Coping with the “Nimby Syndrome”: Political issues related to the building of big infrastructures in liberal democracy countries
More details
Hide details
University of Genova, Italy, Department of Political Sciences
Online publication date: 2019-03-10
Publication date: 2019-03-28
Security and Defence Quarterly 2019;23(1):48–62
The location and building of big hazardous infrastructures is a typical feature of the modernization process, in all countries and epochs. Since they are usually useful for a large region but their impact is very localized, the people living around the places where these facilities are active, or where their building is planned, very often organize and perform protest activities against them.

Starting from the presentation of recent data about these issues in Italy, considered as a good example of a liberal democracy country, the article is set to discuss their social and political consequences, focusing in particular on the so-called “NIMBY syndrome”, its development and the strategies elaborated by public and private actors to cope with it.
Amato, V., 1996. Sindrome Nimby, che fare?. Gea, March-April, pp. 8-11.
Bartolomeo, M., 1996. Porte aperte a chi rema contro: far pace negoziando. ImpresaAmbiente, 3, pp. 44-49.
Beck, U., 1992. Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. Sage Publications, London -Thousand Oaks - New Dehli.
Berta, G., Manghi, B., 2006. Una Tav per partito preso. Il Mulino, n. 423, pp. 92-101.
Bettini, V., 2006. Tav: i perché del no. Utet, Turin.
Blanchetti, E., Seminario, S. (eds), 2018. L’Era del Dissenso. Osservatorio Nimby Forum,13^ ed. 2017/2018. [online]. Available from: [Accessed14 Dec 2018]Bobbio, L., Zeppetella, A. (eds), 1999. Perché proprio qui? Grandi opere e opposizionilocali. FrancoAngeli, Milan.
Bobbio, L., Zeppetella, A. (eds), 1999. Perché proprio qui? Grandi opere e opposizionilocali. FrancoAngeli, Milan.
Calafati, A.G., 2006. Dove sono le ragioni del sì? La Tav in Val di Susa nella società dellaconoscenza. Seb27, Turin.
Clark, T.N., Hoffmann-Martinot, V. (eds), 1998. The New Political Culture. WestviewPress, Boulder – Oxford.
Ferrari Occhionero, M., 1999. L’ethos della disaff ezione negli atteggiamenti politici deigiovani. In Bettin, G. (ed), Giovani e democrazia in Europa. CEDAM, Padua.
Held, D., McGrew, A., 2003. Political Power and Civil Society: A Reconfiguration?. In Held, D., McGrew, A. (eds), The Global Transformations Reader. An Introduction to the Globalization Debate. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Himmelberger, J.J., Ratick, S.J,. White, A.L., 1991. Compensation for Risks: Host CommunityBenefi ts in Siting Locally Unwanted Facilities. Environmental Management, (5)15,pp. 647-658.
Hirschmann, A.O., 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge (MA.)Massa, A., 2005. Partecipazione politica e governo locale a Genova. FrancoAngeli, Milan.
Mazmanian, D., Morell, D., 1990. “The “Nimby” Syndrome: Facility Siting and the Failureof Democratic Discourse”. In Vig, N.J., Kraft, M.E. (eds), Environmental Policy in the 1990s. CQ Press, Washington.
Freudenburg, W.R., 1984. Not in our backyards! Community action for health andenvironment. Monthly Review Press, New York.
Poirier Elliott, M.L., 1984. Improving Community Acceptance of Hazardous Waste Facilities Through Alternative Systems of Mitigating and Managing Risk. Hazardous Waste, 1, pp. 397-410.
Salanitro, U., 1991. L’Environmental mediation negli USA: uno strumento alternativo per larisoluzione dei confl itti ambientali?. Rivista giuridica dell’ambiente, 2, pp. 229-275.
Susskind, L., Cruikshank, J., 1987. Breaking the impasse. Consensual approaches toresolving public disputes. Basic Books, New York.
Vecchi, G., 1992. Superare il rifiuto. Conflitti ambientali e capacità decisionale: esperienzestraniere di management dei processi di localizzazione di infrastrutture “socialmenteindesiderate”. Il nuovo governo locale, 2, pp. 103-127.