Cong, X; Wang, L; Ma, L and Skibnewski, M (2021) Exploring critical influencing factors for the site selection failure of waste-to-energy projects in China caused by the "not in my back yard" effect. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28(6), pp. 1561-1592. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to explore the critical influencing factors that lead to the site selection failure of waste-to-energy (WtE) projects in China under the influence of the “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) effect, which can provide references to improve the decision-making process of similar projects in the future. Design/methodology/approach: The fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method was used to propose an analytical framework for exploring the critical influencing factors affecting the site selection failure of WtE projects. The causal relationship between different influencing factors is finally determined on the basis of the opinions of 12 experts from universities, government departments, consulting units, planning and design units, construction units and WtE enterprises. Findings: Results showed that six crucial factors resulted in the site selection failure of WtE projects from the NIMBY effect perspective: “Insufficient public participation,” “Near the place of residence,” “Nonstandard government decision-making processes,” “Low information disclosure,” “Destroys the surrounding environment,” and “Imperfect compensation scheme.” Originality/value: Results can determine the priorities and causal relationships among the various influencing factors. The decision-making optimization suggestions can provide reference for decision- makers, thereby possibly promoting the scientific and standardization of site selection decision process.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | critical influencing factors; site selection failure; waste-to-energy project; “not in my back yard” effect |
| Index terms: | decision-making, methodology, site selection, analytical framework, public participation, China, laboratory, waste-to-energy, standardization, compensation, influencing factor, decision-making process, decision process |
| Subjects: | Geography, performance measurement, research methods, cognitive psychology, research management, decision analysis, waste management, dispute resolution, risk assessment, participation process, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here