This article presents a new way of understanding local land-use conflicts, also called NIMBY, developing from justification theory and literature from the sociology of engagements. The article builds on the multiple systems of valuation used by people to perceive local land-use cases as conflicts, following the pragmatic sociology of Boltanski and Thévenot. The conflicts are shown to be not only about conflicting interests of the residents, but also about broader conflicting systems of valuation. Empirically, land-use cases in Helsinki, Finland are analysed to show the variety of argumentation used by residents opposing land-use. Over 500 dispute letters are analysed, the vast majority of which base their argumentation on common good. About 40% also use argumentation based on individual interest. Argumentation based on close familiar affinities is rare but existing, which might be because of the type of data used in the article. The framework used allows for the non-moralizing use of the concept NIMBY when describing the conflicts.
BäcklundP. (2007). Tietämisen politiikka. Kokemuksellinen tieto kunnan hallinnassa. Helsinki, Finland: Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus.
2.
BäcklundP.KallioK. P.HäkliJ. (2014). Residents, customers or citizens? Tracing the idea of youthful participation in the context of administrative reforms in Finnish public administration. Planning Theory and Practice, 15, 311–327.
3.
BäcklundP.MäntysaloR. (2010). Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice – the case of Finland. Planning Theory, 9, 333–350.
4.
BellD.GrayT.HaggettC. (2005). The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics, 14, 460–477.
5.
BellD.GrayT.HaggettC.SwaffieldJ. (2013). Re-visiting the ‘social gap’: Public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy. Environmental Politics, 22, 115–135.
6.
BlokA.MeilvangM. L. (2014). Picturing urban green attachments: Civic activists moving between familiar and public engagements in the city. Sociology, 49, 19–37.
7.
BoltanskiL. (2011). On critique: A sociology of emancipation. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
8.
BoltanskiL.ThévenotL. (1999). The sociology of critical capacity. European Journal of Social Theory, 2, 359–377.
9.
BoltanskiL.ThévenotL. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
BotetzagiasI.KaramichasJ. (2009). Grassroots mobilisations against waste disposal sites in Greece. Environmental Politics, 18, 939–959.
11.
BucknillJ. C. (1858). Description of the New House at the Devon County Lunatic Asylum, with remarks upon the Sea Side Residence for the Insane, which was for a time established at Exmouth. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 4, 317–328.
12.
BullardR. D. (1990). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
13.
BurninghamK. (2000). Using the language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environment, 5, 55–67.
14.
BurninghamK.BarnettJ.ThrushD. (2006). The limitations of the NIMBY concept for understanding public engagement with renewable energy technologies: A literature review. Manchester, UK: School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester. Retrieved from http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism/
15.
CentemeriL. (2014). Reframing problems incommensurability in environmental conflicts through pragmatic sociology: From value pluralism to the plurality of modes of engagement with the environment. Environmental Values, 24, 299–320.
DearM. (1992). Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58, 288–300.
18.
DearM. J.TaylorS. M. (1982). Not on our street. London, UK: Pion.
19.
Devine-WrightP. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 426–441.
20.
DikenB. (2015). Critique as justification – and beyond. Sociological Review, 63, 922–939.
21.
EngelhauptE. (2008). Happy Birthday, Love Canal. Environmental Science and Technology, 86, 46–53.
22.
FeldmanS.TurnerD. (2010). Why not NIMBY?Ethics, Place and Environment, 13, 251–266.
Finnish Ministry of the Environment. (2014). Arviointi maankäyttö- ja rakennuslain toimivuudesta 2013. Suomen Ympäristö 1/ 2014. Helsinki, Finland: Ympäristöministeriö.
25.
FreudenbergW.PastorS. (1992). NIMBYs and LULUs, stalking the syndromes. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 39–61.
26.
GibsonT. A. (2005). NIMBY and the civic good. City and Community, 4, 381–401.
27.
GladarevB.LonkilaM. (2013). Justifying civic activism in Russia and Finland. Journal of Civil Society, 9, 375–390.
28.
HagerC.HaddadM. A. (Eds.). (2015). Nimby is beautiful: Cases of local activism and environmental innovation around the world. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
29.
HailaA. (2002). Suunnittelu ja kaupunkirakentaminen. In BäcklundP.HäkliJ.SchulmanH. (Eds.), Osalliset ja osaajat – Kansalaiset kaupungin suunnittelussa (pp. 92–110). Helsinki, Finland: Gaudeamus.
30.
HamiltonJ. T. (1995). Testing for environmental racism: Prejudice, profits, political power?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 14, 107–132.
31.
HogenstijnM.Van MiddelkoopD.TerlouwK. (2008). The established, the outsiders and scale strategies: Studying local power conflicts. Sociological Review, 56, 144–161.
32.
HubbardP. (2006). NIMBY by another name? A reply to Wolsink. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 92–94.
33.
InhaberH. (1992). Of LULUs, NIMBYs and NIMTOOs. Public Interest, 107, 52–64.
34.
KemptonW.FirestoneJ.LilleyJ.RouleauT.WhitakerP. (2005). The offshore wind power debate: Views from Cape Cod. Coastal Management, 33, 119–149.
35.
LafayeC.ThévenotL. (1993). Une justification écologique?: Conflits dans l’aménagement de la nature. Revue Française de Sociologie, 34, 495–524.
36.
LamontM. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 201–221.
37.
LamontM.ThévenotL. (2000). Introduction. In LamontM.ThévenotL. (Eds.), Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States (pp. 1–24). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
LoliveJ. (1997). La montée en généralité pour sortir du Nimby. La mobilisation associative contre le TGV Méditerranée. Politix, 10, 109–130.
39.
LuhtakallioE. (2012). Practicing democracy: Local activism and politics in France and Finland. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
40.
MannariniT.RoccatoM. (2011). Uses of the term NIMBY in the Italian press, 1992–2008. Environmental Politics, 20, 37–41.
41.
MoodyM.ThévenotL. (2000). Comparing models of strategy, interests, and the public good in French and American disputes. In LamontM.ThévenotL. (Eds.), Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States (pp. 273–306). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
NeveuC. (2002). Nimbys as citizens: (Re)defining the general interest. Focaal – European Journal of Anthropology, 40, 51–66.
PhiloC. (1987). ‘Not at our seaside’: Community opposition to a nineteenth century branch asylum. Area, 19, 297–302.
45.
Richard-FerroudjiA. (2011). Limites du modèle délibératif: Composer avec différents formats de participation. Politix, 24, 161–181.
46.
RoccatoM.RovereA.BoG. (2008). Interessi generali e interessi particolari. In FediA.MannariT. (Eds.), Oltre il NIMBY: La dimensione psicologico-sociale della protesta contro le opere sgradite (pp. 43–66). Milan, Italy: Angeli.
47.
RosanvallonP. (2008). Counter-democracy: Politics in the age of distrust. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Saad-SulonenJ. (2014). Combining participations: Expanding the locus of participatory e-planning by combining participatory approaches in the design of digital technology and in urban planning. Helsinki, Finland: Aalto ARTS Books.
49.
ShermanD. J. (2015). Hell no, we won’t glow! How targeted communities deployed an injustice frame to shed the NIMBY label and defeat low-level radioctive waste facilities in United States. In HagerC.HaddadM. A. (Eds.), Nimby is beautiful (pp. 87–110). New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
50.
ShumawayJ. M.JacksonR. H. (2008). Place making, hazardous waste, and the development of Tooele County, Utah. Geographical Review, 98, 433–455.
51.
StaffansA. (2012). MRL ja kansalaisten osallistuminen. Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 4/2012. Helsinki, Finland: Ympäristöministeriö.
52.
SwidlerA. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273–286.
53.
SzaszA. (1994). Ecopopulism. Toxic waste and the movement for environmental justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
54.
ThévenotL. (2007). The plurality of cognitive formats and engagements: Moving between the familiar and the public. European Journal of Social Theory, 10, 413–427.
55.
ThévenotL. (2014). Voicing concern and difference: From public spaces to common-places. European Journal of Political and Cultural Sociology, 1, 7–34.
56.
ThévenotL. (2015). Making commonality in the plural on the basis of binding engagements. In DumouchelP.GotohR. (Eds.), Social bonds as freedom: Revisiting the dichotomy of the universal and the particular (pp. 82–108). New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
57.
ThévenotL.LamontM. (2000). Conclusion: Exploring the French and American polity. In LamontM.ThévenotL. (Eds.), Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States (pp. 307–327). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58.
ThévenotL.MoodyM.LafayeC. (2000). Forms of valuing nature: Arguments and models of justification in French and American environmental disputes. In LamontM.ThévenotL. (Eds.), Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States (pp. 229–272). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
TromD. (1999). De la refutation de l’effet ‘NIMBY’ considérée comme une pratique militante: Notes pour une approche pragmatique de l’activité revendicative. Revue Française de Science Politique, 49, 31–50.
60.
WexlerM. N. (1996). A sociological framing of the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) syndrome. International Review of Modern Sociology, 26, 91–110.
61.
WolsinkM. (2006). Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 85–91.
62.
Ylä-AnttilaTuukka (in press). Familiarity as a tool of populism: Political appropriation of shared experiences and the case of Suvivirsi. Acta Sociologica.
63.
Ylä-AnttilaTuomasLuhtakallioE. (in press). Justifications analysis: Understanding moral evaluations in public debates. Sociological Research Online.
