Underlying Concerns in Land-Use Conflicts : The role of Place- Identity in Risk Perception

Abstract In the last few years, debates over proposed usage of land for high-risk ventures have caused some debate, both in the affected communities as well as among policy makers. It has been recognized by industry and government agencies that the opinion and concerns of the local population has to be considered in order to mediate or reduce conflicts. Usually these concerns tend to focus on issues of health and safety in relation to the risk presented by different projects. It is suggested in this paper that the discussion needs to be expanded, especially if the proposed project can alter the esthetic appearance of the landscape. It is argued in this paper that the local attachment to a specific geographical place, also referred to as place-identity, needs to be included in discussions concerning industrial risks. Research in environmental psychology has suggested that place-identity is vital to a person’s identity and that this can be seen through four principles. In this paper, suggestions are made on how these four aspects of identity can be affected in a negative way if changes are made to a landscape by the introduction of a high-risk and stigmatized industrial venture.

[1]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Gender, race, and perceived risk: The 'white male' effect , 2000 .

[2]  L. Clarke.  Social Organization and Risk: Some Current Controversies , 1993 .

[3]  A. Gouldson,et al.  The battle for hearts and minds? Evolutions in organisational approaches to environmental risk communication , 2004 .

[4]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The role of risk perception for risk management , 1998 .

[5]  M. Douglas,et al.  Risk and Culture , 1983 .

[6]  M. Hidalgo,et al.  Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions , 2001 .

[7]  C. Palmer,et al.  Risk perception: an empirical study of the relationship between worldview and the risk construct. , 1996, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  P Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. , 1991, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  J. Harner.  Place Identity and Copper Mining in Sonora, Mexico , 2001 .

[10]  D. Streiner,et al.  ‘IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE IT ANY BETTER...’: RESIDENTS' REAPPRAISAL OF A LANDFILL SITE☆ , 1997 .

[11]  William J. Burns,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Applications , 1992 .

[12]  A. Irwin.  Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development , 1995 .

[13]  Karl Dake.  Myths of Nature: Culture and the Social Construction of Risk , 1992 .

[14]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Explaining risk perception: an empirical evaluation of cultural theory , 1997 .

[15]  P. Gustafson.  MEANINGS OF PLACE: EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE AND THEORETICAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS , 2001 .

[16]  Clive L. Spash,et al.  Broadening Democracy in Environmental Policy Processes , 2001 .

[17]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  Brian Wynne,et al.  May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. , 2004 .

[19]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The need for integration: risk policies require the input from experts, stakeholders and the public at large , 2001, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[20]  J Clark,et al.  Discounted knowledges: farmers» and residents» understandings of nature conservation goals and policies , 1998 .

[21]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework , 1988 .

[22]  David Uzzell,et al.  PLACE AND IDENTITY PROCESSES , 1996 .

[23]  H. Proshansky,et al.  Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self , 1983 .

[24]  P. Slovic.  Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[25]  S. Owens.  ‘Engaging the Public’: Information and Deliberation in Environmental Policy , 2000 .

[26]  S. Krimsky,et al.  Social Theories of Risk , 1992 .

[27]  T. Earle,et al.  Environmental Hazards and the Public , 1992 .

[28]  Peter M. Sandman,et al.  Hazard versus Outrage in the Public Perception of Risk , 1989 .

[29]  Ylva Uggla.  Environmental politics and the enchantment of modernity : mercury and radioactive waste disposal in Sweden , 2002 .

[30]  Katherine E. Rowan,et al.  The technical and democratic approaches to risk situations: Their appeal, limitations, and rhetorical alternative , 1994 .

[31]  Berth Danermark,et al.  The study of power mechanisms—An interactive and generative approach to a case study of Swedish urban renewal , 1991 .

[32]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Perceived risk and tampering with nature , 2000 .

[33]  William R. Freudenburg,et al.  Risky thinking: facts, values and blind spots in societal decisions about risks , 2001, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[34]  L. Warg,et al.  Gender and regional differences in risk perception: results from implementing the Seveso II Directive in Sweden , 2002 .

[35]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Lay Foibles and Expert Fables in Judgments about Risk , 1982 .

[36]  Olaf Weber,et al.  PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF COMPANY SITES , 2001 .

[37]  K. Korpela.  Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation , 1989 .

[38]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Political decisions and public risk perception , 2001, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[39]  Mirilia Bonnes,et al.  Environmental Psychology: A Psycho-social Introduction , 1995 .

[40]  P. Slovic.  Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.