Infrastructure development is essential for society’s well-being; however, projects such as nuclear power plants, waste facilities, and airports often face strong local opposition despite general support nationally. Researchers in Italy decided to explore how much experience with controversial infrastructure influences acceptance of proposed projects. Understanding this dynamic is essential for civil engineers as public resistance can lead to delays, cost overruns, or project cancellations, directly impacting infrastructure planning and delivery.
In the paper “In My Backyard or in My Country? Exploring the Social Acceptance of Controversial Infrastructure,” authors Giacomo Dei, Benito Mignacca, Enrico Iaccarino, and Giorgio Locatelli analyze data from 437 interviews in Italian communities that previously hosted nuclear power plants. They discovered that social acceptance is not only based on knowledge or risk factors but also rooted in positive memories of economic benefits, familiarity, and local identity. There was a clear generational skew with older residents favoring acceptance, while younger generations align with national skepticism. These findings highlight the importance of place-based histories and symbolic meanings in shaping attitudes toward infrastructure. Leveraging prior host sites and community relationships might be a solution for reducing opposition risks and improving project outcomes for future controversial infrastructure. Read the full paper in the Journal of Management in Engineering at https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-6970. The abstract is below.
Abstract
Prisons, nuclear power plants, and waste-to-energy facilities are examples of controversial infrastructure. The literature and the empirical evidence show that the social acceptance of local communities for controversial infrastructure is higher in sites currently occupied by similar infrastructure than in new sites. However, it is unclear if this higher acceptance remains after the controversial infrastructure has been closed. To fill this gap in knowledge, this study investigates the nuanced dynamics of social acceptance of “new” nuclear power plants in local communities surrounding “closed” nuclear power plants. In particular, this study analyzes the long-term social acceptance of controversial infrastructure through the lens of the theory of social representations. Structured interviews with 437 interviewees across local communities reveal higher social acceptance for new nuclear power plants at the local level (i.e., around closed sites) compared to the national level, driven primarily by greater acceptance among generations that directly experienced the operational phase of the plants. This higher acceptance is explained through the key processes of anchoring, objectification, cognitive polyphasia, and collective memory. Accordingly, this research highlights that social acceptance is influenced not only by technical knowledge or proximity but also by deeply embedded symbolic and historical meanings tied to past experience. Particularly, older generations exhibit sustained support due to direct exposure to the economic and social benefits of nuclear infrastructure, with limited manifestations of NIMBY syndrome. However, such acceptance is generational: while older residents anchor nuclear power to lived experience, younger generations mirror the national trends. These findings underscore the need for policymakers to engage with the symbolic and historical meanings of infrastructure. Indeed, leveraging past experiences in previously occupied sites and acting within the temporal window of collective memory can foster credible and context-sensitive development strategies.
Learn more about how to propose projects with sensitivity to community concerns in the ASCE Library: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-6970.
