Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS

Getting closer

Nature Energy volume 6, pages 945–946 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Understanding support for or opposition to energy developments — and how it varies with proximity — is important for effective planning. A new study using public comments on a regulatory review casts further light on the geography of discourse and how it might shape action on siting energy technology.

Since the advent of the term ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY), researchers have sought to understand how proximity to many different types of development, including energy projects, shapes public perceptions and actions. Is opposition consistently more prevalent among those nearer to a proposal or do responses vary depending on the context within which the development is proposed? Is opposition mainly self-interested — aimed at protecting oneself, one’s family and one’s property from harm? Answers provided in the literature have proved mixed1.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. Konisky, D. M., Ansolabehere, S. & Carley, S. Public Opin. Q. 84, 391–418 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dokshin, F. A. Nat. Energy https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00886-7 (2021).

  3. Boudet, H. S. Nat. Energy 4, 446–455 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Freudenburg, W. R. & Gramling, R. Oil in troubled waters: perceptions, politics, and the battle over offshore drilling (SUNY Press, 1994).

  5. McAdam, D. & Boudet, H. S. Putting Social Movements in their Place: Explaining Opposition to Energy Projects in the United States, 2000–2005 (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

  6. Grimmer, J. & Stewart, B. M. Polit. Anal. 21, 267–297 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Devine-Wright, P. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19, 426–441 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Stedman, R. C. Environ. Behav. 34, 561–581 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Vorkinn, M. & Riese, H. Environ. Behav. 33, 249–263 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Batel, S. & Devine-Wright, P. Public Underst. Sci. 24, 311–325 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ellis, G., Barry, J. & Robinson, C. J. Environ. Plann. Man. 50, 517–551 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zanocco, C., Boudet, H., Clarke, C. E., Stedman, R. & Evensen, D. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7d01 (2020).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oregon State University, Sociology / School of Public Policy, Corvallis, OR, USA

    Hilary Boudet

Authors
  1. Hilary Boudet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hilary Boudet.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boudet, H. Getting closer. Nat Energy 6, 945–946 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00892-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00892-9

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing