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 Italy Giuseppe TIPALDO• University of Turin 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, Piedmont, 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