Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) syndrome has long been researched and discussed. One aspect of NIMBY deals with facilities that are perceived to pose a risk to the local community. Research has shown that risk perception contributes to NIMBY sentiments. In addition, environmental risk perception has been shown to be influenced by partisanship and ideology. This study tracks the changes of risk perception over a decade, using measures taken at multiple points in each year. Our research will use survey data collected in New Mexico dealing with risk perceptions related to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP). WIPP is a permanent storage site for low-level radioactive waste located in Carlsbad, New Mexico. WIPP became operational and received its first shipment of waste on March 26, 1999. The data set includes 22 surveys, and spans an 11-year time period from fall 1990 to summer 2001. This time frame includes periods before and after WIPP became operational. With this data we will be able to track the change in risk perception overtime, both pre and post the opening of the WIPP facility, while testing hypotheses regarding the relative influence of partisanship and ideology on risk perception and NIMBY attitudes.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Public opinion polls show that the American public strongly supports the development of wind power as an alternative to fossil fuels. Yet when specific wind farm proposals are made, they often meet intense local opposition. Proponents of wind power typically label local opposition as Nimby ("not in my backyard") responses and attempt to dismiss it. Yet academic research on the Nimby syndrome suggests that the conventional description of Nimby responses is wrong. Some studies even suggest that Nimby responses are local manifestations of national attitudes.

Using an internet survey with a national sample, we examine public toward wind power in depth. Instead of only asking about support for wind power or for more research spending on wind power, we investigate how people respond to the real costs and benefits of wind power. On the positive side, wind power could replace coal and natural gas for generating electricity, which would reduce emissions of air pollutants and carbon dioxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. On the negative side, many people think that wind turbines are ugly and that they ruin scenery. They kill large numbers of birds, and because of the bird kill, they harm ecosystems. Local residents often object to wind mills because they make noise and they may lower property values. These questions have not been asked in national surveys.

Our data show that questions asked in national surveys about proposals such as wind farms exaggerate the support for wind farms because the answers are typically superficial, top-of-the-head responses. When people think about the advantages and disadvantages of wind farms, as they would if a wind farm were proposed for their community, their support diminishes. Therefore, to explain Nimby effects, researchers must look at both local and national opinion.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Although originally conceived with pejorative connotations, the term NIMBY (and its numerous variants and takeoffs) has evolved to stand for a set of reactions and concerns regarding undesired facilities, particularly waste management facilities. While normally conceived as a local response to a local problem, NIMBY is also evident in national and global environmental issues. The London Dumping Convention, the Basel Convention, and the Stockholm Convention on POPs, for example, can all be seen in part as NIMBY responses to the problem of the transport of hazardous wastes across international boundaries. This paper will explore the extent to which the NIMBY notion, broadly conceived, provides a central concept for the study and understanding of global environmental matters.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Employing qualitative data collected (consisting of over 100 in-depth interviews) in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, we explore the intersections of suburban institutions (bureaucratic and non-profit) and immigrant incorporation in the US.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper contributes both to the literature on rational voting/cue-taking in initiative elections and political geography by testing spatial-rational effects of voting for Proposition 83 in California, 2006.