THE SITING PROBLEMS OF NIMBY FACILITIES

Abstract

Prisons and nuclear power stations are seemingly vital to the well-being of the general public. However, almost everyone will strongly oppose having one built in close proximity to their own residence or property. There is an underlying issue which needs to be addressed urgently. Whether or not local welfare should make way for general societal benefits? Paradoxical as it seems, both government officials and developers are finding it increasingly difficult to site these facilities. NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) facilities, as they are known, can be broadly classified as hazardous or non hazardous. Nuclear power stations which are considered hazardous, have disastrous impacts which affect the entire life and food-chain cycles related to human health. In serious cases, they may lead to death. Non hazardous NIMBY facilities such as incinerators are unwelcome because of the smoke they emit. They are more of a disturbance (nuisance) to their immediate neighbours; unlikely to cause any loss of human life and so are cemetries and landfills which act as eyesores, permantly altering the landscape aesthetics. In certain countries, a great number of such facilities rarely go beyond its preconstruction stage and this is due to public opposition. The degree of public opposition is very closely related to public risk perceptions. Most of the time, developers of such facilities and the residents of the host community focus on different dimension of risk. While the experts concern themselves with the best estimates of historical accidents, the public is more likely to view risk in the light of risk adjusted cost associated with adverse outcomes. The situation in Singapore is not much different as that faced in the other developed countries of the world today and may become more acute with the limited landspace it faces. More than ever before, both academics and town planners are working at solving the siting impasse. Decisions have to be made about the appropriate siting approach to undertake and in some cases a suitable compensation package to appease residents of the host community. This is a form of conflict resolution instrument apart from others such as court based strategy and public education. General compensation is usually non-monetary. It may come in the form of an improvement in public transportation for residents who accept the NIMBY facility into their community. This study will address the siting problem of such 'unwelcome' facilities. The market inefficiency resulting from the siting of such facilities will be discussed followed by some public regulations which bind. An example of public regulation is zoning provision in which case, the piece of land is constrained to a few limited uses. The second part of the study will take a closer look at instruments to aid policy makers in their decision making process. Cost and benefits analysis (CBA) will be able to effectively evaluate net gams from the proposed NIMBY facilities. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) will investigate the effects of NIMBY facilities on man and his surrounding environment. This thesis will also offer a suggested systematic approach to the location of such NIMBY facilities, taking into account of the needs and concerns of the various economic agents involved - local government, federal government and residents (or society).