In most countries, the development of environmental programs follows a similar pattern. Early efforts concentrate on direct threats to public health, such as contaminated drinking water and air pollution. Only after these problems are addressed does the need to improve day-to-day management of hazardous wastes reach the top of the environmental agenda.

In this new report, RFF's Katherine Probst and Thomas Beierle compare the development of hazardous waste management programs in eight countries -- the United States, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Thailand -- and discuss steps taken to foster proper hazardous waste management. The authors focus on two questions: What were the major steps in the evolution of a successful hazardous waste program? What role, if any, did the public sector play in financing modern treatment and disposal facilities?

Fundamentally, an effective hazardous waste management program must change the behavior of organizations (both public and private) that generate and manage hazardous wastes. To achieve this, there must be an effective regulatory program and facilities for adequate treatment, storage, and disposal. The authors argue that it is essential to develop a "culture of compliance,"where proper waste management in modern facilities is the norm. They conclude that a successful hazardous waste management program takes 10-15 years to develop, even in countries with strong regulatory and enforcement regimes. The authors also conclude that public sector financing and subsidies are important policy tools for bringing facilities on-line and for creating incentives for waste generators to manage their wastes responsibly.

Thestudy is based on interviews and secondary sources. The report includes country-specific profiles that detail the key steps in the evolution of each country's hazardous waste management program. The profiles also describe the role of the public sector in facility financing.

In most countries, the development of environmental programs follows a similar pattern. Early efforts concentrate on direct threats to public health, such as contaminated drinking water and air pollution. Only after these problems are addressed does the need to improve day-to-day management of hazardous wastes reach the top of the environmental agenda. In this new report, RFF's Katherine Probst and Thomas Beierle compare the development of hazardous waste management programs in eight countries---the United States, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Thailand---and discuss steps taken to foster proper hazardous waste management. The authors focus on two questions: What were the major steps in the evolution of a successful hazardous waste program? What role, if any, did the public sector play in financing modern treatment and disposal facilities? Based on interviews and secondary sources, this report includes country-specific profiles that detail the steps in the evolution of each country's hazardous waste management program and describe the role of the public sector in facility financing.

In spite of the expanding role of public participation in environmental decisionmaking, there has been little systematic examination of whether it has, to date, contributed toward better environmental management. Neither have there been extensive empirical studies to examine how participation processes can be made more effective. Democracy in Practice brings together, for the first time, the collected experience of 30 years of public involvement in environmental decisionmaking. Using data from 239 cases, the authors evaluate the success of public participation and the contextual and procedural factors that lead to it. Thomas Beierle and Jerry Cayford demonstrate that public participation has not only improved environmental policy, but it has also played an important educational role and has helped resolve the conflict and mistrust that often plague environmental issues. Among the authors' findings are that intensive "problem-solving" processes are most effective for achieving a broad set of social goals, and participant motivation and agency responsiveness are key factors for success. Democracy in Practice will be useful for a broad range of interests. For researchers, it assembles the most comprehensive data set on the practice of public participation, and presents a systematic typology and evaluation framework. For policymakers, political leaders, and citizens, it provides concrete advice about what to expect from public participation, and how it can be made more effective. Democracy in Practice concludes with a systematic guide for use by government agencies in their efforts to design successful public participation efforts.