FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2091567681> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2091567681 endingPage "124" @default.
• W2091567681 startingPage "112" @default.
• W2091567681 abstract "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..." @default.
• W2091567681 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2091567681 creator A5026516588 @default.
• W2091567681 date "1998-01-01" @default.
• W2091567681 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2091567681 title "Accepting a Locally Unwanted Land USE: Illuminating the Decision Process with a Neural Network" @default.
• W2091567681 cites W104314666 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W129236409 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W1996556657 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W1998069288 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2003357516 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2003881961 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2007726294 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2007866062 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2023201792 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2038449262 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2040859330 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2057255523 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2061829248 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2066416367 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2067076426 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2073066631 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2073686855 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2083714550 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2089222505 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2110015790 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2112410722 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2164269927 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2167806386 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2221471740 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W2482161197 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W3022837692 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W3093049192 @default.
• W2091567681 cites W65205223 @default.
• W2091567681 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.1998.0013" @default.
• W2091567681 hasPublicationYear "1998" @default.
• W2091567681 type Work @default.
• W2091567681 sameAs 2091567681 @default.
• W2091567681 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2091567681 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2091567681 hasAuthorship W2091567681A5026516588 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C147176958 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C198082294 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C22507642 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C2779708316 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C4792198 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C548081761 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C58640448 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C91375879 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C10138342 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C111919701 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C127413603 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C144024400 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C144133560 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C147176958 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C149923435 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C198082294 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C205649164 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C22507642 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C2779708316 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C2908647359 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C41008148 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C4792198 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C548081761 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C58640448 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C91375879 @default.
• W2091567681 hasConceptScore W2091567681C98045186 @default.
• W2091567681 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2091567681 hasLocation W20915676811 @default.
• W2091567681 hasOpenAccess W2091567681 @default.
• W2091567681 hasPrimaryLocation W20915676811 @default.
• W2091567681 hasRelatedWork W1970128687 @default.
• W2091567681 hasRelatedWork W1984799408 @default.
• W2091567681 hasRelatedWork W2058645496 @default.
• W2091567681 hasRelatedWork W2272274483 @default.
• W2091567681 hasRelatedWork W2340984469 @default.
• W2091567681 hasRelatedWork W2498605691 @default.
• W2091567681 hasRelatedWork W2593454616 @default.
• W2091567681 hasRelatedWork W3124768220 @default.
• W2091567681 hasRelatedWork W4300020486 @default.
• W2091567681 hasRelatedWork W4307935838 @default.
• W2091567681 hasVolume "38" @default.
• W2091567681 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2091567681 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2091567681 magId "2091567681" @default.
• W2091567681 workType "article" @default.