IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v55y2012i6p713-731.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are LULUs still enduringly objectionable?

Author

Listed:
  • Michael R. Greenberg
  • Frank J. Popper
  • Heather Barnes Truelove

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael R. Greenberg & Frank J. Popper & Heather Barnes Truelove, 2012. "Are LULUs still enduringly objectionable?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(6), pages 713-731, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:55:y:2012:i:6:p:713-731
    DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2011.623070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09640568.2011.623070
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heather Truelove & Michael Greenberg, 2013. "Who has become more open to nuclear power because of climate change?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 116(2), pages 389-409, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:55:y:2012:i:6:p:713-731. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.