DOI: 10.1515/irsr-2011-0020

IRSR INTERNATIONAL REVIEW of SOCIAL RESEARCH Volume 1, Issue 3, October 2011, 53-72 International Review of Social Research Among ‘Bananas’ and ‘Backyards’: A Statistical Analysis of the Effect of Risk and Scientific Literacy on the Attitude towards a Waste Co-incinerator in

Giuseppe TIPALDO• University of

Abstract: This paper, based on a social impact research and the possible NIMBY-effect of the Turin, Italy, co-incinerator, deals with risk perception, scientific literacy and their influence on the attitude towards high-tech and controversial industrial plants. The paper argues that plant and infrastructure settlements having a substantial ecological impact represent a highly sophisticated and diverse social phenomenon in which risk plays an important but not unique role. Taking into account some important concomitant variables (such as trust, mass media use, political culture in decision-making processes), it is first of all shown that risk is not a mono-dimensional concept, as assumed by the psychometric tradition, and that two dimensions of the concept are to be found. The collective dimension has a positive monotonic association with a critical attitude towards the co-incinerator, whereas the individual dimension has an unexpectedly negative correlation, which will be explained in further detail. It also demonstrates that scientific literacy has no statistical significance for attitude in our model, confirming the well-known limits of the so called ‘knowledge deficit’ model.

Keywords: NIMBY, BANANA, risk, incinerators, urban waste, scientific literacy, knowledge deficit, trust.

Introduction Gerbido area of Turin, , Italy. Basically, it deals with risk perception This paper is derived from a still-on- and people’s scientific literacy, and on going research program started in 2007 their influence on the attitude towards on the social impact of the co-incinerator high-tech and controversial industrial presently under construction in the plants, an increasingly relevant theme,

•e-mail: [email protected]. Giuseppe Tipaldo is PhD in Comparative Social Research and holds a Post Doc research position in Environmental Controversies and Conflicts within the Social Science Department of the University of Turin, Italy. He is Contract Professor of Content Analysis Techniques and Sociology of Communication, and Assistant Professor of Methodology of Social Research and Environmental Communication. Together with his research group, he has developed a wide project on the social impact of a co-incinerator in Turin, which is presently resulting in a number of articles focused on the study of uncertainty, risk, social representations, media coverage, civic culture, trust and science-society relations. © University of Bucharest, October 2011 54 | IRSR Volume 1, Issue 3, October 2011 and not only within the social science Not In My Backyard) ‘is a malevolent field. label reflecting the viewpoint of the ddOver the last two decades, many stakeholders of the project. In fact, it studies have focused their attention on suggests that opposition groups are the phenomenon of local opposition animated by the self-centeredness of to ‘useful but unwanted’ plant and those who do not want a particular infrastructure programs in many (industrial) plant near their house, but parts of the world, such as in Canada also who would not do anything if such and the United States (Rasmussen, plant was to be built near someone 1992; Seeliger, 1994; McGurty, 1997; else’s house’ (Bobbio and Zeppetella, Fischel, 2001; Blake, 2004; Saha and 1999: 186). The variant called LULU Mohai, 2005), France (Lafaye and (Locally Unwanted Land Use) is Thévenot, 1993; Lolive, 1997; Trom, actually more neutral (Schively, 2007), 1999; Catherin, 2000; Rootes 2003), whereas the acronym BANANA Germany (Weidner, 1998; Rootes, (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere 2003), Greece (Rootes, 2003), Great Near Anybody) is probably more Britain (Welsh, 1993; Rootes, 2003), suitable to describe a relatively new Spain (Muñoz, Durán and García, and interesting protest and opposition 1999; Rootes, 2003), Sweden (Rootes, trend exceeding local community 2003) and Japan (Lesbirel, 1998). interests, refusing technologies or ddLooking at the Italian context then, programs aside from where they will mass media attention and public be settled. opinion have been drawn to projects ddNo matter what label is used, experts such as the nuclear waste storage and other institutional entities (local plant for Scanzano Ionico, the High politicians, industrial lobbyists and Speed Train (TAV) in the Val di Susa mass media) often mischaracterize this area, the Dal Molin American Airport public opposition as an unjustifiable base near Vicenza and, most of all, and irrational fear of techno-scientific the waste management catastrophe in products and a lack of civic culture. Naples. These concerns, with limited According to them, if citizens were scrutiny by the Italian media, are more literate on technical and scientific new and relatively rare in Italy when issues, they would inevitably conclude compared to similar events occurring that experts are right and that their over decades in North America and skewed risk perception is not plausible. Northern Europe [Bobbio e Zeppetella ddUsing the case study of the Turin 1999: 186], but they are not unique. co-incinerator project, this paper ddAccording to the NIMBY Forum explores the concept of risk, showing Association’s 6th Survey (year 2011)1, its multidimensional scope, and then public opinion in Italy is currently segues into a statistical analysis of protesting against 320 infrastructure the possible correlation between risk and plant programs. The expression dimensions and scientific knowledge ‘NIMBY syndrome’ has been applied on the one side, and attitudes towards to what is considered to be self-serving local infrastructure programs on the and to local interests that motivate other side. As shown later (see par. 1), this opposition. NIMBY (acronym of several independent variables were GIUSEPPE TIPALDO Among ‘Bananas’ and ‘Backyards’| 55 included in the models used to control arises from social forces closely linked some important effects influencing risk to cultural and communicational perception and scientific knowledge. interests, namely: risk perception, trust, mass media exposure, scientific literacy (at least, science communication and Theoretical Framework education) and political culture in decision-making strategies. Over the last decades, local ddThe concept of risk, especially as opposition to the so-called ‘mega- applied to the environment, presents building’ programs has become one many difficulties. The discussion of the most discussed issues in many is vast, complex and continuously public agendas. More research was evolving, particularly when considering generated by public attention as new its relatively new appearance within environmental conflicts sprang up sociological thought. Research throughout many countries. paths are numerous and showed the ddIn the social science domain, the impossibility of enclosing a problem main studies can be identified and with relatively indefinable borders divided into four groups: within a consolidated and unitary plan d1)dsocial movements and urban (Renn, 1992; De Marchi, Pellizzoni conflicts studies (Lolive, 1997; della and Ungaro, 2001; Lewicki, Gray and Porta, Kriesi and Rucht, 1999; Lahusen, Elliot, 2003). 1999; Lewicki, Gray and Elliot, 2003; ddIt is well-known that risk study Rootes, 2003; della Porta and Diani, from the social science point of view 2004; della Porta, 2006; della Porta and started with the observation that the Piazza, 2008); rationalistic paradigm was insufficient d2)dworks on public deliberation and for the task. The economic field gave citizens juries (Weidner, 1998; Bobbio birth to this paradigm, which then grew and Zeppetella, 1999; Bobbio, 2002; into the medical science area and more Lewanski, 2006); specifically into epidemiology. In this d3)dtraditional analysis of geography, regard, Luhmann (1991: 13) writes: urbanism and territory (Segre and ‘If we enquire into the rationalist Dansero, 1996; Lewicki, Gray and perception of the problem, we get a Elliot, 2003; Elliott, 2007; Bobbio and simple and convincing answer: losses Dansero, 2008); are to be avoided as far as possible. Since d4)dpsycho-social school of this maxim alone restrict the scope risk perception analysis (Slovic, of action too much, one does have to Lichtenstein and Fischhoff, 1979, permit, and that means ’to risk’, actions 1985; Slovic 1992, 2000). that can, in principle, cause avoidable ddWorks focusing on communication loss, provided that the estimate of and culture variables are unexpectedly the possible degree of loss appears missing, and these variables will form acceptable’. This concept leads to the the singular perspective presented in development of a technical approach this paper. It hypothesizes that the to risk2, which ‘aims at anticipating phenomenon of social opposition to potential losses, and calculating the industrial or infrastructure projects expected frequency and distribution. 56 | IRSR Volume 1, Issue 3, October 2011

It then uses this information to avoid person would probably have a negative such losses, minimize them or sub- attitude towards it, and vice versa. divide their costs among subjects and Although not asserting such a causal various institutions’ (Bucchi, 1999: 13 link to be false, this paper argues that – translation mine). Various research it is not to be considered always true contributions to the social science field ex ante, as long as risk is held to be oppose the rationalist view, which does a one-dimensional concept; both not consider the human (and therefore assumptions need to be proved and the social) component as one of the salient NIMBY-BANANA phenomena are variables related to risk definition. probably one of today’s best research The psychometric tradition helps us fields for empirically updating to introduce the theme of perception, scientific knowledge on risk analysis. while the works of Beck (1986), Giddens (1990) and Luhmann (1991), whose approaches on risk study are Risk and Attitudes: What Else? of an extreme importance and variety, provide the bases for an analysis of The critical analysis of the second the role played by trust in political hypothesis (the one dealing with institutions, expertise and the mass the causal effect between risk and media. attitude) entails relativizing risk as ddDespite their will to call the tradition it relates to a series of concomitant of the so-called ‘hard sciences’ into factors which could significantly question, most of the key works on risk influence the attitude towards a perception and risk communication hazard, as explained by many studies3. – such as those carried out by Slovic In addition, the examination of some and his followers over the last 30 years of the intervening variables is useful (Slovic, Lichtenstein and Fischhoff, in advancing alternative hypothesis 1979, 1985; Slovic, 1992, 2000) – still on the first traditional psychometric do not critically analyse two implicit assumptions, namely the discounted and rather problematic aspects: 1) risk idea of the mono-dimensionality of can be treated as a unidimensional the risk concept in the human sciences concept; 2) a positive association field (this topic will be discussed later). between risk and attitude towards ddThe main reference for both points is hazards always exists. The point is (as set by the European school of sociology, taught by the psychometric approach) which places the study on risk within to determine which psychological the overall change of contemporary factors could influence the perception society, set forth by Beck as a new and mechanism and possibly modify ‘reflexive modernity’ (1986: 14 and the slope of the line describing the whole chapter VII ) and by others, geometrically the link between attitude such as Giddens (1990: 149), as the late and perception. The main deductive ‘radicalised modernity’. In addition statement from psychometric studies to these important contributions, the on risk is that if someone were to German sociologist Niklas Luhmann have a high risk perception about focuses on risk from the viewpoint of something (commonly, a hazard), that cultural and communicative processes. GIUSEPPE TIPALDO Among ‘Bananas’ and ‘Backyards’| 57

He argues that risk is a product of or co-incinerator for urban waste). modernity, where decisions have to be That is why we have included the role taken in time and knowledge-limited of trust as it relates to techno-scientific contexts. Therefore, risk is related expertise in this study. Besides, we to the decline of ‘hope in rationality’ have also included trust towards non- (Luhmann, 1991: 44). mainstream scientific informational ddSpeaking of decision-making allows sources which, however, have been us to introduce a strongly linked closely followed in Italy, particularly aspect of risk, that is trust towards over the last years. In the first instance, governmental institution and techno- explicit reference was made to Umberto scientific expertise involved in the Veronesi, ex-Minister of Health and NIMBY-BANANA phenomena. famous Milanese oncologist and man Despite their being characterized by of science, who has frequently come ‘expectations which can be frustrated out in favour of co-incinerators both or cast down’ (Giddens, 1990: 31), in the press and on television. In the at a substantive level, there are two second instance, explicit reference is different types of trust. In institutional made to comedian Beppe Grillo, who trust, the choice requirement takes is the author of the most widely read a central position, that is, the fact and influential Italian blog, where that possible alternatives are taken he often writes about and advocates into consideration, including the opinions fiercely adverse to waste avoidance of running the risk of a incineration and the official position delusion. On the other hand, science taken by traditional science. and technique offer a different type ddComing back to trust in political of trust, a confidence expressing institutions, not all of them are at the faith in the ‘correctness of abstract same emotive distance from citizens. In principles’ (Giddens, 1990: 34). On the particular, it is not difficult to imagine other side, mass media often portray that local governance actors (regions, techno-science as a set of dogmatic, provinces and municipalities) may be universal and incontrovertible truths interested in having closer relationships (Einsiedel, 1992). Likewise, scientists with the ‘receivers’ of their policies, in and technologists – the personification order for citizens to develop a greater of abstract erudition – are invested sense of trusting familiarity (Sciolla, with the mystical aura and prestige 2004: 191)4. Greater proficiency deriving from their disciplines. It is and familiarity in the relationships therefore likely that trust in particularly with local institutions can lead to the renowned and well-known exponents perception that a significant influence of the techno-scientific universe can be exerted on local policies5. The might condition the attitude towards reverse of the medal is the fact that a determined issue, especially when local institutions may feel the effects the individual cognitive horizon is of the socio-economic and cultural affected by an intrinsic scarcity of context in which they act and express information about complex themes themselves (ibidem), and the theme (i.e. biotechnologies, bioethics, but of large public projects represents an also the installation of a nuclear plant interesting subject for examination. 58 | IRSR Volume 1, Issue 3, October 2011

One can therefore presume that hit the headlines all over the world. the attitude of a citizen towards a Few weeks before national elections, ‘megabuilding’ project might in some the present Prime Minister used manner be influenced by his judgement intense television and press coverage of the local institutions presenting such to promise that, thanks to the opening project. Also this control variable was of new landfills and the construction placed in the regression model, in order of the Acerra co-incinerator, the to avoid distorting the observation. emergency would have been solved ddMoving on with the examination of within six months6. With the exception the theoretical frame at the very heart of of a few isolated cases, messages from this work, a leitmotif in social research traditional media (and in particular, on risk can be found, that is, the role television) contributed greatly to played by mass media in the gap spreading the idea that co-incinerators between ‘perceived’ risk and so-called could be the key for resolving the waste ‘real’ risk. Empirical studies have disposal problem, while neglecting to profusely demonstrated that public point out possible alternatives to this opinion bases its own risk evaluation technology7. These points, however, not on statistical predictions, but on were widely discussed on the Internet8. qualitative characteristics depending So, the use of television alone as an on the public images of the risk information source prevented many source, because, as Luhmann observes, citizens from having an overall view ‘one behaves according to his/her of the issue, and their perspective expectations for the pertinent reference could differ greatly from the one of group, or – either in conformity with or citizens who relied on mixed media in breach of prevailing opinion in terms or largely used new media. To prevent of one’s socialization’ (Luhmann, such differences from influencing 1991: 3). Moreover, in environmental the subject of our analysis, it seemed risk situations, mass media narrations appropriate to keep the possible effect are characterized by the proclivity to of the forms of media exposition under over-emphasize news, creating levels control. of communication that increase in ddThe last two variables in the model intensity, marked by sensationalism and are scientific literacy and type of alarmism (Sandman, 1994; Fischhoff, political culture in the decision-making 1995). All the above-mentioned processes to solve public significant and elements can be applied to general controversial issues (a bureaucratic- tendencies at a global level, mostly dirigistic model versus a consensual- in advanced democratic countries. participating model). As we shall see, However, a brief examination of the these two aspects are apparently not waste emergency in Naples and its connected, but they actually share media coverage is required to fully some important elements. In fact, understand why and how the mass both subjects share the idea that, media variable has been included in besides blaming the Italian political this study. In 2008, during the last establishment at the local level, there electoral campaign, the photographs are at least two other elements into of Naples under tons of urban waste what we could call the ‘vocabulary of GIUSEPPE TIPALDO Among ‘Bananas’ and ‘Backyards’| 59 motives’9 for NIMBY protests: namely, strongly enough to put the project at the lay public deficiency in techno- risk11. In the light of what explained scientific knowledge and the lack of before, it is therefore plausible to civic culture in local communities. expect that anyone openly approving Practically, considering scientific the dirigistic cultural approach is more literacy means verifying empirically likely to develop a positive attitudes what has already been known in the towards megabuilding projects, in literature of sociology of science and contrast to those asking for alternative sociology of scientific knowledge as resolutions of disputes. This may ‘knowledge deficit’ model (Hilgartner, happen because dirigistic public- 1990): people are averse to and decision makers always present their suspicious of many technical and projects as useful and able per se to scientific products and fields of research assure the development of the country. because of ignorance. Had they been In order to prevent the explanatory adequately ‘educated’, they would model described in the next pages have acknowledged the position of the from suffering these influences, also experts as the proper one, abandoning the above-mentioned has been held their fear and hostility. A somewhat under control. subtle implication of knowledge deficit is that techno-scientific products are often publicly presented as good Risk: Is It A One-dimensional Concept? and useful and are never critically discussed. Consequently, a scientific In addition to relativizing the influence literacy index seems appropriate as of risk in relation to attitudes towards an additional control variable in this specific hazards, the theoretical model studying risk and its impact on framework traced so far allows us to co-incinerator attitude. In addition, pick up the first problematic nodes, that a specific model was developed to is the presumed unidimensionality of evaluate the net effect of scientific the risk concept. Unlike psychological literacy, because, although we are paradigms, risk concerns not only the fully aware of the significant limits of micro-social level. Various authors, such a paternalistic and technocratic such as Beck (1986), Giddens (1990), paradigm10, there are still no works Luhmann (1991) and Douglas (1992), focused on the NIMBY – BANANA have clarified in their works that phenomena. risk is a variable impacting also ddFinally, as explained by the civic contemporary society at the systemic deficit ‘motive’, local opposition is an level, so much as to change its internal expression of an egoistic and clannish structures when compared to the past. reaction on the part of the people It is not about the exclusion of one impacted by unwanted installations. view in favour of the other, whereas it For those backing this thesis, freeing up has to be noted that both co-exist and a similar impasse would be a dirigisme- can have a mutual influence. In other type cultural approach to decisions, words, individuals are so exposed to which provides for public force reaction sources of risk that directly question whenever any opposition party insists the individual dimension of their 60 | IRSR Volume 1, Issue 3, October 2011 preferences, such as smoking, eating Research Questions fat foods, drinking alcohol, leading a sedentary lifestyle, practising extreme The main goal of this work is to sports, keeping undesirable company analyse the association between risk and so forth. However, they also have and scientific literacy, on the one to face hazards that individuals cannot side, and the attitudes towards major- control directly, since their exposure to building projects, on the other side, risk depends in great deal on systemic through a study of the co-incineration and - usually - political decisions12. plant presently under construction in ddThis study differs from the others Turin. To this end, three hypotheses because here the definition of risk source have been put to the test, given the is not considered as an immutable statements presented in the theoretical event, but as an ever-evolving one, framework: mainly through political power and ddHypothesis 1 (H1): Risk is a media strategies. In other words, a multidimensional concept dealing single risk might be transformed into a with exposure to both individual (e.g. collective issue (as in the case of social stemming from personal choices and prescriptions on practices dealing with lifestyles) and collective hazards (e.g. health and sexuality), while a general mega-building projects). At least two problem (initially experienced as more dimensions of the concept should be being remote) might become an urgent found. issue for individuals as well. ddHypothesis 2 (H2): All intervening ddCoherently, the possible empirical variables being equal, the impact of evidence of a link between the attitude risk on the attitude towards the co- towards the Turin co-incinerator incineration plant changes because of and the individual dimension of risk the dimension under consideration. should most likely proceed in the Given the part linked to collective opposite direction when compared to hazards, a negative association the observed relation for the collective between perceived risk and favourable dimension. In other words, an increase attitude towards the project should be of the individual risk brings about observed. On the contrary, in the case a higher probability of developing of individual hazards, such a relation a positive attitude towards the co- should become positive. incinerator. As stated before, this could ddHypothesis 3 (H3): Despite the be the consequence of the fact that in the assumption of the knowledge deficit public debate which followed the waste model, scientific literacy has low or emergency in Naples, co-incineration no influence on the attitude towards has been credited as the sole solution the plant, as demonstrated by previous by the same sources which largely works in other research fields. contributed to dramatically set the waste theme as an individual risk (and therefore, a close-by issue), and not as Data and Methods a collectively generic (and therefore, more distant) problem. From the methodological point of view, this is a single-case study (Yin, 2003: GIUSEPPE TIPALDO Among ‘Bananas’ and ‘Backyards’| 61

39). The Turin case has been selected specifically providing quantitative because it is a ‘revelatory case’, data on the social impact of the Turin providing for a full investigation on a co-incinerator project; the panel is a phenomenon previously ‘inaccessible statistically representative sample of to scientific investigation’ (Yin, 2003: the South-West Turin Metropolitan 42). Such statement can be supported area population aged 18 or older17; the by two main elements. first wave took place in 2007 and one ddFirst of all, waste disposal projects release per year is planned. such as co-incinerators, mechanical ddAmong the three hypotheses listed biological treatment plants and landfills above, H1 has been tested using have triggered the highest number of factorial analysis on a list containing environmental conflicts in Italy13 over 18 hazards. All people interviewed the last few years. As a consequence, were asked to express their perceived waste is one of the most suitable level of risk according to a commonly fields of investigation of the NIMBY used Likert type scale. – BANANA phenomena, revealing as ddAs for the two other hypothesis, they are presently developing in Italy. the estimation method used in both Moreover, socio-political stakeholders cases is an ordinary binomial logistic in the Turin area offered full regression considering, for individuals cooperation to the research: no other I, the odds of having a favourable examples of such close partnership attitude towards the co-incineration between researchers and socio-political plant of Turin as: institutions can be currently found in  p  k NIMBY controversies in Italy.  i  = α + β ln   ∑ k X ik ddSecondly, the main local political 1− pi  k =1 institutions (e.g., the Province of α Turin and the seven municipalities where pi is the hazard of the event, ddis directly involved in the co-incineration the constant of the model, Xik is the project14) have decided to economically value of the k variable for individual i support the research program, from and β k is the unknown parameter. The the beginning of 2007 to at least the dependent variable is a categorical first year following the plant switch- variable with an assumed value of 1 for on at the end of 2013. This will allow a positive attitude towards the plant, or the research team to analyse some 0 for a negative attitude. aspects of the study in a longitudinal ddTwo separate models were calculated perspective15. to test H2, one measuring the net effect ddDespite the use of several techniques of the individual dimension of risk in the program, only second wave perception (F1), the other measuring data from the survey are presented the collective dimension (F2). In both here. The survey was carried out in cases, the variables in the theoretical late 2008 and consisted of computer- framework are considered as control assisted telephone interviews with variables in the models. a sample of 1006 respondents taken d from the MonVISO Project panel16. MonVISO is a longitudinal survey 62 | IRSR Volume 1, Issue 3, October 2011

dIn brief:  p  (H2a) ln i  = f (F1 | F2, T1, T2, T3, MM, DM, SL, SD)  1− pi 

 p  (H2a) ln i  = f (F2 | F1, T1, T2, T3, MM, DM, SL, SD)  1− pi 

where T1-3 are categorical variables and a value of 0 for those having a measuring respectively: 1) trust in local governance-deliberative sensibility. political administrations (municipality Scientific literacy (SL) is an additive and province); 2) official expertise (i.e. index, varying in a range between Italian scientist and oncologist Umberto ±7, obtained from a small test, in line Veronesi); and 3) non-mainstream with the international studies on the expertise (namely, following Italian topic18 [see, for an Italian example, opinion leader and blogger Beppe Observa 2008 - 2011]. Some socio- Grillo). MM is a dummy variable with demographic properties (such as age, value of 1 in the instance of individual sex and education) are also taken into ‘traditionalism’ in mass media practice account. for techno-scientific issues. DM is a ddFinally, H3 has been tested with one categorical variable having a value of 1 model, using SL as explanans and all for interviewees showing a preference the other features presented above as for a governmental-dirigistic culture control variables: in political decision-making processes

 p  (H3) ln i  = f (F2 | F1, T1, T2, T3, MM, DM, SL, SD)  1− pi 

Results negative one to landfills, nuclear and co-incinerator plants, high-speed train In line with risk studies, Figure 1 gives and GMOs. Generally, this factor deals a battery of potential hazards ranked with lifestyles, personal preferences in increasing order on a scale from 0 and individual exposure to (and control (no perceived risk) to 4 (maximum of) possible risk sources. The second perceived risk). factor (F2) is referred to as collective ddFactor analysis carried out on all risks because of the positive correlation the 18 items leads to a two-factor with all the hazards (industrial plants, solution (Table 1). The first factor, high-speed trains et caetera) individuals called individual risks factor (F1), cannot control directly since their risk has a positive correlation to smoking, exposure largely depends on systemic alcohol and sedentary lifestyle, and a societal and political decisions. GIUSEPPE TIPALDO Among ‘Bananas’ and ‘Backyards’| 63

Figure 1. Risk perception when facing a set of hazards (average evaluation*) Source: Author’s data.

Table 1 Factor analysis on the 18 risk items Items F1 F2 Alcohol 0.61214 0.08713 Car (travelling by) 0.67421 -0.47623 Co-incinerators -0.27699 0.35097 Cigarettes 0.79527 0.30082 Crowded bus (travelling in a) -0.00932 -0.45456 Deskbound life 0.25896 -0.02336 Fast food -0.05392 -0.16819 GMOs -0.19268 0.10445 House without alarm 0.12164 -0.31301 Landfills -0.33621 0.22354 Mobile phones -0.08798 -0.13069 Nuclear plants -0.26499 0.48979 Plane (travelling by) -0.13736 0.16237 Speculating on Stock Exchange 0.67327 -0.36789 TAV (Italian High-Speed Train) -0.17581 0.44358 Telling somebody a secret 0.03093 -0.32442 Vesuvio Volcano -0.17581 0.48979 Walking alone in the night -0.04899 -0.34735

Variance Explained by each factor Weighted Unweighted Individual Factor 3.52258 1.53661 Collective Factor 1.84120 1.29623

Source: Author’s data. 64 | IRSR Volume 1, Issue 3, October 2011 ddBivariate distribution (Table 2) attitude shows that it is consistent with seems to confirm the existence of a the assumptions made in the theoretical significant relationship between the framework: a positive association attitude towards the co-incinerator and between F1 and the attitude towards the two risk factors presented above19. the project is observed, whereas such a Moreover, the examination of the relation becomes negative if using F2. relation between each factor and the Table 2. Risk factors and attitude towards the co-incinerator cross tabulation (%), N=1006

F1 – Individual Risk Attitude Factor Negative Positive Low 45.7 54.3 High 21.2 78.8 Pearson’s R = 0.166 (α =0.000)

F2 – Collective Risk Attitude Factor Negative Positive Low 14.8 85.2 High 26.5 73.5 Pearson’s R = -0.122 (α =0.000)

Source: Author’s data. ddOf course, these results may be analysis techniques have to be applied. driven by many different elements and a Table 3 shows the results for the compositional effect cannot be rejected association between the main at this point. For instance, assuming independent variables and the favorable a technocratic perspective, one could attitude towards the co-incinerator assume that individual risk factor of Turin, as well as the effects of the depends on hazards (e.g. sedentary control variables. lifestyles, bad eating behaviours, etc.), ddModel 1 and 2 clearly show that usually underestimated by less educated both dimensions of risk have a people who tends to show ‘excessive, statistically significant effect on our unmotivated or irrational’ fear towards dependent variable. Furthermore, collective risk factors (Hansen, Holm, as previously highlighted by the Frewer, Robinson and Sandøe, 2003: bivariate analysis, both associations 111). Therefore, the outcomes shown go in reverse. Looking back to the in Table 2 can be explained through theoretical framework of this study, it education in general, or scientific should be easier to understand why the literacy in particular, rather than risk. two risk factors influence differently ddHence, in order to shed more light the attitude towards our object. on these relationships, multivariate ddAs stated above, the individual Table 3. Effects of risk (F1 and F2 model) and scientific literacy (SL model) on favourable attitude towards the co-incinerator of Turin and control variables Individual risk factor (F1) model Collective risk factor (F2) model Scientific literacy (SL) model SE SE SE F1 (individual risk factor) 1.702*** 0.117 1.803*** 0.121 F2 (collective risk factor) 0.576*** 0.143 0.548*** 0.142 T1 (trust in local political 1.715* 0.193 1.861** 0.193 1.824* 0.197 administrations) T2 (trust in official expertise) 1.308* 0.092 1.349** 0.091 1.303++ 0.093 T3 (trust in non-mainstream 0.695*** 0.100 0.725** 0.101 0.737+ 0.102 expertise) MM (traditionalism in mass 1.397* 0.133 1.457* 0.132 1.457+++ 0.134 media practice) GIUSEPPE TIPALDO DM (government culture in 3.213*** 0.161 3.151*** 0.162 2.865*** 0.164 decision making) SL (scientific literacy) 1.049 0.040 1.074 0.040 1.064 0.041 Age 1.006 0.036 1.000 0.036 0.996 0.037 Education 0.695 0.201 0.730 0.202 0.709 0.203

Sex (male) 1.686** 0.179 1.735* 0.179 1.643+++ 0.182 Among ‘Bananas’ and‘Backyards’ Constant 2.207 0.892 2.305 0.881 2.884 0.902 N = 1006

Note: +++ p ≤ 0.05; ++ p ≤ 0.04; + p ≤ 0.03; * p ≤ 0.02; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001. Source: Author’s data. | 65 66 | IRSR Volume 1, Issue 3, October 2011 dimension of risk concerns actions and but also as having a direct impact and a practices that may not be perceived modifying power on the quality of life to be risky basically because they are of Italian citizens. the outcome of a voluntary choice, ddTherefore, the positive association or because, even though they can observed is the consequence of co- recognize a risk, individuals believe to incineration being credited as the be fully in control of its exposure and (sole) solution by the same sources to be able to decide if and when to stop. which largely contributed to the Actually, despite their dependence on establishment of the waste theme in individual will, social actors are not the national public debate not just as totally independent in the process of a collective general problem, but as an defining and redefining the preferences individual risk and, therefore, a close- that lead them to the exposure to by issue, thus urging individuals to individual risks. Indeed, in the course of look for a solution. history, institutions of power have tried ddInstead, collective risks normally to control specific attitudes, actions, make common citizens powerless. Such practices and objects by defining them risks include terrorist attacks, nuclear as socially risky because of their being power plant construction, wrong public socially inappropriate20. politics, etc., impacting on society ddThis takes us back to the theme of the at the systemic level, and which are trust in expertise, institutions and mass largely defined by local and/or national media, that is: the greater the trust in the political institutions. Therefore, source, the greater the possibility for the impossibility of an independent these messages to be deemed credible. decision and the absence of direct The first model in Table 3 shows that, individual control immediately link all other relevant variables being held the perception of collective risk to an under control, a significant relationship expectation of trust in those charged to between F1 and attitude towards the represent collective interests: the more plant is still present, and it follows positive the fiduciary expectation, the the opposite direction compared to less evident the perception of this type what technocratic approaches used of risk. The results of the analysis on to indicate: with an increase in the the effect of this second dimension of individual risk component, a rise in the risk on the attitude towards the Turin probability of developing a positive plant are reported in the second model attitude towards hazards is observed. of Table 3. Trust and other factors Summing up, empirical evidences being equal, the relationship confirms are consistent with the hypothesis of what has been already observed by evolution and change of risk source the psychometric approach, namely definition in time so that a single risk that elevated amounts of perceived may be raised to a collective topic risk result in preconditioning a more as well as a general issue (initially probable development of negative experienced as more remote) may also attitudes towards the hazard. be transformed into an urgent concern ddFinally, drawing our attention to for individuals. As explained before, model 3, no evidence of any significant that has happened in Italy with the effect of scientific literacy on attitude waste issue, presented over the last is found from the data in a multivariate years not only as a collective problem design. GIUSEPPE TIPALDO Among ‘Bananas’ and ‘Backyards’| 67

Conclusion Although this second link is definitely not surprising, given the psychometric After decades of research, social studies on risk, the existence of a risk scientists have provided solid dimension increasing positive attitude knowledge on the relationship between towards a possible hazard represents a risk and a great variety of hazards. new element in the current debate on Despite the abundance of works the topic. on NIMBY/BANANA, researches ddMoreover, our analysis has also focusing on the role of risk in these shown that the assumption of a lack cases are few, while there is a lack of scientific knowledge origin for of studies on the role of scientific critical attitudes towards hazards is literacy. Statistical models taking into problematic for NIMBY cases as well account cultural and communicational as it has been already proved in other dimensions (e.g. mass media exposure, empirical fields. Indeed, no statistical trust, decision making strategies) as evidence of a significant association control variables are missing as well. between scientific literacy and attitude In this paper, the attention gave to the towards the co-incineration plant could co-incinerator of Turin, Italy, have have been found. brought some empirical evidence to the ddSumming up, the relevant number forefront. First, as hypothesized, factor of statistically significant control analysis confirmed how reductive variables in the three models may and misleading is to take risk as a represent another validation of our monolithic, one-dimensional concept starting assumption, that is, risk plays an to explain people’s attitude towards important but not unique social role in NIMBY or BANANA phenomena. people’s attitude-building mechanism Two dimensions for risk have been towards hazards. Though more studies identified: 1) an ‘individual risk’ factor are needed to confirm our findings, (briefly called F1), involving all the empirical evidence presented here may hazards depending on personal choices suggest to rethink risk analysis and its (lifestyles, alcohol drinking, smoking, paths, giving up the evident limits that etc.); and 2) a ‘collective risk’ factor, impact technocratic or paternalistic related to all the hazards that individuals explanations. On the other hand, it cannot control directly, since the risk would be more useful to fit present exposure largely depends on systemic and commonly held concepts and societal and political decisions categories of analysis to the relatively (industrial-infrastructural settlement new NIMBY – BANANA cases and projects, national-international politics, to examine more deeply other social and so forth). variables such as trust, mass media ddSecondly, binomial logistic use and political culture in decision- regressions demonstrated that these making strategies, because opposition two dimensions work in completely to megabuilding projects is a highly different ways: all other control sophisticated and still little known variables being equal, F1 showed phenomenon in which Social Sciences a solid positive association with a have a great deal of field work to do. favourable attitude towards the co- incinerator of Turin, whereas F2 showed a clearly negative attitude. 68 | IRSR Volume 1, Issue 3, October 2011

Notes thanks to a law (9/1991) that includes urban waste into renewable energy d1dhttp://www.nimbyforum.it. category. d2dAs represented by the equation d8dInternet sources are many and R = p * M, where risk equals a hazard easily traceable. It is worth referring to probability together with its magnitude. the previously quoted Beppe Grillo’s d3dHansen et al. (2003) contains a blog, the most popular in Italy and clear and systematic exposition of the probably the one opposed to this type principal contributions made in this of installation for the longest period of direction by different disciplines all time. of which within the social research d9dSee Wright Mills (1940). domain (such as psychometrics, social d10dSee, for example, Hilgartner psychology and sociology of risk), (1990) and Hansen et al. (2003), and, although focused to the empirical field for the Italian context, the works of of food risk. Bucchi and Neresini (Bucchi and d4dWhat is here said is particularly true Neresini, 2002, 2004 ; Bucchi, 2006 ; for the Italian urban and environmental Neresini, 2006). conflicts cases, whereas in other d11dThis is what has been actually European countries there are different happening for the High Speed Train types of local government and local (TAV) in the Val di Susa area, especially governance, that may actually change over the last six years. Something the relationship between citizens and similar was observed in Naples and in institutions, on the one hand, and the some areas of Campania following the shape of the conflicts, on the other. 2008 waste emergency, when the army Wide overviews of the situation in intervened to allow the construction of many European countries are offered the Acerra co-incinerator, as it is still by Rootes (2003) and Weidner (1998). doing today to guarantee truck access d5dThrough a mechanism similar to to the landfills located in areas defined trust in people strictu sensu, referring as unsuitable by citizens (some of to the Luhman’s distinction between them being protected natural areas, as ‘trust’ and ‘confidence’ (Luhmann, in Chiaiano). 1989). d12dAlthough a full comparison would d6dVideo messages of Italy’s Prime be improper, an echo of Luhman’s Minister containing these statements distinction between risk and danger are still easy to find on the Internet. may be found here. In fact, the d7dMany argumentations have been individual dimension appears to be a used to criticize incineration technology. direct ‘consequence of the decision’ Two among all have particularly drawn made by the social actor, so that ‘we can public opinion attention. One is that the speak of risk – more precisely of the risk medical community has not a unique of decision’ (Luhmann, 1991: 21-22); position about incineration’s long term on the contrary, from an individualistic epidemiological effects due to dioxins point of view, the systemic dimension and nanopowders. The second, from seems to lead to Luhmann’s concept an economical point of view, is that of danger, because the possible losses co-incinerators could not have a profit from events related to it could be balance without using state aid (CIP 6), ‘considered as having an external GIUSEPPE TIPALDO Among ‘Bananas’ and ‘Backyards’| 69 cause, that is to say, an environmental framework, such as trust, mass media cause’ (ivi: 22). However, danger in exposition, attitude towards different Luhmann’s sociological theory of risk decision-making cultures and scientific basically deals with what he calls ‘the literacy. The final part was dedicated to secrets of Nature’ and the problem the interviewees’ most relevant socio- of the ‘cosmological limits’ for demographic information. For further older civilizations [ivi: 13], whereas details on MonVISO project data set systemic events presented in this paper and its methodological aspects, see clearly depend on decisions, being www.trm.to.it. their manifestations and consequences d17dThe area encompasses the cities interpreted by individuals as such, or as of , , , the result of the ‘mysterious forces of Rivalta, Rivoli and Turin, limited to fate’ [ivi: 8]. For this reason, it seems districts 2 (Santa Rita-Mirafiori Nord) adequate to maintain the label ‘risk’ for and 10 (Mirafiori Sud), for a total the systemic dimension as well. amount of 320,884 people out of a d13dhttp://www.nimbyforum.it . population of 1,704,000 units for the d14dThey are the city of Turin and six entire . municipalities located in the South- d18dFive items dealt with general West side of the Turin metropolitan scientific issues (electrons are smaller area: Beinasco, , Grugliasco, than atoms, the sun is a planet, Orbassano, Rivalta and Rivoli. antibiotics kill both viruses and d15dA new wave on risk is scheduled at bacteria, prime numbers are always the beginning of 2012. even, the centre of the Earth is hot) d16dThe MonVISO Project and two specifically focused on co- (Monitoraggio Valutativo Impatto incineration issues (combustion in a Sociale Opera – Plant Social Impact waste incinerator must constantly be Evaluative Monitoring) is a joint fed with fuel, 250 grams of slag are research project among the Social produced for every kilogram of waste Sciences Department of the University burned in a co-incinerator). of Turin, the Trattamento Rifiuti d19dCross tabulation referred to Metropolitani s.p.a. (the company scientific literacy and attitude towards advisor for the co-incinerator) and the the plant provided a non-statistically . It aims at monitoring significant p-value (p<0.377) and the opinions around the waste-to-energy therefore has been omitted. plant presently under construction in d20dTwo different approaches in risk the Gerbido area of Turin. This paper study meet on this point: the socio- uses data from release 2.0 (year 2008), anthropologic of Mary Douglas strictly focused on risk topic. The first (1970, 1992) and the one known as and main part of the questionnaire ‘governamentality’, developed by revolved around risk perception and some British scholars moving from the social representation of 18 possible work of French philosopher Michael hazards (personal behaviours, lifestyle Foucault (see, for example, Foucault, as well as industrial settlements, energy 1978). This research tradition is briefly plants and the co-incinerator of Turin); presented and discussed, among all, by the second part focused on all the Lupton (1999). intervening variables in the theoretical 70 | IRSR Volume 1, Issue 3, October 2011

References

Beck, U. (1986) Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Shurkamp. Blake, E. (2004) When is a NIMBY not a NIMBY? NIMBYs: Self-interest groups or actors for genuine social change. Conference paper ‘Social Movements in Action’, Sydney, Jointly published by the University of New South Wales and the University of Technology Sydney. Bobbio, L. (2002) Smaltimento dei rifiuti e democrazia deliberativa.Working Papers, Torino: Università degli Studi di Torino, Dipartimento di Studi Politici. Bobbio, L. and A. Zeppetella (1999) Perché proprio qui? Grandi opere e opposizioni locali. Milano: Franco Angeli. Bobbio, L. and E. Dansero (2008). La TAV e la Valle di Susa. Geografie in competizione. Torino: Allemandi. Bucchi, M. (1999) Vino, alghe e mucche pazze: la rappresentazione televisiva delle situazioni di rischio. Roma: RAI-ERI. Bucchi, M. (2006) Scegliere il mondo che vogliamo. Cittadini, politica, tecnoscienza. Bologna: Il Mulino. Bucchi, M. and F. Neresini (2002) ‘Biotech remains unloved by the more informed’. Nature, 416 (261), 21 March. Bucchi, M. and F. Neresini (2004) ‘Why are people hostile to biotechnologies?’ Science, 304 (5678), pp. 1749. Catherin, V. (2000) La contestation des grands projets publics. Analyse microsociologique de la mobilisation des citoyens. Paris: L’Harmattan. De Marchi, B., L. Pellizzoni and D. Ungaro (2001) Il rischio ambientale Bologna: Il Mulino. della Porta, D. (2006) La politica locale. Potere, istituzioni e attori tra centro e periferia. Bologna: Il Mulino. della Porta, D. and M. Diani (2004) Movimenti senza protesta? L’ambientalismo in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino. della Porta, D., H. Kriesi and D. Rucht (1999) (eds.) Social Movements in A Globalizing World. London: McMillan. della Porta, D. and G. Piazza (2008) Le ragioni del no. Le campagne contro la TAV in Val di Susa e il Ponte sullo Stretto. Milano: Feltrinelli. Douglas, M. (1970) Purity and Danger. An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Douglas, M. (1992) Risk and Blame. Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge. Einsiedel, E. F. (1992) ‘Framing science and technology in the Canadian press’. Public Undertanding of Science, 1 (1): 89-101. Elliott, M. (2007). ‘Collaborative Decisions in a Fractured Metropolis: Institutional and Process Innovations for the Management of Conflict Resulting from Demographic Shifts and Spatial Transformation in U.S. Cities’ In Zillessen, H. and S. Kessen (eds.) Wie gestalten wir Veranderungen? Herausforderungen fur die Kommunen durch den demographischen Wandel, pp. 230-242. Berlin: Peter Lang. GIUSEPPE TIPALDO Among ‘Bananas’ and ‘Backyards’| 71

Fischel, W. A. (2001) ‘Why are there NIMBYs?’ Land Economics, 77 (1): 144-52. Fischhoff, B. (1995) ‘Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process’. Risk Analysis, 15 (2): 137-145. Foucault, M. (1978) ‘La governamentalità’. Aut-aut, 167-168: 12-29. Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Hansen, J., L. Holm, L. Frewer, P. Robinson and P. Sandøe (2003). ‘Beyond the knoledge deficit: Recemt research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks’. Appetite, 41 (2): 111-121. Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses’. Social Studies of Science, 20 (3): 519-539. Lafaye, C. and L. Thévenot (1993) ‘Une justification écologique?: Conflits dans l’aménagement de la nature’, Revue Française de Sociologie, 34 (4): 495-524. Lahusen, C. (1999) ‘International Campaigns in Context: Collective Action between the Local and the Global’ In della Porta, D., H. Kriesi and D. Rucht (eds.) Social Movements in a Globalizing World, pp. 189-205. London: McMillan. Lesbirel, S. H. (1998) NIMBY Politics in Japan. Energy Siting and the Management of Environmental Conflicts. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Lewanski, R. (2006) ‘Le “giurie di cittadini”: le prime sperimentazioni in Italia’ In Blanchetti, E. and E. Conti (eds.) Infrastrutture, energia, rifiuti: l’Italia dei ‘sì’ e l’Italia dei ‘no’, pp. 70-80. Milano: ARIS. Lewicki, R. J., B. Gray and M. Elliot (2003) (eds.) Making Sense of Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Lolive, J. (1997) ‘La montée en généralité pour sortir du Nomby. La mobilisation associative contre le TGV Méditerranée’. Politix. Revue des Sciences Sociales du Politique, 10 (39): 109-130. Luhmann, N. (1989) ‘Familiarità, confidare e fiducia’ In D. Gambetta (ed.)Le strategie della fiducia, pp. 123-140. Torino: Einaudi. Luhmann, N. (1991) Risk: A Social Theory. New York, NY: de Gruyter. Lupton, D. (1999). Risk. London: Taylor & Francis Books Ltd. - Routledge. Mills, C. W. (1940) ‘Situated actions and vocabulary of motives’. American Sociological Review, 5 (6): 904-913. Muñoz, M. Á. D., A. E. R. Durán and M. J. S. García (1999) ‘Opinión pública y problemas ambientales. El caso de las instalaciones para el tratamiento de residuos en la Comunidad de Madrid’. Reis: Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 85 (99): 251-275. Neresini, F. (2006) ‘Starting off on the wrong foot: the public perceptions of nanotechnologies and the deficit model’.Nanotechnology Perceptions, 2 (2): 189-95. Observa (2008-2011) Annuario scienza e società. Gli Italiani e la Scienza. Rapporto su scienza, tecnologia e opinione pubblica in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino. Rasmussen, T. H. (1992) ‘Not in My Backyard: The politics of siting prisons, landfills, and incinerators’.State & Local Government Review, 24 (3): 128-134. Renn, O. (1992) ‘Concepts of Risk: A Classification’ In Krimsky, S. (ed.) Social Theories of Risk, pp. 53-79. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Rootes, C. (2003) (ed.) Environmental Protest in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 72 | IRSR Volume 1, Issue 3, October 2011

Saha, R. and P. Mohai (2005) ‘Historical context and hazardous waste facility siting: Understanding temporal patterns in Michigan’. Social Problems, 52 (4): 618-648. Sandman, P. (1994) ‘Mass media and environmental risk: seven principles’. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, Summer, 251-260. 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. Sciolla, L. (2004) La sfida dei valori. Bologna: Il Mulino. Seeliger, R. (1994) Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Segre, A. and E. Dansero (1996) Politiche per l’ambiente. Dalla natura al territorio. Torino: UTET Università. Slovic, P. (1992) ‘Perception of Risk: Reflection on the Psychometric Paradigm’ In Krimsky, S. and D. Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk, pp. 117-152. New York, NY: Praeger Publications. Slovic, P. (2000) The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Slovic, P., S. Lichtenstein and B. Fischhoff (1979) ‘Images of Disaster: Perception and Acceptance of Risks from Nuclear Power’ In Goodman, G. and W. Rowe (eds.) Energy Risk Management, pp. 223-245. London: Academic Press. Slovic, P., S. Lichtenstein and B. Fischhoff (1985) ‘The Structure of Expert and Lay Perceptions’ In Covello, V. T., J. L. Mumpower, P. J. M. Stallen and V. R. R. Uppuluri (eds.), Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment and Risk Analysis, pp. 131-56. Berlin: Springer-Verlag,. Trom, D. (1999) ‘De la réfutation de l’effet NIMBY considéreé comme une pratique militante. Notes pour une approche pragmatique de l’activité revendicative’ Revue Française de Science Politique, 49 (1): 31-50. Weidner, H. (1998) (ed.) Alternative Dispute Resolution in Environmental Conflicts. Experiences in 12 Countries. Berlin: Sigma. Welsh, I. (1993) ‘The NIMBY syndrome: Its significance in the history of the nuclear debate in Britain’. The British Journal for the History of Science, 26 (1): 15-32. Yin, R. (2003) Case Study Research. Design and Methods. London: Sage Publications.