Residents of Herculaneum, Missouri have been influential in shaping the management of contamination challenges resulting from the community’s proximity to the last primary lead processing plant in the United States. This paper provides a nuanced examination of two perspectives of resident activist groups involved in lead-related controversy in Herculaneum. Ethnographic data collection and storyline analysis were used to trace the evolution in local views from resembling an industrialist–environmentalist dichotomy to more compromising positions associated with ecological modernization. Implications for characterizing public environmental perspectives in the US as beginning to entertain certain aspects of the ecological modernist paradigm are discussed.
BowersTSBeckBD (2006) What is the meaning of non-linear dose-response relationships between blood lead concentrations and IQ?NeuroToxicology27: 520–524.
DunlapRE (2002) Environmental sociology: A personal perspective on its first quarter century. Organization & Environment15(1): 10–29.
4.
DunlapREVan LiereKDMertigAGJonesRE (2000) New trends in measuring environmental attitudes. Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues56(3): 425–442.
5.
FischerF (2000) Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
6.
HajerM (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
HajerM (2003) A frame in the fields: Policymaking and the reinvention of politics. In: HajerMAWagenaarH (eds) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 88–110.
8.
IrwinA (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
9.
IrwinAWynneB (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
KaplowitzMDLupiFYeboahFKThorpLG (2013) Exploring the middle ground between environmental protection and economic growth. Public Understanding of Science22(4): 413–426.
11.
KaufmanAS (2001) Do low levels of lead produce IQ loss in children? A careful examination of the literature. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology16: 303–341.
12.
KilbourneWEBeckmannSCLewisAvan DamY (2001) A multinational examination of the role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes of university students. Environment and Behavior33(2): 209–228.
13.
KillingsworthJMPalmerJS (1992) Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
14.
LanphearBPDietrichKAuingerPCoxC (2000) Cognitive deficits associated with blood lead concentrations < 10 microg/dL in US children and adolescents. Public Health Report115(6): 521–529.
15.
LeachMScoonesIWynneB (eds) (2005) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London: Zed Books.
16.
MaloneR (1995) Doe Run strikers lose jobs at smelter; Replacement workers vote out Teamsters Local. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January12, p. 1C.
17.
McNew-BirrenJ (2012) A “tragic dichotomy”: A case study of industrial lead contamination and management in a company town. In: TateWF (ed.) Research on Schools, Neighborhoods, and Communities. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 381–410.
18.
NeedlemanHL (2000) Human Lead Exposure. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Inc.
19.
SchlosbergDRinfretS (2008) Ecological modernisation, American style. Environmental Politics17(2): 254–275.
20.
ShaferWE (2006) Social paradigms and attitudes toward environmental accountability. Journal of Business Ethics65(2): 121–147.
21.
U.S. Census Bureau (2000) American FactFinder: General demographic characteristics 2000. Available at (accessed January 28, 2008): http://factfinder.census.gov
22.
WynneB (1989) Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment31(2): 10–39.
23.
WynneB (1996) Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. In: IrwinAWynneB (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–46.
