Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Engineering Management

ISSN 2095-7513

ISSN 2096-0255(Online)

CN 10-1205/N

Postal Subscription Code 80-905

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Eng    2016, Vol. 3 Issue (1) : 39-49    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2016015
ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT THEORIES AND METHODOLOGIES
An Empirical Study on the Generation Mechanism of NIMBY Conflicts of Construction Projects
Guang-she Jia1,Song-yu Yan1,*(),Wen-jun Wang1,Ralf Müller2,Chen Lin3
1. School of Economics & Management, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
2. Department of Leadership & Organizational Behavior, Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway
3. Shanghai Airport Group Co., Ltd., Shanghai 201207, China
 Download: PDF(578 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

In the highly overlapped contexts of urbanization and social transformation, and with the advent of the “Risk Society,” the social issues, called “Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY)” conflicts, caused by the construction or operation of the NIMBY projects have become a serious problem in China. Hence, it is in urgent need to find out the influencing factors and discover the generation mechanism of the NIMBY conflicts. From the perspective of social conflict theory, the authors built a process model of the NIMBY conflicts on the basis of identifying stakeholders and analyzing their interest interaction. Thereafter, the authors conducted a questionnaire survey, followed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealing the underlying influencing factors of the NIMBY conflicts. Finally, they performed the confirmatory analysis method of Structural Equation Modeling to test the preliminary research hypothesis of the model and its interaction path in AMOS 18.0, with the results showing that unequal exchange and consensus mobilization will contribute to the formation of common consciousness of the opposition party, the opposition party’s common consciousness and action mobilization affects the generation of social conflicts. The process model reveals the generation mechanism of the NIMBY conflicts, and it facilitates further investigations in the governance of the NIMBY conflicts.
Keywords NIMBY conflicts      social conflict      construction projects      mechanism      empirical study     
Corresponding Author(s): Song-yu Yan   
Online First Date: 16 May 2016    Issue Date: 26 May 2016
 Cite this article:   
Guang-she Jia,Song-yu Yan,Wen-jun Wang, et al. An Empirical Study on the Generation Mechanism of NIMBY Conflicts of Construction Projects[J]. Front. Eng, 2016, 3(1): 39-49.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.15302/J-FEM-2016015
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2016/V3/I1/39
Fig.1  The driving mechanism of NIMBYconflicts. Adapted from the paper “The NIMBY conflicts in China: based on the analysis of events” by He (2009).
Fig.2  The process model of NIMBY conflicts.
Fig.3  The differentiation path of affected residents in the process of “common consciousness construction.”
Fig.4  The simplified model of the generation mechanism of NIMBY conflicts.
Variable types Key variables Index code Index names
State variables Unequal exchangeU U1 Negative effects of NIMBY
U2 Positive effects of NIMBY
U3 Interests Compensation
U4 Degree of public participation
U5 Legitimacy of decision process
U6 Definition of public interest
Common consciousnessC C1 Anger
C2 Collective identity
C3 Internal solidarity
Conflict behaviorsB B1 Participation in conflict actions
B2 Organization conflict actions
Process variables Consensus mobilizationM M1 Public discourse
M2 Persuasive communication
M3 Consensus promotion
Action mobilizationA A1 Political opportunity structure
A2 Expected benefit of action
A3 Social networks
Tab.1  The Structure of the Scale
Number of respondents Percentage (%)
Social roles
Government staff 17 12.88
Engineers 36 27.27
Ordinary citizens 46 34.85
Students 25 18.94
Media and Non-profit organizations 8 6.06
Educational background
Doctor 4 3.03
Master 16 12.12
Undergraduate 34 25.76
Junior college 47 35.61
Below junior college 31 23.48
Cognition of NIMBY conflicts
Personal involvement 3 2.27
Family involvement 6 4.55
Friends involvement 17 12.88
Never involvement but heard 73 55.30
Never heard 33 25.00
Tab.2  Descriptive Statistics about the Respondents
Factor codes Factors Index Cronbach’ a Items
U Unequal exchange U1、U2、U3、U4、U5、U6 0.860 6
M Consensus mobilization M1、M2、M3 0.716 3
C Common consciousness C1、C2、C3 0.762 3
A Action mobilization A1、A 2、A 3 0.667 3
B Conflict behavior B1、B2 0.717 2
Tab.3   Reliability Statistics
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Bartlett’s test
Approximate c2 distribution Df Sig.
0.842 988.470 136 0.000
Tab.4  Eligibility Statistics
Factor Index Component
1 2 3
Unequal exchange(U) Negative effects of NIMBY (U1) 0.652 0.317 0.218
Positive effects of NIMBY (U2) 0.700 0.287 0.257
Interests compensation (U3) 0.662 0.552 0.127
Degree of public participation (U4) 0.749 0.276 -0.030
Legitimacy of decision process (U5) 0.755 0.191 0.158
Definition of public interest (U6) 0.768 -0.092 0.075
Common consciousness (C) Anger (C1) 0.411 0.575 0.484
Collective identity (C2) 0.318 0.712 0.302
Internal solidarity (C3) 0.082 0.865 -0.045
Conflict behavior(B) Participation in conflict actions (B1) 0.030 0.164 0.867
Organization conflict actions (B2) 0.205 0.009 0.836
Tab.5  The Rotated Component Matrix of State Variables
Component Initial eigenvalue The rotated eigenvalue
Sum % of variance Accumulation % Sum % of variance Accumulation %
1 5.074 46.129 46.129 3.393 30.843 30.843
2 1.390 12.640 58.769 2.222 20.196 51.038
3 1.089 9.904 68.673 1.940 17.635 68.673
Tab.6  The Extent of Variance Explanation of State Variables
Factor Index Component
1 2
Consensus mobilization(M) Public discourse (M1) 0.810 0.223
Persuasive communication (M2) 0.794 0.077
Consensus promotion (M3) 0.763 0.019
Action mobilization(A) Political opportunity structure (A1) 0.174 0.710
Expected benefit of action (A2) -0.051 0.810
Social networks (A3) 0.173 0.789
Tab.7  The Rotated Component Matrix of Process Variables
Fig.5  Path analysis model of the generation of NIMBY conflicts.
Statistic Standard Modified model Judgment
Absolute index
c2 P>0.05 (miss) 112.364 (P = 0.207>0.05) Pass
RMSEA <0.08 (if<0.05, good) 0.029 Good
GFI >0.90 0.915 Pass
Incremental index
CFI >0.90 0.987 Pass
IFI >0.90 0.988 Pass
TLI >0.90 0.983 Pass
Contracted index
PNFI >0.50 0.662 Pass
PCFI >0.50 0.733 Pass
c2/df <2.00 1.113 Pass
AIC Theoretical<Independent &<Saturation 216.364<232.931216.364<1074.076 Pass
CAIC Theoretical<Independent &<Saturation 418.270<900.069418.270<1140.084 Pass
Tab.8  The Match Degree of Model
1 Anderson, C. (2013). The networked minority: how a small group prevailed in a local wind farm conflict.Energy Policy, 58, 97–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.048
2 Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Piscataway, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
3 Bosley, P., & Bosley, K. (1988). Public acceptability of California’s wind energy developments: three studies. Wind Engineering, 12, 311–318.
4 Chi, C. C., & Adams, E. I. (2002). National identity and NATID: an assessment in Yemen. International Marketing Review, 19, 637–662.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330210451953
5 China Government. (2013). The communiqué of the third plenary session of 18 of the communist party of China. Retrieved from .
6 Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Redwood City, California: Stanford University Press.
7 Devine-Wright, P. (2005). Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy (Chichester, England), 8, 125–139.
https://doi.org/10.1002/we.124
8 Fernandes, G., Ward, S., & Araújo, M. (2014). Developing a framework for embedding useful project management improvement initiatives in organizations. Project Management Journal, 45, 81–108.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21441
9 Freeman, R.E. (2010). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10 Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
11 He, Y. (2009). The NIMBY conflicts in China: based on the analysis of events. Open Times, 12, 102–114.
12 Hunter, S., & Leyden, K. M. (1995). Beyond NIMBY: explaining opposition to hazardous waste facilities. Policy Studies Journal: the Journal of the Policy Studies Organization, 23, 601–619.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1995.tb00537.x
13 Korsgaard, M. A., Jeong, S. S., Mahony, D. M., & Pitariu, A. H. (2008). A multilevel view of intragroup conflict. Journal of Management, 34, 1222–1252.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308325124
14 Kraft, M. E., & Clary, B. B. (1991). Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: public response to radioactive waste disposal.Western Political Quarterly, 44(2):299–328.
15 Kuhn, R. G., & Ballard, K. R. (1998). Canadian innovations in sitting hazardous waste management facilities. Environmental Management, 22, 533–545.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900126
16 Le Bon, G. (1897). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. [No location]: Fischer.
17 Li, W. (2009). The practice of collective action: sociological analysis of farmers’ collective petitions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Shandong University, Shandong.
18 Liu, N. (2004). Resentment, mobilization structure and the rational choice: the analysis of the possibility of a collective action in China’s urban areas.Open Times, 4, 57–70.
19 Matheny, A. R., & Williams, B. A. (1985). Knowledge vs. NIMBY: assessing Florida’s strategy for sitting hazardous waste disposal facilities. Policy Studies Journal: the Journal of the Policy Studies Organization, 14, 70–80.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1985.tb00205.x
20 McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212–1241.
https://doi.org/10.1086/226464
21 Morris, A. D. (1992). Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
22 Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. H., & Berge, J. M. T. (1967). Psychometric theory (Vol. 226). New York City: McGraw-Hill Education.
23 O’hare, M. (1977). “Not On My Block You Don’t”: Facilities sitting and the strategic importance of compensation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Laboratory of Architecture and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
24 Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: concepts and models.Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 296–320.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391553
25 Sun, J. (2013). The analysis of group event based on emotion sociology: the case study of molybdenum-copper alloy project in Shifang (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai.
26 Sun, L. (2005). Modernization and social transition. Beijing: Peking University Press.
27 Tan, S., & Hu, X. (2013). The situation and strategy of social risk prevention of NIMBY projects in China. Emergency Management in China, 7, 54–58.
28 Wolsink, M. (1994). Entanglement of interests and motives: assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on facility siting. Urban Studies, 31, 851–866.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00420989420080711
29 Wu, M. (2010). Structural equation model: the practice and application of AMOS. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press.
30 Zeng, P., & Luo, G. (2006). A literature review on collective action mechanism. Open Times, 1, 111–123.
31 Zhao, D. (2005). A review of western social movement and revolution theory: from the perspective of China. Studi di Sociologia, 1, 168–209.
32 Zheng, W. (2011). The plight of NIMBY facilities planning: the case study of Shanghai maglev project. Urban Planning, 2, 74–81.
[1] Jianxia GONG, Lindu ZHAO. Blockchain application in healthcare service mode based on Health Data Bank[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(4): 605-614.
[2] Hongtao ZHOU, Hongwei WANG, Wei ZENG. Smart construction site in mega construction projects: A case study on island tunneling project of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(1): 78-87.
[3] Zebin ZHAO, Xiaolong XUE, Xinglin GAO, Gang LIU, Hengqin WU. Coupling and evolution mechanism of infrastructure mega-projects complex ecosystem: Case study on Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(1): 17-29.
[4] Yongling ZHU, Qianqian SHI, Qian LI, Zhimei YIN. Decision-making governance for the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge in China[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(1): 30-39.
[5] Xianjia WANG, Shiwei WU. Mechanism design of reverse auction on concession period and generalized quality for PPP projects[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(2): 156-170.
[6] Lin-xiu Wang,Mu-xi Yu,Si-jia Wang. Driving Factors of Green Mining in Coal Mining Enterprises in China[J]. Front. Eng, 2015, 2(3): 211-223.
[7] Ji-ming Wang. A Study of the Functional Mechanism of Petrochemical Engineering Construction Project Management[J]. Front. Eng, 2014, 1(2): 129-139.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed