposition. The frustration associated with dealing with the politics and social dimensions of NIMBY may have been a primary factor in garnering more attention to planning processes. 2.4 Disciplines The planning journal articles were written by planners. However, even though the environmental management and waste journals are multidisciplinary, only one planner published a waste article in the reviewed nonplanning journals. Conn (1976) promoted the use of incineration with energy recovery. As previously mentioned, planners predominately embraced the CR planning model. Most integrated a participatory approach. Again, this was not unexpected due to the emphasis on the CR approach in professional planning school and practice. It only seems natural that we would import this model into waste planning. Furthermore, effective and meaningful public participation has become synonymous with good planning practice; therefore, there was no surprise to this reviewer that participatory approaches were well integrated. Advocacy planning was also common among planners, split evenly between representing proponents and citizens. It is interesting to note that planners vested interests in proponents were written about in the late 1970s, with citizen advocacy appearing in the 1990s. Furthermore, willing-host methodologies were discussed by planners in the 1980s and into the 1990s, indicating a concern for community impacts, fairness, and equity in site selection processes. Possibly it has become pass for professional planning to be seen to be in bed with proponents, or it may be that planning has matured as a discipline. Regardless, these are topics for further in-depth investigation. It is also worth noting that planners wrote about participatory CR approaches long before the other disciplines addressed this model.

CPL Bibliography 361 CR approach and adaptive modeling. This split was divided along disciplinary lines, as discussed previously. Most of the CR approaches described integrated participatory approaches, although acquiescence to meaningful public involvement came later than it did for Canadian authors. Only one American author suggested willing-host techniques. Incremental approaches appeared in four American articles. Except for an article in 1975, Europeans authored ten articles late in the literature review: three in the mid-1980s and the bulk in the 1990s. None of these authors represented the planning profession. Possibly, language held back potential authors, although this is disappointing as it is well documented that Western Europeans developed integrated waste management systems and aggressive 3Rs programs well before North Americans did. Again, the CR model was preferred by Europeans; however, there was very little discussion of participatory approaches. Only one author discussed the importance of meaningful public involvement. Modeling and incremental approaches were represented by two articles each. Nine articles were presented by authors from developing countries, including India, Nigeria, Tanzania, Korea, Taiwan, the Middle East, and Turkey. These authors overwhelming favored adaptive modeling approaches. Only two proposed a CR model. There was virtually no discussion of public involvement. Furthermore, ecological considerations took a low priority, as environmental concerns were equated primarily with public health and safety. Clearly, we can see cultural differences in the public-government interface, with paternalism the modus operandi of these regimes. However, one could speculate that economic prosperity plays a major role in increasing participatory democracy in waste planning. The Korean article (Koo, Shin, and Yoo 1991), for example, acknowledged NIMBY and built concessions into their model designed to reduce social stress. This may be an indication that the growth in living standards in Korea is resulting in a Western-style social phenomenon, including the NIMBY syndrome. 2.6 Conclusion Overall, preferences in waste-planning models were divided along disciplinary lines, with planners favoring the CR model and those in engineering/science favoring adaptive modeling. Modeling rarely addressed social concerns and public input. Participatory approaches were well integrated into the CR model, with the willing-host concept receiving a surprising amount of attention. Chronologically, the CR approach appeared throughout the time line; however, the intensity of discussion about participatory approaches grew in more recent years.

313

Advocacy planning occurred earlier in the historical analysis, with a shift from proponent-based to citizenbased advocacy later in the time line. Canadians unanimously favored a CR approach with full commitment to meaningful participatory models. Americans preferred the CR model and adaptive techniques, but they wrote less about consensus building with the public and gave a fair bit of attention to tying incremental approaches to changes in government regulations. Europeans were less concerned with the public than Americans were. Authors affiliated with universities in developing countries appeared more recently in the reviewed journals, and they tended to favor adaptive and incremental approaches, with no provision whatsoever for Western-style public participation campaigns. The author speculates that may be a correlation between interest in waste management research and the more recent introduction of EIA regulations in the developing world. No indication of contingency 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 Professor Jack Nasar, Ohio State University. 3. Academics and professionals primarily associated with faculties of environmental studies and geography programs. 4. In stark contrast, the author used waste management as a search parameter at www.amazon.com on May 11, 2000. This search yielded 1,070 book matches on the Internets largest online book retailer. 5. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1994. Waste Management PlanningSectoral Environmental Assessment Proposal for Waste Management 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 the waste and environmental management journals yielded more than 40 articles.

2.8 References Annotated bibliographies are presented as follows:

Armour, Audrey. 1987. Resolving facility siting conflicts. Paper submitted for doctoral comprehensive examination, School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Banfield, E. C. 1959. Ends and means in planning. International Social Science Journal 11, 3: 361-68. . 1955. Note on conceptual scheme. In Politics, planning and the public interest, M. Meyerson and E. C. Banfield, eds. New York: Free Press. Dalton, Linda C. 1986. Why the rational planning paradigm persistsThe resistance of professional education and practice to alternative forms of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 5: 147-52. Hodge, Gerald. 1991. Planning Canadian communities. Scarborough: Nelson Canada. Hostovsky, Charles. 1999. Persistence of the rational planning paradigm in waste management: Tales from the field. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of

314

Journal of Planning Literature

Planning Model: Proponent Advocacy Professor Greenburgs article was intended to provide guidance to local and county planning boards in their review of resource recovery (i.e., waste-to-energy) facility proposals. As an advocate for incineration, he provides five criteria for the planning profession to assess proposalstechnical, by-product strategies, legal/institutional, economics, and site characteristics. While lacking in analysis of planning theory and models, he provides some interesting insights into how the planning profession viewed waste management in the mid-1970s. For example, he points out that planning boards and planners in general lack the expertise or desire to review the technical nature of waste facilities. Also significant is Greenburgs naive statement regarding public attitudes toward waste management: The public attitude toward solid waste has been that it should go away. The destination has been considered irrelevant (p. 29). However, Greenburg does point out that it is the planners responsibility to discuss possible adverse citizen reaction to the site with the proponent. Overall, the article suggests that in the mid-1970s, planners in the United States had little to no involvement in waste management other than to react to proposals under way and 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. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational Conns primary purpose in his article was to explore why resource recovery (i.e., waste-to-energy) had not been implemented in most of the waste management plans developed in California in the 1970s. He points out that even though the American waste planner was responding to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (i.e., states or regions should prepare a comprehensive solid waste plan), in California comprehensive waste plans have been required since 1972. California legislation also called for a 25 percent reduction in waste going to landfill, with primary emphasis on waste-to-energy technologies. The author reviewed twenty-seven such plans conducted between 1972 and 1977. Although the primary focus of Conns review was to examine waste-to-energy implementation, he also made some interesting comments about the integration of public involvement in the California waste plans (i.e., participatory planning). Despite the requirement that public involvement be an essential ingredient in the plan preparation process, Conn found little evidence that the public had exerted significant influence on the planning process. He pointed out that this was either an omission in reporting/documentation or a serious inadequacy in the planning process. This article points out there was an assumption of rational/comprehensive waste planning integrated with participatory planning in the United States, especially Cal-

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 Regional Planning, Ontario, Canada. 3.0 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

3.1 Planning Journals

3.1.1 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION (FORMERLY AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING JOURNAL)

3.1.1.1 Andrews, Richard N. L. 1971. Three fronts of federal environmental policy. AIP Journal 37, 3: 258-66. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational Andrews gives us some interesting insights into the thoughts of the planning profession in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The article was written shortly after the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed in the United States (1969). While making comments about pollution in general, which the authors describes as residuals management, the article does point out that the management of wastes is hampered by free air, land, and water for disposal (p. 259), vis--vis Hardings Tragedy of the Commons. Andrews points out that prior to NEPA in 1969, residuals management was planned in an ad hoc manner and as a separate issue (e.g., Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, Refuse Act of 1899). He calls upon planners to take a more comprehensive approach to environmental planning on public lands and federal actions. Finally, the author points to the need for increased access of citizens at all levels of government, hinting at a participatory approach. 3.1.1.2 Bower, Blair T. 1971. Residuals and environmental management. AIP Journal 37, 3: 218-20. Planning Model: Comprehensive-Rational Bower views environmental planning as the management of residuals and the recognition of the assimilative capacity of ecological externalities. This reviewer was surprised to see that a planner viewed the problem of solid residuals (garbage) as a problem of overconsumption of goods and a throwaway philosophy demanded by an affluent society. Not much is mentioned by the author in terms of waste planning other than to point out to fellow planners that alternatives be examined (eluding to the rational-comprehensive approach) and that we seek to articulate the multiple trade-offs among societal values involved. Twenty-seven years later, we are still wrestling with those trade-offs. 3.1.1.3 Greenburg, Michael R. 1977. Suggestions for evaluating resource recovery proposals. AIP Journal 43, 1: 24-32.

CPL Bibliography 361

ifornia, by the late 1970s. However, effective implementation of these planning models by county waste boards was questionable. 3.1.1.5 Anderson, Richard F., and Michael R. Greenburg. 1982. Hazardous waste facility siting: A role for planners. AIP Journal 48, 2: 204-18. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational This article gives this reviewer significant insight into how planners viewed waste planning in the early 1980s. Anderson and Greenburg provide the planning profession with an overview of the crisis of hazardous-waste disposal in the United States and the failure to site new environmentally appropriate disposal facilities. These failures were due to ad hoc procedures that rely more on marketing (i.e., least cost on cheap land). The assumption is made that planners know little about hazardous-waste legislation (e.g., NEPA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]); therefore, the article provides a brief education for the profession. They point out that planners can play an important role through their familiarity with land use and methodological approaches. Thus, the profession offers a substantial opportunity to help resolve the critical problems posed by hazardous wastes (p. 217). The authors then use a review of environmental impact assessment literature to overview a typical site selection process for a landfill using McHargian overlay techniques for site identification and Leopolds matrix system for evaluation/ranking alternative sites. Historically, it seems that planning did not start to embrace EIA methods for some ten to fifteen years after their development by such pioneers as McHarg and Leopold. The article also points out that site selection is part of the overall waste-planning process, albeit a very important component. They warn of the problem of NIMBY and call for integrated public participation into the planning process. Thus, from a planning theory perspective, comprehensive-rational and participatory models of waste planning are implied. It is also interesting to note that the authors refer to alternative methods of waste treatment and disposal as engineering plans and that planners will work with engineering experts (p. 217), indicating some degree of discomfort with the technical side of waste management. 3.1.1.6 Heiman, Michael. 1990. From Not in my backyard to Not in anybodys backyard! Grassroots challenge to hazardous waste facility siting. APA Journal 56, 3: 359-62. Planning Model: Citizen Advocacy Heimans commentary is the first waste management article in JAPA after an eight-year hiatus. Clearly, a move from a participatory comprehensive-rational model to advocacy planning is made. Heiman takes a cynical view of traditional public participation, maintaining that the practice is intended primarily to reduce the publics fear of the siting process (p. 360). He points out that the NIMBY phenomenon has given the public de facto veto power over waste facility siting through citizens who are

315

well armed with facts, figures and tactics. He calls for planners to abandon their liberal planning tradition of seeking social harmony and questions why the state is committed to facility siting. He also questions the prevailing wisdom of consensus, negotiation, and compensation demanded by the participatory model, calling planners to move beyond that old notion to a new practice of a planner as a social advocate because of the socially unjust and environmentally unstable practice of managing hazardous waste. 3.1.1.7 Lober, Douglas J. 1995. Resolving the siting impasse: Modeling social and environmental location criteria with a geographic information system. APA Journal 61, 4: 482-95. Planning Model: Adaptive Douglas Lober presents an informative and in-depth analysis of weaknesses associated with site selection processes that rely on exclusionary McHargian overlay techniques. These techniques result in NIMBY responses that inevitably lead to the defeat of most siting proposals for waste facilities. He points to the failure of McHargian overlays to effectively integrate social criteria with environmental/ecological criteria. The use of GIS is presented as a powerful and predictive tool for planners to use in siting waste facilities that has the potential to effectively integrate social criteria. However, despite the extensive literature on the use of GIS for land use analysis, little information exists on the synthesis of social and biophysical overlays in GIS modeling. Lober suggest the use of his public opposition model, where he has developed a spacial predictive model that can determine the level of public opposition based on distance to undesirable/noxious facilities. A case study for a recycling center is presented in which GIS identifies environmentally acceptable regions and also predicts publicly acceptable regions, based on his spatial public opposition model. The intent was to locate an environmentally acceptable site that also minimizes public opposition (i.e., NIMBY). However, this technique is fraught with political and ethical dilemmas. Lober demonstrates great sensitivity to public values through challenging planners to also integrate environmental ethics into the modeling scenario. He points out the conflict between Bentham and Mills utilitarian approach (majority rights) versus minority rights as an issue that must be addressed by decisionmakers. Although Lober points out the need for public participation in planning decisions, he admits that the modified McHargain GIS approach combined with public opposition modeling is essentially a decide-announce-defend strategy. Clearly, the planning process he describes is adaptive in nature, advocating the modeling and prediction of future events. The role for planner is one of technician, not advocate, in this scenario. However, this reviewer, who is somewhat familiar with Lobers work on recycling behavior, was very impressed with the authors insight into plannings ethical trade-offs, knowledge of waste management, and understanding of the role of high technology.

316

Journal of Planning Literature

nately, the authors do not finish this most interesting account. The article points to the inherent weakness of the comprehensive modelthe plan may become redundant during the long planning time frame required to conduct such plans. It is also interesting to note that Minnesota was several years ahead of Ontario in hazardous-waste planning. Ontarios fourteen-year, $140 million hazardous-waste plan failed in 1994. It is unfortunate that we did not learn from Minnesotas example.
3.1.3 PLAN CANADA (1959 TO 1997)

3.1.1.8 MacDonald, Marrianne L. 1996. Bias issues in the utilization of solid waste indicators. APA Journal 62, 1: 236-42. Planning Model: Citizen Advocacy MacDonald delves into the technical aspects of waste planning in terms of evaluating waste systems and technologies. She points out that the indicators waste planners and decisionmakers have historically used are too simplistic, 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 lead to inappropriate technologies. The author suggests that recycling has environmental and economic costs that are often overlooked due to an unwavering commitment to achieving recycling goals. She calls for a more holistic, materials management approach and suggests a new, more comprehensive, set of indicators for waste planning that can remove biases and inequities. The article also suggests that planners have become comfortable with the technology of waste management. As a result, we are more prepared to use planning techniques for waste technology selection, rather than a focus only on land use, site selection, and social criteria development.
3.1.2 JOURNAL OF PLANNING AND EDUCATION RESEARCH

3.1.3.1 Pushchak, Ronald, and Ian Burton. 1983. Risk and prior compensation in siting low-level nuclear waste facilities: Dealing with the NIMBY syndrome. Plan Canada 23, 3: 68-79. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational (Willing-Host) Pushchak and Burton present a model of waste management planning that relies on mediating and negotiating a compensation agreement with a potential host community. Their methodology is especially useful for site selection of low-level nuclear waste facilities due to the disparity between overall social benefits (i.e., regional/ provincial users of nuclear power) versus the perceived risks to the host community. They point to the ubiquitous nature of the NIMBY syndrome and that the publics ability to oppose projects is not limited by lack of resources or time (p. 68). Financial compensation is the simplest form of mitigating unavoidable impacts as prescribed by environmental impact assessment legislation and policies. Thus, the waste planners role is to negotiate among competing host communities that have met basic technical/ health and safety standards for the potential site. The selection of the preferred bidder is one that represents the true social costs of producing nuclear power due to the downward bidding pressures (i.e., eliminate exaggerated bids for compensation). Postscript: This reviewer finds it ironic that Energy Mines and Resources Canadas Siting Task Force recently failed in its attempt to negotiate a prior compensation agreement with the town of Chalk River, Ontario, despite many years of planning. 3.1.3.2 Lang, Reg. 1990. Equity in siting solid waste management facilities. Plan Canada 30, 2: 5-13. Planning Model: Citizen Advocacy Reg Lang (this reviewers former masters adviser), clearly makes a case for advocacy planning in the management of solid waste in Canada. He points out that technical rationality, based on the scientific method, dominates the planning of waste in Canada. However, this technical rationality is especially unsuited to complex situations such as waste management, in which conflicts are often about values and where a multiplicity of perspectives must be respected (p. 7).

3.1.2.1 Bryson, John M., and Barbara C. Crosby. 1989. Finding a home for Minnesotas hazardous waste. Journal of Planning and Education Research 8, 2: 115-24. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational (Willing-Host) The authors outline in detail the repeated failures of Minnesota to site a hazardous-waste management facility during a fourteen-year period (1975 to 1989). The earliest effort was an ad hoc planning process that used the announce-and-defend approach (with no public consultation). The state abandoned the siting process due to public outrage. The state then embarked on a participatory comprehensive-rational planning process with publicly developed siting criteria. However, due to unrelenting protesting, the shortlist of two sites was abandoned in 1978. The authors then go on to explore in detail a third siting process. This newer process involved a myriad of committees, board, public meetings, and hearings too complicated to review in this articles short space. The Waste Management Plan eventually developed twenty-one preferred sites across the state. However, by 1984, confusion and hostility toward the siting process forced the legislature to abandon the plan. The state also saw that reduction, reuse, and recycling had resulted in significant reduction in waste quantities and that, therefore, the alleged need for the facility had passed. Notwithstanding need, a fourth site selection process was initiated in 1986 based on the willing-host compensation model. Thirteen counties expressed an interest, but by 1988, only two counties were still negotiating with the state to host the facility. Unfortu-

CPL Bibliography 361

As a result of the above, planners are faced with the NIMBY syndrome: a symptom of inequity in planning. The waste crisis is not a capacity/technical crisis; rather, it must be viewed as a moral and philosophical crisis. Lang advocates the use of equity in waste planning that involves distributive justice and procedural fairness. Despite a code of ethics in our profession, planners have an aversion to equity planning. Equity involves recognizing that some parts of society generate much more waste than others, and some members of society benefit a lot more from the economic growth that produces this waste, yet these individuals and groups do not bear a proportionate share of the costs represented by waste. (P. 7) Lang urges planners to give equity up-front consideration in waste management decisions, to integrate equity principles openly into the planning process (he presents ten principles), and to include equity impacts as criteria for the environmental and social impact assessments associated with the waste plan. 3.1.3.3 Rowe, Steven. 1992. Landfill planning in Ontario Bringing in the public. Plan Canada, March 1992, 22-25. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational (Willing-Host) In this nonrefereed article, Rowe presents a critique of the Ontario Waste Management Master Plan program. Essentially, the article is a critique of the comprehensive-rational planning model used in Ontario waste planning during the 1980s and early 1990s. Besides the usual complaints about the high cost and long time lines in producing a waste plan, he points out that the participatory components of the planning process are flawed. This results in a process that is unfair (i.e., urban waste being disposed in rural communities) and flawed. He makes several suggestions for improvement, including earlier public involvement, accurate and full documentation of public input, smaller-scale public input techniques, earlier peer review, hiring a public consultation coordinator, and using a cooperative siting process based on willing-host/compensation, such as described by Burton and Pushchak above. Overall, Rowe believes there is a need to minimize the stress induced by landfill site selection processes (p. 25). 3.1.3.4 . 1995. Hazardous waste at centre of debate. Plan Canada, March 1995, 42. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational In this short news brief to the planning profession, Rowe points out why Ontarios Joint Board turned down an application by the Ontario Waste Management Corporation to implement a hazardous-waste treatment and disposal facility in the Region of Niagara. The environmental assessment (EA) took fourteen years and spent more than

317

$80 million in planning. The author points to flaws in the planning process used under the Ontario EA Act, specifically the failure to consider reasonable alternatives to the undertaking (e.g., salt mine disposal). As such, the planning process (a participatory comprehensive-rational process) was not traceable. Rowe called for time and cost limits to the EA Act that will not sacrifice an open comprehensive planning process. 3.1.3.5 Richards, Alun. 1996. Implementing a voluntary process for difficult-to-site projects. Plan Canada, January 1996, 31-32. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational (Willing-Host) Richards, in this nonrefereed article, overviews a case study using a voluntary sting process as described above in Burton and Pushchak and in Rowe. The case study involves the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. Using the standard overlay mapping (GIS-based) technique, sites that met a minimal environmental and technical standard were identified. The province then entered into negotiations with about sixty communities, selecting the rural area of Montcalm as the preferred community (based on a compensation package). A referendum was held in Montcalm with a 67 percent vote in favor of the site. After three days of EIA hearings in 1992, the site was approved. Richards attributes the success to the voluntary nature of the siting process, the ability to plan for perceived impacts as opposed to objective impacts, and a focus on communities rather than sites. This reviewer has to question the so-called success of the project in light of Ontario abandoning its hazardous-waste facility and the well-publicized overcapacity of the Manitoba and the Alberta hazardous-waste facilities. If willing-host had not been implemented and the siting and planning process had taken more time, an unnecessary facility would not have been built in light of substantially reduced 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. Journal of Environmental Management 9: 103-21. Planning Model: Adaptive-Incremental Bishop and Narayanan, civil engineers at Utah State, present an overview and case study (Uintah Basin, Utah) of the use of input-output models combined with linear programming models in determining systems for residuals management. They point out that residuals (i.e., solid waste, air permissions, water effluents) have traditionally been managed separately and that an integrated approach was necessary to meet the myriad of new environmental regulations being introduced in the United States during the 1970s. The modeling was intended to identify solutions

318

Journal of Planning Literature

gram with material recovery facility (MRF) (sited adjacent to the landfill). Clearly, the authors advocated a participatory approach and the need for a more comprehensive-rational wasteplanning model. However, their approach was rather limited in both regards. 3.2.1.3 Guruswamy, L. D. 1985. Waste management planning. Journal of Environmental Management 21: 69-84. Planning Model: Comprehensive-Rational The author, a lawyer in Great Britain, presents a conceptual framework for managing waste designed to influence environmental policy. He calls for legal and administrative frameworks that take an integrated approach to the environmental planning of waste, whether they are solid, liquid, gaseous, hazardous, or nonhazardous. His approach involves two tiers, pollution control and resource management. He admonishes British and European policymakers and lawmakers of taking tentative and ad hoc measures, believing that land use planning must play a central role in this new framework. He makes a number of legal suggestions in that regard, particularly the amalgamation of the Pollution Control Act and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. This reviewer notes that this suggestion would be akin in Ontario to the integration of the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, and the Planning Act. Overall, a comprehensive rational approach is advocated. 3.2.1.4 Huang, Guo, William P. Anderson, and Brian W. Baetz. 1994. Environmental input-output analysis and its application to regional solid waste planning. Journal of Environmental Management 42: 63-79. Planning Model: Adaptive Huang, Anderson, and Baetz (geographers and civil engineers, McMaster University, Canada) present a regional waste-planning approach that is clearly adaptive planning. They advocate the use of a modified input-output analysis (a common technique used by geographers) to predict relationships between economic development and regional solid waste management alternatives. Their proposed model, unlike traditional input-output analysis, is able to integrate economics with environmental impacts. However, despite a cautionary note, they advocate the conversion of environmental and ecological impacts into monetary values. Ecological inputs are defined as the consumption or degeneration of natural resources resulting from waste treatment and disposal. Ecological outputs are defined only as waste generation composition and quantities. A very complex statistical model is presented and applied to a hypothetical region. The authors point out that this type of modeling has never been used in solid waste planning. This reviewer notes that it still has not been used for the obvious reasons: (1) the model is not traceable that is, the public would not tolerate decision making based on this extreme level of scientific rationalityand

that were the least cost, while meeting environmental quality constraints (p. 105). Clearly from a planning perspective, the approach is both incremental in its thrust to meet regulatory demands and adaptive in providing for a predictive tool, albeit one that is based on maximizing economic efficiency (i.e., just meeting minimum regulations). It was interesting to note that the model recommended individual landfills be implemented for most of the dozen or so communities in the region, rather than one centralized regional site. This may reflect the fact that landfills in the 1970s had only rudimentary pollution controls; essentially, they were holes in the ground. It is doubtful that this recommendation would have been made by the model if inputs were required reflecting 1990s cost levels associated 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 management. Journal of Environmental Management 12: 97-110. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational Sobral, Hipel, and Farquhar, engineers at the University of Waterloo, report on the failure of two landfill site selection processes, in 1974 and 1977, for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. They contend that public opposition to these sites resulted from a failure to integrate environmental and social concerns. Economics was the driving force behind the site selection procedure, and no public consultation was employed in the planning process. In the third attempt at developing a regional waste plan, a public advisory committee was set up to provide advice on the waste-planning process. Typical Leopoldian multicriteria decision-making techniques were used on the committee based on assigning relative importance on a ten-point scale. A Delphi technique and pairwise comparisons of alternatives were employed on a panel of experts (engineering professors at the University of Waterloo) to make the final selection of alternatives for a waste management system. Clearly, the rudiments of a participatory process were being developed. However, it was interesting to note that the engineering professors suggested it may not be wise to use an average response from interest groups due to their polarization of responses. They suggest that modified pessimistic aggregation may prove to be useful. This technique involves massaging the scores to reflect a more moderate viewpoint, thus the implication is made by the authors that special interest groups are not to be trusted with making value-laden trade-offs. In fact, the modified pessimistic aggregation was employed by the study team. A preferred hierarchy for waste management was identified that included, in rank order, resource recovery (energy-from-waste [EFW] and recycling), composting, and then landfill. However, their technique did not tackle the problem of site selection. History in the region shows that the problem was never adequately tackled. No EFW plant or greenfield landfill were implemented. The existing landfill was expanded along with a blue-box pro-

CPL Bibliography 361

(2) politicians/ decisionmakers would not understand how the model works. 3.2.1.5 Wei, Meng-Shium, and Frederick Weber. 1996. An expert system for waste management. Journal of Environmental Management 46: 345-58. Planning Model: Adaptive The authors open this article by stating a truism: Engineering alternatives have traditionally evaluated on the basis of economic or cost analysis (p. 345). Wei and Weber (engineers) present an expert system computer program using Turbo Prolog. They argue that engineers need to incorporate nonquantifiable parameters into their decision making. Thus, their artificial intelligence system integrates technical, economic, social, and political criteria into the program to determine the best waste treatment alternatives for hazardous waste. Using a case study (pulp and paper industries), the expert system found that the existing treatment methods, developed through traditional engineering paradigms, were consistent with the computer models predictions. This reviewer cynically notes that it seems engineers have been doing it correctly all along. 3.2.1.6 Chang, Ni-Bin, and S. F. Wang. 1996. Solid waste management system analysis by multiobjective mixed integer programming model. Journal of Environmental Management 48: 17-43. Planning Model: Adaptive In another article outlining an adaptive planning modeling technique, Chang and Wang (engineers in Taiwan) describe the use of multiobjective mixed integer programming techniques. The computerized model incorporates economics, noise control, air pollution, and traffic congestion to determine the optimal siting of landfills, incinerators, and transfer stations. The city of Kaohsiung, Taiwan, is used as a case study. Obviously, the criteria used reflect the values and realities of life in Taiwan. The North American public would not respond well to this type of scientific rationality in site selection.
3.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

319

23 million gallons of fossil fuel per year from area federal department waste generation. Rather than promoting a participatory approach, the author suggests that the public, administrators, and politicians need solid waste recovery education. 3.2.2.2 Lemons, John, and Charles Malone. 1989. Siting Americas geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste: Implications for environmental policy. Environmental Management 13, 4: 435-41. Planning Model: Incremental Lemons (a biologist) and Malone (a bureaucrat) provide an overview of the site selection process used to that date for the selection of a repository for high-level nuclear waste. Their description of the planning process is a classic example of incremental planning. They complain that the usual CR approach for an EA required under NEPA was avoided by the Department of Energy (DOE). Under normal circumstances, a traditional, comprehensive and interdisciplinary environmental review for siting nuclear projects would have been required. This would have included an environmental analysis of alternative technologies/strategies and alternative sites. Instead, the passing of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 exempted the DOE from most of these requirements. The planning process was classically incremental because of the following factors: Crisis management: technologies that have created large quantities of wastes for which a proven and acceptable management solution does not exist (p. 435) Highly political: several states had been selected as potential repositories, and intense lobbying and public outcry chose a state that had originally ranked fifth on their ranking process, all facilitated by the new act Individual problem: site selection was primarily based on one set of criteriatechnical; in terms of deep geologic deposit of waste, other environmental criteria were ignored Needless to say, the siting was not participatory, giving only token opportunities for public involvement. Overall, the authors give an excellent historical overview of the siting process. 3.2.2.3 Vinning, Joanne, Nancy Linn, and Rabel J. Burdge. 1992. Why recycle? A comparison of recycling motivations in four communities. Environmental Management 16, 6: 785-97. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational This article (written by environmental planners and a psychologist) dealt with motivations for recycling vis--vis waste-planning processes. The underlying assumption was that waste planning increases recycling behavior (as a reaction to siting/NIMBY). Four communities in Illinois were surveyed. A survey instrument was used in a random sample of adults. Results indicated that waste manage-

3.2.2.1 Choi, Yearn Hong. 1983. Policy without implementation: 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 that federal departments have not been responding to new EPA regulations regarding solid waste management. Federal agencies that produce more than one hundred tons of solid waste per day were required to conduct a resource recovery plan for incineration and energy recovery. Federal agencies could work together on regional plans. As an example, the Philadelphia plan projected the savings of

320

Journal of Planning Literature

Tarr (a social scientist) gives a detailed account of the history of municipal solid- and hazardous-waste management in the United States from the mid-nineteenth century to the 1980s. He also gives an interesting account of shifts in public concerns and attitudes during that century of time. Essentially, organized waste disposal came about over a concern for public health and the birth of the sanitary movement at the turn of the century. However, Tarr outlines a history of ad hoc and laissez-faire planning until the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. After this seminal piece of legislation, he implies that waste has been planned in an incremental manner due to a myriad of regulations and guidelines that have come about as a result of increased environmental concerns (e.g., Resource Recovery and Conservation Act). 3.3.1.4 Al-Bakri, D., W. Shublaq, W. Kittanch, and Z. Al-Sheikh. 1988. Site selection of a waste disposal facility in Kuwait, Arabian Gulf. Waste Management and Research 6: 363-77. Planning Model: Comprehensive-Rational The authors (earth scientists) provide a detailed account of the site selection process for a landfill site in Kuwait. They point out that until this point in time (1988), wastes were disposed of in a relatively uncontrolled and unregulated manner. The case study was to serve as a basis for the development of regulations for the federal government of Kuwait. Based on a literature search of Western site selection processes, the project used a typical multidisciplinary CR planning model. McHargian overlay mapping was conducted using biogeophysical and social criteria and candidate sites identified. Using field research, a Leopoldian evaluation methodology was used to rank order the sites. A preferred site was thus selected. It is interesting to note that no mention is made in the article regarding involving the public in the planning process. This reviewer assumes the process was not in any way participatory, possibly reflecting the authors social values. 3.3.1.5 Rushbrook, P. E., and E. E. Finnecy. 1988. Planning for future waste management operations in developing counties. Waste Management and Research 6: 1-21. Planning Model: Comprehensive-Rational Rushbrook and Finnecy (environmental safety specialists) overview the problem of lack of waste-planning initiatives in developing countries. They point to the benefits of Western-style planning processes, especially the comprehensive waste-planning model and computerized techniques. However, they do make concessions for local ideas. They also provide a caveat regarding the use of Western technologies. They suggest that several conditions are needed at a national level to prepare waste plans, including national objectives, policies, legislation, infrastructure, and organizations. They also suggest that it would be a good idea for the federal government to provide sites

ment planning (i.e, CR in style), under way in all four communities at various stages (including site selection for incinerators), had no significant effect on recycling behavior. Altruistic reasons for recycling were the dominant motivators.

3.3 Waste Management Journals

3.3.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH

3.3.1.1 Maimone, Mark. 1985. An application of multi-criteria evaluation in assessing municipal solid waste treatment and disposal systems. Waste Management and Research 3: 217-31. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational The author (an engineer) describes the problem with municipal solid waste management in the Netherlands. He points out that planning has been somewhat ad hoc, with no explicit comprehensive planning method in use in the country to date. He makes two main suggestions: (1) the separation of systems (technologies) from site selection and (2) the use of multicriteria decision-making techniques to combine multidisciplinary criteria. The MCDM technique suggested is a computer program, EVAMIX. It has the ability to combine ordinal data with interval data, a common problem with criteria that cannot be easily quantified. The results of his case study indicated that no single system was dominant (i.e., mix of recycling, composting, incineration, landfill, etc.) and that source separation had a positive effect on all systems. 3.3.1.2 Wilson, David. 1985. Long term planning for solid waste management. Waste Management and Research 3: 203-16. Planning Model: Comprehensive-Rational The author (discipline unknown) laments the lack of comprehensive waste planning in the United Kingdom at the time. Old mines are quickly becoming scarce as locations for waste disposal and disposal capacity has become scarce in urban areas. He suggests that NIMBY is a result of the lack of long-term planning. The development of waste systems chosen from a set of alternative plans is the solution. Typically, a multicriteria decision-making technique is recommended for identifying the preferred system. The use of computerized decision support systems can greatly enhance the waste managers ability to select that preferred system, based on his experience developing a waste plan for Hong Kong in 1983. No mention is made regarding involving the public. 3.3.1.3 Tarr, Joel A. 1985. Historical perspectives on hazardous wastes in the United States. Waste Management and Research 3: 95-102. Planning Model: Incremental

CPL Bibliography 361

where waste treatment and disposal can occur, suggesting that the public need not be involved in decision making (p. 2). The implied benefitavoidance of NIMBY problems. Thus, their concessions to a participatory process are limited. They suggest informing the public where necessary and to educate them. 3.3.1.6 McQuaid-Cook, J., and C. S. Simons. 1989. Development and operation of a waste management system in Alberta, Canada. Waste Management and Research 7: 219-27. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational (Willing-Host) McQuade-Cook (a consultant) and Simons (an ASWMC employee) give a very enthusiastic overview of the much publicized willing-host site selection process for the Alberta Special Waste Management Corporation (ASWMC). They point out that a highly participatory approach with the public, using full disclosure, was used as the key to success. A typical McHargian overlay technique was used to identify suitable areas. Of the seventy 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, five short-listed sites were identified. All five communities held a referendum, and all five voted in favor of the waste facility proposal. In a process not described by the authors, the province somehow selected the preferred site. The authors also point out that so comprehensive was the environmental site selection approach that the government did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment to be prepared for the chosen site (sic) (p. 221). This reviewer finds it difficult to believe that forgoing an EIA could be considered good planning by the authors. 3.3.1.7 Shekdar, A. V., K. N. Krishnaswamy, V. G. Tikekar, and A. D. Bhide. 1991. Long-term planning for solid waste management in India. Waste Management and Research 9: 511-23. Planning Model: Adaptive The authors (engineers, a management specialist, and a mathematician) express the need for rational plans for waste management in India with its rapidly growing urban population and reduced waste disposal capacity (i.e., crisis, therefore incremental). They point out that further minimization of collection and disposal distances are paramount in a very hot country where the waste, which contains a considerable amount of degradable organic matter, starts decomposing in the generation area posing a danger to public health (p. 512). They suggest the use of a mathematical model (adaptive planning), based on least travel distances and costs, to develop waste management systems and sites for disposal. In fact, disposal sites are selected on the basis of their closeness to collection areas. So prevailing is the need to protect public health (i.e., pathogens) that no provision is made for either ecological considerations or for public participation in the planning process. This emphasizes the profound cli-

321

matic, social, economic, and environmental differences between 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 hazardous waste treatment center. Waste Management and Research 9: 205-18. Planning Model: Adaptive Koo, Shin, and Yoo (civil engineers) describe the selection of a regional hazardous-waste facility for the central part of Korea required due to the high rate of growth in waste generation rates (resulting from fast industrialization and high standard of living). The site selection process was based on a computerized model (the Waste Resources Allocation Program): This program is able to select, locate and size optimally the solid waste management facilities through the fixed charge linear programming algorithm by compromising the trade-offs between haulage and processing costs (p. 206). They point out that their optimal solution was not possible due to social and political factors; therefore, the decisionmakers and experts decided that a suboptimal solution would be designed into the computer model. The model was redesigned to include the quantification of the equity of route choice which is inversely proportional to residents feelings of injustice and the public objection NIMBY to the potential site, which is assumed to be proportionate to the population density of the site. No provision was made for environmental impacts. Overall, in this nonparticipatory adaptive planning model, public participation is reduced to linear programming algorithms. Although cultural differences may explain their nonparticipatory approach, the acknowledgment of NIMBY and concessions to reduce social stress may be an indication that the growth in living standards is also resulting in a Western-style social phenomenon, the NIMBY syndrome. One would assume the public may start demanding 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 Salaam, TanzaniaA decision support system approach. Waste Management and Research 10: 141-52. Planning Model: Adaptive The authors (mathematicians) discuss problems with planning waste in developing countries, especially Africa. They highlight an adaptive approachthe ability of microcomputers and software programs to add efficiency to the decision-making process for landfill site selection. It is also important that these models be simple to use for waste planners in developing countries. Because spreadsheets are easy to learn, they are the software programs of choice. Through the use of Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets, a preferred site was chosen from a shortlist of three candidate sites. It is unclear how the three candidate sites were identified. The model integrates political (i.e., public acceptance) and environmental factors. Environmental factors include

322

Journal of Planning Literature

overrepresented in rural areas to statistically represent residents most likely to be involved in siting decisions. More than 1,100 questionnaires with 11,327 observations were analyzed in the regression analysis. The authors point out that 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 model and predict statewide referendum results. Ultimately, this represents the top of Sherry Arnstiens ladder of citizen participationcitizen control. This reviewer asks a simple question: Why didnt the state simply hold a referendum? Unfortunately, the article does not describe the results of the siting process. 3.3.1.12 Or, Ilhan, and Mustafa Akgul. 1994. An optimization approach for locating a hazardous waste disposal facility in Istanbul Province. Waste Management and Research 12: 495-506. Planning Model: Adaptive The authors (discipline unknown) overview the rapid population and industrial growth in Istanbul Province, Turkey. Citizens, however, view facilities for the management of Turkeys waste as undesirable and feel that they should not be located near their communities. In this article, a nonlinear programming model using Turbo Pascal on a 386 personal computer is described. This adaptive planning model seeks to maximize the minimum distances of the location to be selected, to a set of predetermined, environmentally sensitive entities (p. 495). In a very simplistic assumption, negative impacts are a direct function of distance from sensitive land use. Weights are applied on the basis of the relative importance of the sensitive areas. A sensitivity analysis with ten different weighting scenarios was performed. Site Q7 was preferred in seven of the ten scenarios. Economics was factored into the model by restricting the maximum distance from the centroid of waste generation. However, social and political criteria were not explicitly used, although the authors point 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 relations as a solution to the landfill conflict. Waste Management and Research 12: 223-32. Planning Model: Proponent Advocacy Burkart (a journalist) describes advocacy planning in terms of the proponents interests. Using a case study for a hazardous-waste site selection process in lower Austria, he describes a consensus-oriented public relations process. The process used is designed to reduce or eliminate the NIMBY phenomenon. He unabashedly asks landfill operators, companies, and proponents to direct more attention to public relations [PR] when there is conflict with residents. Use of the two-way symmetric model is advocated in which mutual understanding is sought. The PR practitioner must only select that information to offer the public that will create a consensus (obviously, this is the

only the provision of public health and safety. Ecology is not included in the matrix. No provision is made for public input, despite the acknowledgment of public opposition. 3.3.1.10 Frantzis, Ionnis. 1993. Methodology for municipal landfill sites selection. Waste Management and Research 11: 441-51. Planning Model: Comprehensive-Rational Frantzis points out that landfill site selection in Greece has had some difficulties due to irrational planning. She suggests the use of McHargian site selection techniques along with a Leopoldian evaluation matrix to rank order the sites on the basis of economic, environmental, and engineering criteria. However, the site identified as the ideal one may not be the one ranked first: The final selection is a matter of compromise between: the impacts of each site as quantified in the Grand Matrix; the cost per tonne of waste disposal in each site; and the social acceptance of the site (p. 447). No suggestions are made regarding public involvement. Overall, the author believes the typical CR model will provide the solution to irrational planning despite her acquiescence to social acceptance, which experience tells us may not be rationally based. It is also interesting to note that the author suggests that one person should score all of the impacts and weighting in the matrix in order for the matrix ranking to be objective. Obviously, a high level of expertise 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 public preferences regarding natural resources and nearby communities. Waste Management and Research 11: 185-201. Planning Model: Participatory Comprehensive-Rational The authors (resource economists and a bureaucrat) describe the efforts of Rhode Island to select new landfill sites for the entire state. A typical GIS-based McHargian process was used to identify a long list of technically feasible sites. However, the state used an ambitious and unique system to rank order and select a shortlist of sites. Recognizing that value-laden trade-offs have to be made in a multidisciplinary evaluation method, a statewide survey was conducted to develop a model that would simulate a referendum (i.e., vote) on a preferred site. The survey instrument was derived from consumer utility theory and presents a series of pairwise comparisons for the respondents to evaluate. The survey allows the state to determine overall public preferences regarding environmental and economic trade-offs, including willingnessto-pay scenarios. A booklet was prepared, with many diagrams and illustrations, based on the results of nine focus group sessions and an in-person pretest of the survey instrument. A six-minute technical, bias-free videotape on waste management in the state was prepared and, along with the booklet (twenty-eight versions with 308 paired comparisons), distributed to the public. Sampling was

CPL Bibliography 361

antithesis of full disclosure). The author describes a campaign of pamphlets, postal information packets, press releases (with resultant newspaper and television coverage), citizen advisory boards, discussion sessions, meetings with experts, and field excursions. Although the author describes these activities as very positive, he laments, Nevertheless, up to this point an agreeable solution has not been found (p. 227). The second half of his article is devoted to trying to explain why the consensus-oriented PR program has not worked. A public opinion poll indicated that 70 percent of the area residents were against the landfill, even in the event of a favorable EIA review. He postulates that citizens are judging the project without adequate knowledge of the project. In fact, he stipulates that those who were better informed about the landfill project were more willing to accept it. The problem, as he sees it, is that PR practitioners were not able to communicate with most of the residents because residents did not want to learn more about the project. The author insultingly stated that the majority of those rejecting the landfill argued from a lower judgement level (p. 230). Finally, the author, speaking cynically to PR professionals, suggests that they must live with the fact that many people cannot be reached or do not want to be educated. He was amazed that people still knowingly forego opportunities to inform themselves, thus implying that they could better themselves by embracing the hazardous-waste landfill. Postscriptthis reviewer found it refreshing that a practitioner would even admit that a public consultation program was a de facto public relations program. Certainly he has never seen an admission of this sort in his professional practice in Canada. 3.3.1.14 Petts, Judith. 1994. Effective waste management: Understanding and dealing with public concerns. Waste Management and Research 12: 207-22. Planning Model: Participatory Petts (discipline unknown) provides an insightful and well-researched overview of the continuing challenge of waste planners in the United Kingdom as they face the NIMBY syndrome in their planning practice. She challenges the prevailing wisdom of proponents, as follows: many industrialists have (in the past at least) seen the NIMBY syndrome as a public relations problem, the answer being to provide people with information. However, some recent research which has tested this theory indicates that the more people know, in terms of non-technical but issue-relevant information, the more likely they are to exhibit NIMBY attitudes. (P. 214) (see Burkart above for an opposing view) She points to a host of other problems, including the lack of skill and professionalism in communications, the loss of expert credibility, and problems with risk assessment and

323

perception. She prefers a participatory American model involving proactive conflict managementconsensus building and mediation. However, she does provide this insightful caveat: The fundamental nature of public concerns is unlikely to differ significantly (p. 208). Notwithstanding the above, the author argues that a participatory approach results in better decision making. 3.3.1.15 Sunberg, J., P. Gipperth, and C. O. Wene. 1994. A systems approach to municipal solid waste management: A pilot study of Goteborg. Waste Management and Research 12: 73-91. Planning Model: Incremental Adaptive Sunberg, Gipperth, and Wene (energy technologists) provide both an incremental and adaptive approach to solid waste management. They point to new waste regulations in Sweden (1990) and the requirement for all municipalities to develop and implement a waste plan with mandatory source separation. The goal of the legislation is to prevent any unseparated waste from reaching landfill or incineration. The use of the MIME/WASTE model is described. This model uses both linear and nonlinear programming algorithms in a system that exchanges energy, material flow with potential impacts on the environment. Although the model addresses waste systems, it does not select sites. In a case study of Gteborg, Sweden, the model suggested source separation, composting, recycling, and reuse. No mention is made of public or political concerns. 3.3.1.16 Basri, H. B., and E. I. Stentiford. 1995. Expert systems in solid waste management. Waste Management and Research 13: 67-89. Planning Model: Adaptive Basri and Stentiford (civil engineers) promote the use of an adaptive planning model to develop waste plans. They advocate the use of expert systems (i.e., artificial intelligence). The authors give a brief overview of expert systems development from the 1960s to the publication date and then proceed to explain applications to solid waste management. They point out that previous linear programming models used in waste planning have suffered from the inability to integrate multidisciplinary data and a lack of credibility, implying that expert systems indeed have credibility. Expert systems can be used to select waste technologies, collection, and transport systems and conduct site selection processes. A knowledge engineer is required (i.e., an individual who can compile all of the necessary data and program the model) and a domain engineer (i.e., an individual who is an expert in waste management). However, they point out that in a post-FORTRAN world, the need for the knowledge engineer will disappear. Domain experts will be able to use more user-friendly and intuitive interfaces being developed by software programmers. The authors believe that expert systems will be particularly useful in developing countries where no local expertise exists. While this reviewer has a profound fondness for computer technology, he doubts that these sys-

324

Journal of Planning Literature

Planning Model: Incremental The authors (chemical engineers) present an incremental approach to recent legislation in the United Kingdom. They point out the need to organize and operate efficiently a waste-handling system as a result of several pieces of new legislation. Overall, they propose the use of cost-benefit analysis as a means of developing the most efficient waste system. No provisions were made for environmental or social considerations. 3.3.2.2 Fenton, Richard. 1975. Current trends in municipal solid waste disposal in New York City. Resource Recovery and Conservation 1: 167-76. Planning Model: Comprehensive-Rational Fenton (an engineer) gives a very interesting account of the history of waste management in New York city from the nineteenth century to the 1970s. He points out that a solid waste task force has been created with the mandate to produce a comprehensive plan for waste management by the end of 1975. Up until that point, changes were made in waste planning in an incremental fashion, largely responding to emergency situations and public and political pressure. The first crisis occurred in 1895 when the city started to implement landfills rather than a total reliance on ocean dumping. Shore communities have started legal action against the city and the Supreme Court ordered all ocean dumping to cease. However, there was substantial public opposition to those early landfills. In 1981, there was strenuous public opposition to garbage reduction (conversion to grease and fertilizer) because of odor problems, creating a disposal capacity crisis. The opposition to landfills led to the extensive use of incineration throughout the city. Again, in 1966, new laws forbidding apartment incinerators created a capacity crisis. The author also gives some interesting insights into early recycling and wasteto-energy efforts at the turn of the century. 3.3.2.3 Purcell, Arthur H. 1976. Energy and environmental impacts of material alternatives: An assessment of quantitative understanding. Resource Recovery and Conservation 2: 93-102. Planning Model: Adaptive The authors (an engineer and a bureaucrat) present a literature review of an adaptive modeling techniqueenvironmental profile analysis (now commonly know as lifecycle analysis). The authors viewed the energy crisis as a materials crisis, with a need to quantify and better understand materials and energy flows. The lack of understanding, as well as sound quantitative data on energy environmental impacts of materials production, was a major obstacle to policymakers. The literature review revealed that most studies attempted a systems approach (now known as the cradle-to-grave approach). Most studies also calculated total energy consumption; however, cross comparison was very difficult due to the lack of clear boundaries of the system being evaluated. Most studies

tems will ever receive credibility in any country as a prima facie 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 using the Electre II Decision-Aid Method. Waste Management and Research 13: 175-93. Planning Model: Comprehensive-Rational The authors (economics/management specialists) describe a commonly used Leopoldian multicriteria decision-making technique, Electre II. The methodology involved sending a questionnaire to weigh the relative importance (using a ten-point scale) of criteria to municipal 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 Finnish technical experts; seventeen questionnaires were returned. A sensitivity analysis was performed using equal weights, average weights, and plus/minus 20 percent weighing schemes. The technique recommended a centralized incineration system for the case studyUusimaa, Finland. Despite the recommendation, the second best alternative was chosen and implementedrefuse derived fuel (RDF) and intermediate landfill. No discussion on public involvement or site selection was presented by the authors. These evaluation methodologies are typically part of an overall CR planning model. 3.3.1.18 Powell, Jane C. 1996. The evaluation of waste management options. Waste Management and Research 14: 515-26. Planning Model: Comprehensive-Rational This is the second article in this journal that describes the use of EVAMIX, a relatively cheap (p. 524) multicriteria decision-making technique. Powell (social/economics specialist) points out the failures of economic techniques, especially cost-benefit analysis, in light of the United Kingdoms new policy on best available technology not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC). EVAMIX has the ability to combine ordinal and cardinal data and uses a pairwise comparison of all alternative waste management technologies. RDF with recycling was recommended, in the generic case study, as best suited to the United Kingdom situation. Despite the recommendation, the author points out that the technique may be better at structuring and understanding the problem rather than a means to find a solution to the problem; therefore, the technique should be used with caution.
3.3.2 RESOURCES, CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING (FORMERLY RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION, AND RESOURCE 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 waste handling. Resource Recovery and Conservation 1: 3-23.

CPL Bibliography 361

also pointed to the benefits of recycling paper, steel, aluminum, and glass in terms of reducing overall environmental impacts. Finally, the authors call for the standardization of precise methodologies for environmental profile analysis. This reviewer notes that twenty years passed before the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14,000 standards were developed. 3.3.2.4 Conn, W. David. 1976. The treatment of resource recovery in solid waste plans. Resource Recovery and Conservation 2: 365-72. Planning Model: Proponent Advocacy 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 include an analysis on energy recovery, recycling/source separation, and economics. Furthermore, each plan was intended to address the states diversion goal of 25 percent by 1980. Much of the article sees the author lamenting the lack of waste-to-energy incinerator proposals in the California plans. He hypothesized that existing biases against incineration were to blame. He believed the 25 percent goal was not reachable without incineration. Social, environmental, and public input into the planning process was not discussed in the article. 3.3.2.5 Chapman, Robert E., and Havey Yakowitz. Havey. 1984. Evaluating the risks of solid waste management programs: A suggested approach. Resources and Conservation 11: 77-94. Planning Model: Adaptive The authors (federal government bureaucrats) present an adaptive approach to waste planning through a computerized modeling technique known as the Resource Recovery Planning Model (RRPLAN). They point out that this type of modeling is required because of the need to benefit from economies of scale in waste planning. These benefits can only be achieved through regionalizing waste management systems and facilities. There has been a proliferation of mathematical models used in the past. These models have been largely disappointing in their performance. RRPLAN uses a set of cost categories, energy categories, and commodities to develop the least cost system: the mathematical exposition of the model will proceed under the assumption that cost minimization is the sole objective of the decision-maker (p. 81). 3.3.2.6 Owolabi, Comfort Adebisi, and Harvey Alter. 1989. A method of planning resource recovery in a developing country to deal with uncertainty. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2: 99-118. Planning Model: Adaptive The authors (disciplines unknown) present an overview of waste planning in Lagos, Nigeria. They point out that

325

urban areas in developing countries are growing rapidly (6 percent per annum in Lagos) and that the present waste problem of indiscriminate dumping will grow worse. These countries can benefit from fundamental solid waste planning and techniques. This reviewer assumes they mean American techniques. They recommend the use of an adaptive style planning model known as Affordable Capital Cost (ACC). ACC is a type of break-even analysis, where cost is set equal to revenues at the indifference point of the tipping fee. Essentially, the model will only recommend waste technology alternatives that do not cost the city more than their present dumping-only system. The modeling suggests RDF with ferrous metal recovery for Lagos. Environmental, social, and public input into the planning process is not discussed. 3.3.2.7 Chilton, Kenneth. 1993. Solid waste policy should be directed by fundamental principals, not ill-founded feelings. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 8: 1-20. Planning Model: Proponent Advocacy Each new comprehensive approach to federal legislation addressing the so-called garbage-crisis seems to be more interventionist than its predecessor writes Chilton, a business lobbyist. In his article, the author ascribes problems in the effective management of Americas waste to political interference at both state and federal levels. He believes that federal requirements for solid waste plans and other 3Rs initiatives represent excessive interference in the efficient management of waste. Of course, the efficient management of waste should be determined by the market (i.e., economic principle of scarcity). He also believes that governments are reacting to the publics ill-founded perception of risk as a result of the unsavory past of dumps and incinerators. He points out that EPA computer modeling has calculated the population risk of contracting cancer from 6,000 landfills in the United States to be virtually zero. 3.3.2.8 Kovacs, William L. 1993. Solid waste management: Historical and future perspectives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 8: 113-30. Planning Model: Proponent Advocacy Do we really want to eliminate industrial capacity and our ability to compete as a commercial nation? writes Kovacs, an American lobbyist for industry. The author, as an advocate for industry, laments failed leadership at the federal level. Essentially, he points out that comprehensive planning required by the federal government on the states has resulted in a worsening of the so-called waste crisis. The work of NIMBYists and environmentalists has given municipal and state politicians the excuse not to implement much needed disposal capacity (waste- to-energy and landfill). He suggests several improvements to these regulatory inefficiencies, including solid waste facility siting laws that would force the siting and development of landfill/EFW sites on communities despite activist objections.

326

Journal of Planning Literature

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

3.3.2.9 Goddard, Haynes C. 1995. The benefits and costs of alternative solid waste management policies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 13: 183-213. Planning Model: Proponent Advocacy Goddard, an economist, argues that the solid waste crisis in North America and Europe is not a technical problem; rather, it is an economic problem. Essentially, the crisis has arisen from a failure to get the prices right. Federal and state government interference has created a government failure rather than a market failure. As an advocate for industry and a free-market economy, Goddard calls for decentralization of waste regulations. Furthermore, a thorough cost-benefit analysis (i.e., scarcity) is required to develop appropriate waste management systems. He believes cost-effective systems will also be environmentally beneficial. Solid waste management nearly everywhere has traditionally been viewed as a technical (engineering) problem . . . the problem is usually left to the engineering community to define and so it is no surprise that the problem has nearly always been defined as a technical one. (P. 188) 3.3.2.10 Ayres, Robert U. 1995. Life cycle analysis: A critique. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 14: 199-223. Planning Model: Adaptive Ayres (discipline unknown, economist suspected) presents an excellent overview and thorough critique of LCA, one of the most common forms of adaptive planning used in waste management in the 1990s. He points out that a fundamental approach in LCA is the assumption that every material will eventually become waste. Therefore, if one can accurately measure cumulative environmental impacts from cradle to grave, environmentally responsible choices can be made. He points out that LCA had it roots in the 1970s when there was great concern about energy availability. As a result, early LCAs tended to use input-output models that converted all units into energy units. Despite the passing of the energy crisis, LCAs continue to use net-energy analysis even though the use of energy is not a good proxy for environmental damage. The author believes this is a fundamental flaw of the process, and he suggests it is worthwhile to integrate economics into the evaluation. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is better able to compare chalk versus cheese; therefore, CBA is a better evaluation methodology because environmental damage can be compensated. Furthermore, he points out that willingness to pay can be determined through survey methodology. Despite all of the problems identified in the authors literature review, he still believes LCA has utility even if the evaluation technique is imperfect. 3.3.2.11 Craighill, Amelia L., and Jane C. Powell. 1996. Lifecycle assessment and economic evaluation of recy-

The authors (discipline unknown) present a discussion on the use of LCA as an adaptive method of planning waste management systems. An overview of LCA is presented along with caveats about LCAs use. From their research, the authors point out that the [European Unions] waste hierarchy does not appear to reflect the actual environmental impacts of waste management techniques, and the ranking appears to be based on intuition rather than a scientific assessment (p. 76). They point out that recycling may have more impacts overall than is believed. Furthermore, they point out that economics need to be integrated in the LCA process, rather than a focus on conversion to energy units. Externalities are better accounted for through economic principles. In an LCA case study of the waste management system in Milton Keynes, England, they found that overall, the recycling program (source separation) had less impact than the landfill disposal system, although some of the impacts of landfill could be reduced through waste-to-energy incineration. However, there were a few anomalies. In terms of surface water pollution, steel and plastics recycling contributed more impacts than disposal. Plastics do poorly overall in the recycling stream because of their high volume-to-weight ratio, thus producing more transportation-related impacts. In terms of economic evaluation, the net benefits of recycling different materials are rank ordered in pounds sterling: aluminum/1769, steel/238, paper/1226, glass/188, HDPE/-3, PVC/-4, PET.
AUTHOR INDEX

Paper No. 3.3.1.12 3.3.1.4 3.3.1.4 3.3.2.6 3.1.1.5 3.2.1.4 3.1.1.1 3.3.2.10 3.2.1.4 3.3.1.16 3.3.1.7 3.2.1.1 3.1.1.2 3.3.2.1 3.1.2.1 3.2.2.3 3.3.1.13 3.1.3.1 3.2.1.6 3.3.2.5 3.3.2.7 3.2.2.1 3.1.1.4, 3.3.2.4

Author Akgul, Mustafa Al-Bakri, D. Al-Sheikh, Z. Alter, Harvey Anderson, Richard F. Anderson, William P. Andrews, Richard N. L. Ayres, Robert U. Baetz, Brian W. Basri, H. B. Bhide, A. D. Bishop, A. Bruce Bower, Blair T. Bridgewater, A. V. Bryson, John M. Burdge, Rabel J. Burkart, Roland Burton, Ian Chang, Ni-Bin Chapman, Robert E. Chilton, Kenneth Choi, Yearn Hong Conn, W. David

CPL Bibliography 361

3.3.2.11 3.1.2.1 3.3.1.17 3.2.1.2 3.3.2.2 3.3.1.5 3.3.1.10 3.3.1.15 3.3.2.9, 3.1.1.3 3.1.1.5 3.3.2.1 3.2.1.3 3.1.1.6 3.2.1.2 3.3.1.17 3.2.1.4 3.3.1.4 3.3.1.8 3.3.2.8 3.3.1.7 3.1.3.2 3.2.2.2 3.2.2.3 3.1.1.7 3.1.1.8 3.3.1.1 3.2.2.2 3.3.1.6 3.3.2.1 3.2.1.1 3.3.1.11 3.3.1.12 3.3.1.9 3.3.2.6 3.3.1.14, 3.3.1.18 3.3.2.11 3.3.2.3 3.1.3.1 3.1.3.5 3.3.1.17, 3.1.3.3 3.1.3.4 3.3.1.5 3.3.1.17 3.3.1.7 3.3.1.8 3.3.1.4 3.3.1.6 3.3.2.1 3.2.1.2 3.3.1.16 3.3.1.15 3.3.1.11 3.3.1.3 3.3.1.7 3.3.1.9 3.2.2.3 3.2.1.6 3.3.1.11 3.2.1.5 Craighill, Amelia L. Crosby, Barbara C. Ettala, M. Farquhar, Grahame J. Fenton, Richard Finnecy, E. E. Frantzis, Ionnis Gipperth, P. Goddard, Haynes C. Greenburg, Michael R. Gregory, S. A. Guruswamy, L. D. Heiman, Michael Hipel, Keith W. Hokkanen, J. Huang, Guo Kittanch, W. Koo, Ja-Kong Kovacs, William L. Krishnaswamy, K. N. Lang, Reg Lemons, John Linn, Nancy Lober, Douglas MacDonald, Marrianne L. Maimone, Mark Malone, Charles McQuaid-Cook, J. Mumford, C. J. Narayanan, Rangesan Opaluch, James J. Or, Ilhan Overgaard, Christian M. Owolabi, Comfort Adebisi Petts, Judith Powell, Jane C. Purcell, Arthur H. Pushchak, Ronald Richards, Alun Rossi, E. Rowe, Steven Rushbrook, P. E. Salminen, P. Shekdar, A. V. Shin, Hang-Sik Shublaq, W. Simons, C. S. Smith, E. L. Sobral, Maria M. Stentiford, E. I. Sunberg, J. Swaloow, Stephen K. Tarr, Joel A. Tikekar, V. G. Vidal, Rene V. V. Vinning, Joanne Wang, S. F. Weaver, Thomas F. Weber, Frederick 3.2.1.5 3.3.1.15 3.3.1.11 3.3.1.11 3.3.1.2 3.3.2.5 3.3.1.9 3.3.1.8 Wei, Meng-Shium Wene, C. O. Wessells, Christopher W. Wichelns, Dennis Wilson, David Yakowitz, Havey Yhdego, Michael Yoo, Hee-Chan

327

APPENDIX 1997 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 GSX Sanda Kaufman and Janet L. Smith To date, guidelines and strategies for the siting process, including planner intervention, have arisen from conflict surrounding locally unwanted land uses (LULUs). The task of changing an existing unwanted land use has not received equal attention, and this task poses special problems for parties involved in the decision-making process. The issues, the space of alternative solutions, and some consequences of limited planner involvement are illustrated with a case: the closing down of the GSX Chemical Services of Ohio hazardous-waste processing facility in Cleveland. The unpredictability and poor quality of outcomes, as well as the costs of conflict to the host community, illustrated by this case suggest the need for proactive planner participation in such changes. The authors use the GSX case to examine specific aspects of change in existing unwanted land uses and the potential benefits of using planners skills and their position as active negotiators on behalf of the public interest. They explore some ways in which planner intervention could enable a transparent decision-making process that is inclusive of all concerns, whether represented or not, and that is based on accurate and shared information. 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 Landfilling pp. 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, California, 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 in landfills are gas and leachate generation due primarily to microbial decomposition, climatic conditions, refuse characteristics, and landfilling operations. The migration of gas and leachate away from the landfill boundaries and their release into the surrounding environment present serious environmental concerns at both existing and

328

Journal of Planning Literature

container sizes for collection. Complementary programs, such as recycling and yard waste collections, benefit under unit pricing, as households increase their diversion behavior. The authors consider this immediate diversionary behavior the first stage in a households response to a unit-pricing program. After several years of experience with unit pricing, households enter a second stage where source reduction behavior becomes more apparent. Unit-pricing programs do appear to encourage source reduction behavior, and concerns about undesirable diversion do not appear to be well-founded. These results may provide guidance in statistical analyses of larger sets of unit-pricing communities. Keywords: unit pricing; source reduction; solid waste management. Journal of Environmental Management 52, 4 (April 1998) ISSN: 0301-4797 Mass Communication and Pro-Environmental Behaviour: Waste Recycling in Hong Kong pp. 317-25 (doi:10.1006/jema.1998.0189) Kara Chan IDEAL-Related Articles Treatment of domestic waste has been one of the major environmental problems in Hong Kong. The government has a stated policy to advocate the minimization of waste disposal through the encouragement of waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. The current study applies Ajzens theory of planned behavior to predict behavioral intention and actual behavior of voluntary use of waste recycling receptacles. A systematic random sample of 173 household members in a public housing estate was interviewed. The results indicated that attitude was the major factor in predicting behavioral intention, followed by behavioral control and social norms. Attitude, subjective norm, and perceived control together explained 44 percent of the variance of behavioral intention. Perception of mass media as a major source of subjective norms was first introduced and tested. Mass communication stood out as one of the major sources of influence in establishment of subjective norms. The study has the implication that more publicity messages should be put on the mass media to promote green behaviors. Keywords: waste recycling; Ajzens theory of planned behavior; mass communication; proenvironmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Management 53, 1 (May 1998) Predicting Recycling Scheme Performance: A Process Simulation Approach pp. 31-48 (doi:10.1006/jema.1998.0185) Peter Tucker, Grant Murney, Jacqueline Lamont IDEAL-Related Articles One of the key issues facing the environmental manager is the sustainable management of solid waste. Recovery of this waste for recycling often presents the best practical environmental option, and companies, industry, and government have set a number of targets for its recycling. A particular challenge is encountered when waste recovery depends on voluntary action. Currently, there is no means of predicting the performance of these voluntary schemes in advance. This article presents a new mathematical model of waste recovery that can potentially enable these predictions to be made. The model uses a process simulation approach to describe the material balance from consumption to discard. Flow partitions within the balance are governed by human decisions. In the model, these decisions are represented by

new facilities. Besides potential health hazards, these concerns include, but are not limited to, fires and explosions, vegetation damage, unpleasant odors, landfill settlement, groundwater pollution, air pollution, and global warming. This article presents an overview of gas and leachate formation mechanisms in landfills and their adverse environmental impacts, and describes control methods to eliminate or minimize these impacts. Keywords: landfill; solid waste disposal; biodegradation; gas and leachate generation; environmental impacts; control methods. Journal of Environmental Management 51, 3 (November 1997) ISSN: 0301-4797 Economic Evaluation of a Regionalization Program for Solid Waste Management in a Metropolitan Region pp. 241-74 (doi:10.1006/jema.1997.0144) Ni-Bin Chang, Y. T. Lin IDEAL-Related Articles The complexity of large-scale solid waste management projects, in this age of stringent fiscal and disposal space constraints, requires the application of a new broad-based management approach that takes full advantage of the benefits afforded by modern centralized facilities. To satisfy this need, this article is designed to evaluate a regionalization program for solid waste management in a metropolitan region. An optimization model is applied to identify cost-effective expansion plans through the use of optimal siting strategies. In particular, the procedure considers three potentially conflicting criteria: costs, political and administrative feasibility, and the siting of new transfer station facilities. Final solutions may optimally direct waste generation 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 solid waste management plans for the Taipei metropolitan region in Taiwan. The results of the case studies also indicate that by siting new transfer stations, the optimal strategies of regionalization options can reduce direct costs and help generate satisfactory solid waste management programs if political obstacles are not existing. Keywords: solid waste management; cost-benefit analysis; regional planning; environmental systems analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 52, 1 (January 1998) ISSN: 0301-4797 Unit Pricing of Residential Municipal Solid Waste: Lessons from Nine Case Study Communities pp. 79-93 (doi:10.1006/jema.1997.0161) Marie Lynn Miranda, Joseph E Aldy IDEAL-Related Articles Communities across the United States have implemented unit pricing of residential solid waste, or pay-as-you-throw programs, as an innovative approach to encourage significant waste reduction and diversion. This article provides an analysis of case studies from nine municipalities that employ unit pricing for residential waste collection. The article details the economic theory underlying unit pricing, analyses how the various characteristics of the nine unit pricing programs affect program outcomes, and frames unit pricing issues for further research. The authors find that communities experience decreases in annual residential waste landfilled and incinerated after implementation of unit pricing. The communities with larger decreases tend to have higher unit pricing fees and smaller minimum

CPL Bibliography 361

probability-distribution functions comprising an explained component and an unexplained random component. The explained component is linked to the demographics of the sample population. The key antecedent factors that affect the human decisions have been delineated from a literature survey of the psychological factors affecting recycling. Their representation in the model is consistent with established theories of recycling behavior. The new model is able to provide simultaneous time-series predictions of scheme participation rates, total weights of material collected, and the composition of this material. The model has been tested on a newspaper curbside collection scheme and has produced good fits to all measured indicators of recycling performance. The model has additionally predicted the existence and correct scale of observed local variations in recycling behaviors between streets. The potential use of the model as an environmental-management tool is discussed with reference to establishing new collection schemes and to the optimization of the performance of existing schemes. Keywords: recycling; mathematical model; simulation; curbside collection; decision support. Journal of Environmental Management 53, 2 (June 1998) Green Taxes, Waste Management and Political Economy pp. 121-36 (doi:10.1006/jema.1998.0202) R. K. Turner, R. Salmons, J. Powell, A. Craighill IDEAL-Related Articles Interest among policymakers has recently focused on the role, efficiency, and effectiveness of so-called green taxes. This article surveys recent developments in the context of waste management policy and the emergence of policy instruments such as recycling credits and the landfill tax. It is concluded that there is an important role that economic instruments can play in this policy area. The inherent efficiency gains that economic instruments may provide deserve to be highlighted. However, the application of such instruments in the current political economy settings will serve to reduce such efficiency gains, as multiple and conflicting policy objectives are introduced by the political process. Although there are instances where appropriately designed environmental taxes can provide an important element of environmental policy, there is a danger that an ill-conceived comprehensive environmental tax reform could be detrimental. Such reform could result in a deterioration of environmental quality, an increase in economic costs, and/or undesirable social consequences. Keywords: green taxes; waste management; economic instruments; recycling 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. Rubin IDEAL-Related Articles Currently there is widespread interest on the part of local governments in incorporating municipal solid waste (MSW) composting into their integrated solid waste management systems. However, there is little information on the costs of MSW composting and how those costs compare with the costs of alternative forms of waste disposal (especially traditional land disposal). This article begins to fill this information gap by reporting the results of a survey of nineteen MSW composting facilities around the United States. Results indicate that MSW composting generally costs around $50 per ton and that very few facilities receive any revenues from the sale of compost to

329

offset operating costs. Additional economic analysis indicates that, at present, MSW composting cannot be justified on financial grounds in most parts of the United States but may be competitive with land disposal 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? Analyzing Households Demand for Large-Scale Recycling and Incineration pp. 27-38 (doi:10.1006/jema.1998.0245) A. Huhtala IDEAL-Related Articles Dwindling landfill space and environmental problems with old landfills have forced municipalities to search for new methods to handle solid wastes. The contingent valuation method is used to study households choice between two alternative waste disposal services, large-scale recycling and incineration, which differ in convenience and air pollution effects. This study seeks to evaluate how intense peoples preferences are in monetary terms. To capture the benefits of waste management, the willingness-to-pay estimates are then included in the comparison of disposal options. The motivation is that if only costs are compared and environmental impacts are neglected in evaluating public provision of waste disposal services, choices that are 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 Makers pp. 249-63 (doi:10.1006/jema.1999.0254) . J. Granados, P. J. Peterson IDEAL-Related Articles Indicators and indices are important tools that assist decisionmakers to formulate and implement plans for management at local, national, and international levels. Four indicators for hazardous-waste management are described that have recently been adopted within the United Nations framework of Indicators of Sustainable Development. Although these four indicators will be useful tools, the need for a broader range of policy-relevant qualitative and quantitative indicators, proxy indicators, and indices is outlined. The argument is advanced that in order for all nations to better manage the range of hazardous-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 link and quantify likely environmental, ecosystem, and health impacts and risks especially from hazardous-waste disposal. Indicators are also suggested that could be used to illustrate the shift in industrial strategy away from end-of-pipe processes toward waste recycling, cleaner production, and integrated life-cycle analysis. It was concluded that until the lack of reliable and harmonized data on hazardous waste is addressed, indicator development and use by national and 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 Management: The Korean Experience

330

Journal of Planning Literature

(3) assist local environmental protection agencies in maintaining a GIS; and (4) facilitate the central environmental protection agency in managing, instructing, and evaluating the progress of a local siting. Siting analysis is performed with computerized mapping analysis to save time and effort of data processing. A multimedia network interface is provided for twenty-four-hour local or remote access to the system from anywhere on the Internet. This networking capability allows a user without tools to use the system and to avoid the cost of system installation and training appropriate personnel to manage the system. Moreover, a case study for Miaoli is described. Environmental, social, economic, and engineering feasibility issues are evaluated for the suitability of a candidate landfill site. Keywords: landfill; siting; geographic information system; municipal solid waste; mapping analysis; Internet; network; multimedia; hypermedia; Taiwan. Waste Management & Research 15, 5 (October 1997) Capacity Planning for an Integrated Waste Management System under Uncertainty: A North American Case Study pp. 523-46 (doi:10.1006/wmre.1996.0106) G. H. Huang, B. W. Baetz, G. G. Patry, V. Terluk IDEAL-Related Articles In this article, a gray integer-programming (GIP) formulation for the capacity planning of an integrated waste management system under uncertainty is applied to a North American case study. The GIP model is formulated by introducing concepts of gray systems and gray decisions into a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) framework. The approach has an advantage in that uncertain information (presented as interval numbers) can be effectively communicated into the optimization processes and resulting solutions, such that feasible decision alternatives can be generated through interpretation and analysis of the gray solutions according to projected applicable system conditions. Moreover, the GIP solution algorithm does not lead to more complicated intermediate models and thus has lower computational requirements than other integer-programming methods that deal with uncertainties. The proposed model is used for the long-term planning of waste management facility expansion/utilization in the Regional Municipality of HamiltonWentworth (RMHW), Ontario, Canada. The binary decision variables in the model represent the ranges of facility expansion/development alternatives within a multiperiod, multifacility, and multiscale context, and the gray continuous variables represent waste flows along the routes connecting the municipalities and the waste management facilities. The results indicate that reasonable solutions have been generated through this gray mathematical programming approach. The case study results are potentially useful for MSW decisionmakers in the RMHW for the long-term planning of the regions waste management activities and for formulating related local policies/regulations regarding waste generation and management, and they may stimulate the interest of waste management professionals in other jurisdictions on the use of this type of modeling approach for their specific long-range planning applications. Keywords: Capacity planning; municipal solid waste management; uncertainty; systems analysis; gray integer programming; decision making; Canada. Waste Management & Research 15, 6 (December 1997) The Structure of the Dutch Waste Sector and Impediments for Waste Reduction

pp. 1-10 (doi:10.1006/jema.1999.0286) Seonghoon Hong IDEAL-Related Articles Initial effects of adoption of a unit pricing system paired with aggressive recycling programs appear to be substantial. This article explores the impact of price incentives under the unit pricing system on household solid waste generation and recycling in Korea. The authors employ a simultaneous equation model considering the feedback effects between total waste generation and recycling. Estimation results using 3,017 Korean household survey data indicate that a rise in waste collection fees induces households to recycle more wastes. However, this effect is partially offset by decreases in source-reduction efforts due to the feedback effects, resulting in relatively lower price elasticity of demand for solid waste collection services. This implies that household demand for solid waste collection services will not decrease much with additional increases in the collection fee, unless further recycling incentives such as more frequent recyclable pickup services are accompanied. Keywords: solid waste management; recycling; unit pricing system; simultaneous equation model. Waste Management & Research 15, 2 (April 1997) Preliminary Landfill Site Screening Using Fuzzy Geographical Information Systems pp. 197-215 (doi:10.1006/wmre.1996.0076) Krerkpong Charnpratheep, Qiming Zhou, Barry Garner IDEAL-Related Articles This article explores the prospect of coupling fuzzy set theory and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) into a raster-based geographic information system (GIS) for the preliminary screening of landfill sites in Thailand. The theory of linguistic variable is used to represent imprecision of spatial data and human cognition over the criteria used for the screening process. Proximity of geographic objects, slope, and elevation are criteria used for this investigation. The priority weights reflecting the preferences on the screening criteria, accounting for seventeen map layers, are derived by the method of the AHP. The general method of GIS intersection based on binary logic is conducted to compare with the fuzzy min-operator intersection and the proposed convex combination model. The results show that the first method, in relation to the fuzzy methods, fails to recognize 35.6 percent of the study area as potential areas for waste disposal. The proposed convex combination model has an advantage over the fuzzy min-operator intersection with respect to the ability to integrate criterias preferences into the screening process. It also yields agreeable results with the recommendations from a previous study in the same area. Keywords: Preliminary landfill site screening; geographic information systems; fuzzy set theory; linguistic variable; convex combination; analytic hierarchy process; Thailand. Waste Management & Research 15, 3 (June 1997) Network Geographic Information System for Landfill Siting pp. 239-53 (doi:10.1006/wmre.1996.0081) Jehng-Jung Kao, Hung-Yue Lin, Wei-Yea Chen IDEAL-Related Articles A prototype network GIS was developed to (1) improve the effectiveness of a complex municipal solid waste landfill siting procedure; (2) make siting-related information available to the general public;

CPL Bibliography 361

pp. 641-58 (doi:10.1006/wmre.1996.0117) Paulien de Jong, Maarten Wolsink IDEAL-Related Articles The way in which organizations collect, treat, and dispose of waste in the Netherlands frustrates the achievement of waste reduction goals. The possibility that directed modification of the structure of the waste sector may contribute to stimulating consumers (i.e., all waste producers using services from collectors) to limit the generation of waste at the source by means of source reduction, reuse, and recycling is the subject of research of which the first results are presented here. This article describes the structure of the Dutch waste sector and indicates impediments for waste reduction linked to it. The analysis starts with a categorization of organizations with vested interests in the handling of waste. The ways in which these organizations manage to gain influence on the manner in which waste is handled will be explained, as well as the mutual relationships between organizations. Keywords: municipal solid waste; waste market; waste sector; institutional impediments; waste reduction; sector structure; the Netherlands. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 19, 2, 1997 Environmental Decision Making for Recycling Options pp. 109-35 J. B. Legarth Resources, Conservation and Recycling 19, 3, 1997 An Analysis of Recycling Impacts on Solid Waste Generation by Time Series Intervention Modeling pp. 165-86 N. Chang, Y. T. Lin Comment on Critical Review of Life-Cycle Assessment pp. 219-20 T. Ekvall Resources, Conservation and Recycling 20, 2, 1997 The Adoption of Life-Cycle Approaches by Industry: Patterns and Impacts pp. 71-94 F. Berkhout, R. Howes Resources, Conservation and Recycling 20, 3, 1997 Landfill as a Future Waste Management Option in England: The View of Landfill Operators pp. 183-205 A. D. Read, P. Phillips, G. Robinson Resources, Conservation and Recycling 20, 4, 1997 Integration of the Recycling Processes to the Life Cycle Analysis of Construction Products pp. 227-43 C. Buhe, G. Achard, J. Francois Le Teno, J. L. Chevalier Resources, Conservation and Recycling 20, 4, 1997 English County Councils and Their Agenda for Waste Minimization pp. 277-94 A. D. Read, P. S. Phillips, A. Murphy Resources, Conservation and Recycling 21, 4, 1997 The Governance of Waste Management in Urban Tanzania: Towards a Community Based Approach pp. 213-26 J. M. Lusugga Kironde, M. Yhdego Resources, Conservation and Recycling 22, 1-2, 1998 Taxing Virgin Materials: An Approach to Waste Problems pp. 15-29 A. Bruvoll

331

Optimization of the Final Waste Treatment System in the Netherlands pp. 47-82 A. Faaij, M. Hekkert, E. Worrell, A. van Wijk Resources, Conservation and Recycling 22, 3-4, 1998 A Comparison of Waste Management in Guangzhou and Hong Kong pp. 203-16 S. Chung, C. Poon Resources, Conservation and Recycling 23, 3, 1998 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Resource Material Recycling pp. 183-92 H. Leu, S. H. Lin Resources, Conservation and Recycling 24, 1, 1998 Optimization Analysis for the Development of Short-Term Solid Waste Management Strategies Using Presorting Process prior to Incinerators pp. 7-32 Y. H. Chang, N. Chang An Integrated Approach to Municipal Solid Waste Management 33-50 E. Daskalopoulos, O. Badr, S. D. Probert Resources, Conservation and Recycling 24, 2, 1998 Development and Implementation of Producer Responsibility Recycling System pp. 121-35 C.-H. Lee, C.-T. Chang, S.-L. Tsai Solid Waste Management in India: Options and Opportunities pp. 137-54 S. Gupta, K. Mohan, R. Prasad, S. Gupta, A. Kansal Resources, Conservation and Recycling 24, 3-4, 1998 A Model Recycling Program for Alabama pp. 183-90 C. Tilman, R. Sandhu The Future Place of Recycling in Household Waste Policy: The Case of France pp. 217-33 C. Defeuilley, S. Lupton Life-Cycle Assessment as a Decision-Support ToolThe Case of Recycling versus Incineration of Paper pp. 235-56 G. Finnveden, T. Ekvall Resources, Conservation and Recycling 25, 1, 1999

332

Journal of Planning Literature

pp. 173-87 G. Finnveden Making Waste Work: Making UK National Solid Waste Strategy Work at the Local Scale pp. 259-85 A. D. Read Resources, Conservation and Recycling 27, 3, 1999 UK Waste Minimisation Clubs: A Contribution to Sustainable Waste Management pp. 217-47 P. S. Phillips, A. D. Read, A. E. Green, M. P. Bates STREAMS: A New Method for Analysing Material Flows through Society pp. 249-66 L.A.J. Joosten, M. P. Hekkert, E. Worrell, W. C. Turkenburg Resources, Conservation and Recycling 28, 3-4, 2000 Total Assessment Audits (TAA) in Iowa pp. 185-98 William G. Haman Resources, Conservation and Recycling 29, 4, 2000 Waste Management Techniques for Selected Solid Wastes pp. 249-50 Nilgun Kiran

Environmental Implications Involving the Establishment of Sanitary Landfills in Five Municipalities in Tanzania: The Case of Tanga Municipality pp. 1-16 R.R.A.M. Mato Resources, Conservation and Recycling 25, 3-4, 1999 Energy Flow Analysis as a Tool for Developing a Sustainable SocietyA Case Study of a Swedish Island pp. 289-99 A. Sundkvist, A. Jansson, A. Enefalk, P. Larsson Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26, 1, 1999 An Efficiency Approach to Managing Mississippis Marginal Land Based on the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pp. 15-24 B. Hamdar Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26, 2, 1999 Integrated Waste Management Planning and Decision-Making in New York City pp. 125-41 M. J. Clarke, A. D. Read, P. S. Phillips Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26, 3-4, 1999 Methodological Aspects of Life Cycle Assessment of Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems