Uses of the term NIMBY in the Italian press, 1992–2008

Abstract

Uses of the term NIMBY ('not in my back yard') were analysed in the three main Italian newspapers between 1992 and 2008. In Study 1, a content analysis of 231 articles containing the term NIMBY showed two main views of the issues raised: one, aligned with the conventional view, according to which protesters are mainly driven by parochialism, emotionalism and ignorance, and the other consistent with the most innovative literature on this issue, which presents NIMBY conflicts as struggles for justice and democracy. Study 2, which adopted the discursive psychology perspective on the articles characterised by the co-occurrence of the words 'NIMBY' term and 'protest', confirmed those results. Overall, there are multiple and diverse portrayals of NIMBY conflicts in the Italian press; the idea that the press supports traditional views of such conflicts, is, in part, unfounded.Key words: NIMBY; LULU; protest; mass media; bias;T. Mannarini and M. Roccato 2 Two main approaches to describing the opposition of local communities to the siting of unwanted facilities in their locality exist among scholars, in the mass media and in public opinion (Freudenberg & Pastor, 1992). Based on Roccato, Rovere, and Bo (2008), we label them "technocratic" and "participatory".The technocratic approach tends to view such oppositions negatively, labelling them NIMBY -"not in my back yard" (Beckmann, 1973), and charging them with: ignorance about the facilities' technical features; irrationality and emotive reactions leading to anti-modern positions; and parochialism among people who refuse the building of the facilities in their locality because they are blinded by self-interest and lack a civic sense (Freudenberg & Pastor, 1992). Sometimes, these protesters are even charged with anti-democratically paralysing public policies and of being based on a "culture of veto" that brings BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) positions. Although research has disconfirmed such postulates (e.g., della Porta & Piazza, 2007;McAvoy, 1998;Wolsink, 2000), the technocratic approach is still widely taken in the scientific debate and in the mass media. 1According to the participatory approach, democracy and environmental and distributive justice are at stake in NIMBY conflicts (Carruthers, 2007). On the one hand, as concerns democracy, such conflicts are considered to be consequences of denial of the right of local citizens to participate in the decision-making process that leads to the siting of the unwanted facility in their locality (Gould, 1996;Rootes, 2007). In this light, such local protests are environmental movements structured on dense inter-organisational networks and shared collective identities (Diani & Rambaldo, 2007); furthermore, these protests stem from a democratic dilemma between representative and direct democracy and may help develop new conceptions of pluralism that are qualitatively distinct from the liberal pluralist model (Schlosberg, 2002). On the other hand, NIMBY conflicts stem from the attempt of human popu...

Balancing legal, operations and community conflict: A tale of two SME’s

“…NIMBY conflicts may be viewed as contributing to democratic land-use processes (Mannarini & Roccato, 2011), and as such having a greater role than an inevitable outcome of affected private interests (Kempton et al, 2005;Bell, Gray & Haggett, 2013;Eranti, 2017).…”

“…The literature is awash with the need for stakeholder engagement, including the advantages and the risks of not engaging. In relation to LULU and the three perspectives taken, we found discussion of the use of stakeholders' engagement by larger organisations (Roberts, 1992), a range of strategies to engage and manage NIMBY issues, (Kaya & Erol, 2016), the need for an early start (Schwarz, 2004), issues arising with stakeholder trust (Schively, 2007), the effect of the NIMBY on land use (Mannarini & Roccato, 2011), and the roles of flawed systems in promoting NIMBYism (Kraft & Clary, 1991;Groothuis & Miller, 1997).…”

The false consensus effect: A trigger of radicalization in locally unwanted land uses conflicts?

“…The anti-HSR movement was born in the early 1990s in the Susa Valley, and from the autumn 2005, when some clashes with the police occurred, progressively became more and more spread across the district area of Turin. After these episodes the movement and the HSR project gained much media visibility (Mannarini & Roccato, 2011). By the end of 2006, about two-thirds of the Susa Valley residents (62.7% according to Campana, Dallago, & Roccato, 2007, and 64.4% according to Mannarini, Roccato, Fedi, & Rovere, 2009) were against the siting of the new railway.…”

Re-visiting NIMBY: From conflicting interests to conflicting valuations

“…NIMBY and local opposition have also been related to broader ideas of democratic participation (Lolive, 1997;Trom, 1999;Neveu, 2002;Gibson, 2005;Roccato et al, 2008;Mannarini and Roccato, 2011;Richard-Ferroudji 2011;Hager and Haddad, 2015). This participation happens through voicing of concerns or critiques towards the land-uses -often argued on a more general level than purely out of the self-interest of actors -and could be interpreted two ways.…”

“…Recently, NIMBY conflicts have been understood as an integral part of democratic land-use processes (Mannarini and Roccato, 2011), and the residents acting against planning changes as being motivated by something else than purely private interests (eg. Lolive, 1997;Kempton et al, 2005;Bell et al, 2005;.…”