The siting of large industrial facilities represents a difficult planning problem. Despite decades of experience and research on siting, many of the same patterns of conflict persist. We focus on four factors drawn largely from the study of social movements—threat, political opportunity, resources and appropriation, and loss of trust—to explain the mobilization efforts of project opponents in two cases of attempts to site liquefied natural gas terminals in California. Findings from these cases indicate that either a significant endowment of resources or a combination of threat and political opportunity is important for mobilization.
Aldrich, D.P.2008. Site fights: Divisive facilities and civil society in Japan and the West. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
2.
Almeida, P.D.2003. Opportunity organizations and threat-induced contention: Protest Waves In Authoritarian Settings. American Journal of Sociology109 (2): 345-400.
3.
Babbie, E.1983. The practice of social research. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wasdworth.
4.
Birkland, T.A.1998. Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting . Journal of Public Policy18 (1): 22.
5.
Boholm, A., ed. 2004. Facility siting: Risk, power, and identity in land use planning. Toronto, CA: Earthscan Canada.
6.
Buechler, S.M.2007. The strange career of strain and breakdown theories of collective action. In Blackwell companion to social movements , ed. D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, and H. Kriesi.Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
7.
California Air Resouces Board.2007. Calfornia refineries. August 22. http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/carefinery/carefinery.htm (accessed December 15, 2008).
8.
Carmin, J.2003. Resources, opportunities and local environmental action in the democratic transition and early consolidation periods of the Czech Republic. Environmental Politics12 (3): 42-64.
9.
Davidoff, P.1973. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. In A reader in planning theory, ed. A. Faludi.Oxford, UK: Pergamon .
10.
Dear, M.1992. Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association58 (3): 288.
11.
Devlin, J.F., and N.T. Yap.2008. Contentious politics in environmental assessment: Blocked projects and winning coalitions. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal26 (1): 17-27.
12.
Diani, M., and H.-A. Van der Heijden.1994. Anti-nuclear movements across states: Explaining patterns of development. In States and anti-nuclear movements, ed. H. Flam.Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
13.
Easton, R.1970. Black tide: The Santa Barbara oil spill and its consequences . New York: Delacorte .
14.
EDAW, Inc.2006. Energy background report: Solano County general plan update. Fairfield, CA : County of Solano.
15.
Eisinger, P.K.1973. The conditions of protest behavior inAmerican cities. American Political Science Review67:11-28.
16.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.2009 . Liquefied natural gas. June 24. http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng.asp (accessed September 10, 2009).
17.
Flam, H.1994. States and anti-nuclear movements. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
18.
Freudenburg, W.R.2004. Can we learn from failure? Examining US experiences with nuclear repository siting. Journal of Risk Research7 (2): 153-169.
19.
Frey, B.S., and F. Oberholzer-Gee .1996. Fair siting procedures: An empirical analysis of their importance and characteristics. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management15 (3): 24.
20.
Gallagher, L., S. Ferreira, and F. Convery.2008. Host community attitudes towards solid waste landfill infrastructure: Comprehension before compensation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management51 (2): 233-57.
21.
Gamson, W.A., B. Fireman, and S. Rytina.1982. Encounters with unjust authority. Dorsey Series in Sociology. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
22.
Gray, V.2002. Who asked us?Vallejo Times-Herald , May 14.
23.
Haggett, C.2008. Over the sea and far away? A consideration of the planning, politics and public perception of offshore wind farms. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning10 (3): 289-306.
24.
Herdt, T.2005. Governor wants LNG site off Oxnard. Ventura County Star, June 24.
25.
Hunter, S., and K.M. Leyden.1995. Beyond NIMBY: Explaining opposition to hazardous waste facilities. Policy Studies Journal23 (4): 601-604.
26.
Kitschelt, H.1986. Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science16:57-85.
27.
Kraft, M.E., and B.B. Clary.1991. Citizen participation and the Nimby Syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal. The Western Political Quarterly44 (2): 299-328.
28.
Kunreuther, H., and J.W. Lathrop. 1981. Siting hazardous facilities: Lessons from LNG . Risk Analysis1 (4): 289-302.
29.
Kunreuther, H., L.E. Susskind, and T. Aarts.1993. The facility siting credo: Guidelines for an effective facility siting process. University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, Risk and Decision Processes Center.
30.
Laetz, H.2005. Australian minister in "a snit" over LNG terminal . Malibu Times, August 31.
31.
Lesbirel, S.H.1998. NIMBY politics in Japan: Energy siting and the management of environmental conflict. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
32.
Lesbirel, S. H., and D. Shaw, eds. 2005. Managing conflict in facility siting: An international comparison. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
33.
Lindquist, D.2004. Liquid natural gas on the pacific coast: Nature vs. natural gas in Baja California. California Coast & Ocean20 (3): 30-33.
34.
LNG Health and Safety Committee of the Disaster Council.2003. Liquefied natural gas in Vallejo: Health and safety issues . Vallejo, CA: LNG Health and Safety Committee of the Disaster Council.
35.
Lober, D.J.1995. Why protest? Public behavioral and attitudinal response to siting a waste disposal facility. Policy Studies Journal23 (3): 499-519.
36.
Lofland, J., and L.H. Lofland.1995. Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Boston: Wadsworth.
37.
McAdam, D.1982/1999. Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
McAdam, D.1996. Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions . In Comparative perspectives in social movements , ed. D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, and M. N. Zald. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
McAdam, D., S. Tarrow, and C. Tilly.2001. Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
McCarthy, J.D., and M.N. Zald.1977. Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. America Journal of Sociology82 (6): 1212-41.
41.
McPhail, C.1971. Civil disorder participation: A critical examination of recent research. American Sociological Review36:1058-73.
42.
Meyer, D.2004. Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology30:125-45.
43.
Molotch, H.1970. Oil in Santa Barbara and power in America. Sociological Inquiry40 (1): 131-45.
44.
Molotch, H., W.R. Freudenburg, and K.E. Paulsen.2000. History repeats itself, but how? City character, urban tradition, and the accomplishment of place. American Sociological Review65 (6): 791-823.
45.
Pidgeon, N., R.E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic.2003. The social amplification of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
46.
Rabinovitz, F.1973. Politics, personality and planning. In A reader in planning theory, ed. A. Faludi.Oxford, UK: Pergamon .
47.
Ragin, C.C.2008. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48.
Rihoux, B., and C. C. Ragin, eds. 2009. Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques, applied social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
Schively, C.2007. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature21 (3): 255-66.
50.
Schmidt, S.2008. From pro-growth to slow-growth in suburban New Jersey . Journal of Planning Education and Research27 (3): 306-18.
51.
Schneider, M., and P. Teske.1992. Toward a theory of the political entrepreneur: Evidence from local government. American Political Science Review86 (3): 737-47.
52.
Sherman, D.J.2004. Not here, not there, not anywhere: The federal, state and local politics of low-level radiactive waste disposal in the United States, 1979-1999. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
53.
Slovic, P.2000. The perception of risk. Edited by R. E. Lofstedt.Risk, Society and Policy Series . London: Earthscan.
54.
Smith, E.R.A.N., and M. Marquez.2000. The other side of the NIMBY Syndrome . Society and Natural Resources13 (3): 273-280.
55.
Spain, D.1993. Been-heres versus come-heres: Negotiating conflicting community identities. Journal of the American Planning Association59 (2): 156.
56.
State Lands Commission.2007. Calendar item no. 02 for Cabrillo Port final EIS/EIR hearing. Sacramento, CA: State Lands Commission.
57.
Tarrow, S.1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics . Edited by P. Lange.Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
58.
Turner, R.H., and L.M. Killian.1972. Collective behavior. 2nd ed. East Rutherford, NJ: Prentice Hall.
59.
Urban Land Institute.1994. Mare Island Naval Shipyard Vallejo, California: An evaluation of reuse and economic development opportunities. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
60.
Vajjhala, S.P., and P.S. Fischbeck.2006. Quantifying siting difficulty: A case study of U.S. transmission line siting. Washington, DC : Resources for the Future.
61.
Vallejo City Council.2002. LNG study session. August 6. Vallejo, CA: Vallejo City Council.
62.
Vallejoans for Community Planned Renewal.2002. Strategic communication plan. Vallejo, CA: Vallejoans for Community Planned Renewal.
63.
Walsh, E.J., R.H. Warland, and D.C. Smith.1997. Don’t burn it here: Grassroots challenges to trash incinerators. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
64.
Weiss, R.S.1994. Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.
65.
York, A.G.2002. The end of the beginning: The battle over the LCP . Malibu Times, September 17.
66.
Zeiss, C.C.1998. Noxious facilities and host community response: A causal framework. Journal of Environmental Health61 (1): 18-29.
