Courting LULUs: Characteristics of Suitor and Objector Communities*

Abstract

This research examines nonmetropolitan places most likely to support or oppose proposals for locally undesirable land uses (LULUs) involving waste management facilities. Two hypotheses are tested: (1) that relatively remote communities of lower socioeconomic status will be less likely to oppose such proposals; and (2) that support for such proposals is widespread among nonmetropolitan communities because of growth machine activities. Using key informants and secondary data for 166 non‐metropolitan Pennsylvania places, we find that local growth promotion, especially efforts to promote business and industry, is related positively to community experience with plant closings and to proposals for these LULUs. Where these proposals are made, community opposition tends to be present as well, particularly in larger communities and, surprisingly, in those of lower socioeconomic status. The significance of these findings is discussed in terms of the growth machine and the opposition they can provoke to protect the use value of land in a single nonmetropolitan region.

The Effects of Racial/Ethnic Segregation on Latino and Black Homicide

“…A second advantage of census places is that they include a highly diverse set of spatial units that are large enough to provide reliable measures of violence and structural conditions for black and Latino populations but that generally provide greater spatial homogeneity and internal uniformity (especially among smaller places) than higher units of aggregation (for further discussion, see Bohon and Humphreys 2000; Peterson and Krivo 2005; Feldmeyer 2009; Feldmeyer and Steffensmeier 2009). Yet, compared with neighborhoods, they are large enough to exhibit ample counts of serious violence and wide variation in both violence and predictor variables (especially when variables are racially disaggregated).…”

Civic Community, Population Change, and Violent Crime in Rural Communities

“…The Locally Unwanted Land Use (LULU) and Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) literatures provide a variety of interesting manifestations of what is essentially civic engagement. Typically, these issues arise in response to the planned placement of human service facilities that are essentially needed by society (e.g., prisons, mental health facilities, substance abuse rehabilitation centers) but that are often vigorously opposed by members of the planned host community (see Bohon and Humphrey 2000;Dear 1992;Gibson 2005;Groothius and Miller 1994;Luloff, Albrecht, and Bourke 1998). Local mobilization against governmental or corporate interests is surely facilitated by a strong preexisting civic climate (Aldrich and Crook 2006).…”

The Fema Trailer Parks: Negative Perceptions and the Social Structure of Avoidance

“…NIMBYism refers to the negative community attitudes themselves that are expressed in response to LULUs. These literatures typically focus on community attitudes regarding the siting of human service facilities like waste management operations, toxic waste dumps, low income housing, prisons, mental health facilities, and the like (see Bohon and Humphrey 2000;Dear 1992;Gibson 2005;Groothius and Miller 1994;Luloff, Albrecht, and Bourke 1998;Martin 2000;Martin and Myers 2005;Oakley 2002). Many types of facilities are essentially needed by society (e.g., garbage dumps, prisons), but are vigorously opposed by some members of the communities that might qualify for siting.…”