1. The Social Psychology of Opposition
to Energy Infrastructure
Presentation to Southern California Edison
Environmental Health and Safety Business Unit
By Nicholas L. Cain
8/2011
2. My Background
• BA in Politics from UC Santa Cruz; MPA in
Environmental Science and Policy from Columbia.
• I have worked for the Sierra Club, a policy think tank
and an environmental engineering firm.
• Studying for a PhD in environmental policy and world
politics at Claremont Graduate University.
3. My Research
Understanding the drivers behind opposition to
siting energy infrastructure.
– Problems with the current “NIMBY” paradigm.
• Wolsink (2000) finds only 25% of respondent (in the
Netherlands) hold NIMBY beliefs.
• Schivley (2007) argues that participants are driven by a
complex set of motives and that the NIMBY term is
often used as a pejorative.
• She also argues that practitioners should expect an
emotional response.
4. What are the drivers?
– Kasperson et al. (1992) finds that opposition is
stimulated by perceived risk.
– But there’s a gap between perceived and actual risk.
• Douglas and Wildavsky (1983) find that perceived risks are
more important than actual risks.
– People who trust institutions (“hierarchists”) usually
perceive technological risks as low.
– “Egalitarians” perceive technological risk as high.
• EPRI (2001) observes that unfamiliarity with power lines
and EMFs can increase perceived risk.
– But Tichenor et al. (1982) find little relationship between
knowledge and support for a project – although timing may
matter.
5. What are the drivers?
– Michaud and Carlisle (2004) find that older and
more educated residents are more likely to
support oil drilling.
– Jenkins-Smith (2009) finds that political
conservatives were more supportive of a nuclear
waste dump in New Mexico.
– Devine-Wright (2010) finds that “place
disruption” is key to opposition.
– But how do attitudes become actions?
6. How do attitudes become actions?
Devine-Wright finds that energy infrastructure projects present a “disruption
to place attachment” and hence a threat to individual identity.
Strong impact of social interaction at each step.
7. Summary of Drivers of Opposition to Projects Author Year
Perception of risk, opportunities for mobilization Boudet and Ortolano 2010
Trust Chiu and Lai 2009
Visual/landscape disruption Wolsink 2007
Visual impacts, institutional attributes Wolsink 2000
Symbolic meaning of landscape, trust in opposition group Devine-Wright and Howes 2010
Place attachment and place disruption, political efficacy Devine-Wright 2009
Risk perception, trust in government & opposition,
cultural disposition, age, ideology Hunter 1995
Perceptions of risk, perception of self-efficacy Upham 2009
Costs and benefits Schivley 2007
Egalitarian or individualist sentiment Smith and Carlisle 2005
Education, age, gender, risk perception Smith and Carlisle 2004
8. What can we do?
• Catherine Gross (2007) emphasizes the key role
of trust and procedural fairness.
• Gross finds that people “are more interested in
issues of process” than in the actual outcomes.
– According to Gross, people in Australia created a
community-based organization to protest a project
because they felt ignored and excluded.
– Beierle and Konisky (1999), in a study of planning in
the Great Lakes region, find that an “open, fair”
participatory process is associated with greater trust
and better policy outcomes.
10. • Beierle, T. & Konisky, D., (1999). Public participation in environmental planning
in the Great Lakes region. Resources for the Future.
• Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment
and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community
& Applied Social Psychology, 19 (6), 426-441.
• Devine-Wright, P., & Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the
protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30 (3), 271-280.
• Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and culture: an essay on the
selection of technical and environmental. University of California Press .
• EPRI (2001) Communicating with the Public About Rights-of-Way: A
Practitioner's Guide, Palo Alto, CA: 2001.
• Gross, C. (2007). Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The
application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social
acceptance. Energy Policy, 35 (5), 2727-2736.
• Schively, C. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena:
Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research. Journal of
Planning Literature, 21 (3), 255-266.
Select Bibliography
Editor's Notes
Self introduction including, personal background, education completed, education goals, career goals, CEH&S Section where you completed your internship.
