Abstract
Abstract Previous studies have established that community residents and leaders differ in their support for hazardous waste facility siting in rural areas (Spies et al. 1998). We examine whether these same differences exist in rural communities that face other high‐risk development decisions by analyzing resident and leader support for a proposed gold cyanide process (GCP) mine in Montana. Compared to proposed hazardous waste facilities, a much stronger predictor of both resident and leader support in the GCP mine context is recreancy, or distrust in institutions and outside interveners. However, perceived economic benefits remain key differences between residents and leaders in both the GCP mine and hazardous waste facility cases.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
