1. Laboratoire de Psychologie Environnementale UMR 8069 NIMBY around water treatment plants an applied study Aimée Casal 18 th Iaps Conference - Evaluation in progress - Vienna July 2004

2. The "Not In My Back Yard" phenomenon reflects the opposition put up by the inhabitants of an area to the establishment or the extension of a new infrastructure in their close environment Definition

3. Nimby dilemma refers to… The conflict between individual and collective interests The opposition between local and global aspects

4. The residents’ point of view Residents perceive it as a damage for their close environment They tend to disregard advantages They wish that it will be established preferably elsewhere than close of at home

5. The experts’ perception Difficulties of negotiation with the population which could lead to conflict The argument of general interest is not enough any more Technical efforts to reduce harmful effects are not always perceived Experts have a partial vision of the problem

6. The case of water treatment plants holding a mission of public health Water purification Energy and agricultural recovering … refers to values of sustainability activate important reactions of the inhabitants disturbed most of the time by the olfactory annoyance In addition to other harmful effects : noise, visual and fear of medical risks… The study

7. The present study was impelled by a public organization The request consists in : obtaining applicable tools and recommendations to deal with potential oppositions of residents facilitate environmental integration of three water treatment plants in the suburbs of Paris

8. Usines 1) … is going to be enlarged 2)… has projects to double its treatment’s capacities 3) … doesn’t exist yet

9. Objectives Apprehend the psychological, social and environmental impacts of the construction or the expansion of the factory Analyze the interactions between the three aspects  answers adapted to each situation E. Pol. (2003) : the immediate objectives, the strategies and the orientation of the actions have to be specific to places. Each site presents caracteristics that need different solutions.

10. Population The public administration – ingeeners Factory side average residents Panel judges Associations

11. Methodology orientations Couple objective and subjective data :  Objective data refer to environmental conditions, physical criteria on the city and the neighbourhood area  Subjective data refer to perceptions, representations of the inhabitants

12. Factors involved Expression of annoyance Representation of water purification Image of the factory The threat that it represents for residents’ quality of life Relation with the harmful object

13. Objective factors Distance from the factory (orientation, km.) Meteorological criteria Build density Urban greenspace density Social density Housing quality and residential type View from home on the factory / on the river Factory going to be constructed (3) : DIS/BCN ( Pol & Moreno, 1994, 2001 )

14. Individual factors Socio demografic caracteristics : age, sex, socioprofessional class, residential status, mobility (home-work) residential history, anchoring

15. Relation with the harmful object Variable of implication (Rouquette, 2003) 1) degree of personal identification relative to the object 2) value system attributed to the object 3) perceived possibility of action Behavioural and cognitive strategies as control The more one is implicated, the more one need to reduce dissonance ?

16. Expression of the annoyance Personal stressors (Badoux-Levy A., Robin M., 2002) : - Preocupations relative to professional sphere - Preocupations relative to environmental problem - Preocupations relative to family sphere - Preocupations relative to overload, hyper-activity - Worries about the body and health - Daily-life management Did have personal stressors an effect on environmental evaluation?

17. Dimensions of the negociation between the two parties The three dimensions of the SCB method (schèmes cognitifs de base) (Guimelli, Rouquette, 1992) constitute an analyze guide of the individual discourses : 1. Object description 2. Practices relative to the object 3. Causal attribution – jugement, evaluation of the object Are difficulties of communication related with different functions of respective discourses?

18. Rumors phenomenom Local press content analyses Is the information recepted by the population turned into wrong knowledge ? Are technical aspects and history of the evolution of the structure changed into “non-sense stories” ?

19. Thank you!