Public Attitude toward Mobile Base Station Siting: More than

NIMBY

Chun-Hsiung Liao1, Szu-Han Chiu

Institute of Telecommunications Management, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan city,
70101, TAIWAN

Abstract
The opposition to mobile base station siting is a clear and practical problem with highly
social and economic costs. The conflicts between local residents and operators are brewing a
long time and become a barrier to the development of telecommunications. It is critical for
operators to understand what residents attitude toward the station siting and what factors they
really concern about. This study aims to incorporate not in my back yard (NIMBY) reaction
and to analyze the influential factors of attitude toward mobile base station siting in Taiwan.
258 effective respondents are interviewed by questionnaires within the 50-meter neighborhood
of base stations. Proximity and risk perception is empirically proven to be the most influential
factor. Trust in authority National Communication Commission would encourage reward as
well as depress risk, and become a significant determinant to conduct the public to have a
positive attitude toward station siting. Interestingly, it is found that plenty of knowledge on
electromagnetic fields (EMF) and base station would lead residents to more anxious sentiments
and to have negative impact on attitudes toward station siting indirectly. The cognitive
dissonance of the public results from residents high sensitivity on negative information and
unavailability of accurate knowledge. Therefore, this stereotype effect of EMF deeply
influences the residents negative cognition of mobile base station.
Keywords: Attitude toward mobile base station siting; proximity; trust; knowledge; risk and
benefit perception

Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 6 2757575 ext. 53245; fax: +886 6 2753882.
E-mail address: chliao@mail.ncku.edu.tw (C.-H. Liao).
1

1. INTRODUCTION
Versatile applications of mobile services and abundant choices of mobile devices
provided by vendors and manufacturers accelerated the usage of mobile services in the past
decade. The growth of mobile cellular subscribers has been impressive, with year-on-year
growth averaging 24 percent between 2000 and 2008 (ITU, 2009). By the end of 2008,
worldwide mobile cellular subscribers reached the 4 billion mark with almost two thirds of
world population approximately 6.7 billion.
Taiwan has one of highly penetrated mobile markets in the world, and according to
Foreseeing Innovative New Digiservices (FIND, 2009), the penetration rate of its mobile
services reached 110.3% in 2009. Three mobile systems are currently adopted in Taiwan:
second generation (2G), third generation (3G) and personal handy-phone system (PHS)
services with the subscribers of 11.6 million, 12.8 million and 1.28 million. The total number of
base stations reached 62,200 in 2009, and each 2G, 3G and PHS system operates over 26,100,
14,500 and 21,600 stations, respectively (NCC, 2009). During 2003 to 2006, the number of
new base stations installed by mobile operators for systems was over 4,000 per year. The
densities of base stations in the two metropolitan areas, Taipei city and Kaohsiung city, are 36.6
and 29.1 stations per squared kilometer. 2 The 3G service and beyond are fast expanding
nowadays and another 20,000 base stations will be built in the future. As a result, the station
density is expected to increase drastically.
The installations of base stations in residential areas are often opposed by local residents
because of various reasons. Opposition to mobile phone towers has become a routine feature of
many countries and the prime concerns of the residents are health risk and uncertainty.
Protesters expressed their point-of-views and emotions by signing a petition to local officials or
government, seeking support from politicians and attending community group meeting. For
instance, a protest opposing a base station adjacent to a kindergarten in the Sydney was
taken-up in 1995 (Chapman and Wutzke, 1997). Parents in Valladolid, a north-central Spanish
city, won a court judgment in 2002 to close down a cluster of thirty masts on the roof of a
building neighboring a primary school after four cases of cancer were detected among the 450
pupils (Reuters, 2002). Recently in 2009, the residents in Allerton Bywater of England staged a
protest against a proposed mobile phone mast (Pontefract and Castleford Express, 2009).
More than one thousand of protests against base station siting took place in Taiwan every
year. Without impassioned protesting actions, persuading operators to remove base stations or
to stop base station installation is sometimes not easy. Some protesters take the advantages of
media coverage to exaggerate the negative impact of the installed stations on health. This
approach works well especially during the political elections and consequently, the disputed
stations are removed. The approximate cost to remove one base station is USD 12,500, but
2

There are 9,955 base stations in 271.8 squared kilometers of Taipei city and 4,479 base stations in 153.6 squared
kilometers of Kaohsiung city.
2

rebuilding one costs USD 62,500. In sum, it is estimated that all mobile operators pay up to
USD 43.75 million a year. Such phenomena are ironic since people enjoy the convenience of
mobile service but dislike base station siting nearby the neighborhood.
Base stations have to be situated close to community dwelling population, and they have
often become the focus of health concerns for local residents in recent years. Several
epidemiological base station studies on the potential health effects of the radio frequency
emission of base stations have been performed (Neubauer et al., 2007) and the results on
mobile phones or broadcasting stations are inconclusive so far. It only suggested that base
station exposure cannot be recommended. On the other hand, Hyland (2000) claimed that it
cannot be denied that mobile phones and base stations could have the potential to induce
adverse health reactions. Similarly, World Health Organization (WHO, 2006) revealed that
there is no evidence that electromagnetic radiation of base stations has health hazard, but at the
same time, it cannot prove that it is safe. In sum, most studies found that the linkage between
electromagnetic radiation and the occurrence of malignant tumors is unclear and thus, health
hazard by base stations is still a puzzle. Therefore, the public cannot trust operators and are in
doubt on the safety of base stations.
The factors that people protest against proposals with socially necessary facilities have
been widespread examined since the early 1990s. Opposition attitudes are closely linked to
not in my back yard (NIMBY) in the literature. NIMBY is a reaction or phenomenon that
characterizes the social response to unwanted facilities. Faced with the challenges of public
opposition, NIMBY is positive associated with opposition attitude. Dear (1992) stated that
NIMBY is the motivation of residents who want to protect their turf. More formally, NIMBY
refers to the protectionist attitudes of and oppositional tactics adopted by community groups
facing an unwelcome development in their neighborhood. There is consensus that community
opposition to facility siting proposals reflects anticipatory fears of having to live with an
unwanted facility, fears that are heightened by residents close proximity to the proposed
facility (Edelstein, 1988; Armour, 1990).
Most of this research has focused on the public attitude toward socially necessary
facilities and community opposition to a proposed waste management facility, landfills and
thus residents perceptions of potential anticipated facility impacts. Public environmental
issues of energy and waste management are especially popular. These studies presented a
heterogeneous set of hazards, ranging between alcoholic beverages, wind power, incinerator,
landfill siting and nuclear power. But few studies analyzed the attitude toward and protest
against mobile base station siting. Most studies on base station only examined the health effect
of the electromagnetic fields on local residents. Because of frequent residential oppositions
against mobile station siting, National Communication Commission (NCC), the
telecommunications regulator in Taiwan, restricted the number of newly installed stations
down to 800 in 2007 and removed 1,500 stations. It also demands that mobile operators set up
3

at least 60% of sharing base station constructions for 2G and 3G service. To smooth away the
anxiety expressed by the public on electromagnetic radiation, NCC provides local residents, at
no charge, with free examinations of electromagnetic fields of the base station. To solve the
dilemma of base station removing-and-building, it is realistic and significantly important to
study the influential factors to attitude toward base station siting.
This study aims to incorporate NIMBY reaction in the research model and to analyze the
influential factors of attitude toward mobile base station siting in Taiwan. The constructs
associated with attitude in the model are risk and benefit perception, trust, knowledge,
proximity. Disputes of mobile base station siting are realistic and demand the solutions to the
problem-solving. The findings of this study will provide mobile operators a better
understanding of public attitude toward mobile base station siting, which is useful for their
deployment strategy of mobile network.
2. CONCEOTUAL DEVELOPMENT AND HYPOTHESES
Protests against proposal with socially necessary facilities mostly accompany with
NIMBY reaction, which occurs not only in response to industrial siting, but also in response to
some new technology for facilities, such as mobile base stations and wind power.
2.1 Attitude
Attitude is a moderator variable of attitude-behavior relationships in the theory of
reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). The TRA links
attitudes, subjective norms (akin to perceived social pressure), behavioral intentions, and
behavior in a fixed causal sequence. Ladenburg (2008) analyzed attitudes toward both on-land
and offshore wind power development in Denmark. The survey found that in general the
respondents have a positive attitude toward wind power generation and prefer off-shore wind
farms to on-land turbines. OGarra et al. (2008) investigated local attitudes toward the
proposed installation of hydrogen (H2) storage facilities at existing refuelling stations
throughout London. They found that the determinants of these attitudes include the distance
from local refueling station, respondents level of existing knowledge of H2 and trust in safety
regulation. In this study, the attitude toward mobile base station siting is defined as the extent
residents predisposition to react to consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with base
station siting in the area.
2.2 Proximity
The proximity to a project did result in a greater likelihood that it was viewed negatively;
it was considered riskier by those living nearby (Marks and von Winterfeldt, 1984). The closer
people lived to the facility, the more likely they would fear being negatively affected by any
impacts from the fears that were not unwarranted for. Cavatassi and Atkinson (2003) used a
4

survey instrument that explained opposition to a landfill site in Italy and the results indicated
that distance is a significant predictor of the probability of opposition to the landfill site. In this
study, proximity to mobile base station is defined as the extent residents believe they are
located near enough around the base station siting in the area. It is reasonable to believe that if
residents perceive that the distance between their houses and base station is close, then they
have negative attitude toward mobile base station siting.
2.3 Risk and Benefit Perception
Public perception of risks vary along several dimensions, such as the potential hazard,
novel of the risk and degree of imposition on the public (Slovic, 1987; Marks and von
Winterfeldt, 1984). Sandman (1986) found that health risks are a common concern among
opponents to many types of NIMBY reactions toward various facilities. Familiarity may lead
to a different perspective on risk and its acceptability among long-term residents. Midden and
Huijts (2009) of the CO2 storage study revealed that attitude toward storage near peoples
houses was obviously more self-relevant for local residents than the attitude toward CO2
storage in general. In particular, the risks were more locally linked. In this study, risk
perception is defined as the extent residents fears of having to live with base stations in the
area. It is reasonable to believe that the higher risk perceived by residents, the more negative
attitude they have toward mobile base station siting. At the same time, the higher proximity to
base station perceived by residents, the higher perception of risk they have.
The relationship between benefit perception and the acceptance were extensively studied
in the fields of facility installation, employee behavior, genetic food development and
telecommunications service. Sundstrom et al. (1977) examined attitudes toward a proposed
nuclear power generating facility and found that residents who expected the plant to bring
economic benefits tended to be positive attitudes toward it. Waller and Covello (1984) pointed
out that nearby residents could be predisposed toward nuclear power plants, if they were
informed about any associated benefit, or were able to enjoy the economic benefits of the
plants. In the recent study of Midden and Huijts (2009), perceived benefits influenced the
attitude toward CO2-storage at the local level when examining the different attitudes between
storage in general and nearby. In this study, benefit perception toward mobile base station is
defined as the extent of how beneficial residents perceive from mobile base stations in the area,
such as the improvement in communication quality and possible monetary compensation by
operators. The study postulates that the higher benefit perceived by residents, the higher
positive attitude they have toward mobile base station siting.
2.4 Trust and Knowledge
Oppositions against the facility proposals appear to be determined by a lack of trust in
safety regulations, non-environmental attitudes, and concerns about the facilities. Trust in
5

agencies or government was extensively found to be positively correlated with support for
nuclear waste repository, hazardous waste disposal and chemical plant operation (Siegrist et al.,
2005b, 2005c) and hydrogen refuelling facility (OGarra et al., 2008). Trust represents the
confidence people have in the ability of the assigned agencies and officials to control and
minimize the risks and, thus, is the dominant construct in determining public
acceptance/opposition to the facility proposal. Trust is a phenomenon that economists must
take into account when analyzing the NIMBY impasse (Groothuis and Miller, 1997). NIMBYs
are said to lack trust in project operators or authority. The extent to which people trust risk
management institutions determines the level of perceived risk. Siegrist (2000) showed trust in
institutions has a positive impact on perceived benefit and a negative influence on perceived
risk of gene technology. Similarly, Siegrist et al. (2000) surveyed the perception of pesticides,
nuclear power, and artificial sweetener, indicating that social trust is a key predictive factor of
the perceived risks and benefits of a technology. In Siegrists causal models, trust has an
indirect influence on acceptance through perceived risk and perceived benefit. In this study,
trust in the authority is defined as the extent of the willingness for residents to rely on the NCC
to the safe regulation and EMF measurement around base stations. Therefore, its reasonable to
believe that peoples attitude toward base station is positive when they have trust in authorities.
Further, trust positively influences perceived benefit and negatively influences perceived risk.
NIMBY-type attitudes from communities surrounding a proposed hazardous waste site
were positively related to knowledge about the facility (Wright, 1993). Knowledge is measured
by self ratings, i.e., people are asked to rate how much they know about a topic. OGarra et al.
(2008) defined knowledge as respondents level of existing knowledge about H2 as a fuel for
vehicles when investigating attitudes to hydrogen refuelling facilities. Johnson (1993)
summarized the relationship between knowledge and perceived risk in the literature regarding
to irradiated food, ground-water pollution, hazardous waste cleanup, air pollution, hazardous
waste, surface water pollution, automobile collisions, natural radon, and earthquakes, and so on.
The general results showed that the more knowledge about the event or technology, the less
concern about risks incurring from it. Similarly, Klerck and Sweeney (2007) proposed that
perceived risk mediates the effects of knowledge about GM foods on consumer outcomes. In
their results, increased knowledge about the history, process, and scientific risks and benefits of
GM foods seems to reduce concerns about the taste and quality benefits, as well as allay
feelings of anxiety about the purchase of GM foods. The perceived personal risk, fear evoked
by the hazard, knowledge of those exposed and frequency are major factors for assessment of
general risk. In this study, knowledge toward electromagnetic fields (EMF) is defined as the
extent of how residents are familiar with the EMF emitted by base station. It is postulated that
residents with knowledge on the EMF have less perception of risk.
Based on the above arguments, the study postulates a research model that investigates
attitude toward mobile base station siting as depicted in Fig. 1.
6

Trust

+
+
Benefit
Perception

Knowledge

Risk
Perception
+

Attitude toward
Mobile Base Station
Siting

Proximity

Fig. 1. Proposed research model

3. METHOD
3.1 Questionnaire
The participants indicate their agreement with a set of statements using a five-point
Likert-type scale that ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The questionnaire is
composed of 25 questions. This study focuses on the determinants of attitude toward mobile
base station siting. Hence, the population of the analysis is targeted at the residents who live
nearby mobile base stations. These residents are more concerned about the issue upon the siting
of stations. Seventeen mobile base stations in southern Taiwan in which protests had ever taken
place are selected for data collection. About 300 residents within the 50-meter neighborhood of
these stations were interviewed by questionnaires during January to April, 2009, and 258
effective respondents are collected (effective sample rate = 86%). To increase the incentive for
questionnaire participation, a gift of a pair of reusable chopsticks is offered as a token of our
gratitude.
3.2 Participants
Of the surveys effective respondents, 55 % are male and 45 % are female. More than half
of the respondents are above 40 years old, and have high school diploma and above. The
current jobs of the respondent are in the industries of service (22.1%), housekeeper (18.2%),
freelance (16.3%) and manufacturing (11.2%). 66% of the respondents have a monthly income
of NT $40,000 and under. Most of the respondents frequently read newspaper and watch TV
7

news. 81% of the respondents have more than three year experiences of owning a mobile phone,
but half of them use mobile phone less than two hours a day.
3.3 Data Analysis
Following a two-stage methodology measurement model and structure model,
recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), this study uses LISREL for data analysis. The
adequacy of the measurement model is evaluated on the criteria of reliability, convergent
validity, and discriminant validity. Reliability can be defined as stability, consistency,
precision, and the lack of distortion and so on (Kerlinger, 2000). Reliability measures for the
constructs in which the Cronbachs alpha values are between 0.78 and 0.94, showing the
reliability of this measurement is high. All constructs also display composite reliabilities in
excess of the recommended values 0.70 for exploratory studies (Bagozzi and Yi, 1998). This
indicated that measures were free from error and therefore yielded very consistent results
(Zikmund, 2003).
Table 1 presents the item, standardized factor loading and t-value for each indicator of the
measurement model. The confirmatory factor analysis of the measurement model on
multi-item scales shows that factor loadings in each construct are statistically significant and
sufficiently high for structural model testing. The factor loadings of .30 to .40 are minimally
acceptable, values greater than .50 are generally considered necessary for practical
significance (Lederer et al., 2000; Vijayasarathy, 2004; Hair et al., 2006).
The conceptual model consists of three exogenous variables (knowledge, trust and
proximity) and three endogenous variables (risk perception, benefit perception and attitude).
Further analysis in assessing validation of a measurement model, convergent validity is
assessed by all loadings (> .50) on a factor as well as all loadings being significant (p < .01) in
Table 1. Hence, each construct converges on some common point by the purified measurement
model (Byrne, 1998; Hair, et al., 2006) and convergent validity is satisfied.
Table 1. Completely standardized factor loading and construct reliability estimates
Construct
Risk perception (RP)
RP1 I consider mobile base station as a threat to human health.
RP2 Living nearby mobile base station may have dreaded consequences.
RP3 I do not feel comfortable about mobile base station in the area.
RP4 Seeing the mobile base station in the area make me feel pressured.
RP5 Living nearby mobile base station may have immediate effect on future
generations.
Benefit perception (BP)
BP1 Mobile base stations are essential to communication.
BP2 Mobile base stations in the area provide me a better reception.
BP3 Mobile base stations in the area provide me the exactly same
communication quality even when using mobile phone indoor.
BP4 The siting of mobile base station is beneficial for the use of mobile

Completely
standardized
factor loading

t-value

0.78
0.83
0.86
0.81
0.80

14.51
16.11
16.80
15.36
15.01

0.80
0.83
0.88

15.00
15.72
17.26

0.69

12.03

service.
Knowledge (KL)
KL1 I understand the term EMF.
KL2 I agree with the explanation of the EMF made by National
Communication Commission.
KL3 The information about mobile base station is sufficient for me.
Trust (TR)
TR1 I trust the measurement of EMF around mobile base station released by
National Communication Commission.
TR2 I believe National Communication Commission would control the
proportion of mobile base stations.
TR3 I believe National Communication Commission would ensure the EMF
emitted by mobile base station is within the safety standard.
TR4 National Communication Commission places residents safety in the
first place.
TR5 In general, the information of mobile base station from National
Communication Commission is trustworthy.
Proximity (PR)
PR1 I feel bad if the operator decides to place one base station next to or near
my property.
PR2 I simply dont like any mobile base station installed near my property.
PR3 I only concern proximity even with lower communication quality.
PR4 I prefer to live in the suburban area to avoid mobile base stations.
Attitude (AT)
AT1 My perception of mobile base station siting in the area is positive in
general.
AT2 Installing a mobile base station in the area is a good idea.
AT3 It is ok for me to accept a mobile base station installed in the area.
AT4 I wont be concerned if a mobile base station is installed in the area.

A
0.60
0.75

9.60
12.15

0.85

13.91

0.68

12.14

0.82

15.73

0.90

18.17

0.87

17.25

0.80

15.15

0.77

14.36

0.93
0.84
0.51

18.89
16.22
8.39

0.87

17.34

0.92
0.91
0.89

19.24
18.99
18.03

stro
nge
r
test
for
disc
rimi
nant
vali
dity
pro
vide
d by
For
nell
and
Lar

cker
(1981), is tested by comparing the average variance extracted (AVE) by the underlying
construct and the squared interconstruct correlations. As shown in Table 2, the AVE estimates
for the construct, ranging from .548 to .806, are greater than recommended .50 (displayed on a
diagonal of a correlation matrix), and each AVE value is found to be greater than the squared
correlations between latent constructs in the corresponding rows and columns (displayed on a
off-diagonal). This indicates that each construct shares more variance with its items than other
constructs.
Table 2. Construct correlations and average variance extracted
Constructs

RP

BP

KL

TR

PR

Risk perception (RP)

0.666

Benefit perception (BP)

0.048

0.645

Knowledge (KL)

0.019

0.019

0.548

Trust (TR)

0.137

0.115

0.040

0.668

Proximity (PR)

0.462

0.09

0.003

0.144

0.606

Attitude (AT)

0.476

0.152

0.003

0.302

0.422

AT

0.806

Note: Diagonal represents average variance extracted by each construct, and off-diagonals represent the squared
correlations between latent variables.

The model is modified by examining the standardized residuals and the modification
9

indices. In the final model, the goodness-of-fit (GFI) is 0.87 and adjusted GFI (AGFI) is 0.84.
The comparative fit index (CFI) is 0.98, the normed fit index (NFI) is 0.95 and non-normed fit
index (NNFI) is 0.98. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is 0.056 and the
standardized root mean square (SRMR) is 0.055. Among all the indices, the chi-square test is
very sensitive to sample size and the probability of rejecting any model increases as the sample
size increases even when the model is minimally false (Bentler, 1990). Thus, it is not surprising
that chi-square is significant in this study. Hair et al. (1998) suggested that some but not
necessarily all indices of goodness fit can be chosen in the model measurement. Because of the
inherent difficulty with sample size, the chi-square/degree of freedom (473.23/260) is used
instead. The 2/df value is (473.23/260=) 1.820, which is within the acceptable interval of less
than 3.0 (Carmines and McIver, 1981). See Table 3 for the reported goodness-of-fit statistics.
As for the model-fit criteria, the values of GFI and AGFI between 0.8 and 0.9, as
suggested by Browne and Cudeck (1993) and Gefen et al. (2000), can be viewed as good fit of
the model. The CFI no less than 0.90 is acceptable (Chau, 1997), indicating that 90% of the
covariation in the data can be reproduced by the proposed model. The NFI and NNFI are all
greater than the recommended level of 0.90 representing an acceptable fit of the model to the
data (Bentler and Bonett, 1980). The RMSEA is in the recommended range of 0.05 to 0.08
(MacCallum et al., 1996), and the SRMR is with a score of less than 0.08 to be considered
evidence of good fit in the present study (Toit et al., 1999). Thus, our research model has a good
fit with the data based on above assessments.
Table 3. Fit indices for CFA
Fit measures

Suggested

Results

P value

> 0.05

0.000

Chi-square/d.f.

< 0.3

1.820

Goodness-of-fit (GFI)

> 0.9

0.87

Adjusted GFI (AGFI)

> 0.8

0.84

Comparative Fit Index (CFI)

> 0.9

0.98

Normed fit index (NFI)

> 0.9

0.95

Non-normed fit index (NNFI)

> 0.9

0.98

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)

< 0.05

0.056

Standardized Root Mean Square (SRMR)

< 0.05

0.055

3.4 Model-testing Results

The structural equation modeling (SEM) approach is used to test the hypothesized
relationships in the research model. As for model-fit indices of SEM (in Fig. 2), the value of
2 / d.f. is 1.84 (chi-square= 487.86, d.f.= 264), RMSEA is 0.057, NFI is 0.95, NNFI is 0.97,
CFI is 0.98, GFI is 0.87, and AGFI is 0.84. In sum, this model is acceptable for prediction and
explanation. Specific path coefficient is tested to determine whether each of the various links is
10

considered an essential part of the model. The t-values of these paths provide evidence of
whether or not a parameter is significantly different from zero and the t-values greater than
1.96 are considered to be statistically significant (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1985). The final model
with structural path coefficients and t-values for each relationship is displayed in Fig. 2.

= 487.86; d.f. = 264

Trust

GFI = 0.87; AGFI = 0.84

0.34**
0.27**

(5.03)
0.16*

Knowledge

Benefit
Perception

(4.90)
0.15*

(2.67)
(2.96)
0.13*
(2.32)

0.41**

Risk
Perception

Attitude toward
Mobile Base Station
Siting

(5.81)
0.23*

0.61**

(3.32)

(8.75)

Proximity
Note: Standardized path estimates are reported with t-values in parentheses
*: significance of 5% level; **: significance of 1% level

Fig. 2. Final model for the publics attitude toward mobile base station siting.
It is found in the final SEM model that residents attitude toward mobile base station siting is
significantly and negatively influenced by proximity and risk perception. When residents
believe mobile base station is closed to their houses and fear living with these mobile base
stations, they view the stations as a threat to their health and future generation. Then the
residents would regard base stations as a danger and dislike base stations installed nearby; as a
result, the attitude toward mobile base station siting is negative. These are consistent with the
findings of Sundstrom et al. (1977), Okeke and Armour (2000) and Siegrist et al. (2005a) in the
cases of nuclear power plant and radiation hazard. On the other hand, when residents rely on
the regulatory authority of mobile base station to safe regulation, EMF measurement and the
information, they believe the authority would take residents health seriously. Moreover, when
base stations are considered to be beneficial and essential, residents would regard stations as a
basic of communication for a better reception. Then, public attitude toward mobile base station
siting is positive. The result is consistent with extensive studies in hazardous waste disposal,
chemical plant operation, nuclear waste repository and hydrogen refueling facility (Siegrist et
al., 2005b, 2005c; OGarra et al., 2008), indicating that trust in agencies or government and
perceived benefit were found to be positively correlated with acceptance of the facilities.
11

The influence of proximity to perceived risk is supported by a significantly positive

relationship. When residents believe they are located near enough around the base station siting,
they would feel deeply anxious and threatened. Residents fears heightened by residents close
proximity to the base station results in that they believe living nearby base station may have
dreaded consequences. Therefore, the proximity leads to higher risk perception. The finding is
similar to the studies of indoor radon gas and CO2 storage (Poortinga et al., 2008; Midden and
Huijts, 2009), indicating that geographic-contextual factors positively influence public
perceptions of the health risks.
In the SEM results, residents trust in authority has significant and negative influence on
risk perception toward base stations. When residents believe the authority of base station
would place their safety in the first place and control the proportion of base station within the
safe range, residents would reduce the concerns about the risk of EMF around base stations.
Thus, the trust in the authority smoothes away anxiety and diminishes risk perception toward
mobile base station. These are consistent with findings of Pijawka and Mushkatel (1991, 1992),
Williams et al. (1999) and Siegrist (2000) in nuclear waste repository, nuclear weapon sites and
gene technology, revealing that peoples risk perceptions is caused by a lack of trust in the risk
management institutions. On the contrary, when residents believe the trustworthy authoritys
regulations guarantee the safe and efficient use of base station, they would accept information
released from it and, at the same time, enjoy better communication quality and reception due to
the functionality of base stations in the area. Consequently, the trust in authority enlarges
residents benefit perception and reinforces the advantages of mobile base station. Similar
results are found in Siegrist et al. (2000) in the cases of gene technology, pesticides, nuclear
power, and artificial sweetener. Their results indicated that trust in institutions has a positive
impact on perceived benefit of the technology.
Finally, the influence of knowledge to perceived risk is found to be significant but positive,
contradicting to the prior assumption that knowledge toward EMF is negatively related to the
risk perception and being inconsistent to the finding of the literatures. There is still no
convincing scientific evidence that the EMF signal from base station causes adverse health
effects nor it has no impact on health. In words, health hazard by base station is a puzzle. Shi et
al. (2003) surveyed the risk perceptions of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and
socio-psychological behaviors of urban people in China and found that the public react more
sensitively to negative figures (e.g., infection rate, death rate) than positive figures (e.g.,
cure rate). Equivalently, negative information has higher influences on the risk perception. In
this study, the stereotype effect of EMF deeply influences residents cognition to mobile base
station because of this uncertainty in health effect. They tend to believe in negative information
upon mobile base station rather than positive one, and as a result, feel risky and anxious to base
station. Thus, the knowledge about EMF positively increases risk perception toward base
station. Instead, this result is supported by Shaws (2002) small-scale qualitative study of
12

public understandings of GM food. Her study comprised interviews with 17 purposively

sampled experts (from the food and biotechnology industries, government agencies,
academic scientists, public interest groups) and interviewed with a sample of 32 members of
the lay public. Generally, there was considerable unease among the public about GM food.
Contrary to the experts expectations, those members of the public who were most
knowledgeable about GM were also the most opposed to GM food.
4. DISCUSSION
The opposition to mobile base station siting is a clear and practical problem with highly
social and economic costs. The conflicts between local residents and operators are brewing a
long time and become a barrier to the development of telecommunications. The study itself has
two contributions to the existing literature. First, prior studies on mobile phone base station
focused on its health effects, but none of them analyzed the attitude toward and protest against
station siting. To the best of my knowledge, this study is the first research to tackle the issue.
Secondly, prior studies on attitude toward socially necessary but unwanted facility or
technology (e.g., nuclear power) focused on the relationship between risk perception,
proximity and attitude using case studies. But this study incorporates the factors of benefit
perception, trust and knowledge which are found to be significantly related to attitude toward
station siting.
This study provides a better understanding of the influences on residents attitude toward
mobile base station siting. It is found that NIMBY reaction associated with the resistance of the
residents toward mobile base stations siting is empirically proven to be the most influential
factor. In term of the total effects (the sum of direct effect and indirect effect) of measures in
the research model, the constructs of proximity and risk perception have the highest negative
impact on attitude toward mobile base station siting. This result is consistent with the NIMBY
theory in which community opposition to facility siting proposals reflects anticipatory fears of
having to live with an unwanted facility, and fears that are heightened by residents close
proximity to the proposed facility (Edelstein, 1988; Armour, 1990). In words, public
opposition indicated a concern not simply with the likelihood of a perceived threat but with its
proximity. Base station is a socially necessary facility to provide smooth transaction and keep
continuous connection of mobile service between base station and mobile phone. But it is also
an unwanted facility since it provokes the anxious emotion and the hazards fear of local
residents nearby base station. Therefore, NIMBY reaction still plays a vital role on the attitude
toward mobile base station siting.
The trust factor has a strong total effect of measures on attitude. Trust in the authority
would encourage reward as well as depress risk, and thus, become a significant determinant to
conduct the public to have positive attitude toward mobile base station siting. The studies by
Pijawka and Mushkatel (1991, 1992) and Siegrist (2000) confirmed that trust in institutions has
13

a positive impact on perceived benefit but a negative influence on perceived risk. In addition,
trust also has an impact on peoples willingness to cooperate (e.g., accept electromagnetic
fields or EMF in the neighborhood). Groothuis and Miller (1997) proposed trust is a
phenomenon that must be taken into account while dealing with the NIMBY impasse. The role
of government institutions is indispensable in coordinating the disputes of base station siting
and it has potential to settle such controversial problems.
Most interestingly, it is found that plenty of knowledge on EMF and base station would
lead residents to more anxious sentiments and to have a negative impact on attitudes toward
base station siting indirectly. This reveals that residents are distracted and overreacted by the
information. As a result, it is difficult for them to calmly and deliberately judge whether the
exposure to the radiation from base stations has adverse effects on their daily lives. For
instance, Shaws (2002) also found that members of the public who were most knowledgeable
about GM were the most opposed to GM food. Fiske (1980) and Skowronski and Carlston
(1987) claimed that perceivers' judgments of likability are influenced sensitively by highly
positive or highly negative cues; and in particular, by the latter ones. Negative information
plausibly might be easier to understand than other types of information because of less
comprehension time needed. Similar results are found in the risk perceptions of SARS and
socio-psychological behaviors of urban people in China (Shi et al., 2003). Finally, Chang (2005)
studied how culture distinct schemata influence the effect of advertising strategies by
proceeding advertising experiments under different scenarios in Taiwan and in the U.S. The
results concluded that Taiwanese respondents pay more attention to the advertising in negative
frame and that they believe this type of advertising is more informative and persuasive while
evaluating the brands.
There is still no convincing scientific evidence that the EMF signal emitted from base
station causes adverse health effects nor it has no impact on health. The uncertainties in the
assessment of health risks are exaggerated by the residents in organized groups who protested
against the installation of base stations. Further, the media press amplifies these negative
impacts in order to raise the publics concern. Covello (1998) pointed out that such a distortion
of information leads the public to incorrect assessment of risks and threats with a tendency to
overestimate risks from base stations, and moreover, neglect risks from the use of cell phones.
Overall, the cognitive dissonance of the public results from the unavailability of accurate
knowledge. Therefore, this stereotype effect of EMF deeply influences the residents negative
cognition of mobile base station.
The health effects by mobile base station have been extensively studied in recent years.
Hutter et al. (2006) selected and interviewed households randomly in the vicinity of 10 GSM
base stations in rural and urban areas of Austria, and the results indicated that the effects of
very low but long lasting exposures to emissions from mobile telephone base stations on
wellbeing and health cannot be ruled out. Kundi and Hutterin (2009) summarized the extensive
14

literature of the effect of mobile base station on wellbeing and health. The results are mixed.
Experimental studies applying short-term exposure to base station signals gave weak evidence
that the signals reduce wellbeing in person. But two ecological studies cancer on the vicinity of
base stations reported a strong increase of incidence within a radius of 350 and 400 meters,
respectively. Though no firm conclusion can be drawn, the results underline the urgent need for
a comprehensive investigation of this issue.
This study provides a better understanding of the publics attitude toward mobile base
station siting and the suggestions to the authority NCC can be thus drawn. Mobile operators in
Taiwan often install base stations by stealth at midnight. This kind of behavior decreases their
corporate images and drastically raises the publics disapproval. Protests against siting
deteriorate the relationship between operators and local residents. In the empirical results, it is
found that proximity most highly affects the attitude toward mobile base station siting. In order
to alleviate the resistance of station siting, to make base stations invisible or beautified are the
alternatives in the siting procedure. However, Hadden (1989) claimed that the publics right to
know is not only a legal subject but also a powerful approach to risk communication and an
extension to public relations. It is the common phenomenon in the countries such as Japan,
Singapore, Hong Kong and the U.S., in which high densities of base stations do not necessarily
bring the protests against station siting. The authority approbates mobile operators to install
network infrastructures such as base stations, and any local group has no rights to dismantle
these infrastructures. Legality protection is enacted because the authority is trusted by the
public in monitoring the installation process. Hence, mobile operators and the authority in
Taiwan should make the siting of mobile base stations publicized and, at the same time,
operators legality protection should be enacted. But it is a challenging task for both operators
and the authority.
People enjoy the convenience of mobile service but dislike base station siting nearby the
neighborhood. The effect of EMF on health is still unclear today and it is hard to reverse the
residents negative stereotypes on base station. The authority should play an important role in
the provision of the knowledge on EMF and base station, especially in the EMF measurement
and installation of base stations. The public should be positively informed and repeatedly
educated by the accurate information such as the design of cellular system and base station,
scientific health report, EMF measurement and safety regulation. The information should be
brief, easy-to-read and updated frequently, broadcasting in various channels such as TV
commercial and brochure. The information should also be objective, for instance, the decrease
in the coverage area of each base station by increasing the number of stations reduces its
transmission power and thus, has less health impact on local residents. This will gradually
increase the publics trust in the authority and operators. In turn, an increase in trust raises the
publics positive attitude toward mobile base station siting.
It is impossible to consider all possible factors in exploring the attitude or even acceptance
15

toward mobile base station siting. Equity is a factor to incorporate in the research model.
Zimmerman (1993) found that social equity is an important concern of the environmental
movement, and affects the attitude for practically all of the inactive hazardous waste disposal
sites on the National Priorities List. Wolsink (2007) also claimed that feeling about equity and
fairness appeared the determinants of backyard motives, instead of selfishness. To understand
how fair residents perceived the siting proposal, equity toward base station siting can be
defined as the extent of the fairness they perceive for base stations to be installed nearby. It can
be postulated that the higher equity residents perceive, the higher positive attitude they have
toward mobile base station siting. Secondly, media influence is another exogenous factor to
incorporate in investigating the influential factors of attitude toward station siting. Elvers et al.
(2009) studied the media coverage of German newspapers on possible adverse health effects of
mobile phone use during the years 20022007 and found that the average frequency of articles
focusing on mobile phones and health, excluding 2007, was around 47 articles per year. Most
newspapers highlight unspecified, potentially adverse effects and link mobile phone use to the
development of cancer, which is not supported by current scientific knowledge. Overall, media
coverage notably changed towards better informing and educating the public. At the same time,
the proportion of articles reporting that adverse health effects remain unclear experienced a
steady decline. Finally, the measurement of knowledge construct in the data collection is a
self-reporting style, in which some researchers have less confidence. In particular, when people
are asked to tell strangers about their opinion, they may lie, forget, misunderstand or distort
about their real thought. To accurately measure residents understanding of the EMF and base
station, a set of the related questions or the residents education level can be adopted instead.
There are two possible extensions suggested for future research. The first extension is to
analyze the moderating role of the variables such as age, personal characteristic, urban and
rural, and distance from base station on local residents cognitive behaviors. Operators and the
authority would be willing to understand the differences in cognition due to different social
economic status, especially when dealing with the conflicts of station siting. Secondly, the
results of this study reveal that influential factors of protests against base station siting can be
complicated and they are worthy to be explored, which is unnegligible with the development of
telecommunications and ICT industries. Hence, it would be very interesting to find out the
influential factors of actual protests against mobile base station siting from the perspectives of
both local residents and operators, and compare the differences in the two models. As for the
research model of local residents, possible constructs are social influence, environment
feeling/landscape, issue involvement, self-interest behavior, moral intensity and
self-efficiency/politics-efficiency. As for the research model of operators, possible constructs
are empathy, compensation, benefit intention and negotiation attitude.
References
16

1. Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitude and Predicting Social Behavior,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2. Anderson, J.C., and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3,
411-423.
3. Armour, A. (1990), Socially responsive facility siting, Unpublished PhD thesis, University
of Waterloo, Ontario.
4. Bagozzi, R.P., and Yi, Y. (1988), On the evaluation of structural equation models,
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, 74-94.
5. Bentler, P.M. (1990), Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 107, No. 2, 238-246.
6. Bentler, P.M., and Bonett, D.G. (1980), "Significance tests and goodness of fit in the
analysis of covariance structures," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, No. 3, 588-606.
7. Byrne, B.M. (1998), Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS
Basic Concepts. Applications and Programming, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum
Associates.
8. Browne, M.W., and Cudeck, R. (1993), Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in
Bollen, K.A., and Long, J.S. ed., Testing Structural Equation Models, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Press, 136162.
9. Carmines, E.G., and McIver, J.P. (1981), Analyzing models with unobserved variables:
Analysis of covariance structures, in Bohrnstedt, G.W., and Borgatta, E.F. ed., Social
Measurement: Current Issues, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press, 65110.
10. Cavatassi, R., and Atkinson, G. (2003), 'Social' and 'private' determinants of opposition to
landfill siting in Italy, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol.
5, No. 1, 27- 43.
11. Chang, C. (2005), How individuals develop brand evaluations in different contexts - The
relative impacts of affect self-relevant thoughts and product attribute thoughts, Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 32, 106-111.
12. Chapman, S., and Wutzke, S. (1997), Not in our back yard: Media coverage of community
opposition to mobile phone towers - An application of Sandmans outrage model of risk
perception, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 21, No. 6,
614-620.
13. Chau, P.Y.K. (1997), Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success
using a structural equation modeling approach, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 2,
309-334.
14. Covello, V.T. (1998), Risk perception, risk communication, and EMF exposure. tools and
techniques for communicating risk information, in Matthes, R., Bernhardt, J.H., and
Repacholi, M.H. ed., Proceedings of the World Health Organization/ICNRP International
17

Conference (ICNIRP). Vienna, Austria: International Committee on Non-Ionizing

Radiation Protection, 179-214.
15. Dear, M. (1992), Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome, Journal of the
American Planning Association, Vol. 58, No. 3, 288-300.
16. Edelstein, M.R. (1988), Contaminated Communities: The Social and Psychological
Impacts of Residential Toxic Exposure, Boulder, CO: Westview.
17. Elvers, H.D., Jandrig, B., Grummich, K., and Tannert, C. (2009), Mobile phones and
health: Media coverage study of German newspapers on possible adverse health effects of
mobile phone use, Health, Risk & Society, Vol. 11, No. 2, 165-179.
18. Fishbein, M., and Ajzne, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19. Fiske, S.T. (1980), Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and
extreme behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 6, 889-906.
20. Foreseeing Innovative New Digiservices (FIND) (2009), Mobile phone subscribers
Q4 2008, available at: http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx? page=many&id=216
21. Fornell, C., and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement models, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18,
39-50.
22. Gefen, D., Straub, D.W., and Boudreau, M.C. (2000), Structural equation modeling and
regression: Guideline for research practice, Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 7, 1-70.
23. Groothuis, P.A., and Miller, G. (1997), The role of social distrust in risk-benefit analysis:
A study of the siting of a hazardous waste disposal facility, Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, Vol. 15, No. 3, 241-257.
24. Hadden, S. (1989), Institutional barriers to risk communication, Risk Analysis, Vol. 9, No.
3, 301-308.
25. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data
Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate
Data Analysis, 6th ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27. Huijts, N.M.A., Midden, C.J.H., and Meijnders, A.J. (2007), Social acceptance of carbon
dioxide storage, Energy Policy, Vol. 35, 2780-2789.
28. Hutter, H. P., Moshammer, H., Wallner, P., and Kundi, M. (2006), Subjective symptoms,
sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base
stations, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 63. No. 5, 307-313.
29. Hyland, G.J. (2000), Physics and biology of mobile telephony, Lancet, Vol. 356,
18331836.
30. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2009), Worldwide mobile cellular
18

subscribers
to
reach
4
billion
mark
late
2008,
available
at:
http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2008/29.html
31. Joreskog, K.G., and Sorbom, D. (1985), LISREL VI: Analysis of Linear Structural
Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood, Morrisville, IN: Scientific Software.
32. Kerlinger, F.N. (2000), Foundations of behavioral research, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
College Publishers
33. Kundi, M., and Hutter, H.-P. (2009), Mobile phone base stations - Effects on wellbeing
and health, Pathophysiology, forthcoming.
34. Ladenburg, J. (2008), Attitudes towards on-land and offshore wind power development in
Denmark: Choice of development strategy, Renewable Energy, Vol. 33, 111-118.
35. Lederer, A.L., Maupin, D.J., Sena, M.P., and Zhuang, Y. (2000), The technology
acceptance model and the World Wide Web, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 29, 269-282.
36. MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., and Sugawara, H.W. (1996), Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling, Psychological Methods,
Vol. 1, 130-149.
37. Marks, G., and von Winterfeldt, D. (1984), 'Not in my back yard': Influence of
motivational concerns on judgments about a risky technology, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 69, 408-15.
38. Midden, C.J.H., and Huijts, N.M. (2009), The role of trust in the affective evaluation of
novel risks: The case of CO2 storage, Risk Analysis, Vol. 29, No. 5, 743-751.
39. National Communications Commission (NCC) (2009), Subscribers and revenues of
mobile
services,
available
at:
http://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/news.aspx?
site_content_sn=1135&is_history=0
40. Neubauer, G., Feychting, M., Hamnerius, Y., Kheifets, L., Kuster, N., Ruiz, I., Schuz, J.,
Uberbacher, R., Wiart, J., and Roosli, M. (2007), Feasibility of future epidemiological
studies on possible health effects of mobile phone base stations, Bioelectromagnetics, Vol.
28, 224-230.
41. OGarra, T., Mourato, S., and Pearson, P. (2005), Analysing awareness and acceptability
of hydrogen vehicles: A London case study, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
Vol. 30, 649659.
42. OGarra, T., Mourato, S., and Pearson, P. (2008), Investigating attitudes to hydrogen
refuelling facilities and the social cost to local residents, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, 2074
2085.
43. Okeke, C.U., and Armour, A. (2000), Post-landfill siting perceptions of nearby residents:
A case study of Halton landfill, Applied Geography, Vol. 20, 137-154.
44. Pijawka, K.D., and Mushkatel, A.H. (1991/1992), Public opposition to the siting of
high-level nuclear waste repository: The importance of trust, Policy Studies Review,
Vol.10, No. 4, 180-194.
19

45. Pontefract and Castleford Express (2009), Phone mast plan protest, available at:
http://www.pontefractandcastlefordexpress.co.uk/news/Phone-mast-plan-protest.5172540.
jp
46. Poortinga, W., Cox, P., and Pidgeon, N.F. (2008), The perceived health risks of indoor
radon gas and overhead powerlines: A comparative multilevel approach, Risk Analysis,
Vol. 28, No. 1, 235-248.
47. Reuters (2002), Spain Probes Phone Masts In School Cancer Cases, available at:
http://www.reuters.com/
48. Sandman, P.M. (1986), Getting to maybe: Some communications aspects of siting
hazardous waste facilities, Seton Hall Legislative Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, 442-465.
49. Shaw, A. (2002), 'It goes against the grain.' Public understandings of genetically modified
(GM) food in the UK, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 11, 273-291.
50. Shi, K., Fan, H.X., Jia, J.M., Li, W.D., Song, Z.L., Gao, J., Chen, X.F., Lu, J.F., and Hu,
W.P. (2003), The risk perceptions of SARS and socio-psychological behaviors of urban
people in China, Acta Psychology Sinica, Vol. 24, No. 2, 546-554.
51. Siegrist, M. (2000), The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the
acceptance of gene technology, Risk Analysis, Vol. 20, 195-203.
52. Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, C., and Roth, C. (2000), Salient value similarity, social trust, and
risk/benefit perception, Risk Analysis, Vol. 20, No. 3, 353-362.
53. Siegrist, M., Earle, T.C., and Gutscher, H. (2003), Test of a trust and confidence model in
the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks, Risk Analysis, Vol. 23, 705716.
54. Siegrist, M., Earle, T.C., Gutscher, H., and Keller, C. (2005a), Perception of mobile phone
and base station risks, Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 5, 1253-1264.
55. Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H., and Earle, T.C. (2005b), Perception of risk: The influence of
general trust, and general confidence, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 8, 145-156.
56. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., and Kiers, H.A.L. (2005c), A new look at the psychometric
paradigm of perception of hazards, Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 1, 209-220.
57. Skowronski, J.J., and Carlston, D.E. (1987), Social judgment and social memory: The role
of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 4, 689-699.
58. Slovic, P. (1987), Perception of risk, Science, Vol. 236, 280-285.
59. Sundstrom, E., Lounsbury, J.W., Schuler, C.R., Fowler, J.R., and Mattingly, T.J. Jr. (1977),
Community attitudes toward a proposed nuclear power generating facility as a function of
expected outcomes, Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 5, 199208.
60. Toit, S., Toit, M., Joreskog, K.G., and Sorbom, D. (1999). Interactive LISREL user guide,
Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
61. Vijayasarathy, L.R. (2004), Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: The
case for an augmented technology acceptance model, Information and Management, Vol.
20

41, No. 6, 747-762.

62. Waller, R.A., and Covello, V.T. (1984), Low-Probability/High Consequence Risk Analysis:
Issues, Methods, and Case Studies, New York, NY: Plenum, 507520.
63. Williams, B.L., Brown, S., and Kahn, M.A. (1999), Risk perception in context: The
Savannah river site stakeholder study, Risk Analysis, Vol. 19, 1019-1035.
64. Wolsink, M. (2007), Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity
and fairness instead of 'backyard motives', Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Vol. 11, 1188-1207.
65. World Health Organization (WHO) (2006), 2006 WHO Research Agenda for Radio
Frequency
Fields,
available
at:
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/
rf_research_agenda_2006.pdf
66. Wright, S.A. (1993), Citizen information levels and grassroots opposition to new
hazardous waste sites: Are NIMBYists informed?, Waste Management, Vol. 13, 253-259.
67. Zikmund, W. (2003), Business Research Methods, 7th ed., Australia: South Western.
68. Zimmerman, R. (1993), Social equity and environmental risk, Risk Analysis, Vol. 13, No.
6, 649-666.

21