Are LULUs still enduringly objectionable?

Michael R. Greenberg, Frank J. Popper, Heather Barnes Truelove

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

We asked a national sample of 651 US residents about the feelings, emotions, images and colours they associated with nearby waste management, energy, industrial facilities and other big developments commonly regarded as locally unwanted land uses (LULUs). The respondents showed the expected dislike of them, picking 'bad', 'fear', 'polluted', red and black to describe them more than 'safe', 'secure', 'jobs' and other positive descriptors and images. Waste management facilities, especially nuclear ones, had the most negative labels, and coal and gas energy facilities had fewer than anticipated. This survey occurred prior to the events in the Fukushima plant in Japan. However, even before those events LULU concerns endured and nuclear facilities and chemical and metal plants were the most distressing to the public as a whole.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)713-731
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Environmental Planning and Management
Volume55
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2012

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Water Science and Technology
  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Keywords

  • LULUs
  • NIMBY
  • TOADS
  • affect heuristic

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Are LULUs still enduringly objectionable?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this