IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v3y1983i4p255-263.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

LP/HC and LULUs: The Political Uses of Risk Analysis in Land‐Use Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Frank J. Popper

Abstract

This paper examines how LP/HC (low‐probability/high‐consequence) risk analysis is used in planning for locally unwanted land uses, or LULUs. LULUs are development projects that are predictably objectionable to many of their neighbors. Examples are nuclear power plants, hazardous waste facilities, refineries, and airports. The paper begins by elaborating the idea of LULUs, focussing on those whose planning typically requires or invokes some form of LP/HC risk analysis. It then discusses how land planning and planners actually use the LP/HC approach to deal with LULUs. It argues that in practice land‐use planners and their associates employ a concept of risk different from that of economists, scientists, and engineers and more like that of political decision‐makers and the public at large. It concludes with a political interpretation that offers some suggestions for productively reducing this divergence in the treatment of LULUs that pose LP/HC risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank J. Popper, 1983. "LP/HC and LULUs: The Political Uses of Risk Analysis in Land‐Use Planning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(4), pages 255-263, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:3:y:1983:i:4:p:255-263
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1983.tb01394.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1983.tb01394.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1983.tb01394.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Quah Euston & Iuldashov Nursultan, 2020. "Why CBA and NIMBY Syndrome Are Important Challenges to China’s BRI?," Journal of Asian Economic Integration, , vol. 2(1), pages 97-114, April.
    2. Rumbach, Andrew & Sullivan, Esther & McMullen, Shelley & Makarewicz, Carrie, 2022. "You don’t need zoning to be exclusionary: Manufactured home parks, land-use regulations and housing segregation in the Houston metropolitan area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    3. E Quah & K C Tan, 1998. "The Siting Problem of Nimby Facilities: Cost – Benefit Analysis and Auction Mechanisms," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 16(3), pages 255-264, June.

    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:wly:riskan:v:3:y:1983:i:4:p:255-263. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.