Locally Unwanted Land Uses Research Articles

Accepting a Locally Unwanted Land Use: Illuminating the Decision Process with a Neural Network

Southeastern Geographer Vol. XXXVIII, No. 2, November 1998, pp. 112-124 ACCEPTING A LOCALLY UNWANTED LAND USE: ILLUMINATING THE DECISION PROCESS WITH A NEURAL NETWORK1 Jerry T. Mitchell The siting of facilities deemed hazardous to the environment has become increasingly more diffi­ cult. As such, these facilities have become locally unwanted land uses (LULUs). Proponents or opponents of the siting of LULUs may find their position pivots on certain key pieces of informa­ tion; as this knowledge of the LULU varies, so may their disposition toward accepting or refusing the new facility. The extent of risk from these facilities is not often fully understood and this uncer­ tainty has led to an inability to gain consensus about solutions. The public often finds itself having to make decisions based upon little information about the risks involved with a new facility. This research is concerned with how the perceived benefits and burdens of a hazardous waste facility are weighted when making a siting decision. Specifically, a neural network is used to understand how people weigh the risks and benefits of a potentially hazardous facility. Although various questions remain given the population tested, the results show that pollution and geographic factors are sig­ nificant in determining the acceptance of the proposed land use. The siting of facilities deemed to be hazardous to the environment or human health has become increasingly more difficult. For many reasons, these facilities are locally unwanted land uses, or LULU’s (Popper, 1983; Bourke, 1994). The situation is often defined in terms of the popular NIMBY syndrome, an acronym standing for “not in my backyard,” where zoning and other legal means are used to resist the location of unwanted land uses (Lindell and Earle, 1983; Greenberg and Anderson, 1984; Meyer, 1995; Platt, 1996). While one group appeals for the acceptance of the land use (usually a developer or the government), local opposition groups have often been successful in delaying or denying its siting (Himmelberger et al., 1991). Strong proponents or opponents of the siting of LULU’s may find their position piv­ ots on certain key pieces of information. As this knowledge of the LULU varies, so may their disposition toward accepting or refusing the new use, facility, or activity. This paper is concerned with how the varying perceived benefits and burdens of a hazardous facility are weighted when making a siting decision. Specifically, a backpropagation neural network is used to model the cognitive processes employed by people as they deliberate over the acceptability of a fictitious hazardous waste treat­ ment facility using six informational statements regarding its risks and benefits. ASSESSING HAZARD RISK. Why are people concerned about some risks and not others? Why do communities fight so hard to keep some land uses out while ignoring others? The fear associated with industrial facilities is often strong despite Dr. Mitchell is a post-doctoral researcher in the Hazards Research Lab at the Department o fGeography, University o fSouth Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208. VOL. X XX VIII, No. 2 113 evidence that shows high levels of safety, while other hazards, such as automobile travel, are grossly underestimated (Kishchuk, 1987). The answer to these two ques­ tions lies in how residents define the acceptable level of risk and benefits they are willing to bear. The degree of acceptability may be determined, in part, by the ability, or lack thereof, of the residents to control the hazard or find a safer alternative (Stallen and Thomas, 1988). Clarke (1988) suggested that people make risk assessments from biased information, vary their assessments depending on social position such as cit­ izen or expert, and that they are more tolerant of risks where exposure is thought to be voluntary. Additionally, prior research has shown that people define risk, bene­ fits, and acceptability in a complex, multidimensional manner (Gardner and Gould, 1989). This study demonstrates that factors such as the perception of positive bene­ fits, negative risks, opinions of economic health, and location form the complex structure in which people define their risk level, and notion of acceptability, from the siting of a hazardous waste treatment facility. Furthermore, the use of a neural network as a potential tool for policy making is explored by determining...

FORUM: Dynamics and Causation of Environmental Equity, Locally Unwanted Land Uses, and Neighborhood Changes

/ Why are some environmental risks distributed disproportionately in the neighborhoods of the minorities and the poor? A hypothesis was proposed in a recent study that market dynamics contributed to the current environmental inequity. That is, locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) make the host communities home to more poor people and people of color. This hypothesis was allegedly supported by a Houston case study, whereby its author analyzed the postsiting changes of the socioeconomic characteristics of the neighborhoods surrounding solid waste facilities. I argue that such an analysis of postsiting changes alone is insufficient to test the causation hypothesis. Instead, I propose a conceptual framework for analysis of environmental equity dynamics and causation. I suggest that the presiting neighborhood dynamics and the characteristics of control neighborhoods be analyzed as the first test for the causation hypothesis. Furthermore, I present theories of neighborhood change and then examine alternative hypotheses that these theories offer for explaining neighborhood changes and for the roles of LULUs in neighborhood changes. These alternative hypotheses should be examined when analyzing the relationship between LULUs and neighborhood changes in a metropolitan area. Using this framework of analysis, I revisited the Houston case. First, I found no evidence that provided support for the hypothesis that the presence of LULUs made the neighborhoods home to more blacks and poor people, contrary to the conclusion made by the previous study. Second, I examined alternative hypotheses for explaining neighborhood changes-invasion-succession, other push forces, and neighborhood life-cycle; the former two might offer better explanation.KEY WORDS: Environmental equity and justice; Locally unwanted lane uses; Siting; Market dynamics; Invasion-succession; Neighborhood changes

Implementing Change in Locally Unwanted Land Use: The Case of GSX

To date, guidelines and strategies for the siting process, including planner intervention, have arisen from conflict surrounding locally unwanted land uses (LULUs). The task of changing an existing unwanted land use has not received equal attention, and this task poses special problems for parties involved in the decision-making process. The issues, the space of alternative solutions, and some consequences of limited planner involvement are illustrated with a case: the closing down of the GSX Chemical Services of Ohio hazardous waste processing facility in Cleveland. The unpredictability and poor quality of outcomes, as well as the costs of conflict to the host community, illustrated by this case suggest the need for proactive planner participation in such changes. We use the GSX case to examine specific aspects of change in existing unwanted land uses and the potential benefits of using planners' skills and their position as active negotiators on behalf of the public interest. We explore some ways in which planner intervention could enable a transparent decision-making process that is inclusive of all concerns, whether represented or not, and that is based on accurate and shared information.

Introduction: Environmental Conflict

Environmental conflict appears to be increasing exponentially. Natural resource management disputes over preservation or “wise use” rage in forests, river systems, rangelands, and mineral lands. Locating hazardous waste sites is so contentious that there is only one site in the country that accepts the high-level waste produced everywhere else in the United State. Existing waste sites are closing their gates to all but local waste. Low income and minority communities are documenting the disproportionate burden of toxic contamination in their neighborhoods and are fighting back in the environmental justice movement. NIMBY (Not In My ***BackYard) responses to LULUs (Locally Unwanted Land Uses) appear to have paralyzed both government agencies and neighborhoods as they attempt to clean up past contamination, control present pollution, and manage future responses to development. Conflicts and disputes between affected parties—stakeholders in the common parlance—are regularly in the news as local, state, and federal government agencies attempt to gain public acceptability of programs through public involvement in decision making.

A negotiation credo for controversial siting disputes

Prisons, half-way houses, AIDS hospices, solid and hazardous waste treatment plants, landfills, housing for low-income families, power plants, transmission lines, sewage treatment facilities-all are ''Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs) in somebody's eyes. LULUs are the targets of individuals or groups who believe they stand to lose if a facility is built. They worry about changes in the character of their neighborhood, possible loss of property value, explosions, threats to water supplies or air quality, increased risk to health and safety, threats to endangered habitats and species, or other disruptions to their everyday lives. Those who stand to gain, on the other hand, are fearful that potential tax ratables will be lost. They are angered by any challenge to the rights of property owners to use their land as they like, and annoyed at what they see as a tendency to put environmental concerns above immediate human needs and long-term economic progress. Government officials are under pressure from both potential gainers and losers to do something about the siting of LULUs. While it is often clear that there is a need for many of these facilities, it is apparent to those who have followed these controversies closely that the process of making and implementing facility siting decisions is often unfair and unproductive. Many of the groups most directly affected are not given a meaningful opportunity to get involved in the process until it's too late to affect the outcome. Technical considerations are sometimes given short shrift while political priorities are served. Some neighborhoods are occasionally asked to accept far more than their fair share of LULUs, while promises regarding the mitigation of adverse impacts are not always kept. Quite often, fmancial constraints or scheduling deadlines are used as excuses to cut off public debate.

Impacts of a sanitary landfill: Spatial and non-spatial effects on the surrounding community

The growing public concern over LULUs (locally unwanted land uses) and the resulting opposition to the location of sanitary landfills has become the most significant deterrent to siting new facilities. This paper examines community response to an existing, sanitary landfill located in Charlotte, North Carolina U.S.A. The focus of the research is an examination of the salience of individual landfill impacts and the spatial character of these effects. The notion of a spatial externality field surrounding the landfill is tested through a survey of neighborhood residents regarding 11 specific landfill impacts. The respondents' proximity to the landfill and location along a roadway are used to organize and analyse the survey findings. Statistical analysis of the data revealed that proximity does influence community response to some landfill impacts, especialy in situ and sensory-related effects. Therefore there is a recognizable spatial dimension to landfull externalities. However, a larger number of impacts and those which are perceived as most serious were non-spatial. The location along a roadway leading to the study area was a more valuable predictor of community concern. The potential policy related implications of these findings are briefly discussed.

Neighbourhood attitudes towards a sanitary landfill: a North Carolina study

Although locational conflict surrounding the siting and operation of sanitary landfills has dramatically increased in the USA, research on community response to LULUs (locally unwanted land uses) remains meagre. This paper reports on the attitudes of neighbours living within 4800m (3 miles) of a publicly operated landfill in Charlotte, North Carolina. The study findings indicate a strong measure of satisfaction with the operation of the facility, but show some concerns over the specific effects of the facility. Among the impacts transportation, economic and some in situ consequences produce the greatest anxiety. As with other LULUs, a spatial externality field surrounds the landfill for certain types of impacts. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potential application of the research findings for landfill site planning.