Post on 01-Aug-2020
Volume 1
2015
Articles in this volume
Tasos Hovardas, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
Analysis: A template for addressing the social dimension in the study of socio-
scientific issues, pp. 1-12.
Evangelos Manolas, Promoting Pro-environmental Behavior: Overcoming
Barriers, pp. 13-21.
John Karamichas, Sport Mega-Event Hosting and Environmental Concern:
From Sydney to Rio, pp. 22-39.
Yiannis Moysiadis, Chrisovaladis Malesios & Iosif Botetzagias, The
impact of distance on a ‘NIMBY’ stance towards windfarms’ development, pp.
40-61.
Andreas Y. Troumbis, Disruptions in environmental sciences: tracking changes
in scientific priorities and concepts (1970-2014), pp. 62-71.
Published by: Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, 81100, Mytilene, Greece
ISSN: 2241-9829
Website: http://www.env.aegean.gr/aejes/
Editors-In-Chief
Iosif Botetzagias
University of the Aegean,
Greece
iosif@aegean.gr
Environmental Politics, Policy and
Sociology, Environmental Economics and
Management & Environmental Education
Panayiotis Dimitrakopoulos
University of the Aegean,
Greece
pdimi@env.aegean.gr
Biodiversity and Conservation, Global
Environmental Change
Athanasios Stasinakis
University of the Aegean,
Greece
astas@aegean.gr
Environmental Pollution and
Restoration, Environmental Health and
Toxicology, Global Environmental
Change
Editorial Board
Christos Akratos University of Patras, Greece
Henrik Rasmus Andersen Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
George Biskos The Cyprus Institute, Cyprus
Aleh Cherp Central European University (CEU), Hungary
Athanasios Chimis Centre for Planning and Economic Research, Greece
Konstantinos Evangelinos University of the Aegean, Greece
Angeliki Fotiadi University of Patras, Greece
Johannes Foufopoulos University of Michigan, USA
Nikos Fyllas National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Petros Gaganis University of the Aegean, Greece
Alexandros Georgopoulos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Evangelos Gerasopoulos National Observatory of Athens, Greece
Nikolaos Hatzianastassiou University of Ioannina, Greece
Nikoletta Jones Open University, UK
Olga-Ioanna Kalantzi University of the Aegean, Greece
Athanasios Kallimanis University of Patras, Greece
Editorial Board (continued)
Giorgos Kallis Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Catalunya
John Karamichas Queens’ University Belfast, UK
Elena Kazakou Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, France
Georgios Kokkoris University of the Aegean, Greece
Constantinos Korfiatis University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Effie Kostopoulou University of the Aegean, Greece
Haralampos Koutalakis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Joop de Kraker Open University, the Netherlands
Dimitra Lambropoulou Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Evangelos Manolas Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
Christos Matsoukas University of the Aegean, Greece
Myrto Petreas California Environmental Protection Agency, USA
Eftichis Sartzetakis University of Macedonia, Greece
Palanivel Sathishkumar Universiti Teknologi, Malaysia
Constantina Skanavis University of the Aegean, Greece
Dimitris Stevis Colorado State University, USA
Kostas Theodorou University of the Aegean, Greece
Nikolaos Thomaidis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Andreas Troumbis University of the Aegean, Greece
Joseph Tzanopoulos University of Kent, UK
Chloe Vlassopoulou Université de Picardie - Jules Verne (UPJV), France
Ioannis Vyrides Technical University of Cyprus, Cyprus
1
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis: A template for addressing the social dimension in the study of socio-scientific issues
Tasos Hovardas, Ph.D.
A U T H O R I N F O A B S T R A C T
Tasos Hovardas is an Adjunct
Lecturer at the Department of
Primary Education, University of
Thessaly, Greece, and at the
Department of Education,
University of Cyprus, Cyprus.
email: hovardas@ucy.ac.cy
Recent research has stressed the particularities and importance
behind the social component in the study of socio-scientific
issues (SSIs). However, teachers face difficulties when they
have to develop pedagogical plans for dealing with the social
dimension of SSIs, which mainly relate to the lack of relevant
materials and the need to provide students with decision-
making heuristics. The objective of the current paper is to
respond to these calls by presenting the template of ‘Strengths
and Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats’ (SWOT) analysis
as a tool for addressing the social component in the study of
SSIs. A pilot implementation of the template is presented,
which involved pre-service primary teachers and concentrated
on bear conservation in three NATURA 2000 sites in Central
Greece. Implications for environmental education and
education for sustainability are examined, including the contrast
between the instrumental and emancipatory approaches in
environmental education and a procedural conceptualization of
sustainability.
K E Y W O R D S (in alphabetical order): Social heterogeneity; Socio-scientific issues; Stakeholders;
Sustainability; SWOT analysis
Introduction
Socio-scientific issues (SSIs) usually appear
in the form of social dilemmas, which are
characterized by a predominant linkage to
science (Sadler 2004). Many SSIs reveal a focus
on environment/nature and these are most
frequently dealt with in environmental education
and education for sustainability (Klosterman et
al. 2012; Laws et al. 2004; Robottom 2012;
Tomas and Ritchie 2012; Van Weelie and Wals
2002). Despite the fact that the study of SSIs has
to be built on a solid scientific knowledge base
(Lewis and Leach 2006; Robottom 2012), there
is a series of ethical questions that arise in SSIs
due to multifaceted interactions between science
and society (Hovardas and Korfiatis 2011; Sadler
2004;). Therefore, among the core learning goals
in studying SSIs is the learners’ ability to form
reasoned judgments which integrate multiple
knowledge claims, stakeholder positions and
moral implications (Bell 2004; Boerwinkel et al.
2014; Carleton-Hug and Hug 2010; Lundblad et
al. 2012; Sadler and Zeidler 2004; Zemplén
2007).
Recent research has stressed the particularities
as well as the importance of the social
Tasos Hovardas, SWOT analysis of the social dimension in socio-scientific issues
2
component in the study of SSIs. Taking the
social context into account is seen as a
prerequisite for a comprehensive exploration of
SSIs (Robottom 2012). The social framing of
SSIs unravels their constructedness within
particular communities of interest and the
appropriation of scientific knowledge to serve
interests of social groups engaged in SSIs
(Simonneaux and Simonneaux 2009a). In this
direction, Robottom (2012) argued that the
scientific dimension in addressing SSIs within
environmental education or education for
sustainability discourses will always remain
insufficient as long as the social embededness of
SSIs is not properly approached. SSIs can
provide a vehicle for unraveling the
heterogeneity of the multiple, diverging or
converging, perspectives present in a society
(Bell 2004; Dobson 2003; Klosterman et al.
2012; Wals et al. 2008) and for promoting
tolerance for all possible outcomes of a radically
indeterminate democratic deliberation process,
which may result in either reaching consensus or
a respectful disagreement (Bell 2004; Jickling
and Wals 2008). Such an approach to the study
of SSIs is expected to foster public involvement
in environmental governance (Ferkany and
Whyte 2012; Simonneaux and Simonneaux
2009b).
Previous research has shown that teachers
face difficulties when they have to develop
pedagogical plans for teaching SSIs, which
mainly refer to the social dimension of SSIs
(Ekborg et al. 2013; Lee and Witz 2009).
Educators highlighted the unavailability of
relevant materials as one of the prime obstacles
hindering a comprehensive appreciation of the
social implications of SSIs (Kara 2012). There is
also a need to provide students with decision-
making heuristics, which could structure and
scaffold inquiry in the social dimension of SSIs
(Lee 2007; Levinson 2006), especially the
heterogeneity of the social field in dealing with
SSIs (Acar et al. 2010). The objective of the
current paper is to respond to these calls by
presenting the template of ‘Strengths and
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats’
(SWOT) analysis as a tool to address the social
component in the study of SSIs.
The social dimension in the study of socio-
scientific issues
The prefix ‘socio-’ in SSIs might refer to a
variety of topics, for instance, nature of science
(Lederman et al. 2014), the contingent character
of scientific knowledge and uncertainty in
science (Schinkel 2009; Wals et al. 2008).
Another aspect of the social dimension in SSIs
addresses the development of argumentation and
decision-making skills in value-based reasoning
(Acar et al. 2010; Lee 2007; Wu and Tsai 2007).
In this direction, learners have the opportunity to
follow the pathways through which the scientific
knowledge is selectively used and re-
contextualized in order to serve non-scientific
ends (Robottom 2012). An additional facet of the
social dimension in the study of SSIs refers to
inter-group relations in cases of conflict or
deliberation concerning natural resources
management (Levinson 2006; Simonneaux and
Simonneaux 2009a, b). This latter topic focuses
on the way different stakeholder groups take
position in environmental controversies or
change their position in accordance to the social
dynamics displayedat play (Hovardas 2013).
A pedagogical strategy which would focus on
social heterogeneity and social actor dynamics in
SSIs seems able to account for the context-
AEJES (2015) 1, 1-12
3
specificity of sustainability. In this regard,
sustainability is to be conceived of as a
democratic deliberation process rather than a
given end-state of society to be attained (Van
Weelie and Wals 2002; Wals and Jickling, 2002;
Wals 2010). This conceptualization aims at
fostering skills of ‘how to think’ instead of ‘what
to think’ in a top-down fashion (Day and Monroe
2000; Dobson 2003; Schinkel 2009). At this
point, two contrasting perspectives are
distinguished in environmental education and
education for sustainability. On the one side, the
instrumental perspective (teaching ‘what to
think’), which embodies transformative
objectives and directs learners’ reasoning and
behavior towards pre-determined ways of
preferred thought and action (Hailwood 2005;
Keene and Blumstein 2010; Mitchell and
Mueller 2011; Orr 1994); on the other side, the
emancipatory perspective (teaching ‘how to
think’), which wishes to respect learners’
autonomy and it abstains from fostering certain
values or attitudes and propagating certain types
of behavior (Wals et al. 2008; Zemplén 2007).
The study of the social dimension of SSIs
within the frame of the emancipatory perspective
in environmental education and education for
sustainability, rests on not imposing certain
values, attitudes or behaviors on learners.
However, formulating learning goals as well as
orchestrating and scaffolding learning activities
has to develop on an affirmative background.
The question here is how could educators
formulate learning goals and structure learning
activities without privileging certain values,
attitudes or behaviors (see for instance Hovardas
and Korfiatis 2012a). Another important
question relates to a potential relativism which
could be latent in the emancipatory approach: if
we were not to select desired values, attitudes
and behaviors as intended outcomes in
environmental education and education for
sustainability, then we might end up in a
situation where ‘anything goes’ or where we
would not know what could come after
identifying different stakeholder positions. In the
next section of the paper we will present and
discuss an adjusted version of SWOT analysis
which may help us accounting for the
aforementioned implications and structuring the
social component in the study of SSIs.
SWOT analysis as a template for addressing
the social dimension in SSIs
SWOT analysis is frequently used in
environmental management as a diagnostic
method to identify key factors influencing the
success or failure of an organization’s project
(Masozera et al. 2006; Geneletti et al. 2007;
Lozano and Vallés 2007). The standard
application of SWOT analysis is based on a
template, which provides the necessary heuristics
to examine the future prospects of an
organization. This investigation is structured in
terms of potential that may promote, or barriers
that may hinder, the achievement of the
organization’s goals.
A distinction is made between the
characteristics of the organization itself and the
elements which are attributed to the
organization’s environment (Table 1). In this
regard, the organization’s potential to
accomplish its objectives is judged against both
inner (i.e., that pertain to the organization itself)
as well as outer (i.e., environmental) aspects that
may be mobilized in order to accomplish the
goals of the organization. Inner aspects are
termed ‘strengths’, while outer aspects are called
Tasos Hovardas, SWOT analysis of the social dimension in socio-scientific issues
4
‘opportunities’. In an analogous manner, barriers
can be found within the organization (termed,
‘weaknesses’) or in the environment surrounding
the organization (,‘threats’). The result of the
SWOT analysis offers insights concerning the
trajectory of the organization categorized in
‘strengths’ that should be supported (i.e., inner
potential), ‘opportunities’ that have to be sought
(i.e., environmental prospects), ‘weaknesses’ that
must be overcome (i.e., inner barriers), and
‘threats’ that ought to be alleviated (i.e.,
environmental hindrances).
Table 1: Template of Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis.
Aspects that
pertain to the
organization
itself; inner
characteristics
Aspects that
refer to the
environment
of the organi-
zation
Potential that
might promote
the organiza-
tion’s goals
Strengths
Opportunities
Barriers that
might hinder
the achieve-
ment of the
organization’s
goals
Weaknesses
Threats
SWOT analysis can be easily adapted to serve
as a template in addressing the social dimension
in the study of SSIs (Table 2). SSIs in
environmental education and education for
sustainability most often engage a series of
social groups that have a stake in the issue at
hand. For each stakeholder group, one can
identify in-group factors that are decisive for the
SSI under study as well as factors that determine
inter-group relations among stakeholders. In a
fashion similar to the standard use of SWOT
analysis, in-group factors include beliefs,
knowledge/skills, intentions, and behaviors
which may either enable stakeholders converge
and reach consensus in the SSI under study (i.e.,
‘strengths’) or lead to divergence or conflict (i.e.,
‘weaknesses’). Further, aspects of inter-group
relations decisive for consensus involve possible
fields of convergence or cooperation between
stakeholder groups (i.e., ‘opportunities’), while
aspects of inter-group relations that might lead to
conflict include possible fields of divergence or
competition between stakeholder groups (i.e.,
‘threats’).
Table 2. Template of Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis
adapted for addressing the social dimension in
the study of socio-scientific issues.
Aspects that
pertain to each
stakeholder
group; in-group
factors
Aspects of
inter-group
relations
between
stakeholder
groups
Potential of
increasing
convergence
between
stakeholder
groups and
reaching
solutions
Strengths
(Beliefs, knowle-
dge/skills, inten-
tions, and beha-
viors that can
allow stakeholder
groups to achieve
consensus)
Opportunities
(Possible
fields of
agreement or
cooperation
between
stakeholder
groups)
Barriers that
might
increase
divergence
between
stakeholder
groups and
lead to
conflict
Weaknesses
(Beliefs,
knowledge/skills,
intentions, and
behaviors that
might prevent
stakeholder
groups from
achieving
consensus)
Threats
(Possible
fields of dis-
agreement or
competetion
between
stakeholder
groups)
AEJES (2015) 1, 1-12
5
A stakeholder-based SWOT analysis can be
used by environmental educators for providing
guidance and scaffolding while addressing the
social dimension in the study of SSIs. Learners
will first need to identify social actors engaged in
the SSI under study. Then, ‘strengths’,
‘weaknesses’, ‘opportunities’ and ‘threats’ for
each social group will have to be determined.
This might be operationalized by means of
webquests, interviews and focus group
discussions with stakeholder group members or
surveys targeting stakeholders. Students will
gather information and process this information
to complete the SWOT template. In a simulation
of inter-group relations and deliberation
processes, students can build on ‘strengths’, try
to eliminate ‘weaknesses’, exploit
‘opportunities’, and mitigate the effect of
‘threats’ in order to reach potential sustainable
solutions. This might take the form of role play
or round table discussions. The overall objective
will be to unravel and elaborate on the social
heterogeneity in social actors’ perspectives on
SSIs.
Pilot implementation of SWOT analysis for
studying the social dimension in the issue of
bear conservation in Central Greece,
Prefecture of Thessaly
A pilot implementation of SWOT analysis for
studying the social dimension of SSIs
concentrated on bear conservation in Central
Greece, Prefecture of Thessaly. The bear
population in Greece seems to follow the general
trend observed throughout Europe, where
population sizes of large carnivores have
stabilized, or even increased in some cases, and
large carnivores re-colonize areas where they
have been absent for many decades (Hovardas
and Korfiatis 2012b). Three NATURA 2000
sites in Central Greece include about 30-40
brown bears (Ursus arctos), which amount to
slightly over 15% of the total bear population in
Greece. Brown bears are permanently present in
Aspropotamos (GR1440001) and Kerketio Oros-
Koziakas (GR1440002), which both include
priority bear habitat. Brown bears seem to use
Antichasia Ori - Meteora (GR1440003) as a
dispersal corridor to move to the east and re-
colonize a former bear range. Stabilizing
population sizes and the comeback of the brown
bear in areas where people have forgotten how to
live with the species presents a challenge for
rural communities. At the same time, bear
conservation projects for dissemination of best
practice in terms of damage prevention methods
have engaged environmental non-governmental
organizations (eNGOs) in the area (see LIFE
EX-TRA (2013) for a comprehensive
presentation of NATURA 2000 sites and
environmental conservation initiatives).
Students at the Department of Primary
Education at the University of Thessaly, Greece,
undertook the pilot implementation of SWOT
analysis as part of an environmental education
course. Overall, 12 pre-service primary teachers
(at the 5th
semester of their studies) participated
in this pilot implementation, which took the form
of a project (winter semester 2011-2012).
Students first developed webquests to identify
key stakeholders in bear conservation and
delineate stakeholder positions. Stakeholders
included stock-breeders, hunters, foresters, and
eNGOs (Table 3). Students then used webquest
reports to prepare interview schedules for semi-
structured interviews with members of
stakeholder groups. A number of interviewees
were first indicated by local authorities in the
Tasos Hovardas, SWOT analysis of the social dimension in socio-scientific issues
6
three NATURA 2000 sites while the rest of
interviewees were selected by means of a
snowball technique. All interviews took place in
the towns of Kalampaka and Trikala, the main
urban centers in the area. After a training
session, pre-service primary teachers conducted
and transcribed interviews to determine
‘strengths’, ‘weaknesses’, ‘opportunities’ and
‘threats’ for all stakeholder groups engaged in
bear conservation. Only common aspects across
all NATURA 2000 sites, i.e. aspects mentioned
by all respondents, were incorporated in the
template of SWOT analysis. Interviews stopped
when all information needed to complete the
template was gathered, while students undertook
about three to four interviews with members of
each stakeholder group, each interview lasting
about 30 minutes. When a first draft of the
template of the SWOT analysis had been
prepared, a focus group discussion was
organized to validate the outcome of interviews.
Two people from each stakeholder group were
invited and discussed the template under the
coordination of the author who acted as
facilitator. The template is shown, in its final
form, in Table 3. The content of the template
was used to develop a scenario for a role play
and a round table discussion, which were
presented to all other students who followed the
environmental education course.
As we can read from the first column in Table
3, stock-breeders in the three NATURA 2000
sites acknowledged that electric fences have
been effective as a damage prevention method
for apiarists elsewhere. This knowledge might
prove significant in achieving consensus among
stakeholders in bear conservation because
electric fences can be endorsed as a damage
prevention method by stock-breeders too (refer
to ‘Strengths’ row in Table 3). However, electric
fences cannot be used for free-ranging animals.
In this case, there is the option of guarding dogs
as an alternative damage prevention method. The
fact that there is yet no valid way of certifying
guarding dogs was highlighted by stock-breeders
as an important deficiency, which discouraged
them from joining stock-breeder networks that
aim at breeding and distributing guarding dogs
(row depicting ‘Weaknesses’). A quite
interesting finding was that stock-breeders could
accept a minimum of damage to their livestock
caused by the bear, which outlines a possible line
of agreement between stock-breeders and
eNGOs (row depicting ‘Opportunities’).
However, there exist a substantial number of
stock-breeders who do not record damages they
suffer because they believe that they would not
get any compensation (row depicting ‘threats’).
This aspect has been noted as a point of tension
between stock-breeders, foresters, and eNGOs.
In an analogous manner, one can follow
‘strengths’, ‘weaknesses’, ‘opportunities’ and
‘threats’ for all other stakeholder groups along
the rest of the columns in Table 3. Scenarios that
were developed by pre-service primary teachers
for role play and round table discussions built on
‘strengths’ and ‘opportunities’ and tried to
address ‘weaknesses’ and ‘threats’ in order to
promote bear conservation.
Discussion and implications for
environmental education and education for
sustainability
The template of SWOT analysis can prove a
valuable tool in addressing calls for decision-
making heuristics, which could structure and
scaffold inquiry in the social dimension of SSIs
(Acar et al. 2010; Kara 2012; Lee 2007;
AEJES (2015) 1, 1-12
7
Levinson 2006). After being appropriately integrated in educational interventions, the tem-
Table 3. Strenghts and Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis for brown bear
conservation in three NATURA 2000 sites in Central Greece (Aspropotamos – GR1440001; Kerketio
Oros-Koziakas – GR1440002; Antichasia Ori - Meteora – GR1440003).
* eNGOs = environmental non-governmental organizations.
Stock-breeders Hunters Foresters eNGOs*
Strengths
(Beliefs,
knowledge/skills,
intentions, and
behaviors that can
allow stakeholder
groups to achieve
consensus)
Stock-breeders
acknowledge that
electric fences
have been
effective as a
damage prevention
method for
apiarists elsewhere
Hunters wish to
be involved in
nature
conservation
initiatives
Foresters have
valuable experience
in nature
conservation gained
through working in
the local area and
with the local
societies
A democratic
mandate for
public
involvement
prevails among
members of
eNGOs
Weaknesses
(Beliefs,
knowledge/skills,
intentions, and
behaviors that might
prevent stakeholder
groups from
achieving
consensus)
Stock-breeders
know that there is
yet no valid way
of certifying
guarding dogs
The cost of
hunting dogs is
extremely high
and, therefore,
any damage to
hunting dogs will
comprise a signi-
ficant financial
loss for hunters
Financial and
organizational
barriers create a
strong feeling of
inability among
foresters concer-
ning the fulfillment
of their mission
There are a series
of objectives
formulated by
eNGOs that are
not adequately
adapted to the
local context
Opportunities
(Possible fields of
agreement or
cooperation between
stakeholder groups)
Stock-breeders can
accept a minimum
of damage to their
livestock caused
by the bear
Hunters are
willing to support
financially net-
works of breeding
and distributing
guarding dogs
between stock-
breeders
Foresters are
institutionally
responsible for the
implementation of a
series of nature
conservation
measures
eNGOs strongly
support compen-
sation systems
because they
might decrease
conflicts between
stock-breeders
and bears
Threats
(Possible fields of
disagreement or
competition between
stakeholder groups)
Many stock-
breeders do not
record damages
they suffer becau-
se they believe
they would not get
any compensation
Conflict between
stock-breeders
and hunters
usually escalates
by using poisoned
baits
Foresters have
withdrawn from
many nature con-
servation networks
Negative attitudes
towards eNGOs
are still present
among other
social groups
Tasos Hovardas, SWOT analysis of the social dimension in socio-scientific issues
8
plate of SWOT analysis might be used in upper
primary education, lower and upper secondary
education, and tertiary education. The template
can be combined with webquests to introduce
students in the social landscape and define social
groups that have a stake at SSIs under study.
Social research methods, such as interviews,
focus group discussions and surveys can be
employed to gather data, validate findings, and
complete the template. Finally, pedagogical
methods such as role play and round table
discussions can make use of the template’s
content to simulate social actor dynamics and
explore the potential of reaching consensus
among stakeholder groups.
Apart from bear conservation that served as a
pilot study in the present paper, the template of
SWOT analysis can assist in examining
stakeholder group positions and actor dynamics
engaged in a wide array of SSIs. Since the
template is not case-sensitive, it can be easily
modified to account for new case studies by
identifying the appropriate stakeholder groups.
By tracking and simulating inter-group
interactions between social groups involved in
SSIs, the overall objective of using the SWOT
template is to unravel and elaborate upon the
heterogeneity that characterizes the social fabric
in dealing with SSIs (Simonneaux and
Simonneaux 2009a, b). In this regard, the
template of SWOT analysis allows
environmental educators to formulate learning
goals and orchestrate learning activities on an
affirmative basis within the emancipatory
perspective, where values, attitudes or behaviors
are not to be imposed upon learners (Hovardas
2013).
A final point to be discussed refers to the
latent relativism that could be inherent in the
emancipatory approach, which could end up in a
situation where learners would just celebrate
social heterogeneity and appreciate the validity
of any social actor’s beliefs, knowledge/skills,
intentions, and behaviors. In this regard, we
should highlight the fact that the template of
SWOT analysis enables the investigation of
points where stakeholder groups could diverge or
converge and, thereby, enables the potential of
seeking consensus and reaching solutions
concerning the social component of SSIs. This
potential provides a valuable and insightful
reference base, which precludes relativism in the
sense that ‘anything goes’ (see for instance
Hovardas 2012). Further, such a perspective
suggests a procedural conceptualization of
sustainability (Van Weelie and Wals 2002; Wals
and Jickling 2002; Wals 2010), where the latter
has to be experienced as a democratic
deliberation process rather than as a pre-given
end-state to be sought.
Acknowledgments: I am grateful to all students
and interviewees who took part in the pilot
implementation of SWOT analysis at the
University of Thessaly, Greece.
References
Acar O., Turkmen L. and Roychoudhury A.
(2010), Student difficulties in socio-scientific
argumentation and decision-making research
findings: Crossing the borders of two research
lines, International Journal of Science Education,
32(9): 1191–1206. Available at
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09
500690902991805
Bell D. R. (2004), Creating green citizens?
Political liberalism and environmental
AEJES (2015) 1, 1-12
9
education, Journal of Philosophy of Education,
38(1): 37–53. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.030
9-8249.2004.00362.x/pdf
Boerwinkel D. J., Swierstra T. and Waarlo A. J.
(2014), Reframing and articulating socio-
scientific classroom discourses on genetic testing
from an STS perspective, Science and Education,
23(2): 485-507. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs111
91-012-9528-7#
Carleton-Hug A. and Hug J. W. (2010),
Challenges and opportunities for evaluating
environmental education programs, Evaluation
and Program Planning, 33(2): 159–164.
Available at: http://ac.els-
cdn.com/S0149718909000706/1-s2.0-
S0149718909000706-main.pdf?_tid=5f8736b8-
6507-11e4-8f4e-
00000aacb35e&acdnat=1415204487_d69a90ded
8ace8207c2b659f881ce7fa
Day B. A. and Monroe M. C. (eds.) (2000),
Environmental education & communication for a
sustainable world. Washington, DC, Academy
for Educational Development. Available at:
http://www.greenbiz.com/sites/default/files/docu
ment/O16F8940.pdf
Dobson A. (2003), Citizenship and the
environment. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Available at:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093
/0199258449.001.0001/acprof-9780199258444
Ekborg M., Ottander C., Silfver E., and Simon S.
(2013), Teachers' experience of working with
socio-scientific issues: A large scale and in
depth study, Research in Science Education,
43(2): 599–617. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs111
65-011-9279-5#
Ferkany M. and Whyte K. P. (2012), The
importance of participatory virtues in the future
of environmental education, Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(3):
419–434. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs108
06-011-9312-8#page-1
Geneletti D., Bagli S., Napolitano P. and
Pistocchi A. (2007), Spatial decision support for
strategic environmental assessment of land use
plans. A case study in southern Italy,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
27(5): 408–423. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0195925507000170
Hailwood S. (2005), Environmental citizenship
as reasonable citizenship, Environmental
Politics, 14(2): 195–210. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09
644010500054921
Hovardas T. (2012), ´Can forest management
produce new risk situations? A mixed-motive
perspective from the Dadia-Soufli-Lefkimi
Forest National Park, Greece´, in Diez J. J. (ed.)
Sustainable Forest Management: Case Studies,
Rijeka, INTECH, pp.239-258. Available at:
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/35239.pdf
Hovardas T. (2013), A critical reading of
ecocentrism and its meta-scientific use of
ecology: implications for environmental
education and ecology education, Science &
Education, 22(6): 1467–1483. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs111
91-012-9493-1#page-1
Tasos Hovardas, SWOT analysis of the social dimension in socio-scientific issues
10
Hovardas Τ. and Korfiatis K. J. (2011), Towards
a critical re-appraisal of ecology education:
Scheduling an educational intervention to revisit
the ‘Balance of Nature’ metaphor, Science &
Education, 20(10): 1039–1053. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs111
91-010-9325-0#
Hovardas T. and Korfiatis K. J. (2012a), Effects
of an environmental education course on
consensus estimates for proenvironmental
intentions, Environment and Behavior, 44(6):
760–784. Available at:
http://eab.sagepub.com/content/44/6/760.abstract
Hovardas Τ. and Korfiatis K. J. (2012b),
Adolescents’ beliefs about the wolf: Investigating
the potential of human–wolf coexistence in the
European south, Society and Natural Resources,
25(12): 1277–1292. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08
941920.2012.677942
Jickling B. and Wals A. E. J. (2008),
Globalization and environmental education:
looking beyond sustainable development, Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 40(1): 1–21. Available
at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00
220270701684667
Kara Y. (2012), Pre-service biology teachers'
perceptions on the instruction of socio-scientific
issues in the curriculum, European Journal of
Teacher Education, 35(1): 111–129. Available
at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02
619768.2011.633999
Keene M. and Blumstein D. T. (2010),
Environmental education: A time of change, a
time for change, Evaluation and Program
Planning, 33(2): 201–204. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0149718909000792
Klosterman M. L., Sadler T. D. and Brown J.
(2012), Science teachers’ use of mass media to
address socio-scientific and sustainability issues,
Research in Science Education, 42(1): 51–74.
Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs111
65-011-9256-z#page-1
Laws D., Scholz R., Shiroyama H., Susskind L.,
Suzuki T. and Weber O. (2004), Expert views on
sustainability and technology implementation,
International Journal of Sustainable
Development & World Ecology, 11(3): 247–261.
Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13
504500409469829
Lederman N. G., Antink A. and Bartos S. (2014).
Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-
scientific issues arising from genetics: A
pathway to developing a scientifically literate
citizenry, Science and Education, 23(2): 285-
302. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs111
91-012-9503-3#page-1
Lee Y. C. (2007), Developing decision-making
skills for socio-scientific issues, Journal of
Biological Education, 41(4): 170–177. Available
at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00
219266.2007.9656093
Lee H., and Witz K. G. (2009), Science teachers'
inspiration for teaching socio-scientific issues:
Disconnection with reform efforts, International
Journal of Science Education, 31(7): 931–960.
Available at:
AEJES (2015) 1, 1-12
11
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09
500690801898903
Levinson R. (2006), Towards a theoretical
framework for teaching controversial socio-
scientific issues, International Journal of Science
Education, 28(10): 1201–1224. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09
500690600560753
Lewis J. and Leach J. (2006), Discussion of
socio-scientific issues: The role of science
knowledge, International Journal of Science
Education, 28(11): 1267–1287. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09
500690500439348
LIFE EX-TRA (2013), Final Report. Available
at: http://www.lifextra.it/index.php?option=
com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=80&Itemid=
30&lang=en.
Lozano M. and Vallés J. (2007), An analysis of
the implementation of an environmental
management system in a local public
administration, Journal of Environmental
Management, 82(4): 495–511. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301479706000600
Lundblad T., Malmberg C., Areskoug M. and
Jönsson P. (2012), Simulating real-life problems
in secondary science class: A socio-scientific
issue carried through by an augmented reality
simulation, Human IT, 12(2): 1–41. Available at:
http://dspace.mah.se/dspace/bitstream/handle/20
43/14834/humanITj.pdf;jsessionid=72D3874583
DDF46C16E86FB37305AC64?sequence=2
Masozera M. K., Alavalapati J. R. R., Jacobson
S. K. and Shrestha R. K. (2006), Assessing the
suitability of community-based management for
the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda, Forest
Policy and Economics, 8(2): 206– 216. Available
at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1389934104001066
Mitchell D. B., and Mueller M. P. (2011), A
philosophical analysis of David Orr’s theory of
ecological literacy: Biophilia, ecojustice and
moral education in school learning communities,
Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(1):
193–221. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs114
22-010-9274-6#page-1
Orr D. W. (1994), Earth in mind, Washington,
DC, Island Press. Available at:
http://my.woodbury.edu/Faculty/Writing/AW%2
0112%20Sustainability%20Reading%20List/The
%20Sustainability%20Reading%20List%20(Sele
cted%20Documents)/Orr,_D._Earth_in_Mind.pd
f
Robottom I. (2012), Socio-scientific issues in
education: Innovative practices and contending
epistemologies, Research in Science Education,
42(1): 95-107. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11165-
011-9258-x
Sadler T. D. (2004), Moral sensitivity and its
contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific
issues, Journal of Moral Education, 33(3): 339–
358. Available at:
http://www.csun.edu/~kdm78513/coursework/62
5/assignments/documents/moralsensitivity.pdf
Sadler T. D. and Zeidler D. L. (2004a), The
morality of socio-scientific issues: construal and
resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas,
Science Education, 88(1): 4–27. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.1
0101/abstract
Tasos Hovardas, SWOT analysis of the social dimension in socio-scientific issues
12
Schinkel A. (2009), Justifying compulsory
environmental education in liberal democracies,
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43(4): 507–
526. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.146
7-9752.2009.00702.x/abstract
Simonneaux L. and Simonneaux J. (2009a),
Socio-scientific reasoning influenced by
identities, Cultural Studies of Science Education,
4(3): 705–711. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs114
22-008-9145-6#page-1
Simonneaux L. and Simonneaux J. (2009b),
Students' socio-scientific reasoning on
controversies from the viewpoint of education for
sustainable development, Cultural Studies of
Science Education, 4(3): 657–687. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11422-
008-9141-x
Tomas L. and Ritchie S. M. (2012), Positive
emotional responses to hybridised writing about
a socio-scientific issue, Research in Science
Education, 42(1): 25–49. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs111
65-011-9255-0#page-1
Van Weelie, D. and Wals A. E. J. (2002),
Making biodiversity meaningful through
environmental education, International Journal
of Science Education, 24(11): 1143–1156.
Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09
500690210134839
Wals A. E. J. (2010), Between knowing what is
right and knowing that is it wrong to tell others
what is right: on relativism, uncertainty and
democracy in environmental and sustainability
education, Environmental Education Research,
16(1): 143–151. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13
504620903504099
Wals A. E. J. and Jickling B. (2002),
“Sustainability” in higher education from
doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking
and meaningful learning, Higher Education
Policy, 15(2): 121–131. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S095287330200003X
Wals A. E. J., Geerling-Eijff F., Hubeek F., van
der Kroon S. and Vader J. (2008), All mixed up?
Instrumental and emancipatory learning toward
a more sustainable world: considerations for EE
policymakers, Applied Environmental Education
and Communication, 7(3): 55–65. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15
330150802473027
Wu Y.-T. and Tsai C.-C. (2007), High school
students' informal reasoning on a socio-scientific
issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses,
International Journal of Science Education,
29(9): 1163–1187. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09
500690601083375
Zemplén G. Á. (2007), Conflicting agendas:
critical thinking versus science education in the
International Baccalaureate Theory of
Knowledge course, Science & Education, 16(2):
167–196. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs111
91-006-6387-0#page-1
13
Promoting Pro-environmental Behavior: Overcoming Barriers
Evangelos Manolas, Ph.D.
A U T H O R I N F O A B S T R A C T
Evangelos Manolas is an
Associate Professor of Sociology
and Environmental-Forest Educa-
tion at the Department of Forestry
and Management of the Environ-
ment and Natural Resources,
School of Agricultural and Forestry
Sciences, Democritus University
of Thrace, Greece.
email: emanolas@fmenr.duth.gr
Since many of today’s environmental problems are rooted in
human actions then the solutions to these challenges lie in
changes in human behavior. The barriers which impede
peoples’ environmental choices can be divided into two
categories, external or structural, e.g. institutional, economic,
social and cultural, and internal or individual, e.g. motivation,
pro-environmental knowledge, awareness, values, attitudes,
emotion, locus of control, responsibilities and priorities. This
paper: 1) considers seven individual barriers to pro-
environmental behavior, i.e. ignorance or lack of knowledge,
confidence in the power of technology to solve problems,
reluctance to change lifestyles, fatalism, helplessness, inertia
and fear, 2) discusses ways these individual barriers may be
overcome and 3) raises questions which would need to be
answered if mankind is to move to the creation of more
sustainable societies.
K E Y W O R D S (in alphabetical order): Barriers; Communication; Environmental problems; General
public; Individual responsibility
Introduction
Nowadays the environment faces many and
serious environmental problems among which
water pollution, air pollution, deforestation,
water shortages, nuclear wastes and radiation
issues, loss of biodiversity, global warming.
Since many of these problems are rooted in
human actions then the solutions to these
challenges lie in changes in human behavior
(Gifford 2011).
Pro-environmental behavior is defined as
“behavior that consciously seeks to minimize the
negative impact of one’s actions on the natural
and built world” (Kolmuss and Agyeman 2002)
or as “behavior that harms the environment as
little as possible, or even benefits the
environment” (Steg and Vlek 2009).
The barriers which impede environmental
choices can be divided into two categories,
external or structural, e.g. institutional,
economic, social and cultural, and internal or
individual, e.g. motivation, pro-environmental
knowledge, awareness, values, attitudes,
emotion, locus of control, responsibilities and
priorities (Kollmus and Agyeman 2002). Some
examples of external or structural barriers may
be low income, living in a rural area or in a
region with cold winters: “Low income severely
limits one’s ability to purchase solar panels,
living in a rural area usually means public
transport does not exist as an alternative to
driving, and living in a region with cold winters
restricts one’s ability to reduce home-heating-
based energy use” (Gifford 2011).
Evangelos Manolas, Promoting pro-environmental behavior
14
However, if people are not restricted by
structural barriers - thus engagement in
environmentally responsible behaviors is
possible - but this behavior is not occurring,
what could be the reason? The reason is internal
or individual barriers. Individuals are important.
For example, with regard to combating climate
change individual behavior contributes 30 to 40
percent to greenhouse gas emissions (Lawrence
2008).
General population surveys consistently
inform us that the public ranks the environment
(and global warming in particular) as a very low
priority in comparison with other issues. The
Pew Research Center survey regarding public
priorities for 2010 found that in the U.S. global
warming was included in the 20 top issues. Only
28 percent considered global warming a top
issue, following the issues of immigration and
lobbyists. With regard to Europe only 4 percent
of Europeans in the 27 nations of the European
Union selected the environment as one of the
two most important issues of the continent. As in
the US, the economy is the top issue. Even
immigration is more important than the
environment in the Eurobarometer 72 poll
(Hayward 2010).
This paper: 1) considers seven individual
barriers to pro-environmental behavior, i.e.
ignorance or lack of knowledge, confidence in
the power of technology to solve problems,
reluctance to change lifestyles, fatalism, inertia,
helplessness and fear, 2) discusses ways these
individual barriers may be overcome and 3) and
raises questions which would need to be
answered if mankind is to move to the creation
of more sustainable societies. Particular attention
is paid to the problem of climate change, the
most serious of the environmental problems
facing humanity today. For reasons mentioned
earlier the paper is organized with the needs of
the general public in mind.
Barriers
The following seven barriers to
environmentally responsible behavior are among
the most important:
Ignorance or lack of knowledge may be
defined as not being aware of the existence of a
problem and not knowing how to act once one
knows of the existence of a problem.
Confidence in the power of technology refers
to the hope many people have that serious
problems can or will be solved by technology.
Reluctance to change lifestyles refers to
people being hostile to lowering their standard of
living, inconvenience, and cost (monetary or
time).
Fatalism refers to feeling that “It’s too late to
do anything”, “We can’t do anything”, or “It’s a
waste of time”.
The feeling of helplessness is fostered by the
scale of the problem, i.e. the large regional or
global nature of many environmental problems.
Inertia is rooted on habit, acting just as in the
past.
Fear means feeling fearful in facing
environmental problems. One consequence of
fear is that it may cause people to deny the threat
(Oskamp 2000; 2002; Lorenzoni, Nicholson-
Cole and Whitmarsh 2007; Steg and Vlek 2009;
Gifford 2011)
Overcoming barriers
Save energy. Saving energy is important but such
requests need to be presented in a form more
likely to lead to effective action. For example,
when referring to the average American citizen,
AEJES (2015) 1, 13-21
15
Layzer and Moomaw suggest, in their Afterword
in Emanuel’s book (2007), that if a person who
is driving 1000 a year is to achieve a 3%
reduction of emissions per year, he or she could
drive 30 miles less, or ride with someone else or
use mass transportation or drive less
aggressively. Even better, if a person buys a
hybrid car he will immediately reduce his
emissions by 50% - the equivalent of a 3%
annual saving for 23 years. In addition, regarding
buildings, they argue that it would be relatively
easy for Americans to reduce their emissions
simply by adding insulation and energy saving
lighting. Furthermore, for better results, old
domestic appliances could be replaced with new
ones and old heating systems be replaced with
modern ones.
The above information could have been
presented in a more convincing form. For
example, Gardner and Stern (2009) constructed a
table in which they divide 27 different actions
individuals and / or households can take in order
to save energy into two general categories.
Actions in the first category involve curtailing
the use of existing energy equipment, or in other
words, using equipment less frequently or
intensively, while actions in the other category
involve adopting more energy-efficient
equipment or installing or maintaining efficiency
boosting modifications to existing energy
equipment. Each action is accompanied by the
percentage amount of energy saved.
Gardner and Stern (2009) then constructed
another table, based on the previous one, which
provides a short, prioritized, accurate, accessible,
and actionable list of the most effective actions
individuals and / or households can take to limit
climate change. This table lists 17 actions. The
first nine can be taken with little or no initial
monetary cost; six involve curtailment; and three
efficiency increases. All of the next eight involve
efficiency increases. Again, each action is
accompanied by the amount of energy saved
(percent). Commenting on the value of their
table Gardner and Stern (2009) point out that,
Readers can consider the first item in
each category to be the most possible
energy-saving action and give it top
priority if it has not already been taken
and is possible to take. By going item-
by-item down the table, householders
are guided to where the greatest
potential savings lie for them
specifically.
Individuals or households who can adopt all
17 of the listed actions can potentially cut their
consumption and emissions by half which will
be an important achievement if one takes into
account the importance of individuals or
households regarding carbon emissions in the
U.S.: “U.S. households account for about 38
percent of national carbon emissions through
their direct actions, a level of emissions greater
than that of any entire country except China and
larger than the entire U.S. industrial sector”.
Further, if similar percentages regarding carbon
emissions apply to other countries, e.g. U.K.
(Lawrence 2008; UKERC 2009), then lists such
the one discussed above may be useful to them,
too.
Such an effort helps to overcome the barriers
of inertia, helplessness and reluctance to change
lifestyles.
Encourage people to recycle and buy recycled
products. A recycled product is a product made
wholly or partly from material recovered from
the waste stream, e.g. a remanufactured laser
Evangelos Manolas, Promoting pro-environmental behavior
16
toner cartridge, recycled paper, and recycled
plastic lumber. The benefits of recycling include
saving natural resources, saving energy, saving
clean air and water, saving landfill and saving
money and creating jobs (Buying Recycled
2014).
One way of encouraging people to recycle is
to reward them for doing it. In the UK Eric
Pickles, the communities’ secretary, piloted a
reward scheme in Windsor and Maidenhead, in
which 70% of the families which were offered
the chance to take part, did so. It is noted that
“…the good people of Windsor and Maidenhead
voluntarily and possibly happily increased their
recycling by 35% in six months” (Garvey 2010).
Another way to encourage recycling is to set
an example. If neighbors see that you are
recycling and buying recyclable products, they
are likely to do the same. Or organize a recycling
event on the importance of recycling. Such an
initiative may encourage more people to begin
separating their recyclables from regular trash.
The event may include recycling games, food
and informational packets on the positive effects
of recycling (How to Encourage Recycling 2014)
Such an effort also helps to overcome the
barriers of inertia, helplessness and reluctance to
change lifestyles.
Use short but credible sources of information.
Oskamp (2002), in an important article on
teaching and promoting pro-environmental
behavior, has highlighted the importance of short
articles on guiding people what to do with regard
to saving the environment. He referred to a Time
article (published in 2001) titled “What You Can
Do”, listing 20 simple steps households can take
to combat climate change as well as similar lists
published by other bodies such as the Union of
Concerned Scientists.
Since then, due to the growth of the internet,
many updated and useful lists have been
published. Many organizations governmental or
non-governmental, national or international do
provide such lists or information in concise form
in their websites. For example, with regard to
combating climate change the reader should visit
the websites of organizations such the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC).
For those who want to read more there are
also excellent short pocket-size books such as
Preparing for Climate Change by Michael
Mastrandrea and Stephen Schneider (2010) or
What We Know about Climate Change by Kerry
Emanuel (2012). Both of these books are written
in language easy for everyone to understand.
The above practical suggestions contribute to
removing the motivational obstacle of
helplessness and combat the tendency to deny
dangers that is connected with fear appeals. They
also combat the barriers of ignorance and distrust
in information sources.
Scale from personal to planet. Starting with
global catastrophe will lead to fatalism, since
many people cannot vision how they, as
individuals, could deal with such a big issue. It is
important to start with what people can see
around them and care about the most. Start form
a local problem and move to other parts of the
country or the planet (Communicating on
Climate: 13 Steps and Guiding Principles 2013).
Use metaphors. Another way to increase the
effectiveness of climate change communication
AEJES (2015) 1, 13-21
17
is to use metaphors. For example, when people
ask how it is possible to predict climate 50 years
from now when we cannot even predict the
weather 15 days from today, they are actually
confusing weather and climate:
You might compare this with what
happens when you turn on the burner
under a pot of water; while you cannot
predict the time or place of any
particular bubble, you can say with
certainty that the water will be boiling in
about 10 minutes. Similarly, while we
cannot predict the age of death of any
particular person, we can say with
confidence that the average age of death
for people in the United States is 77[..]
How can scientists respond when people
say that climate has always changed, so
the current warming is probably also
natural? A good metaphor that reveals
the fallacy of this thinking is that just
because lightning strikes have long
caused forest fires does not mean fires
cannot also be caused by a careless
camper (Improving How Scientists
Communicate about Climate Change
2008)
Clearly metaphors can bring dry science to
life and can combat the barrier of ignorance.
Technology may not solve our problems. New
technologies have appeared for environmental
protection, technologies which were
unimaginable just a few years ago. Entire
ecosystems, e.g. the Amazon rainforest, can now
be monitored in nearly real time; satellite
communications can follow creatures such as the
jaguar and the puma; smartphones can be used to
report illegal logging. Such technological
achievements serve two purposes: reveal the
state of the world in details not seen before and
provide more information to more people in
different parts of the world.
The vast tropical forests of the Amazon and
the Congo function as the planet’s lungs,
inhaling carbon dioxide and exhaling oxygen and
thus slowing climate change. The destruction of
tropical forests accounts for around ten percent
of the carbon emissions causing global warming.
The forest-surveillance technology called
“light detection and ranging” (LIDAR) “beams
powerful lasers through tree canopies to the
forest floor, which bounce back carrying highly
detailed data about the structure of the forest”
(Hoekstra 2014). There is also technology which
can recognize a range of seemingly
invisible characteristics, including a
tree’s photosynthetic pigments, its basic
structural compounds, and even the
water content of its leaves. Researchers
can use this data not only to estimate
carbon storage capacities but also to
analyze forest diversity and assess tree
health. With a single airplane, these
paired technologies can scan over
120,000 acres, or as many as 50 million
trees, in a single day. And the equipment
is so sophisticated that it can distinguish
among 200 different tree species
(Hoekstra 2014).
However, what should be noted regarding
tropical rainforests are the complex political and
economic realities of the often impoverished
tropical nations in which these forests lie: “There
are immense difficulties involved in terms of
nationalism and heritage, strategic military
implications, ownership and control over data,
deploying low-flying aircraft over conflict zones,
Evangelos Manolas, Promoting pro-environmental behavior
18
the fact that powerful interests will not want a
fair an honest accounting of carbon stocks, and
so on. A grande idea, but practically impossible
to implement and therefore doomed” (Six
Thoughts on “Worldwide LiDAR of Rainforest
Biomass for REDD+” 2014).
In the mid-1990s, P. Dee Boersma, a world
authority on penguin conservation, discovered
that Argentina’s oil pollution was responsible for
the death of as many as 40,000 penguins a year.
She used GPS tracking devices, at a time when
the technology was new and expensive, to
document where the birds were foraging. She
then cooperated with Argentinian authorities to
move the shipping lanes further away from the
coast, significantly reducing a mortality rate that
could have caused the penguins’ extinction
(Hoekstra 2014).
The increases in agricultural productivity
have improved the lives of billions of people but
have left this natural capital dangerously
depleted. The dramatic increases regarding
consumption of natural resources do not point to
a sustainable future. In the last 40 years people
have been consuming more resources than the
world’s natural capital can replenish and causing
more pollution than it can absorb. It is most
important to note that “in 2010, the nonprofit
organization the Global Footprint Network
calculated that humanity now requires roughly
1.5 earths to sustain its current level of
consumption each year. Put another way,
humanity now uses up a year’s supply of the
earth’s natural resources by mid-August. After
that, it is drawing down against the future
capacity of natural capital” (Hoekstra 2014).
However, technology is not always there
when we need it. Although the members of the
first human societies damaged their environment
very little, nevertheless, humans always used
some form of technology. The civilization of
Maya may have collapsed because of the failure
of its agricultural system to support a constantly
increasing population. Some civilizations in
Ancient Mesopotamia may have collapsed from
excessively saline soils as a result of the
irrigation systems they used (Kottis 1994)
In Northern Europe, not so long ago, the habit
of the inhabitants of various areas to leave
human and other organic waste anywhere-
anytime was the cause of epidemics of cholera
and typhus. In other occasions the huge number
of horses and other animals created conditions of
pollution which could be worse than those of
modern times (Seneca and Taussig 1979).
Others have noted that technology often does
not deliver even its own prospectus. For
example,
the Green Revolution, which doubled
global food production in the late 20th
century, has now stalled. And it may not
just be the Green Revolution. Canadian
futurologist Vaclav Smil, speaking at the
Sausalito event, argued that “all the
essential technologies” of modern life
are at least a century old. He noted, for
example, that the basic process of
manufacturing nitrogen fertiliser from
the air “hasn't changed since 1894”
(Pearce 2013)
It is wise to think of technological progress
with caution. Technology for various reasons
may not be available when we need it. And even
if it is, it is not certain that the data collected will
actually be used effectively.
This approach combats the obstacles of inertia
and unrealistic beliefs on the power of techno-
logy.
AEJES (2015) 1, 13-21
19
Use cooperative activities. Cooperative activity
toward common aims promotes group cohesion
and contributes to overcoming the obstacles of
inertia, helplessness, fatalism and fear. Gershon
and Moser (2012) offer these guidelines:
Hope is a precondition to effective action.
Actions without conviction and hope transmit to
others pessimism and undermine success.
Be clear on what we can hope for.
Create safe spaces for people to talk with peers
about their feelings, e.g. fear, anger, guilt, despair.
Help people to see their role in the change
process.
Build a sense of the collective as it lifts people
out of their more insular worlds.
Forming neighbor-to-neighbor engagement
efforts which produce results on a block level.
Use early adopters as models. Early adopters can
be the leverage point because they are already
receptive and well-equipped to influence their
peers.
Some questions for social scientists
The points discussed above lead to some
questions that social scientists should deal with if
mankind is to move to the creation of more
sustainable societies. These questions can serve
as springboard for further discussion:
1. Although there is a proliferation of published
scholarly work on climate change
communication and its effects on the general
public since the late 1990s then why is it that
carbon emissions continue to increase at
global and national levels and societies
continue to be vulnerable to climate
variability? How can we strengthen the field
of environmental communication?
2. What is sustainable development? Is it
possible for a society to continue to grow and
to be sustainable?
3. What are the best initiatives a social scientist
can take other than writing scholarly papers in
helping people adopt environmentally
responsible behaviors?
References
Buying Recycled (2014), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwastebuying
recycled.htm
Communicating on Climate: 13 Steps and
Guiding Principles (2013), Available:
http://ecoamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/
11/Communicating-on-Climate-13-
steps_ecoAmerica.pdf
Emanuel K. (2007), What We Know About
Climate Change, Series – Boston Review Books,
First Edition, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.
Emanuel K. (2012), What We Know About
Climate Change, Series – Boston Review Books,
Second Edition, Cambridge, MA, The MIT
Press.
Gardner G. T. and Stern P. C. (2009), The Short
List: The Most Effective Actions U.S. Households
Can Take to Curb Climate Change,
Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
Development, September / October 2008
(updated 15 December 2009). Available:
http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/
Back%20Issues/September-October%202008/
gardner-stern-full.html
Garvey J. (2010), Rewards for Recycling May
Encourage People to Create Waste, The
Guardian, 8 June. Available:
Evangelos Manolas, Promoting pro-environmental behavior
20
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-
green/2010/jun/08/rewards-for-recycling-create-
waste
Gershon D. and Moser S. (2012), How to
Overcome Climate Fatalism. Available:
http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/
T&T_Climate%20Fatalism.pdf
Gifford R. (2011), The Dragons of Inaction:
Psychological Barriers that Limit Climate
Change Mitigation and Adaptation, American
Psychologist, 66(4): 290-302. Available:
http://www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/
knowledge/attachments/The%20Dragons%20of
%20Inaction.pdf
Hayward S.F. (2010), Public Opinion about the
Environment: Notable Shifts in Recent Years,
Environmental Trends. Available:
http://www.environmentaltrends.org/single/articl
e/public-opinion-about-the-environment-notable-
shifts-in-recent-years. html
Hoekstra J. (2014). Networking Nature: How
Technology Is Transforming Conservation,
Foreign Affairs, March/April 2014 Issue,
Available:http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles
/140748/jon-hoekstra/networking-nature
How to Encourage Recycling (2014), eHow,
Available:http://www.ehow.com/how_2049109_
encourage-recycling.html
Improving How Scientists Communicate about
Climate Change (2008), Eos, 89(11): 106-107,
11 March. Available:
http://www.climatecommunication.org/wp-
content/uploads /2012/10/Eos.pdf
Kollmuss A. and Agyeman J. (2002), Mind the
Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and
What Are the Barriers to Pro-environmental
Behavior? Environmental Education Research,
8(3): 239-260. Available:
http://psychsustain.voices.wooster.edu/files/2014
/01/Mind-Gap.pdf
Kottis G. (1994), Ecology and Economy, Athens,
Papazisis Publications.
Lawrence C. (2008), Behavioural Barriers to
Effective Climate Change Policy. Available:
http://www.operationclimatechange.com.au/docs
/climatechange/Behavioural%20Barriers%20to%
20Effective%20Climate%20Change%20Policy.p
df
Lorenzoni I., Nicholson-Cole S. and Whitmarsh
L. (2007), Barriers Perceived to Engaging with
Climate Change among the UK Public and their
Policy Implications, Global Environmental
Change, 17(3-4): 445-459. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0959378007000209
Mastrandrea M. and Stephen Schneider S.
(2010), Preparing for Climate Change, Series –
Boston Review Books, Cambridge, MA, The
MIT Press.
Oskamp S. (2000), Psychological Contributions
to Achieving an Ecologically Sustainable Future
for Humanity, Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3):
373–390. Available:
http://web.stanford.edu/~kcarmel/CC_BehavCha
nge_Course/readings/Additional%20Resources/J
%20Soc%20Issues%202000/oskamp_2000_2_ge
neralobstacles_c.pdf
Oskamp S. (2002), Environmentally Responsible
Behavior: Teaching and Promoting It
Effectively, Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Policy, 2(1): 173-182. Available:
http://www.gotteswahn.info/Literatur/Buecher_a
AEJES (2015) 1, 13-21
21
b_Dezember/MenschengemachteErdzerstoerung.
Pearce F. (2013), Technology as Our Planet’s
Last Best Hope, Guardian Environment
Network. Available:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/
jul/15/technolo gy-planet-ecological-modernism-
environmental
Seneca J. and Taussig M. (1979). Environmental
Economics, Second Edition, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1979.
Six Thoughts on “Worldwide LiDAR of
Rainforest Biomass for REDD+” (2014).
Available:http://rapidlasso.com/2014/09/06/worl
dwide-lidar-of-rainforest-biomass-for-redd/
Steg L. and Vlek C. (2009), Encouraging Pro-
environmental Behavior: An Integrative Review
and Research Agenda, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 29: 309-317. Available:
http://www.rug.nl/staff/e.m.steg/stegvlekencoura
ging.pdf
U.K. Energy Research Centre (UKERC) (2009),
Making the Transition to a Secure and Low-
carbon Energy System: Synthesis Report.
Available:http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/P
DF/09/0904Energy2050report.pdf
22
Sport Mega-Event Hosting and Environmental Concern: From Sydney to Rio
John Karamichas, Ph.D.
A U T H O R I N F O A B S T R A C T
John Karamichas is a Lecturer in
Sociology at the School of
Sociology, Social Policy and Social
Work, Queen’s University Belfast,
UK.
email: j.karamichas@qub.ac.uk
This paper examines the extent to which the proclamation by
the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that Olympic
Games hosting can improve the environmental capacity of the
host nation holds. It singles out the post-event environmental
concern exhibited by the population of the host country as the
most important indicator and proceeds towards examining how
successive host nations have performed in relation to that. The
intervening variable of the global environmental crisis is put
under the microscope and as a result the general conclusion
suggests that environmental concern is much more tied to the
general socio-economic predicament that the host country finds
itself to be in the post-event phase than the successful hosting
of green Games.
K E Y W O R D S (in alphabetical order): Capacity building; Ecological modernization; Environmental
concern; Olympic games; Protest
Introduction
Sport mega-events and the environment
examined by a sociologist? Many may wonder,
what can sociology possibly tell us about sport
events and the environment problematic? The
truth is that both the athletic and the
environmental are two themes that only few
sociologists are incorporating in the sociological
sphere. This is an encapsulated by Bourdieu
(1990:156) in his famous saying, ‘the sociology
of sport: it is disdained by sociologists, and
despised by sportspeople’. One may add to this
disdain is equally acute in relation to the
environmental dimension.
Indeed, the truth is that any attempt to
attribute sociological linkages to the
environmental problematic still seems to puzzle
some sociological sectors. That appears to still
give support to an unjustifiable exclusion of the
environmental from the discipline.
Notwithstanding that exclusionary tendency,
only a few years ago, as climate change appeared
to have become the most valence issue of our
times and as the London Olympics were
approaching, British sociologists undertook a
critical and constructive outlook in relation to
sport and the environment. Characteristically,
that opening was confirmed by Anthony Giddens
(2009) in his The Politics of Climate Change, as
well as through a new chapter, Sociology, Sport
and the Olympics, in his popular undergraduate
textbook, Sociology (2008).
AEJES (2015) 1, 22-39
23
In this context, the conjunction of the
sociological to certain sections of the natural
sciences may become a self-evident and
necessary development. At the same time,
physical education studies can incorporate the
environmental interest since an increasing
number of sport events adopt Environmental
Management Systems (EMAs) and pursue the
measurement of their ecological footprint.
Olympic Games and the Environment
On a personal basis, my first engagement to
this issue was in relation to mobilizations by
environmental and local citizen groups against
the construction of a High-Voltage Power
Station (KYT) in two municipalities of the
Greater Athens’ area, Greece. In a context of
continuous mobilizations, the government linked
the construction of KYT to the Olympic projects.
The article that I wrote on this issue (Karamichas
2005) was first presented in June 2004 at the
Conference, Nature, Science, and Social
Movements, Mytilene. In that article I also
engaged with the environmental dimension of
other Olympic editions and the International
Olympic Committee’s (IOC) position on
environmental issues in general and the
sustainability legacy imbued to the host country
by staging the Games. Through that engagement
the following were substantiated:
1. The Sydney Olympics have been
heralded as the first green Olympic Games ever,
with positive reviews by environmental
organizations.
2. In 1994 (a year after the award of the
Games to Sydney) the ‘environment’ was
recognised as the third pillar of Olympism.
The following question was, then,
immediately raised in relation to the fact that the
aforementioned paper was very much stimulated
by environmental protest mobilizations against
projects linked to the 2004 Athens Games: To
what extent the organization of successful
‘Green Olympics’ is an one-off event or a
permanent platform for the transmission of green
principles? The importance of that question was
further accentuated with the highly critical
reports produced by core ENGOs (Greenpeace
and WWF) on the environmental record of the
Athens Games (see Karamichas 2012a).
Ecological Modernization – Environmental
Sustainability and Olympic Games
The IOC was late in adjusting to the
emergence and development of environmental
concern during the 1970s in the Western world.
Indeed, it was only in 1996, two decades after
Denver declined to host the Winter Olympics,
that the IOC made the environmental dimension
an essential component in the bid to host the
Games. Characteristically, the following
paragraph was added to the Olympic Charter that
defined the role of the IOC in relation to the
environmental issue:
the IOC sees that the Olympic Games
are held in conditions which
demonstrate a responsible concern for
environmental issues and encourages
John Karamichas, Sport mega-events and environmental concern
24
the Olympic Movement to demonstrate a
responsible concern for environmental
issues, takes measures to reflect such
concern in its activities and educates all
those connected with the Olympic
Movement as to the importance of
sustainable development (IOC 2007: x)
By 2007, the IOC and its then president,
Jacques Rogge, were honoured as champions of
the Earth by the United Nations Environmental
Programme (UNEP). In receiving the award
Rogge made the following statement:
Since the early 90s the IOC and the
Olympic Movement have progressively
taken the environment and sustainability
into account throughout the lifecycle of
an Olympic Games project. The ‘Green
Games’ concept is increasingly a reality.
Today from the beginning of a city’s
desire to stage an Olympic Games
through to the long-term impact of those
Games, environmental protection and
more importantly sustainability are
prime elements of Games planning and
operations. I am very proud of this and
would like to thank the UNEP for
recognising these efforts (Beijing 2008,
2007)
This statement substantiates the long term
impact of Games hosting envisaged by the IOC.
As it becomes more apparent in the following
paragraphs, IOC’s vision corresponds well to the
aspirations of the ecological modernization/
environmental sustainability mindset.
Environmental sustainability is used as distinct
from notions of sustainable development in the
study of the environmental factor in the sport
mega-event context (see Mol, 2010). Although
sustainable development is usually linked to the
environment, the fact is that is also intimately
linked to the social. Some have made a
distinction between weak and strong
interpretations of ecological modernization and
sustainable development (see Christoff 1996;
Hayes & Horne 2011).
Engrenage
The preparation to host the Games demands
the successful coordination of various state
institutional bodies, collaboration with civil
organizations and significant restructuring of the
host cities’ infrastructure. That is bound to have
a significant impact on the polity, the decision-
making process, organization, scientific
consultation and use of new technologies. In an
earlier work, Karamichas (2013a) has seen this
long term impact as analogous to a process
making an impact on a nation’s capacity for
Ecological Modernization (EM) (Weidner 2002).
That capacity for EM can be seen as
something akin to Jean Monnet’s Engrenage1, ‘in
that the process of meeting the IOC’s
environmental standards could both drag with it
the host nation’s institutional framework and set
1 ‘Engrenage’ can be seen as a gear stick whereby the
selection of a particular gear sets in motion certain cogs
that control the movement of the car. Similarly, the entry
of a country in the European process sets in motion a
number of institutional cogs that progressively influence
the whole of the policy framework adopted by the country.
AEJES (2015) 1, 22-39
25
a precedent that other nations will strive to
emulate’ (Karamichas 2012a:156). In order to
assess how this process evolves in the context of
sport mega-event hosting, the analyst has to
examine each of the phases in the hosting
endeavour, namely the pre-event, event and post-
event phases (see Hiller 2000).
Environmental concern from applying to host
the Games to the post-event era
The pre-event phase includes the application
made by prospective host nations. This
application is very much guided by a Manual for
Candidate Cities (MCC) that the IOC publishes
eight years before an Olympiad in order to
inform prospective candidates and guide their
applications.
Among others, such as Environmental Impact
Assessments (EIAs) and collaboration with Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs), candidate
cities must present plans to increase the
environmental awareness of their population.
The underlying assumption employed here is that
the implementation of all these can become a
substantial precedent for the transformation of
the planning of the host country, not only to meet
IOC’s requirements but also to transform the
institutional and policy framework of host
countries along environmental modernization
(EM) lines.
Working Hypotheses
In attempting to examine the post-Olympic
EM capacity of successive Olympic host nations,
I employed the following two contrasting
hypotheses that I adapted from Andersen (2002):
1. in the wake of their respective Games
(which were after all awarded to them, at least in
part, on the basis of a range of green claims),
‘one should be able to identify marked signs of
environmental improvement’ in the host nations
(Karamichas 2012a:152; Karamichas
2013a:151).
2. to achieve environmental transformation,
the effect of hosting the Olympic Games
‘depends more on the supportiveness of domestic
political processes’(ibid) .
As it is shown below, environmental concern
exhibited by the host nation publics is the most
important factor that can direct any prospects
towards facilitating the EM capacity of the host
nation.
Indicators of post-Olympics capacity for EM
Through examination of key works on EM
(see Buttel 2000a, 2000b, 2003; Mol and
Sonnefeld 2000; Jänicke and Weidner 1997;
Weidner 2002) and the green legacy aspirations
of the IOC, six indicators were identified and put
to the test in assessing the post-Olympics
capacity in EM of successive Olympic host
nations: (i) average annual level of CO2
emissions; (ii) level of environmental
consciousness; (iii) ratification of international
agreements; (iv) designation of sites for
protection; (v) implementation of Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures; (vi)
Environmental Non-governmental Organizations
John Karamichas, Sport mega-events and environmental concern
26
(ENGOs) participation in public decision-
making processes (see Karamichas 2012a;
2013a). These indicators are interdependent and
can be mapped in a network of multidirectional
nodes where one indicator affects another and
vice versa.
The focus here is on the ‘level of
environmental consciousnesses’ as an indicator
with an immense potential to impact upon the
remaining five. For instance, increased levels of
environmental concern exhibited by the general
public are likely to lead the state government to
adopt relevant policies, ratify relevant
agreements (Kyoto protocol), and designate
nature protection sites. In addition, it may lead to
increased citizen support and participation in
ENGOs that in turn can monitor more
effectively, due to added support by the general
public/voters, the environmental policy actions
by the political administration. The following
sections discuss the findings on this indicator in
relation to successive Olympic Games. We start
with Australia, host nation of the first ‘green
Olympics’, Sydney 2000.
Environmental Concern in Australia
In the 2010 Australian General election,
88.3% of Australians claimed that the
environmental issue was important (46.6%:
‘quite important’, 41.7%: ‘extremely important’)
(ASSDA 2010). In order to appreciate that
really high score, one has to go back to 2007. It
was in that year that Kevin Ruud of the
Australian Labour Party (ALP) campaigned with
a promise to ratify the Kyoto protocol,
something that the previous, conservative
administration was vehemently refusing to do as
it was perceived as detrimental to the Australian
financial interests, such as the coal industry and
use of dirty coal for cheap energy provisions.
Disappointment in the failure by Ruud to
materialise his ambitious plan led to his 2010
replacement by Gillard in the leadership of ALP
and the collapse of the party’s appeal. It’s worth
noting here that the Australian public had not
lost its belief in the seriousness posed by climate
change or that the proposed measures lacked
support. Instead, it’s far more logical to see that
as a manifestation public frustration with the
continuous deferment or postponement of the
proposed measures (see Karamichas 2013a).
Following the ousting of Gillard from the
leadership of ALP, Rudd was reinstated as the
leader of the party in June 2013.
A minority ALP government, supported by
the Greens and three independent MPs stayed in
office until September 2013, when ALP was
defeated by Tony Abbott’s Liberals. Tony
Abbott had run a vehement campaign against the
climate-change measures, such as the carbon
pricing scheme, which were introduced by
Gillard. The electoral result achieved by Abbott
has been seen as ‘a vote against the Greens-
supported Labor government than an enthusiastic
embrace of Abbott’s alternative’ (Rootes 2014:
167). Indeed, the 2013 research conducted by
the Climate Institute revealed that a […]
AEJES (2015) 1, 22-39
27
[…] remarkably consistent two-thirds of
Australians accept that climate change
is real. It also reveals diminishing
confusion and a growing understanding
that climate impacts are occurring now,
[they are] no longer threats for the
future.
Significantly, the research has found
rebounding support for Australian leadership on
climate solutions. That number climbed for the
first time since 2007 (Climate Institute 2013:1).
This demonstrates that the 2012 suggestion
that the ‘electorate was largely fatigued with
politics of climate change and scared about the
risings cost of living’ (op.cit.:2) and that way the
2012 findings can be seen as a temporal blip
from the usually high scores on concern for
climate change exhibited by the Australian
public in relevant opinion polls. In relation to
our research question we can claim that no
causality can be identified between these high
scores and hosting the Sydney Games. Small
alterations on the expressed concern can be
mostly attributed to prevailing socio-economic
circumstances and how the climate change issue
is framed in the polemics of inter-party
competition.
Environmental Concern in Greece
Climate change appeared to be the highest
issue of concern for the Greek public in 2008
and 2009. More specifically 71% saw climate
change as the ‘most serious issue currently
facing the world as a whole’. In an earlier
discussion, I interpreted these results as follows:
There is good reason to believe that the Greek
public’s concern on climate change is much
more sincere and better informed during the first
decade of the 2000s than in the 1990s. It is
likely that this can be attributed to international
factors, such as the promotion of the role that
human activity has on climate change since the
2007 Nobel peace prize was shared by the IPCC
and former US vice-president Al Gore, and to
national factors such as the extremely
devastating forest fires of summer 2007, rather
than the staging of the 2004 Olympics and the
promotion of environmental awareness
associated with them’ (Karamichas 2012a:163).
This finding was based on the last relevant
Eurobarometer coinciding with the onset of the
2008 global economic crisis and before the
‘official’ entry of Greece in that economic
turmoil which resulted in severe austerity
measures.
Figure 1: Expressed concern about climate
change: EU and Greece (Source: European
Commission 2014)
50
50
50
71
61
53
2009
2011
2013
GR EU (28)
John Karamichas, Sport mega-events and environmental concern
28
As we can see on Figure 1, although the
European average remained stagnant at 50%,
there was a 10% decrease of the expressed
concern about climate change by the Greek
public in 2011 (dropping to 61% yet still
remaining significantly above the EU average).
A further decline became apparent in 2013, when
the expressed concern by the Greek public came
very close to the EU average, at 53%.
In order to complement our understanding on
the substantial decrease of expressed
environmental concern in 2011, it’s important to
bring into the discussion the position advocated
by Marquart-Pyatt (2007), that concern on
environmental issues tend to decrease when it’s
counterposed against certain materialist issues,
like prices and employment. Indeed, while we
witness a 10% decrease of the professed
environmental concern of the Greeks in 2011, at
the same time we had an increase (reaching
80%) of those who saw ‘poverty, hunger and
lack of drinking water’ as the ‘most serious issue
currently facing the world as a whole’. That
indicator was further increased in the 2013
Eurobarometer to 91% whilst the environmental
concern indicator went down to the European
average (European Commission 2014). In
relation to the research question that stimulated
this research, namely the post-olympics EM
capacity for the host nation where
‘environmental consciousness’ stands as the
most important indicator, we can reach again the
concluding remarks put forward in Karamichas
(2013a:186):
[Evidently] concern about climate
change decreases at a time when the
Greek public faces an extreme
deterioration of living standards. It is
clear, then, that the professed concern
about environmental issues in 2009 was
very much conditioned by the
aforementioned international and
national factors rather than a rise in
environmental awareness stimulated by
the Olympics.
Environmental Concern in China
China represents a very interesting case in
that, as an authoritarian regime, we lack
comparable data to the other Olympic editions
under examination here. Nevertheless, the
argument put forward in Karamichas (2013a)
was that China scores well in the environmental
concern idicator. That was based on secondary
data that was gathered from a number of relevant
publications. These were pointing out the
following:
i. The environmental issue was ranked as
the fourth highest concern.
ii. A good perecentage of respondents
(61%) believe that the country should reduce
emissions as much as other countries.
iii. According to the UNEP assessment of
the environmental credentials of the Beijing
Games, the intense media attention to the health
and safety of the athletes due the high levels of
environmental increased public awareness of
environmental issues. Issues that is the past
AEJES (2015) 1, 22-39
29
were disregarded have become major concerns
(see Karamichas 2013a:215-216).
That indicator in conjuction with the
environmental asprirations of the 12h Five Year
Plan (FYP) led Karamichas (2012a:226) to claim
that China has a positive score in all six EM
indicators.
This positive outcome could be attributed to
incremental developments that were bound to
take place in China after the 1978 modernising
reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping. Hosting
‘Green’ Olympics was an affirmation of this
path.
That can also be explained by the fact the
China followed the requirements of an Olympics
Impact Study (OGI) without been required to do
so, as the first OGI was to take place in relation
to the London 2012 Olympics. The extent to
which all these have led to a sustained increase
of environmental concern with an corresponding
performance in all other EM indicators is
debatable. When thinking in terms of an
environmental Kuznets curve, it can be argued
that as a growing number of Chinese citizens
improve their socio-economic status we are
going to see increased demands over qualitative
issues, like environmental protection, in a similar
fashion that the emergence and rise of new
demands evolved in the advanced Western
democracies in the 1960s/70s. Although, this
development is broadly acknowledged, there is
still scepticism concerning the obstacles that this
process is facing. A good, relevant example
comes out of Moore’s (2014) work on
technocratic mega-projects in China. In his
examination of the South-North Water Transfer
Project (NSWTP) Moore puts forward the
following:
Although the project was unfolded
against a dramatic transformation of
Chinese environmental politics and
policymaking, it exemplifies a
technocratic, authoritarian, and top-
down response to environmental
challenges.[…]. The case of NSWTP
illustrates that a richer understansing is
needed of how governments employ
persuasive resourses, such as messaging
and cooptation, to achieve strategic
goals in both environmental and other
policy areas. My account stresses how,
even in a contested, pluralised and
modernised political environment, an
authoritarian government can mount
large-scale, technocratic, and top-down
solutions to environmental policy
problems (ibid: 948).
With that in mind, one may venture towards
risking a prediction of intense social contestation
in China in the near future similar to that
witnessed in Brazil, one year before it was to
host the FIFA world cup and three years before
hosting the Rio Games. The Brazilian case is
discussed further down. Before that we proceed
to an appraisal of the London 2012 case.
John Karamichas, Sport mega-events and environmental concern
30
Environmental Concern in the UK
As we can see in Figure 2, environmental
concern in the UK has remained steady since
2009, below the EU average, at around 45%. It’s
interesting to contrast this score to the rather
significantly higher score that has marked the
Greek case. Indeed, considering that the UK has
‘one of the most widely supported environmental
movements in the world, with very good
organisational and policy impact[…]. [We may
assume that the concern exhibited by the British
public is] accompanied by environmental
knowledge, as distinct from the unqualified
concern that has [been] demonstrated by some
[nations, like Greece]…[In addition,] in the 2010
general elections that the Greens managed to
send their first MP in the House of Commons,
notwithstanding the continuing usage of the first-
past-the-post electoral system, notoriously
favourable to the two main political parties
(Karamichas 2012b:388). It is interesting to note
that leaders of three main competing parties in
general and David Cameron (Conservatives) and
Nick Glegg (Liberals) in particular spent a good
part of the televised pre-election debate
promoting their environmental credentials and
concerns about climate change. In addition, the
Conservative-Liberal coalition that was formed
after the elections seemed to be willing to
continue the good relationship between ENGOs
and government bodies that had marked the
preceding New Labour administration. Also,
David Cameron’s ‘Big society’ appeared at the
initial stages to give added impetus to bringing in
ENGO isights into the policy-making process.
The following lines examine the post-Olympic
state of environmental concern in the UK and
offers commentary in relation to the
aforementioned.
Figure 2: Expressed concern about climate
change: EU and UK (Source: European
Commission, 2014)
Karamichas (2013a:264-265) identified the
following in relation to the 2009 and 2011
special Eurobarometers (72.1 and 327) on
European Attitudes towards Climate Change:
1. In 2009 45% of the British public
considered climate change to be the ‘most
serious issue currently facing the world as a
whole’. That was lower than those who
considered poverty, lack of food, drinking water
and international terrorism as the most serious
problem (49%) and significantly lower than the
majority who feared a ‘a major global economic
downturn’ (55%).
2. There was overall increase of concern
across EU27 in 2011 (51%).
3. UK respondents: 51% listed ‘poverty,
lack of food and drinking water’; 45%
47
51
50
45
44
44
2009
2011
2013
UK EU (28)
AEJES (2015) 1, 22-39
31
‘international terrorism’ and 39% the ‘economic
situation’ as the most serious issue (multiple
answers allowed).
The fieldwork for the 2013 special
Eurobarometer on Climate change (European
Commission, 2014) was conducted from
November to December 2013, a few months
after the end of the London Games. As we will
show later that was good time to observe the link
between hosting the Games and the
environmental factor in general and
environmental concern in particular. Before we
examine these in more detail, it is important to
venture towards a brief examination of the
environmental claims that were made, and
actions taken, in the ‘pre-event’ and ‘event’
phases of the London Games.
The pre-event preparatory phase for hosting
the Games in London was marked by a
subscription to the notion of a global
commitment to sustainability in both the social
and environmental components inscribed in that
concept. That was encapsulated in the five key
themes of the London plan: climate change;
waste; biodiversity; inclusion; and healthy living.
These themes were systematically appraised
since 2008. Yet, a year later some refinements
were made on the overall strategy. Indeed, the
new version replaced the mantra of ‘reduce,
replace and offset’ with the ‘four steps of
“avoid/eliminate, reduce, substitute/replace,
compensate”. This change was more a
recognition that a “carbon neutral” Games was
an impossibility than it was a diversion from a
full commitment “to deliver a truly sustainable
Games’ (Karamichas, 2013a:244-245). Hayes
and Horne (2011:754-755) further comment that
by suggesting that
London 2012 has not set a “carbon
neutral” goal, has abandoned the highly
contentious practice of offsetting, and
has developed a carbon footprint
methodology calculating emissions
“when they happen”, producing a
reference footprint from the point of the
bid win to the closing Games ceremony,
assuming development as set out in the
bid dossier […].
Moreover, one of the last pre-game OGI
reports that was published in October 2010 noted
a ‘below average performance in the
environmental outcome indicators’ but also
suggested that these indicators ‘may be expected
to improve as the various environmentally
oriented activities begin to yield results’ (SRI
2010:25). Moreover, another crucial parameter
of the OGI study on the London Games is the
research component on the social dimensions of
sustainability. The importance of the social
dimension in relation to sports’ mega-event
hosting in general, and the London Games in
particular, can be seen in relation to two points:
1. The London 2012 bid to host the Games
gave emphasis on the rejuvenation of one of the
most deprived parts of London, marked by
specific demographics (persistent worklessness;
educational under-achievement; low health status
etc.). The underlying rationale was that the
John Karamichas, Sport mega-events and environmental concern
32
Games will work towards regenerating that
extremely disadvantaged community by
providing better employment opportunities and
housing for all.
2. The 2011 riots that took place in the
above mentioned five Olympic boroughs. The
rioters were seen by many as moral outliers but
the most detailed analysis on their underlying
causes points to the extreme levels of income
inequality that exist in the UK. In these cases a
spark, a police killing in that case, is enough to
ignite the brewing discontent.
In a study on London 2012 by Karamichas
(2013b), the assessment of the UK’s post-event
capacity for environmental sustainability had
also to take into account the impact of the
austerity cuts due to the economic crisis and the
policies of David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ into
consideration as an intervening variable.
Through that, the following argument was put
forward:
Although the UK had a much better ES
[environmental sustainability] capacity
than other Olympic hosts nations when it
submitted its bid to the IOC, it appears
that the initiation of austerity cuts and
‘Big Society’ policies have significantly
downgraded this status. In particular,
although the UK never received a
positive score in all six indicators, with
the advent of ‘Big Society’ four of the
indicators were downgraded to
ambiguous or negative status (op.cit.:4).
In relation to the immediate post-events
phase, such as ‘a cabinet reshuffle [appointed] a
climate change sceptic as Secretary of State for
the Environment…and announcement for plans
to relax environmental restrictions in order to
stimulate growth by mega-projects’ were also
put forward (ibid). Moreover, the fact that the
OGI study can conclude in 2015 and that the
2011 riots started in the socially disadvantaged
Olympic Boroughs means that both the
environmental and social sustainability legacy of
the London Games has to be examined into the
foreseeable future.
The next section deals with the Brazilian case,
host of the 2024 FIFA World Cup and the 2016
Olympic Games. In that case we also had
rioting, one year before the start of a sport mega-
event. This time, though, protest events were not
stimulated by the most disaffected echelons of
society.
Prospects for Rio 2016
When Brazil was awarded the hosting of two
sport mega-events (2014 FIFA World Cup and
2016 Olympics), ‘the economy was booming,
poverty falling, the destruction of the Amazon
was falling and [the then president] Lula [da
Silva] was one of the most popular presidents in
the world’ (Watts 2014:15). However, since
2011 ‘the economy has slowed dramatically.
Environmental concerns have been put on the
back burner. Dam and mining megaprojects are
eating into land owned by indigenous tribes.
Conservationist appear increasingly sidelined
AEJES (2015) 1, 22-39
33
and Amazon clearance has suffered its sharpest
uptick in a decade’ (ibid). How have these
developments impacted on the general level of
environmental concern of the Brazilian public?
Surveys conducted from 2003 to 2013 were
indicating that Brazilians were leading in
concern about environmental issues ‘with over
90% perceiving air pollution, climate change,
biodiversity loss or water availability as very
serious problems – at least 30 percentage points
more than the international average’ (Echegaray
2013). Moreover, a majority
puts a premium upon environmental
protection over economic growth and
enthusiasm to engage in domestic
recycling if given the chance [… and] a
record level of interest in corporate
sustainability, well over 70% since
[…in] 2002, […] one in two adults
willing to pay more for an ethical
product (ibid).
Similarly high results were exhibited by the
Greeks in the late 1990s but serious concerns
were also expressed on their seriousness and
validity (see Karamichas 2007).
Before we offer a critical look on the these
data through our own exploration, it is of great
importance to highlight the fact that Brazil in
general and Rio de Janeiro in particular are
intimately associated with Sustainable
Development (SD). Lest we forget that the core
challenges that environmental protection
combined with the developmental process at the
global level was facing came out in a heavily
loaded sentence by the Brazilian delegate at the
1972 UN Conference on the Human
Environment in Stockholm: the said delegate
claimed that ‘pollution is a sign of progress and
that environmentalism was a luxury only
developed countries could afford’ (Hogan
2000:2) and continued by saying that he ‘prayed
for the day when they would share in the
developed world’s industrial pollution and would
welcome multinational investors, willing to help
them pollute’ (Leonard 1988:69). That statement
played a pivotal role in generating the SD
perspective during the early 1990s at the 1992
Rio Conference and was preceded by the
publication of Our Common Future by the
World Committee for Environment and
Development (WCED 1987) under the direction
of Gro Harlem Brundtland. In response to
concerns expressed by developing nations, the
book was marked by a systematic attempt to
bring under a single discourse the economy, the
development and the environment. That is
encapsulated in the well-known definition of SD,
‘sustainable development is development that
meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs’.
Moreover, although the IOC’s concern with
the environmental issue can be traced back to
Samaranch’s 1986 declaration that the
environment was the third pillar of Olympism, it
was the Rio Summit and the support for SD that
made that ambition possible. The Local Agenda
21 (LA21), drafted by UNEP for the Summit,
John Karamichas, Sport mega-events and environmental concern
34
was adopted by 182 governments and offered a
manual for developing an LA21 that was specific
to individual country or community
requirements. In 1994 the IOC, in collaboration
with UNEP, began to make its third pillar
ambition more of a reality, and by 1995 the IOC
had its own Sport and Environment Commission.
As it has already been argued, a crucial
development in relation to the SD promise of the
Games was the agreement for a compulsory
application of an OGI study in 2001 with
London been mandated to be the first summer
Games to carry out the study. Following these
requirements, the Organizing Committee for the
Olympic and Paralympic Games Rio 2016
signed a contract with COPPE/UFRJ (Post-grad
Institute, Federal University) for an OGI study.
The examination of Rio’s bid to host the
Games demonstrates, like London, an SD
perspective that manages to take into
consideration both social and environmental
parameters. This is clear in the following
sustainability claims made in Rio’s candidature
file:
Rio 2016 will deliver flawless Games,
powered by Rio’s energy and underpinned
by technical excellence, so that every
moment is enjoyed, and Rio and its people
benefit from long-term and sustainable
improvements to the city.
These include improvements in housing,
improvements in security and enhanced
transport with the completion of a new
high performance transport ring. The
historic Port will be transformed for the
Games and become a new focus for
business, entertainment and tourism (Rio
2016:2009).
Nevertheless, in preparing to host these two
sport mega-events a good number of
environmental and human rights violations have
become apparent. On the environmental front,
the National Coalition of Local Committees for a
People’s World Cup and Olympics (2012:26)
notes that,
The 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympic
Games are being used to evade legal
procedures designed to protect the
natural environment and guarantee the
environmental rights of the population.
In a similar fashion to other sport mega-
events, the limitations that can be identified by
EIAs in the relevant projects have been cast
aside. The same is also the case as far as social
parameters are concerned. Gaffney (2013:3931)
suggests the following in relation to Rio 2016:
The improvised revision of the city’s
master plan has been accompanied by
an extensive list of executive decrees
that have “flexibilized” urban space in
order for Olympic related projects to
occur. These measures have undermined
Rio’s fledging democratic institutions
and reduced public participation in
urban planning processes.
Sport mega-event hosting is always a point of
contestation by different social actors that varies
in intensity across the different phases of games
AEJES (2015) 1, 22-39
35
hosting (see Hiller 2000:192). Similarly to
London, Brazil also experienced intense protest
and rioting a year before hosting the FIFA World
Cup, in June 2013. In contrast to the London
case, and although there was a clear focus on the
costs of the mega-events and the impact that this
has on health and education budgets, this civil
contestation can be mostly seen as the result of
the above disappointment felt by the rising
echelons in Brazilian society rather than by the
persistently impoverished sections of society.
We may even claim that participants in these
protest events are not a representative sample of
Brazilian society but committed activists of the
anti-globalization and the more recent
Indignants/occupy protest milieu (see also Singer
2014; Spyer N/A).
It is interesting to note how that social
contestation was acknowledged in the
subsequent electoral contests that followed. In
the elections of October 2014, the incumbent
Dilma Rousseff was re-elected and that way
continued the PT’s (Labour Party) 12 year run in
the country’s highest office. An important fact
in relation to that outcome is that the current
administration has been criticized for
disregarding the environmental aspect of
economic development or in other words
sustainable development (see Moreira Salles
2014).
That result can be mostly attributed to the
exigencies of political competition in Brazil and
in no way can be perceived as an acceptance of
the environmentally dismal approach followed
by the administration. In order to assess the
environmental concern in Brazil and the extent
to which this can be linked to sport mega-event
hosting, we would need to examine of the
available data and follow the reviews of the OGI
studies on Rio de Janeiro 2016.
Concluding remarks
Although the identification of increase in the
environmental awareness of the Australian and
Greek publics in the immediate post Olympics
period was the issue that allowed for comparison
between two radically different cases, a green
Olympics success (Sydney 2000) and a green
Olympics failure (Athens 2004), no causality has
been substantiated between hosting the Games
and expressed concern about environmental
issues, like climate change. Instead whatever
rise or decline in that concern was identified had
more to do with changes in the socio-economic
conditions than hosting the Games.
The rest of the identified EM indicators have
been also largely conditioned by that factor.
There is a great diversion from this norm in the
Chinese case where the Games constitute part of
an initiation in the modernization process. The
increase number of people entering the middle-
class strata in China is very much likely to
increase the level of expressed environmental
concern in this country.
In the London case, we have the remarkable
phenomenon where a country with strong EM
credentials has been moving to the opposite
direction since hosting the Games.
John Karamichas, Sport mega-events and environmental concern
36
The Chinese experience is likely to be the
case in the other BRICS with Brazil clearly
standing out as a country where changes in
public attitudes as a result of changes in the
economic status of many have been already
manifested.
References
Andersen M. S. (2002), Ecological
Modernization or Subversion? The Effect of
Europeanization on Eastern Europe, American
Behavioral Scientist, 45(9): 1394-1416.
Available at: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/
45/9/1394.short
ASSDA (2010), Australian Election Study, 2010.
Available at: http://nesstar.assda.edu.au/
webview/index.jsp?study=http%3A%2F%2Fnes
star.assda.edu.au%3A80%2Fobj%2FfStudy%2F
au.edu.anu.assda.ddi.01228&v=2&mode=docum
entation&submode=abstract&top=yes,
Beijing 2008 (2007), IOC to be honoured as
Champion of the Earth 2007, Available at:
http://en.beijing2008.cn/05//61/article214016105
.shtml,
Bourdieu P. (1990), Other Words. Cambridge:
Polity.
Buttel F. H. (2000a), ‘Classical theory and
contemporary environmental sociology: Some
reflections on the antecedents and prospects for
reflection modernization theories in the study of
environment and society’, in Spaargaren G., Mol
A.P.J. and Buttel F.H. (Eds.), Environment and
Global Modernity, London: Sage, pp. 17-40.
Buttel F. H. (2000b), Ecological modernisation
as social theory, Geoforum, 31(1): 57-65.
Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0016718599000445
Buttel F. H. (2003), Environmental sociology
and the explanation of environmental reform,
Organization and Environment, 16(3): 306-344.
Available at: http://oae.sagepub.com/content/
16/3/306.short
Christoff P. (1996), Ecological Modernisation,
Ecological Modernities, Environmental Politics,
5(3):476-500. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09
644019608414283
Climate Institute (2013), Climate of the Nation.
Australian attitudes on climate change. Sydney:
The Climate Institute; Available at:
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resour
ces/TCI_ClimateOfTheNation2013_web.pdf
Echegaray F. (2013), ‘Sustainability in Brazil: a
mixed conundrum’, The Guardian, 13 March;
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/
sustainable-business/sustainability-brazil-mixed-
conundrum
European Commission (2014) ‘Climate Change
Report’, Special Eurobarometer, 409.
Gaffney Ch. (2013), Between Discourse and
Reality: The Un-Sustainability of Mega-Events
Planning, Sustainability, 5:3926-3940.
Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-
1050/5/9/3926/htm
AEJES (2015) 1, 22-39
37
Giddens A. (2009), The Politics of Climate
Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens A. (2008), Sociology, 6th
Edition,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hayes G. and Horne J. (2011), Sustainable
Development, Shock and Awe? London 2012 and
Civil Society, Sociology, 45(5):749-64.
Available at: http://soc.sagepub.com/content/
45/5/749.short
Hiller H. H. (2000), Toward an Urban Sociology
of Mega-events, Research in Urban Sociology,
5:181-205. Available at:
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~hiller/pdfs/Mega_Eve
nts.pdf
Hogan D. J. (2000), Socio-Demographic
Dimensions of Sustainability: Brazilian
Perspectives, Available at:
www.ciesin.columbia.edu/repository/pern/papers
/ISARio2000.doc
IOC (2007), Olympic Charter. Lausane:
International Olympic Committee.
Jänicke M. and Weidner H. (1997), National
Environmental Policies: A Comparative Study of
Capacity-Building (13 Countries). New
York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Karamichas J. (2013b), London 2012 and
Environmental Sustainability: A Study Through
the Lens of Environmental Sociology,
Sociological Research Online, 18(1):17.
Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/
18/3/17.html
Karamichas J. (2013a), The Olympic Games and
the Environment, Houndmills: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Karamichas J (2012b), ‘The Olympics and the
Environment’, in S.H.J. Lenskyj and S. Wagg
(eds.), Handbook of Olympic Studies,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 381-393.
Karamichas J (2012a), ‘Olympic Games as an
Opportunity for the Ecological Modernisation of
the Host Nation: The Cases of Sydney 2000 and
Athens 2004’, in Hayes G. and Karamichas J.
(Eds), Olympic Games, Mega Events and Civil
Societies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.
151-171.
Karamichas J. (2007), The impact of the summer
2007 forest fires in Greece: Recent
environmental mobilizations, cyber-activism and
electoral performance, South European Society
and Politics, 12(4):521-33. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13
608740701731473#.VJ3UZsjQ
Karamichas J. (2005), Risk versus National
Pride: Conflicting Discourses over the
Construction of a High Voltage Power Station in
the Athens Metropolitan Area for Demands of
the 2004 Olympics, Human Ecology Review,
12(2):133-42. Available at:
http://ajph.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/h
er122/karamichas.pdf
Leonard H. J. (1988), Pollution and the Struggle
for the World Product: Multinational
Corporations, Environment and International
John Karamichas, Sport mega-events and environmental concern
38
Comparative Advantage, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Marquart-Pyatt S. T. (2007), Concern for the
environment among general publics: A cross-
national study, Society and Natural Resources,
20(10):833-98. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08
941920701460341#.VJ3UlsjQ
Mol A. P. J. (2010), Sustainability as global
attractor: the greening of the 2008 Beijing
Olympics, Global Networks, 10(4):510-528.
Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2010.00289.x/abstract
Mol A. P. J. and Sonnefeld D. A. (2000),
Ecological modernisation around the world: an
introduction, Environmental Politics, 9(1):1-14.
Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/
doi/pdf/10.1080/09644010008414510
Moore S. M. (2014), Modernisation,
authoritarianism, and the environment: the
politics of China’s South-North Water Transfer
Project, Environmental Politics, 23(6):947-964.
Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/
9sc9bJnUph4QkhnP4SeF/full#.VJ3VAsjQ
Moreira Salles J. (2014). Why the Result of
Brazil’s Elections Could Be Bad News For The
Climate, 30 October; Available at:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/30/3585
968/brazilian-elections-bad-news-climate/,
National Coalition of Local Committees for a
People’s World Cup and Olympics (2012),
Mega-Events and Human Rights Violations in
Brazil; Available at:http://rioonwatch.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/2012-World-Cup-
Olympics-Dossier-English.pdf,
Rio 2016 (2009) Candidature File for Rio de
Janeiro to Host the 2016 Olympic and
Paralympic Games, Rio 2016 Candidate City.
Rootes Ch. (2014), A referendum on the carbon
tax? The 2013 Australian election, the Greens
and the environment, Environmental Politics,
23(1):166-173. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09
644016.2014.878088#.VJ3VJsjQ
Singer A. (2014), Rebellion in Brazil. Social and
Political Complexion of the June Events, New
Left Review, 85:19-37. Available at:
http://newleftreview.org/II/85/andre-singer-
rebellion-in-brazil
Spyer J. (N/A), An Ethnographic Account of the
Riots in Brazil Seen from the Periphery, Cultural
Anthropology. Available at:
http://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/440-an-
ethnographic-account-of-the-riots-in-brazil-seen-
from-the-periphery;
SRI (2010), Olympic Games Impact Study
(OGIS) London 2012, London: UEL. Available
at: http://www.uel.ac.uk/sri/LTGDC-
OlympicGamesImpactStudy.htm;
Watts J. (2014), ‘B’, The Observer Magazine, 26
January.
Weidner H. (2002), Capacity Building for
Ecological Modernization: Lessons from Cross-
National Research, American Behavioral
AEJES (2015) 1, 22-39
39
Scientist, 45(9):1340-68. Available at:
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/45/9/1340.short
40
The impact of distance on a ‘NIMBY’ stance towards windfarms’
development
Yiannis Moysiadis, Chrisovaladis Malesios & Iosif Botetzagias
A U T H O R S I N F O A B S T R A C T
Yiannis Moysiadis holds a M.Sc.
in Environmental Policy &
Management from the Department
of Environment, University of the
Aegean, Greece. The current paper
originates from his M.Sc. thesis.
Chrisovaladis Malesios is a
researcher at the Department of
Agricultural Development,
Democritus University of Thrace,
Greece.
Iosif Botetzagias* is an Assistant
Professor at the Department of
Environment, University of the
Aegean, Greece
*email: iosif@aegean.gr
Research on local reactions to the establishment of a windfarm
(WF) has suggested a ‘proximity hypothesis’ which argues that
those living closer to a proposed WF would reject it more
strongly, arguably due to their NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard)
stance. In this paper we put this hypothesis to the test, by
comparing the local inhabitants’ NIMBY attitudes towards a
privately-owned WF in two areas of the Greek island of Lesvos
(in the area where the WF will be built and in an area which is
not going to be affected by the project, aggregate N= 278). We
find that one’s area of residence is not a statistically significant
predictor of NIMBY, similarly to his/hers demographic
characteristics. On the contrary, one’s perceived costs,
unfairness of the siting, lack of benefits and risks associated
with the project all impact on a NIMBY attitude.
K E Y W O R D S (in alphabetical order): Greece; NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard); proximity hypothesis;
windfarms
Introduction
Local reactions to windfarms’ development
which is initiated from outside the affected
community are, still, routinely dismissed as a
‘NIMBY’ (Not-in-My-Back-Yard) reaction.
NIMBY is supposed to encapsulate ‘the
protectionist attitudes of and oppositional tactics
adopted by community groups facing an
unwelcome development in their neighborhood
[..] Residents usually concede that these
«noxious» facilities are necessary, but not near
their homes, hence the term «not in my back
yard»’ (Dear 1992: 288). Promoters of ‘these
“noxious” facilities’, windfarms included, all to
easily describe any opposition as ‘NIMBY’ (e.g.
Barry et al. 2008) and those reacting are thus
labelled as ‘ignorant’, ‘misinformed’, ‘irrational’
and/or reacting due to a selfish, economic
rationale (Aitken 2010, Barry et al. 2008,
Freudenburg and Pastor 1992, Wolsink and
Devilee 2009), arguably in a strategic attempt to
AEJES (2015) 1, 40-61
41
downgrade and disqualify the opposing camp’s
arguments (Cass and Walker 2009:68).
Nevertheless, past research has demonstrated
that local opposition can stem from a variety of
reasons. Wolsink (2000; 2007b) shows that
visual impacts, perceived annoyances, the
potential benefits of clean energy as well as the
feeling that one can influence the decision
making process, all have a larger impact than
NIMBY on an individual’s willingness to resist a
wind farm. Thus NIMBY is not the same with
rejecting a WF: the former is one of the possible
predictors of the latter. Furthermore, NIMBY is
not the same with the ‘I-don’t-want-the-WF-
here’ statement: ‘not-here’ may be just a sub-
category of ‘not-anywhere’ (a case of NIABY,
Not-In-Anybodys-Back-Yard’), a stance
stemming from a complete rejection of the
particular type of development – and quite
common in opposition to nuclear plants for
example- (see Luloff et al. 1998:83): rather, ‘A
positive attitude towards wind power, combined
with opposition to the construction of a wind
farm anywhere in one's own neighbourhood …
reflects the only true NIMBY standpoint’
(Wolsink 2000:57).
Accordingly, a NIMBY standpoint seems to
intraxicably linked to space: the further away, or
even better as-far-away-as-possible, the
proposed development the less likely it is that the
local inhabitants would entertain NIMBY
considerations. In this paper we put this claim to
the test, by comparing the presence of NIMBY
considerations among the inhabitants of the
Greek island of Lesvos, where a mega wind-farm
is to be installed. We juxtapose the views of two
sub-samples of the local population: on one
hand, those living on the western part of the
island where the development is to take place
and who will thus be directly affected; on the
other hand, those living on the eastern part of the
island who will have no visual or other contact
with/effect by the proposed windfarm. If the
‘physical proximity’ hypothesis is correct, then
the (strongest) differentiating factor between the
two sub-groups’ NIMBY attitudes should be
their area of residence.
Thus the paper develops as follows. In the
next section we present the Literature review
discussing both the framework for conducting a
meaningful analysis of the NIMBY attitude
concerning a proposed project as well as the
findings of previous research on the ‘physical
proximity’ hypothesis vis-à-vis other predictors
of an oppositional attitude. Next we present our
case-study’s and sample’s characteristics and
introduce the (latent) variables we will use for
our analysis. In the, subsequent, Results’ section
we present the findings of the regression models
utilized. We find that ‘proximity to the proposed
WF’ is not a statistically-significant predictor of
one’s NIMBY stance. Our results show that an
individual wants a WF out of one area and into
some other, not because of the particular area
s/he lives but because s/he perceives the siting of
the WF in that ‘particular’ area as costly, risky,
not beneficial and, most importantly, unfair. Yet,
since these negative attributions are more
Yiannis Moysiadis et al., The impact of distance on NIMBY views
42
pronounced in the area closer to the proposed
WF development, we conclude the paper by
discussing why this may be the case and by
proposing avenues for future research.
Literature Review
The importance of the research’s timing of the
research
Available research has demonstrated that
local attitudes towards wind energy/windfarms
are not static but rather exhibit a U-shape
trajectory over time, as a wind farm proposal
moves across the ‘no plan’, ‘planned proposal’
and ‘built/completed project’ (cf. Wolsink 1994;
Devine-Wright 2005; Wolsink 2007b). The fact
that the lowest level of support/most negative
attitudes are recorded at the planning phase of a
WF project, shows that ‘The announcement of a
project suddenly creates a vested interest [in the
local population] and, therefore, it starts a
process of thinking’ with ‘general attitudes
becoming more critical’ (Wolsink 2007b:1199).
It is particularly at this stage, when confronted
with a real possibility, that locals are more likely
to exhibit the free-riding approach to the social
dilemma which is implicit in the ‘NIMBY
syndrome’ formulation: to refuse to bear the
personal costs associated with the development
although they recognize the social benefits this
development will bring along (Wolsink
2007a:2699). Thus, we concur with van der
Horst (2007) who claims that when it comes to
measuring the responses by the public
The facts that the strongest opposition occurs
during the planning phase and that it is the
frequent difficulties of gaining local planning
permission which have brought the NIMBY
debate to the fore, clearly speak in favour of
abandoning academic reference to the so-called
NIMBY phenomenon in the ‘after’ stage (or in
the ‘before’ stage when it is just hypothetical)
(p.2710).
Accordingly, in this paper we measured the
locals’ attitudes and perceptions concerning a
real-life WF which, at the time of research, was
at the stage of gaining permission. Thus, we are
able to study the occurrence of NIMBY at the
most appropriate stage of the local opposition.
A reliable scale for measuring NIMBY
Another important condition for any
meaningful analysis, is to develop and use a
reliable scale for measuring the ‘not-in-my-back-
yard’ stance. Available studies on NIMBY are
notorious for not properly identifying what
exactly is measured by the term (cf. Wolsink
2006). Usually NIMBY is simply equated with
resistance/rejection of a development while it
should represent ‘a positive attitude to wind
power with resistance against a particular
project’ (Wolsink 2000:53).Thus, for properly
measuring NIMBY, one should use items which
actually ‘measure the individual’s inclination to
motivate resistance with backyard arguments’,
and those
Items for the backyard-scale must be
variants of the recognition that only the
AEJES (2015) 1, 40-61
43
population living near a certain site will be
confronted with the cost of the facility,
whereas others (the initiators, the investors
or the society as a whole) enjoy the
benefits. The items should reflect the
component of the assumed tendency to
frame the issue in terms of (economic)
rationality and utility maximisation, which
can be summarised as «citizens demand
the completion of such projects, but refuse
to have them located in their vicinity»
(Frey and Oberholzer-Gee 1997, p. 747)
(Wolsink & Deville 2009:224-225).
Accordingly, in this paper we use a NIMBY
scale which has been developed and tested in
previous research concerning local reactions to
the siting of waste infrastructure facilities in the
Netherlands (Wolsink and Devilee 2009) and
subsequently used in the study of wind farms in
Greece (Botetzagias et al. 2015) (see Data and
Methods section for details on the scale).
The role of distance on NIMBY views
There exists a substantial literature on the
issue of wind farms’ acceptance and the so-
called ‘proximity hypothesis’. Nevertheless, all
of the available studies we are aware of focus on
existing wind farms, on wind energy
acceptability in general and/or examine the
influence of distance on one accepting/rejecting
a WF -with mixed results.
Concerning the relation between proximity
and wind energy acceptance, Ek (2005) found
that distance from an operational WF has no
influence on ‘general attitude towards wind
power’ while Showfford and Slattery
(2010:2514-2515) report an inverse relation
between proximity to an existing WF and
positive attitudes towards wind energy -similar
to Jacquet (2012:682-683).
Concerning the relation between proximity
and views on an operational/existing WF,
Warren et al (2005) and Braunholtz (2003:20)
found a ‘reversed NIMBY effect’ whereas
people living closer to existing WFs hold more
positive views of them: this unanticipated
finding was attributed either to nearby residents
being the beneficiaries of projects
benefits/royalties etc (Jacquet 2012:678) or to
the fact that the anticipated negative impacts,
prior to the operation of the WF, failed to
materialize (Braunholtz 2003:9-10; Warren et al
2005:863).
Concerning the relation between proximity
and acceptance of new WFs, the results of
available studies are inconclusive. Johansson and
Laike (2007:448) found that living at different
distances from an existing WF had no statistical
effect on one’s willingness to oppose additional
turbines. Braunholtz (2003) found that those
living closer to WFs are more willing to accept
their expansion while, on the contrary,
Showfford and Slattery (2010:2515) report that
they are less willing to accept the installment of
new WFs in one’s property/sight/community. On
the other hand, when studying the attitudes
towards a proposed WF, Warren et al (2005:863)
found that those living closer to an approved-to-
Yiannis Moysiadis et al., The impact of distance on NIMBY views
44
be-built WF were more negative to it, similar to
Jones and Eiser’s (2010) analysis of four
proposed sites in the UK in which positive
attitudes towards the WFs were found to increase
(albeit not in a linear fashion) with increasing
distance from the identified sites (p. 3114). The
previous discussion is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: The influence of distance on views
concerning wind energy/windfarms
Views on wind energy
acceptance
Distance from
operational WF plays
no role (Ek 2005)
Acceptance increases
with distance from
operational WF
(Showfford and
Slattery 2010; Jacquet
2012)
Views on operational/
existing WFs
People living closer to
WF have more
positive views (labeled
as a ‘reversed NIMBY
effect’) (Warren et al.
2005; Braunholtz
2003)
Views on expanding an
existing WF
Distance has now
effect (Johansson and
Laike 2007)
Those living closer to
the WF are more
willing to accept
expansion (Braunholtz
2003)
Those living closer to
the WF are less willing
to accept expansion
(Showfford and
Slattery 2010)
Views on establishing a
new WF
Those living closer to
the WF are less
positive/willing to
accept establishment
(Warren et al. 2005;
Jones and Eiser 2010)
Since our study focus on the assessment of a
proposed WF by the local community, it is
comparable to Warren et al (2005) and Jones and
Eiser (2010). Similar to them, we expect that
negative attitudes will be stronger closer to the
proposed WF site yet whether this is also going
to by the case for NIMBY attitudes remains to be
tested. Nevertheless, since a ‘not-in-my-back-
yard’ stance is in any case a rejection of the
proposal, we anticipate that NIMBY attitudes
will be stronger closer to the proposed WF site.
2.4 The role of other predictors on NIMBY views
Since the ‘not-in-my-back-yard’ stance is
supposed to encapsulate an individual’s
willingness to maximize his own utility, then it is
only logical to expect that NIMBY will be
positively correlated with risks and costs
perceptions concerning the WF development. On
the contrary, the more an individual perceives
AEJES (2015) 1, 40-61
45
(personal) benefits out of the project, the less
likely s/he is to demand its relocation.
Nevertheless, a growing literature is
suggesting that ‘fairness’ is also playing a crucial
role in the local acceptance of WFs (e.g. Devine-
Wright 2005; Gross 2007; Ellis et al. 2007;
Breukers and Wolsink 2007; Wolsink 2007a;
Toke et al. 2008; Jones and Eiser 2010;
Botetzagias et al. 2015). Researchers have
usually distinguished between four types of
‘fairness’ (or ‘justice’) regarding the siting
process (cf. Besley 2012, Huijts et al. 2012).
‘Procedural fairness’ refers to the extent that an
individual considers that the decision making
process had been properly conducted and that
s/he had had a meaningful voice in it. A related,
yet rarely analyzed, type is ‘informational
fairness’, the belief that decision-makers have
provided appropriate and meaningful
information over the decision-making process.
‘Distributive’ or ‘outcome’ fairness refers to
whether distribution of perceived benefits, costs
and (especially) risks associated with a particular
decision is considered fair. And, finally,
‘interpersonal fairness’ relates to whether
individuals think that decision makers are
respectful of their views and trustworthy -and
this is why this type of fairness is usually
subsumed under the concept of ‘trust’.
In this paper, similar to Wolsink and Devilee
(2009) and Botetzagias et al. (2015), we do not
examine the impact of all four fairness’ types,
but only the ‘distributive/outcome fairness’ one.
This is because of our dependent variable, the
existance of NIMBY. The basic idea behind the
‘NIMBY syndrome’ has been that it is a
manifestation of free-riding in a social dilemma:
locals recognize the social benefits of the
proposed development yet they refuse to bear the
personal costs associated with it (Wolsink
2007a:2699). Nevertheless, there exists another
possible explanation: people may wish to “pass-
the-burden” not because they are free-riders but
rather because they feel that they get an
unfair/excessive (share of the) burden. This latter
explanation relates to what Kerr (1995:39)
describes as ‘the equity norm’ in social
dilemmas which ‘applies to the allocation of
resources among group members. It prescribes
that payoffs are distributed in proportion to
contributions, inputs, or costs’. It is because of
the equity norm’s importance in social dilemmas
and of its obvious correspondance with the
distributive fairness concept that we focus on
‘distributive/outcome’ fairness in this paper. If
one’s willingness to move the WF out of his
‘back-yard’ (NIMBY) is also correlated with
distributive unfairness then its justification as
mere “free-riding” will be severely weakened.
As a matter of fact, this has been demonstrated to
be the case by other research (Botetzagias et al
2015), with the authors commenting that when it
comes to the acceptance of WFs ‘slightly
paraphrasing Wolsink and Devilee (2009:231-
232), «the crucial factor is clearly not that
residents have strong intentions to shift the
burden to others, but that they consider it unfair
that others, the decision makers [and the outsider
Yiannis Moysiadis et al., The impact of distance on NIMBY views
46
promoters, who the locals do not trust,] are
placing the burden on them»’ (Botetzagias et al
2015:17).
Accordingly in this paper we test the
influence of perceived risks, costs, benefits and
distributive fairness on NIMBY, alongside the
standard socio-demographic predictors, in
conjunction with the ‘proximity hypothesis’.
Data & Methods
Case-study areas & samples
Under Greek law, permission to build a WF
rests with the Greek Regulatory Authority for
Energy (RAE) and the Ministry for the
Environment. Local communities & government
have the right to opine on an application yet they
have no means for rejecting the development as
long as it meets the legal requirements (i.e.
successful completion of environmental impact
studies etc.). Similar to other countries, wind
energy electricity production enjoys feed-in
tariffs, while areas nearby the WFs are entitled to
“reciprocate benefits”, standing at a 3% of the
electricity’s price (before taxes), payable to the
local government.
Our case study area is the Greek island of
Lesvos, in the northern Aegean Sea. The WFs’
siting on Lesvos is part of a larger, privately-
owned, project called “Aegean Link” (Greek:
Αιγαία Ζεύξη). In its most basic form, “Aegean
Link” aims to install a total of 373 turbines
(706MW of installed power) on the Greek
islands of Lesvos, Chios and Lemnos, which will
then be interlinked and connected to mainland
Greece via underwater cables. Lesvos stands to
host 10 WFs with 153 wind-turbines (306MW
installed power) at the western part of the island
(see Map 1), an area which currently hosts two
small (one state-owned and one privately-
owned) WFs (2.02MW and 9.6MW installed
power respectively). At the time of our research
the application was still under consideration by
the local government authorities (which
nevertheless held a favorable view and in fact
opined in favor of the project a few weeks after
we concluded our research in the area).
Map 1: The siting of the ‘Aegean Link’ wind-farms on
western Lesvos. The red dots represent individual wind
turbines. The names in black stand for local villages. The
names in red stand for the wind farms sites.
AEJES (2015) 1, 40-61
47
In Autumn 2012 we visited a number of
villages on western Lesvos (which are situated
within the development’s range thus will be
affected by it) and on eastern Lesvos (which will
have no direct effect (i.e. visual, noise, etc.) by
the ‘Aegean Link’ project) (see Map 2), and
conducted face-to-face interviews with local
inhabitants. The sampling technique selected was
simple random sampling while, based on the
population of the areas’ surrounding villages and
for a predetermined margin of error (e=5%), the
required sample size was 267 (see Table 2 for
the samples’ details). We tried to survey villages
of similar sizes between the two areas, and the
number of questionnaires distributed and
collected per village/area is shown in Table 1).
In the following analyses and discussions we
refer to and use the aggregate data.
Map 2: Villages surveyed for this paper. In orange
background are the ‘would-be-affected’ villages of western
Lesvos; in yyeellllooww background are the ‘not-to-be-affected’
villages of eastern Lesvos.
Table 2: Places surveyed and number of
interviews
Variables used
Dependent (latent) variable: The dependent
variable in our analysis is the respondent’s
NIMBY stance towards the proposed WF. As we
have mentioned earlier, a truly ‘backyard
motives’ attitude should clearly manifest “free-
riding” in a social dilemma. Thus, for
constructing a NIMBY scale, we take our cue
from Wolsink & Devilee’s (2009) and
Botetzagias et al. (2015). We asked our
respondents the following question: ‘Here follow
Questionnaires
Area/
Village
name
Population
(2001
census) Distributed Collected
Western
Lesvos 4,242 139 134
Agra 990 32 32
Eresos 1097 37 37
Antissa 900 29 24
Sigri 402 13 13
Mesotopos 853 28 28
Eastern
Lesvos 4,936 161 144
Ippios 900 29 29
Skopelos 1768 58 41
Mantamados 1156 38 38
Keramia 400 13 13
Kato Tritos 712 23 23
TOTAL 9,178 300 278
Yiannis Moysiadis et al., The impact of distance on NIMBY views
48
some statements concerning the wind farm to be
constructed at western Lesvos. To which extent
do you agree or disagree with each one of those
statements?’. It is important to note that,
irrespectively of whether the respondent resided
in eastern or western Lesvos, the formulation of
the statements in the questionnaire, for both
areas of our study, referred explicitly to attitudes,
perceptions, risks, costs, benefits and so on as far
as western Lesvos is concerned, the area where
the WFs would actually be constructed.
Since definitions of NIMBY still remain very
vague and it is usually, and wrongly, simply
equated with opposition (cf. Wolsink 2006), it is
important to present respondents with statements
which actually tap on a back-yard
mentality/inclination (see also Section 2.2 of this
paper). To this extent, Wolsink and Deville
(2009) designed, proposed and tested –in the
context of opposition to waste treatment
facilities- an inclusive list of 17 statements
which are considered as relevant for measuring a
local person’s ‘assumed tendency to frame the
issue in terms of (economic) rationality and
utility maximization, which can be summarised
as “citizens demand the completion of such
projects, but refuse to have them located in their
vicinity”’ (p.225). The same list of statements
was also used in a study measuring NIMBY
attitudes towards WF’s development
(Botetzagias et al. 2015). For a full list of the
statements the reader is referred to Table X1 in
the Appendix.
We presented our respondents with the whole
list of the 17 ‘NIMBY’ statements, measured on
a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘1’ (Strongly
Agree) to ‘5’ (Strongly Disagree), and recorded
their answers. The initial factor analysis of these
17 statements (using a rotated varimax
transformation) indicated the existence of five
factors as the best solution for explaining the
variability in the data (Eigenvalue > 1).
Similar to Wolsink & Devilee (2009:224-227)
and Botetzagias et al. (2015), following the
examination of these factors and the statements’
loadings, we chose seven of the initial 17
statements for establishing the ‘NIMBY’ scale
(see also Table X1 in the Appendix). All these
statements load strongly on the first factor
returned by the factor analysis (24% of the total
variance explained) and they relate to an
individualistic and free-rider attitude, typical of a
presumed ‘NIMBY mentality’: the respondent
opposes the specific wind farm because s/he does
not want to bear a share of the collective
problem while s/he wishes the WF to move to
another location - in which case his/her
opposition would cease. These statements, which
form a very reliable scale (Cronbach’s α= 0.834),
are the following:
(1) ‘It’s quite stupid to accept the WF in
western Lesvos [one’s ‘back-yard’ for the
context of this study] ’;
(2) ‘Because I don’t think it’s very necessary
to bear a part of the collective burden, I don’t
accept the WF in western Lesvos’;
AEJES (2015) 1, 40-61
49
(3) ‘It’s completely logical for me that the
WF should be sited in someone else’s area’;
(4) ‘I don’t accept the WF in western Lesvos,
because I think that somebody else would not
accept it in his or her own area’;
(5) ‘Accepting the WF in western Lesvos
means that you don’t represent your own
interests strongly enough’;
(6) ‘I don’t feel like shouldering the burden of
a problem that is also caused by others, by
accepting the WF in western Lesvos’;
(7) ‘As far as I’m concerned, the WF should
be sited in somebody else’s area’.
The remaining statements load to other
factors which, albeit relevant, do not represent
the “pure” NIMBY-mentality of passing the full
burden to someone else while enjoying the
(personal) benefits. Thus, three statements load
on the second factor (9.69% of variance
explained): ‘With respect to the location of the
WF in western Lesvos, I certainly want to
contribute in one way or another to solving a
problem that is also caused by other’, ‘Whoever
wants to make the profits also has to bear the
associated burden: the WF in western Lesvos
may cost me something’ and ‘As a matter of fact,
I don’t think it’s fair to saddle another
municipality with the WF’. Actually, then, this
second factor denotes a tendency to reach
common ground and sharing costs and benefits-
which is not what NIMBY is supposed to be all
about. Similarly, the third factor (8.9% of the
variability in the data: ‘It’s only common sense
not to object in advance to the WF being built in
western Lesvos’ and ‘As long as a waste facility
is not built in western Lesvos, I don’t object to
it’) and the fourth factor (8.9% of the variance
explained: ‘If good arguments can be found to
site the WF in western Lesvos instead of
somewhere else, I will accept it’ and ‘Life is
competitive: if the WF is sited in someone else’s
area it is not sited western Lesvos’)
acknowledge the existence of a (personal) cost
yet they couple this with a willingness to be
persuaded by sound arguments- again, not what
NIMBYies are expected to do. The last, fifth
factor (8% of variance explained) consists of a
single statement, indicating the respondent’s
willingness to pay-his-way-out of the social
dilemma: ‘I’m willing in some way to pay extra
in order to contribute to the costs of building the
WF in another municipality’. Finally, two
statements (‘The costs resulting from WFs
should be borne by all of us’ and ‘Because a WF
has to be built somewhere, I don’t object in
advance to it being sited in western Lesvos’) do
not load to any factor.
Predictor variables
Perceived attributes of the facility and of the
siting decision: Most of the statements used in
the construction of the following latent variables
originate from Wolsink (2007b), Wolsink and
Devilee (2009) and Jones and Eiser (2010) and,
following these authors’ original formulation, are
measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
Yiannis Moysiadis et al., The impact of distance on NIMBY views
50
‘1’ (Strongly Agree) to ‘5’ (Strongly Disagree).
These are:
“Perceived risks”: 3-item scale (Cronbach’s α=
0.635); (blade movement would distract drivers
and cause car accidents…; WF will cause health
problems to the locals…; there are no risks
related to the WF (reversed)…, at western
Lesvos).
“Perceived costs”: 10-item scale (Cronbach’s
α= 0.909); (WF operation will cause disturbing
noise…; will spoil the landscape…; will cause
problems with TV reception…; will be ugly…;
will harm local husbandry/agriculture…; will
harm wild animals…; will devaluate
land/property…; will take up too much space…;
wild birds will be killed on it..; will spoil the
view from the villages…, at western Lesvos).
“Perceived benefits”: 8-item scale (Cronbach’s
α= 0.892); (WF will give extra revenue to
Lesvos municipality; will improve local
environment…; will help the area to develop…;
will offer jobs to the locals…; will impact
positively on tourism…; will bring about
positive changes in our community…; will
benefit the local economy…; will make local
electricity bills cheaper…, at western Lesvos).
“Perceived unfairness”: 2-item scale
(Cronbach’s α= 0.687); (Siting the WF in
western Lesvos is in conflict with my ideas about
equity; I don’t consider it fair).
Area of residence: Dummy dichotomous
variable, distinguishing between respondents
from (the affected area of) western Lesvos (‘1’)
and eastern Lesvos (‘2’)
Demographic characteristics: We also examine
the influence of Age, Gender and Educational
Attainment
Results
Our data were analysed through SPSS 21.0
software (IBM Corp. Released 2012). Two
regression models were utilized for the
estimation of NIMBY based on the previously
described predictor variables. Specifically, we fit
two regression equations, the first including as
predictors the four latent structures (Perceived
risks, costs, benefits and unfairness) along with
the dichotomous variable of area of residence
and the demographic items (i.e. age, level of
education and gender) (MODEL A), and the
second additionally including the interaction
effects of area of residence with each one of the
four latent structures (MODEL B).
As a preliminary analysis step we compare
the perceived risks, benefits, cost and unfairness
of the siting of the specific WF between the two
areas (Table 3). As it follows from the t-test
results, the two areas have statistically
significant differences on all the latent variables.
The negative signs in the average scores mean
that those living in the area of the development
(on western Lesvos) agree more than those living
away from it (on eastern Lesvos) that the WF’s
siting is risky, costly, unfair and it will have little
benefits (note the positive sign for the ‘perceived
benefits’ variable with regards to the ‘close’ to
the WF area). This is also the case for the
51
NIMBY stance, which was found to be more pronounced amongst respondents living closer to the WF
development (average score = -0.170, compared to 0.158 for those living away).
Table 3: Results of the t-test for the average scores of the latent variables by area of residence.
Latent
variable
Area in relation
to WF
N Average Std.
Deviation
t p-value
PERCEIVED
RISKS
Close 134 -0.242 1.092
-3.999 <0.001**
Away 144 0.225 0.849
PERCEIVED
COSTS
Close 134 -0.296 1.104
-4.953 <0.001**
Away 144 0.275 0.803
PERCEIVED
BENEFITS
Close 133 0.261 1.103
4.306 <0.001**
Away 144 -0.241 0.828
PERCEIVED
UNFAIRNESS
Close 134 -0.187 1.076
-3.049 0.003**
Away 144 0.174 0.893
NIMBY
Close 134 -0.170 1.061
-2.769 0.006**
Away 144 0.158 0.915
(**) Differences in the average scores are statistically significant at a 1% significance level
Next, we conducted a regression analysis in
order to explore the potential factors influencing
NIMBY (Table 4). It follows that one’s NIMBY
stance is influenced by perceptions of risks,
benefits, costs and fairness while the area of
residence as well as the demographic factors
(save ‘Educational attainment’) are not
statistically significant predictors.
Yiannis Moysiadis et al., The impact of distance on NIMBY views
52
Table 4: Parameter estimates for the two models (dependent variable: NIMBY)
Model A Model B
Parameter b t p-value b t p-value
Constant 0.290 1.969 0.050*
0.189 1.222 n.s.
EDUCATION (Ref. category: Higher education)
Lower -0.269 -2.401 0.017*
-0.231 -2.019 0.045*
Middle -0.132 -1.238 n.s. -0.129 -1.213 n.s.
GENDER (Ref. category: Female)
Male 0.023 0.263 n.s. 0.038 0.422 n.s.
AGE 0-.004 -1.280 n.s. -0.003 -1.008 n.s.
RISKS 0.184 2.881 0.004**
0.134 1.369 n.s.
COSTS 0.245 3.321 0.001**
0.309 2.788 0.006**
BENEFITS -0.159 -2.628 0.009**
-0.262 -2.955 0.003**
UNFAIRNESS 0.254 4.556 <0.001**
0.282 3.661 <0.001**
AREA OF RESIDENCE (Ref. category: Away from WFs)
WFs area 0.024 0.275 n.s. 0.050 0.568 n.s.
AREA *
RISKS
0.092 0.712 n.s.
AREA *
COSTS
-0.081 -0.537 n.s.
AREA *
BENEFITS
0.166 1.317 n.s.
AREA *
UNFAIRNESS
-0.059 -0.528 n.s.
R2 = 0.544
(Adjusted R2 = 0.529)
R2 =0.553
(Adjusted R2 = 0.531)
**: parameter is significant at a 1% significance level; *: parameter is significant at a 5% significance
level
53
Discussion & Conclusion
This paper set out to examine whether
individuals living closer to a proposed wind farm
are more likely to exhibit a ‘not-in-my-back-
yard’ stance compared to people living further
away. The validation of this ‘proximity
hypothesis’ is anticipated by the very nature of
the NIMBY rationalization: if locals do not want
the WF on their turf because they are ‘free-
riders’, then this ‘free-riding’ behavior will be
more pronounced among the inhabitants of the
area most affected, that is the area closer to the
wind-farm-to-be.
Our analysis of two sub-samples of
inhabitants on the Greek island of Lesvos, where
a mega WF is set to be built, shows a more
complicated reality. As it is evident from Table 3
the views between those living close to the
proposed development and those living far away
from it differ an all accounts, and these
differences are statistically significant (as it
follows from the t-tests’ results). Similar to
previous research (Warren et al 2005; Jones and
Eiser 2010), which found that negative views are
most prominent in the area closer to a proposed
WF development, the sub-sample of western
Lesvos, where the project is to be developed,
scored higher on costs, risk and unfairness
perceptions and lower on perceived benefits.
This is also the case for NIMBY: people living
in the affected area espouse more strongly a ‘not-
in-my-back-yard’ stance towards the WF than
those living further away.
These findings seem to support the
mainstream rationalization of NIMBY, as the
protective, ‘free-riding’ reaction of the locally-
affected community. In other words, and
following the NIMBY logic, wanting the WF to
be moved to somewhere else location is a
spatially-bounded stance: people want the WF
out of an area more strongly if it involves “their”
area (the case of western Lesvos’ respondents)
while their ‘free-riding’ reaction is more
lukewarm if the development concerns an area
they are not in direct contact with (the case of
eastern Lesvos’ respondents).
Yet, when examining the predictors of
NIMBY, a more complex picture emerges. To
start with, and similar to other research (e.g.
Wolsink and Devilee 2009, Botetzagias et al
2015), we find that the perceived risks and costs
regarding the WF development, as well as
considering the siting of the WF as ‘unfair’, are
positively correlated with NIMBY while the
perceived benefits by the WF impact negatively
on NIMBY (Table 4). Furthermore, perceiving
the siting of the WF as ‘unfair’ is one of the
strongest predictors of NIMBY, a finding which
is accordance with previous research (op.cit) and
suggests that respondents want the WF out of the
particular area not only because they wish to
pass the burden to someone else (as it is the case
for the costs and risks predictors’ correlations
with the NIMBY variable), but also because they
consider the decision as unfair. On the other
hand, the demographic variables have no
statistically significant impact, save the
Yiannis Moysiadis et al., The impact of distance on NIMBY views
54
‘Educational attainment’ predictor: individuals
with a lower educational attainment exhibit a
weaker NIMBY stance when compared to
individuals with middle/higher educational
levels, a rather surprising finding which seems to
contradict the common wisdom that NIMBYies
are ‘ignorant’ or ‘misinformed’.
Whereas the stand-alone effect of the area of
residence on NIMBY as shown by the t-test is
significant, when we examine the overall effect
on NIMBY caused by perceptions of risks,
benefits, costs, fairness, area of residence and
demographic variables we observe that the
overall effects of area of residence (i.e. both
main effects and interactions) tend to be
cancelled out. This is due to the fact that the
effects of area of residence are dominated by the
more strong effects of the other predictors and
specifically the four latent constructs. This is
evident in Table 4, where one’s ‘Area’ of
residence is not a statistically significant
predictor: whether one lives close (and in direct
impact) or away (and not affected) from the
development, has no effect on his/her NIMBY
views. Furthermore, as it shows from beta
coefficients’ estimates for the interaction effects
between the predictors, the area of residence has
no effect on the other predictors’ impact on
NIMBY: for example, people who consider the
siting of the WF as costly will have a stronger
NIMBY inclination irrespectively of the area
they live in.
In conclusion, our results show that an
individual wants a WF out of one area and into
some other, not because of the particular area
s/he lives but because s/he perceives the siting of
the WF in that ‘particular’ area as costly, risky,
not beneficial and, most importantly, unfair.
Nevertheless, we also found that these
perceptions, which ultimately guide one’s
NIMBY attitude, are more pronounced in the
area where the WF is to be built (see Table 3).
Why is this the case? In other words, why do the
people who live closer the affected area consider
the WF more risky, more costly, more unfair and
less beneficial? Although answering this
question does not fall within the scope of this
paper, we conclude by offering some thoughts on
this issue, although we lack the data necessary
for testing these ideas.
On one hand, one might question whether we
should accept at face value the respondents’
answers concerning the WF’s possible impacts.
It may well be the case that people living closer
to the proposed WF are answering strategically
and they are consciously exaggerating its
potential risks, costs and siting problems, while
downplaying its benefits, in an attempt to justify
their opposition to the project1 (cf. Bell et al.
2005:464; van der Horst 2007:2710). Yet, if this
was indeed the case, why aren’t the respondents
also answering strategically in the NIMBY-
related questions, similarly downplaying their
“true” egoistical/free-riding point of view? As it
1 As a matter of fact, opposition to the project is much
higher to the area closer to the development (47.7% of
respondents ‘(Strongly) Against’ the WF) than the area
further away (15.3% ‘(Strongly) Against’), and the
differences are statistically significant (t = -4.535, sig <
0.001)
AEJES (2015) 1, 40-61
55
is obvious from Table 3, the respondents on
western Lesvos make no such attempt: contrary
to previous research, which has identified that
locals are aware of the risk of being branded as
NIMBYies and thus they try to justify their
opposition in broader terms (Burningham
2000:61-63), they seem quite eager to agree with
politically incorrect statements such as ‘Because
I don’t think it’s very necessary to bear a part of
the collective burden, I don’t accept the WF in
western Lesvos’ and ‘As far as I’m concerned,
the WF should be sited in somebody else’s area’.
Thus, if the western Lesvos inhabitants’
responses reflect their true appraisal about the
project, then a number of reasons may account
for the fact. As we mentioned in the ‘Case-study
areas & samples’ section of the paper, western
Lesvos already hosts two (much smaller and out
of sight of most of the western Lesvos’ villages
we researched) WFs, Although in this study we
did not record the communities’ views on the
existing WFs, it is plausible that their existence
influences the western Lesvos inhabitants’ views
concerning the new WFs. Thus it may be the
case that people on western Lesvos, hold much
more negative opinions on the existing WFs2
which inform their negative assessment of the
new, proposed development; or, they may think
that siting more (and/or much larger) WFs in
their greater area (no matter how nice and
necessary it may be) is simply unfair and/or not
2 Yet one should note that if this is indeed the case then it
would contradict the existence of a ‘reversed NIMBY
effect’ identified by Warren et al (2005) and Braunholtz
(2003)
worthy3. On the other hand, their negative
assessment may reflect some actual
shortcomings of the particular development: it
could be the case that the inhabitants of western
Lesvos, due to their vested interests, have
(strived to achieve) a better knowledge of the
‘Aegean Link’ project and its impacts and this,
more in-depth, comprehension of what the
particular project entails may have created more
negative appraisals compared to their more
disinterested (and thus less informed) inhabitants
of the eastern part of the island. In any case,
these are tentative arguments and more detailed
research is needed for settling the issue.
Based on the above, it is recommended that
future research examining the possible role of
distance on NIMBY perceptions should take into
account the possible influence of more factors:
knowledge about the project, the appraisal of any
existing windfarms as well as the ‘vested
interest’ one feels s/he has concerning the
development (irrespectively of his/hers area of
residence) may play a role in shaping individual
preferences and views when it comes to
windfarms’ siting.
References
Aitken M. (2010), Why we still don’t understand
the social aspects of wind power: a critique of
key assumptions within the literature, Energy
3 Similar to Showfford and Slattery (2010) and contra
Johansson & Laike (2007) and Braunholtz (2003). Yet the
reader should note that these studies refer to ‘acceptance’
of establishing a new park or expanding an existing one,
and not to ‘attitudes’ towards establishment/expansion.
Yiannis Moysiadis et al., The impact of distance on NIMBY views
56
Policy, 38(4): 1834-1841. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421509009100
Barry J., Ellis G. and Robinson C. (2008), Cool
rationalities and hot air: a rhetorical approach
to understanding debates on renewable energy,
Global Environmental Politics, 8(2): 67-98.
Available at: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/
doi/abs/10.1162/glep.2008.8.2.67#.VI8yIyusXqE
Bell D., Gray T., and Haggett C. (2005), The
‘Social Gap’ in wind farm siting decisions:
explanations and policy responses,
Environmental Politics, 14(4): 460-477.
Available at: http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/~sallen/
jayne/Bell%20et%20al%20%282005%29.%20T
he%20%27Social%20Gap%27%20in%20Wind
%20Farm%20Siting.pdf
Besley J.C. (2012), Does fairness matter in the
context anger about nuclear energy decision
making?, Risk Analysis, 32(1): 25-38. Available
at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01664.x/
abstract;jsessionid=50FA3675822D989F537C04
2F7CA4E74B.f02t02?deniedAccessCustomised
Message=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Botetzagias I., Malesios Chr., Kolokotroni An.
and Moysiadis Y. (2015), The role of NIMBY in
opposing windfarms' siting: evidence from
Greece, Journal of Environmental Planning &
Management, 58(2): 229-251. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09
640568.2013.851596#.VI8zrCusXqE
Braunholtz S. (2003), Public Attitudes to
Windfarms: A Survey of Local Residents in
Scotland. MORI Scotland, for Scottish Executive
Social Research, Edinburgh, Scotland. Available
at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/
Doc/47133/0014639.pdf
Breukers S. and Wolsink M. (2007), Wind power
implementation in changing institutional
landscapes: An international comparison,
Energy Policy, 35(5): 2737-2750. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421506004873
Burningham, K. (2000), Using the language of
NIMBY: a topic for research, not an activity for
researchers, Local Environment, 5(1): 55–67.
Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
abs/10.1080/135498300113264#.VJQENsjQ
Cass N. and Walker G. (2009), Emotion and
rationality: the characterisation and
evaluation of opposition torenewable energy
projects, Emotion, Space and Society, 2(1): 62–
69. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/
5085553/Emotion_and_rationality_The_characte
risation_and_evaluation_of_opposition_to_rene
wable_energy_projects
Dear M. (1992), Understanding and overcoming
the NIMBY syndrome, Journal of the American
Planning Association, 58(3): 288-300. Available
at: http://www.academia.edu/3983775/
Understanding_and_Overcoming_the_NIMBY_
SyndromePLEASE_SCROLL_DOWN_FOR_A
AEJES (2015) 1, 40-61
57
RTICLESyndromeThe_NIMBY_SyndromeUnde
rstanding_Community_Opposition
Devine-Wright P. (2005), Beyond NIMBYism:
towards an integrated framework for
understanding public perceptions of wind
energy, Wind Energy, 8: 125-139. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/we.12
4/abstract
Ek K. (2005), Public and private attitudes
towards “green” electricity: the case of Swedish
wind power, Energy Policy, 33(13): 1677-1689.
Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0301421504000394
Ellis, G., Barry, J., Robinson, C., (2007), Many
ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’:
applying Q-Methodology to understand public
acceptance of wind farm proposals, Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management,
50(4):517–551. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09
640560701402075#.VJMyfF4gI8
Freudenberg W. & Pastor S. (1992), NIMBYs
and LULUs: Stalking the Syndromes, Journal of
Social Issues, 48(4): 39-61. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.154
0-4560.1992.tb01944.x/pdf
Frey B. and Oberholzer-Gee F. (1997), The Cost
of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of
Motivation Crowding- Out, The American
Economic Review, 87(4): 746-755. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/2951373?sid=211
05480918453&uid=4&uid=2
Gross C. (2007), Community perspectives of
wind energy in Australia: the application of a
justice and community fairness framework to
increase social acceptance, Energy Policy,
35(5): 2727-2736. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421506004861
Huijts N.M. A., Molin E.J.E. and Steq L. (2012),
Psychological factors influencing sustainable
energy technology acceptance: A review-based
comprehensive framework, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1): 525–531.
Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S136403211100428X
Jacquet J. B. (2012), Landowner attitudes
toward natural gas and wind farm development
in northern Pennsylvania, Energy Policy, 50:
677–688. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421512006702
Johansson M. and Laike T. (2007), Intention to
Respond to Local Wind Turbines: The Role of
Attitudes and Visual Perception, Wind Energy,
10(5): 435–451. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/we.23
2/abstract
Jones C.R. and Eiser J.R. (2010), Understanding
‘local’ opposition to wind development in the
UK: How big is a backyard?, Energy Policy,
38(6): 3106-3117. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421510000790
Yiannis Moysiadis et al., The impact of distance on NIMBY views
58
Kerr (1995), ‘Norms in social delimmas’, in
D.A. Schroeder (ed.) Social delimmas:
Perspectives on individuals and groups,
Westport, CT: 31-48
Luloff, A. E., Albrecht S. L. and Bourke L.
(1998), Nimby and the hazardous and toxic
waste sitting dilemma: the need for concept
clarification, Society and Natural Resources: an
international journal, 11(1): 81-89. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08
941929809381063#.VJQIksjQ
Swofford, J. and Slattery M. (2010), Public
attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local
communities in close proximity to wind farms
and their effect on decision-making, Energy
Policy, 38(5): 2508-2519. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421509010027
Toke D., Breukers S. and Wolsink M. (2008),
Wind power deployment outcomes: how can we
account for the differences?, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12 (4): 1129-1147.
Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S1364032106001626
Van der Horst D. (2007), NIMBY or not?
Exploring the relevance of location and the
politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy
siting controversies, Energy Policy, 35(5):
2705–2714. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421506004848
Warren C.R., Lumsden C., O’Dowd S. and
Birnie R.V. (2005), ‘Green on green’: public
perceptions of wind power in Scotland and
Ireland, Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 48(6): 851–873. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09
640560500294376#.VJM2rSusXqE
Wolsink M. (1994), Entanglement of Interests
and Motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY
Theory on facility siting, Urban Studies, 31 (6):
851-866. Available at: http://usj.sagepub.com/
content/31/6/851.short
Wolsink M. (2000), Wind power and the
NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the
limited significance of public support,
Renewable Energy, 21(1): 49-64. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0960148199001305
Wolsink M. (2006), Invalid theory impedes our
understanding: a critique on the persistence of
the language of NIMBY, Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, 31(1): 85-91.
Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00191.x/abstract
Wolsink M. (2007a), Wind power
implementation: The nature of public attitudes:
Equity and fairness instead of “backyard
motives, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 11(6): 1188-1207. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1364032105001255
AEJES (2015) 1, 40-61
59
Wolsink M. (2007b), Planning of renewables
schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making
on landscape issues instead of reproachful
accusations of non-cooperation, Energy Policy,
35(5): 2692-2704. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421506004836
Wolsink M. and Devilee J. (2009), The motives
for accepting or rejecting waste infrastructure
facilities. Shifting the focus from the planners’
perspective to fairness and community
commitment, Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 52 (2): 217–236. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09
640560802666552#.VJM5pSusXqE
Yiannis Moysiadis et al., The impact of distance on NIMBY views
60
APPENDIX
Table X1: NIMBY-related statements’ loadings on factors (rotated varimax
transformation, with Kaiser normalization)
Statements
Factors
1 2 3 4 5
1. It’s quite stupid to accept the WF in western
Lesvos
0.790
2. Because I don’t think it’s very necessary to
bear a part of the collective burden, I don’t
accept the WF in western Lesvos
0.773
3. It’s completely logical for me that the WF
should be sited in someone else’s area’
0.599
4. If good arguments can be found to site the
WF in western Lesvos instead of somewhere
else, I will accept it
0.521
5. I don't accept it because someone else
wouldn't accept it either
0.705
6. I am not in principle against it
7. Accepting the WF in western Lesvos means
that you don’t represent your own interests
strongly enough
0.540
8. I don’t feel like shouldering the burden of a
problem that is also caused by others, by
accepting the WF in western Lesvos
0.741
9. As far as I’m concerned, the WF should be
sited in somebody else’s area
0.713
10. Life is competitive: if the WF is sited in
someone else’s area it is not sited western
Lesvos
0.811
11. WFs related burdens should be shared by
everyone
AEJES (2015) 1, 40-61
61
12. It’s only common sense not to object in
advance to the WF being built in western
Lesvos
0.718
13. With respect to the location of the WF in
western Lesvos, I certainly want to
contribute in one way or another to solving a
problem that is also caused by other’
0.645
14. Whoever wants to make the profits also has
to bear the associated burden: the WF in
western Lesvos may cost me something
0.646
15. As long as a waste facility is not built in
western Lesvos, I don’t object to it’
0.519
16. I’m willing in some way to pay extra in
order to contribute to the costs of building
the WF in another municipality
0.838
17. As a matter of fact, I don’t think it’s fair to
saddle another municipality with the WF’
0.525
62
(COMMUNIQUÉ) Disruptions in environmental sciences: tracking changes in scientific priorities and concepts (1970-2014)
Andreas Y. Troumbis
A U T H O R ’ S I N F O A B S T R A C T
Andreas Y. Troumbis* is a
Professor of Ecology with the
Department of Environment,
University of the Aegean, Greece.
*email: atro@aegean.gr
The paper presents data and criteria on the potential application
of the concept of "disruption" within the trajectory of Ecology
and its applications in the broader environmental science (-s)
realm. Disruption is considered as a phenomenon that
transforms drastically academic practice in the sense of the re-
organization of research priorities followed by the creation of
new academic aggregates and/or value networks. Two
exemplary cases, distinctive but indicative, are examined in this
perspective: "biodiversity" and "Information & Communication
Technology" (ICT) applications in SMART transportation in
urban setups". Data are extracted from the Web of Knowledge
data bank on research publications. Criteria are differentiated
regarding publication series of academic activity, i.e. ISI
publications, on the respective fields. Both indicate that a sharp
conceptual transformation has occurred after 2000 in
environmental science sensu lato. The question of forecasting is
set regarding the research production of scientific research in
environmental fields.
K E Y W O R D S (in alphabetical order): Biodiversity; Big data; Disruption; Information &
Communication Technology (ICT); Transportation
Introduction
What makes "progress in science"
constitutes a longstanding problem in
epistemology and philosophy of science
(Polanyi 1969; Kuhn 1970; Lakatos 1978;
Popper 2002). Ultimately, the questions of the
very essence of a "scientific theory", the
process of its construction and/or the process of
its verification remain more or less unresolved.
In scientific domains such as Ecology and
applied environmental science(-s), these
questions predominate because of their
implications in addressing higher level
ecological complexity, statistical strategies in
experimental design (e.g. Peters 1991; Hilborn
and Mangel 1997) and/or bridging and transfer
of knowledge between "science" and "policy"
(e.g. Pielke 2004).
In Ecology, for instance, the epistemic
question on the "theory making" problem
remains still open regarding environmental-
problem solving issues, following Kitcher's
distinction (1985): is it "bottom-up"
approaches, i.e. accumulation of statistical
evidence over a large number of individual
cases, that lead to theoretical explanation of
ecological/environmental phenomena -and
AEJES (2015) 1, 62-71
63
therefore underwrite talk about practical
environmental problem-solving- or, in the
contrary, is it "top-down", exceptionless general
laws that are required to be used in specific
phenomena (e.g. Shrader-Frechette and McCoy
1993)? Within the realm of environmental
"meta"-science (-s), the above complicates
further given the answers that are provided by
positivists, realists and relativists in a discourse-
dependent narration insofar as Ecology is an
applied endeavor - e.g. conservation biology
and planning - that moves from singularity to
explanation than one that proceeds in the
opposite direction.
In simple or simplified words, this question
is translated into how long time information on
specific cases, empirical or conceptual, could
be translated into useful knowledge. And, how
many or long back steps might be recorded if
we are not careful in the knowledge acquisition
processes of the so-called "information or
computer age" (Silver 2012)? In the era of "big
data", the prediction by Anderson (2008) that
the volume of data would obviate the need for
theory, and even the scientific method,
overcomes the usual epistemic discussion or
controversy on "theory".
The present paper attempts to examine
progress in Ecology and environmental science
(-s) as disruptions in the incremental path of
incumbent scientific production. I use the term
"disruption" in the sense proposed by
Christensen (1997) regarding "innovation" in
"technology": in other words, I propose
disruption as a sharp contrast between concepts
or research priorities that help create new
academic aggregates or value networks
displacing older discourses, entities or
practices. In this sense, disruptions differ from
sustaining scientific progress in that they are
neither usual transformations or revolutionary
ideas in Ecology nor evolutionary extensions of
it as functions of evolving knowledge itself but
rather abrupt changing applications of it.
Instead of using typical historical scrutiny of
the trajectory of sequences of concepts and
theories in Ecology in order to identify and
evaluate their impact in shaping environmental
science (-s), I propose quantitative
methods/criteria in an attempt to identify
disruptions. The concept of "biodiversity" in
Ecology and the strategy of "green"
applications of ICTs (Information and
Communication Technologies) to reduce
carbon emissions within the framework of
sustainable economic growth are used as
exemplary cases hereafter.
Methods and theory
This approach assumes the use of large sets
of data on published research during a
sufficiently long period of time. It is not a
review sensu stricto that compiles published
results and inferences - i.e. the content of
publications - in order to propose a new "story"
on a theme, e.g. as it is the case with the recent
analysis by Low-Décarie et al. (2014) on the
falling explanatory power in Ecology. Rather, it
Andreas Y. Troumbis, Disruptions in environmental sciences
64
uses the context of publications - i.e. the
existence of publications responding to
thematic keywords or identifiers during a
certain period of time. Such data sets became
possible with the development of web resources
and the Internet economy and services, e.g. the
Web of Knowledge/ISI or Google Scholar and
Trends or Sets.
I use the Web of Knowledge data bank in
order to retrieve secondary information on the
number publications/year responding to specific
queries on keywords, domains and scientific
areas covering the period 1970-2014. It is
assumed that the publications reported therein
correspond or encapsulate the ensemble of
criteria regarding scientific quality, peer
reviewing, prestige and/or accessibility to the
international academic community as well as its
evolving values and biases through time.
"Case Study" 1: disruption in Ecology as a
lower attack of established concepts.
The history of "biodiversity" as a scientific
neologism, political construction and boundary
object is repeatedly reported (e.g. Takacs 1996,
Oksanen and Pietarinen 2004, Loreau 2010).
"Biodiversity" was never studied before as a
disruption to our best knowledge. A "lower
attack" is a narrative description of a situation
where the trajectory of a "new" technology or
concept crosses the trajectory in time of
incumbent technology or concept and
establishes itself as the dominant configuration
of them.
Data sets were selected on queries
responding to the following keywords:
"nature", "environment", "diversity",
"ecosystem", "goods AND services",
"biodiversity" and "biodiversity AND goods
AND services". Research domains and areas
were restricted/refined to "Environmental
Sciences" AND "Ecology" in order to avoid
semantic and linguistic biases and redundancy.
The disruption criterion was set as the condition
where a lower attack by "biodiversity" crosses
the trajectory in time of incumbent, i.e. pre-
existing and established, "nature" or
"environment" concepts. This criterion could be
represented either in absolute values of
#publications/year or as relative values, ratios,
of "biodiversity" over comparative "concepts"
on a logarithmic scale. When ratio values
become higher to 1, it is assumed that
disruption occurs.
"Case Study" 2: disruption in environmental
science (-s) as a reversed algebraic sign.
In that case, the selected query focused on
the the keyword combination "green OR
SMART AND vehicl* AND ICT" referring to
SMART 2020 environmental targets on cities
and transportations. The final search procedure
consisted in a sequential elimination of
redundant and/or semantically "noisy"
keywords, domains and areas. The refined
AEJES (2015) 1, 62-71
65
query areas comprised Computer science,
Engineering, Transportation, Operations
research, Telecommunications, Environmental
sciences, Automation control, Mechanics,
Geography, Construction building technology,
and Public environmental health.
In this "case-study", it is assumed that the
trend of cumulative number of publications,
during 1970-2014, should follow some
monotonically increasing function, e.g. linear or
exponential. A "linear" increase should be
interpreted as a persistent but entrenched/steady
effort in this research area - i.e. an enhanced
BAU operation of a well defined community of
scholars - whereas an "exponential" one could
be interpreted as a diversification of both
research issues and identities of interested
scholars. However, given the nature and time
length of data, it is almost impossible to test
directly the hypothesis that "SMART-target"
issues are disruptive or not - i.e. an "attack"
from the bottom of incumbent literature.
Thus, an inference on potential disruption
could be approached through a simple
transformation of raw data, according to a naive
model accepting that the trajectory of the
cumulative # publications is described by:
y
t
y
tP
where P is the number of publications on a
yearly basis at year t, y is the annual
accumulation of # publications, μ is a constant
(hereafter, the average of #publications 1970-
2014) and ε is a yearly variation, because of the
structure of the search WoK query, y
t ~
),( SDN .
Results
As expected, in both "case-studies" the
cumulative #publications/year increased in an
exponential way during the studied period: it is
the growth rate per se that offers a perspective in
the ever-growing interest regarding the concepts.
Figures 1A and 1B present the respective trends.
However, "disruption" following our criteria
could be revealed in Figures 2A, B and 3.
Figures 1A and 1B. Trajectory of cumulative #
publications/year reported in Web of Knowledge,
according to the search query (combination of keywords
and research areas) on (A) Biodiversity and (B) ICT
applications on 'green OR SMART" urban transportation.
Red curve: actual # of published research; black curve:
best fit exponential equation on data (R2 > 0.98 in both
cases).
Figure 2A presents comparatively the
trajectory of publications/year for the keywords
"nature", "environment", "diversity" and
"biodiversity": for all curves, a positive
"inflection" or "jump point" - i.e. a revived
Andreas Y. Troumbis, Disruptions in environmental sciences
66
scientific interest- is observed in year 1970+20
(±2) (refer to Conclusions section). It
corresponds to late 80's/early 90's years after
the eruption of mid-80's conceptual
development in environmental issues with the
construction of "terms" such as "sustainability"
(1987), "biodiversity" (1986) and/or "global
change" (1986). Logically, publications on
"biodiversity" appear 2-3 years after the term
was coined. Publications on "biodiversity"
cross the trajectory of the comparable terms in
year 1970+30 (± 2), i.e. in early 00's. The least
resistant term proves to be "nature", indicating
that "biodiversity" is a modern and more
adapted scientifically term matching better the
discursive needs of science and the academic
community. The same conclusions are drawn
from data in Figure 2B where ratios between
compared terms are presented. Thus, the
criterion of a ratio > 1 between publications on
terms - i.e. concepts - could be used as
indicating "disruption" in Ecology.
This statistical treatment is not applicable for
emerging fields in environmental science (-s)
because of their short time scale. Therefore, the
alternative criterion proposed hereabove on the
inversion/reversal of sign, appears more
adequate or eligible in these cases. Figure 3
presents the trajectory of the cumulative
#publications/year minus the overall average of
publications over the studied period ± 1 SD.
Figures 2A and 2B. A (upper graph): trajectory of
cumulative #publications/year, retrieved from Web of
Knowledge, during the period 1970-2014 for the keywords
"nature" (◊), "environment" (○), "diversity" (▪) and
"biodiversity" (●); B (lower graph): trajectory of rations
between publication on "biodiversity" over "nature" (●),
"environment" (○) and "diversity" ( ). Disruptions are
identified when lower trajectories cross already established
ones; inflections are identified when abrupt changes in a
trajectory are observed without crossing other trajectories.
See text for explanations.
Publication effort regarding "green OR
SMART" transportation in urban setups shows
an inversion of sign in year 1970+30 (±1): this
turning point, identified in 2000-2001/2,
coincides with major political/academic events
such as Rio+10, the UNEP 2002 commitment
of World leaders on abatement of
environmental degradation, etc - i.e. a change in
political priorities, goals and funding. The fact
that as years progress the cumulative
#publications overpasses by two or three times
the limits of variation y
t ~ ),( SDN is
AEJES (2015) 1, 62-71
67
considered as a validation of the hypothesis of
disruption of incumbent research interest and
methods.
Figure 3: A hypothetical presentation of "disruption" in
research interest regarding the "greening" or SMART
targets in transportation in ICT-related scientific literature.
Data are retrieved from Web of Knowledge (1970-2014).
μ: average of #publications/year and SD: Standard
Deviation.
Conclusions and extensions
There are two classes of questions that arise
succinctly hereabove: (1) technicalities on the
criteria proposed; (2) epistemic issues on the
concept of disruption in environmental
sciences. "Disruption" and "inflection or jump
point" in thematic publications trajectory are
neither synonymous nor extensions or shifts in
terminology. For they describe different
conditions and they are generated by
fundamentally different mechanisms of theory-
making.
In strict mathematical terms, there is no
inflection in a continuous concave curve.
Therefore, the term inflection as used herein
has sense "between brackets" or as a short-cut
for the alternative "jump point" which actually
means points where the trend in the rate of
change of the variable is accelerated.
Technically, this corresponds to a situation
where the annual absolute increments (i.e. the
absolute differences between annual values of
the variable # publications) are divided by the
value of the year before forming thus an index:
"jump points" are identified in years in which
the second derivative of the index differs
significantly from zero.
More important is, however, to notice that an
"inflection" refers to the trajectory of a concept
taken alone, e.g. #publications on biodiversity,
whereas "disruption" refers to the replacement
of a concept by another in time; therefore, for a
disruption to be identified there is a need for
comparison of the trajectories of two concepts
that eventually compete narratively,
conceptually and/or practically. That's exactly
what the proposed criterion tries to identify in
"case study" 1, e.g. concerning biodiversity vs
nature.
However, this strict comparison is not
always feasible, especially for emerging fields
of scientific interest which are not sufficiently
long time present in the literature in order to
examine the trajectory of publications curve in
comparison to an incumbent concept, as it the
case for the ICT example presented hereabove.
Strictly speaking, the only search possible in
that case is search for "inflections" or "jump
points"; to define approximatively a disruption
there are mainly two options. Either an
alternative criterion, i.e. the inversion of
Andreas Y. Troumbis, Disruptions in environmental sciences
68
algebraic sign as proposed, or the use of the
first criterion upon forecasted data for
compared concepts. For the second option, the
arsenal of time-series analysis and forecasting
could eventually be used: there are several
examples of such approaches available in
various fields such as GDP growth applied on
annual or quarterly data or Google's big data
Trends on a weekly basis searches.
Further, besides technicalities, the
mechanism generating an "inflection" vs a
"disruption" is different. An "inflection" could
be explained by a conjectural increase in
publication effort by the concerned scholar
community without any structural, operational
or conceptual change within it. A "disruption"
occurs when such changes are actually
observed.
Although disruptions are observed in both
exemplary cases according to our criteria, the
question of "progress in science" is more
challenging as an epistemic problem when
emerging concepts/issues are addressed. It is
the case for "biodiversity": through time
biodiversity becomes an incumbent concept
itself, after ca 35 years of intense research
activity. "Biodiversity" - as well as other
planetary change concepts - starts suffering the
by-effects of its original missionary successes,
as related to its disruptive character. An
overwhelming part of biodiversity-related
literature relates to non-pure Ecology or
genetics issues: in fact, although biodiversity
and ecosystem function research is a consistent
part of the fundamentals of natural science-
making, a very large extent of publications
refers to applications within agronomy and
forestry, economics, management and social
sciences. This is more than obvious when
predictions in scientific domains such as
Environmental or Ecological Economics are
reviewed or when social processes over
decision-making regarding environmental
issues, e.g. participatory processes, are
addressed. Analyses and/or predictions in such
domains are directly confronted to actual results
in the real world of policy-making. For
instance, the disruptive momentum of
biodiversity met with success in the
Institutional and public-discourse spheres as
long as the ultimate goal of the academic
community was -or still is- to drive decisions
towards rational choices or, at least, to an
informed political opportunism, in a perpetual
confrontation between science and policy -or
even politics. On the contrary, the flagrant
failure of the "2010 Biodiversity goal" on
slowing down or halting the biodiversity
extinction rates (e.g. Butchart et al. 2010)
underlines that there are narrow limits in the
linear relationship between "good science" and
"good policy" and in the performance of a
discourse-dependent strategy no matter how
disruptive could be the conceptual pillar of such
endeavour.
However, sticking to Christensen's (1997)
original definition of a disruption as a
mechanism that helps create new academic
AEJES (2015) 1, 62-71
69
aggregates or value networks displacing older
discourses, entities or practices, biodiversity is
indeed a disruptive concept since it has
reshaped the operation of scholar ecology to a
large extent, e.g. research priorities, funding,
constitution of groups, publication platforms,
etc.
For an, or any, emerging environmental field
such as the exemplary research domain on ICT
applications in SMARTer targets regarding e.g.
urban/transport "command & control" issues is
promising for further development as a
disruption. There is not yet a clear/definite
bridging between disparate research fields such
as "transport" and "sustainability", sensu effects
upon emissions and urban air quality (and
several other related fields such as
environmental friendly commuting, urban air
quality and heat islands, optimization of traffic
and public health, the economics of daily
calendar of work force, etc.). In that sense,
"progress" should be examined as to whether
ICT could improve this bridging at the level of
Urban decision-making, as an example.
However, "progress" would not be evaluated in
that case but if ICT applications are proved not
as secondary elements of a "transport" policy in
urban settings, but rather as promoters of
established SMARTer solutions.
In an environmental "meta"-science field,
where the questions of pure scientific method
remain debatable - e.g. pluri-disciplinarity
and/or trans-disciplinarity approaches vs.
falsification experimentation - the core question
is not the a posteriori confirmation/validation
of hypotheses but rather the forecasting ability
on trends of collections of elementary
explanatory drivers. Therefore, it is genuinely
requested that some kind of prediction of "early
warning" signals of research priorities and
methods for scientific policy-making from the
point of view of international research
institutions and funding agencies. This problem
could potentially be viewed as a forecasting
problem based on current trends of usual
academic research production. Obviously, such
forecasting methods cannot definitely predict
disruptions, because by definition they are not
predictable! But, they can provide for a solid
understanding of science making and the
performance of science policies.
Acknowledgements: The paper is dedicated to
the loving memory of Professors Nikos S.
Margaris and Leonidas Louloudis. The author
thanks Ioannis Troumbis for his help and
support in examining and understanding the
peculiarities of ICT applications in
environmental science(-s) and SMART targets.
Financial support from an anonymous source is
greatly appreciated.
References
Anderson C. (2008), The end of theory: the data
deluge makes the scientific method obsolete.
Wired Magazine, June 23. Available at:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/maga
zine/16-07/pb_theory
Andreas Y. Troumbis, Disruptions in environmental sciences
70
Butchart S.H.M., Walpole M., Collen B., van
Strien A., Scharlemann J.P.W., Almond R.E.A.,
Baillie J.E.M., Bomhard B., Brown C., Bruno J.,
Carpenter K.E., Carr G.M., Chanson J., Chenery
A.M., Csirke J., Davidson N.C., Dentener F.,
Foster M., Galli A., Galloway J.N., Genovesi P.,
Gregory R.D., Hockings M., Kapos V.,
Lamarque J-F., Leverington F., Loh J., McGeoch
M.A., McRae L., Minasyan A., Hernández
Morcillo M., Oldfield T.E.E., Pauly D., Quader
S., Revenga C., Sauer J.R., Skolnik B., Spear D.,
Stanwell-Smith D., Stuart S.N., Symes A.,
Tierney M., Tyrrell T.D., Vié J-C. and Watson
R. (2010), Global Biodiversity: Indicators of
Recent Declines, Science, 328:1164-1168.
Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content
/328/5982/1164.abstract
Christensen C.M. (1997), The innovator's
dilemma: when new technologies cause great
firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.
Hilborn R. and Mangel M. (1997), The
ecological detective: confronting models with
data. Princeton University Press.
Kitcher P. (1985), Two approaches to
explanation, Journal of Philosophy, 82: 632-639.
Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/
2026419? seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Kuhn T. (1962), The structure of scientific
revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos I. (1978), The methodology of scientific
research programmes. Cambridge University
Press.
Loreau M. (2010), The challenges of biodiversity
sciences. International Ecology Institute,
Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany.
Low-Décarie Ε., Chivers C. and Granados M.
(2014), Rising complexity and falling
explanatory power in ecology, Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 12: 412–418.
Available at: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/
10.1890/130230
Oksanen M. and Pietarinen J. (2004), Philosophy
and biodiversity. Cambridge University Press.
Peters R.H. (1991), A critique for Ecology.
Cambridge University Press.
Pielke R.A. (2004), When scientists politicize
science: making sense of controversy over The
Skeptical Environmentalist, Environmental
Science & Policy, 7: 405–417. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1462901104000668
Polanyi M. (1969), ‘The republic of science: its
political and economic theory’, in Greene M.
(ed.) Knowing and Being, University of Chicago
Press: 50-72.
Popper K. (2002), The logic of scientific
discovery, (Routledge classics). Routledge, 2nd
edition.
Shrader-Frechette K.S. and McCoy E.D. (1993),
Method in Ecology: strategies for conservation.
Cambridge University Press.
Silver N. (2012), The signal and the noise. Allen
Lane, Penguin Books.
AEJES (2015) 1, 62-71
71
Takacs D. (1996), The idea of biodiversity:
Philosophies of Paradise. The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
About the Aegean Journal of Environmental Sciences (AEJES)
The Aegean Journal of Environmental Sciences (AEJES) is an open-access,
free of charge e-journal published by the Department of Environment,
University of the Aegean, Greece. AEJES publishes peer reviewed, original
research on the study of the natural environment and on the society-nature
interactions. Although AEJES prime aim is to provide a forum for postgraduate
(M.Sc. and Ph.D.) students on environmental sciences programs to publish
their research it also strongly welcomes contributions from established
scholars and researchers in the field.
Research Areas include, but are not exclusive to:
Environmental Politics, Policy and Sociology
Environmental Economics and Management
Environmental Education
Environmental Pollution and Restoration
Biodiversity and Conservation
Global Environmental Change
Environmental Health and Toxicology
For further information, please visit the journal’s website:
http://www.env.aegean.gr/aejes/