Objective Risk or Subjective Fear? A Probit–Hedonic–Welfare Analysis of NIMBY Externalities from Sanitation Facilities in Urban Suzhou, China

With increasing urban solid waste generation and the advancement of Zero Waste City initiatives, sanitation-facility siting has become central to urban waste governance but continues to trigger Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) conflicts related to perceived environmental risk, spatial equity, and asset-value concerns. Existing studies often explain NIMBY effects through objective exposure or facility distance, while less attention has been paid to the mismatch between objective risk and residents’ subjective fear and its cost implications. Taking Suzhou, China, as a case study, we develop an integrated framework to assess NIMBY effects associated with current and planned sanitation facilities. An objective risk index is constructed based on facility hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Resident questionnaires are used to measure subjective fear, and the bias between objective risk and subjective fear is quantified. Probit, hedonic price, and welfare models are then combined to evaluate the effects of this bias on facility support, housing prices, and marginal social welfare losses. The results show that (1) sanitation facilities in Suzhou present clear type differentiation and spatial clustering, with terminal treatment facilities mainly located on the urban periphery, and transfer, sorting, and recovery facilities more embedded in daily living spaces; (2) stronger subjective fear, particularly risk perception, significantly reduces residents’ support for facility expansion, especially under the planned scenario; (3) perception bias is negatively associated with housing prices and generates substantial marginal social welfare losses, especially when the planned expansion of facilities is considered at the system level. This study extends the explanatory framework of environmental NIMBY effects and provides evidence for integrating risk communication, spatial equity compensation, and marginal social welfare loss reduction into Zero Waste City governance.