The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place‐protective action
Abstract
The ‘NIMBY’ (Not In My Back Yard) concept is commonly used to explain public opposition to new developments near homes and communities, particularly arising from energy technologies such as wind farms or electricity pylons. Despite its common use, the concept has been extensively critiqued by social scientists as a useful concept for research and practice. Given European policy goals to increase sustainable energy supply by 2020, deepening understanding of local opposition is of both conceptual and practical importance. This paper reviews NIMBY literature and proposes an alternative framework to explain local opposition, drawing upon social and environmental psychological theory on place. Local opposition is conceived as a form of place‐protective action, which arises when new developments disrupt pre‐existing emotional attachments and threaten place‐related identity processes. Adopting a social constructivist perspective and drawing on social representation theory, a framework of place change is proposed encompassing stages of becoming aware, interpreting, evaluating, coping and acting, with each stage conceived at multiple levels of analysis, from intrapersonal to socio‐cultural. Directions for future research and potential implications of the place‐based approach for public engagement by energy policy‐makers and practitioners are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior
Stern, P. C. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175 · Cited by 8,682
Psychiatric implications of displacement: contributions from the psychology of place
(1996) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.153.12.1516 · Cited by 697 · cited 3×
“The second stage is the disruptive event itself, triggering the negative emotional consequences typical of disruption such as anxiety, grief and loss (Fried, 2000; Fullilove, 1996).”
Background
Cited by
Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?
Lewicka, M. (2011) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001 · Cited by 2,753
Energy justice: A conceptual review
Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H., & Rehner, R. (2016) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.10.004 · Cited by 2,116
Whitmarsh, L., & O'Neill, S. (2010) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003 · Cited by 1,765
Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation
Adger, W. N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N., & O'Brien, K. (2013) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1666 · Cited by 1,456
Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss
Cunsolo, A., & Ellis, N. R. (2018) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0092-2 · Cited by 1,408
Metadata
- Authors
- Devine‐Wright, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-01-05
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 426-441
- ISSN
- 1052-9284 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1298
- OpenAlex
- W2045345649
- Cited by
- 1,561
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 98.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.