Analysis of the compensation system at the Environmental-Adverse-Effect Zone of a large-scale waste landfill site

Sudokwon landfill is the largest sanitary landfill in South Korea. The Environmental-Adverse-Effect Zone (EAEZ) from the boundary of a Sudokwon landfill site was set up to give the community compensation by a landfill developer to support special financial favors to every household resident. One group of residents in the EAEZ would continually receive the community compensation after 2010 and the other group would not because of changing the landfill site in 2009. These situations in Sudokwon landfill raise the question of whether the cash payment to residents for the community compensation may increase the acceptance of the waste landfill site and whether ceasing community compensation may create new Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome concerning landfill operations. Answers from questionnaires showed that 279 respondents (Group A) had experienced Resident Supportive Projects (RSP) and the other (86 respondents, Group B) had not. Most of the respondents (more than 80 %) in Group A who had received compensation answered that the sort of RSP was the direct cash payment. 37 % of respondents in Group A and 29 % of all respondents reported RSP as helpful. The 24 % of respondents who lived in the area released from the EAEZ in 2009 were 'very reduced' or 'reduced', while the corresponding results were 38 % in the continued EAEZ area. These different responses were statistically significant. And many respondents (70.6 %) recognized that the level of RSP (especially the monetary payment) was not enough. This ratio is unusual compared with a previous result (Lee PhD thesis, 2001), which was 6.2 % in 2000. The relative ratio of respondents living in the continued EAEZ area answered 'very high' or 'high' on the questions of knowledge regarding the sort of RSP, RSP cost, satisfaction of public participation, the process to decide the RSP, and the helpfulness of the RSP, which are statistically significant. In addition, respondents wanted the projects for welfare and resident convenience facilities with the same ratio (29.7 %) among several projects. These results suggest that the effect of the direct cash payment on the response of residents is similar to North America and Europe. Additionally, long periods of support of the public projects to develop resident communities may be required in order to improve resident acceptance of sitting landfill.