Are LULUs still enduringly objectionable?
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.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 55 (2012)
Issue (Month): 6 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CJEP20|
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: (Michael McNulty)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.