Scholarlink

<p>Supplying society-wide public goods often depends on site-specific provision. Yet, (perceived) localized provision costs may at times outweigh localized individual benefits and thus lead to “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY-)opposition (e.g., when trying to set up energy, transportation, social, or, in our case, communication infrastructure). Accurate estimation of the level of NIMBY-opposition per se is analytically challenging because general attitudes towards provision and NIMBY-motivated opposition are intertwined but need to be distinguished and because site selection can be endogenous to local support/opposition. We conducted an experiment that addresses these challenges, focusing on public attitudes toward 5G antenna placement in Switzerland. Using original data from a population-representative sample of Swiss residents (<InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(N=5,035\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation>), we observe a population split on the question of 5G network expansion. We survey-experimentally revealed actual 5G antenna locations around respondent homes to a sample largely unaware of these locations beforehand. This information increased individuals’ worry over proximity to antenna sites and reduced support for 5G rollout, with such effects becoming stronger with closer proximity. Differentiating respondents with ex ante higher perceived costs/lower perceived benefits and lower costs/higher benefits from provision, the former are more opposed to 5G rollout, regardless of distance. In contrast, the latter exhibit particularly pronounced NIMBY attitudes. This allows for unexpected political coalitions that, in our case, could affect majority support. In additional experiments, we show that NIMBY attitudes translate into a higher willingness to pay for opposition in close proximity to new provision sites—but this could potentially be mitigated by scenarios where citizens decide under a veil of ignorance.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

How Relevant is NIMBYism to Citizens’ Support for the Large-Scale Deployment of Public Goods? Experimental Evidence from 5G Antenna Placement in Switzerland

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月29日

查看全文
  • Lukas Rudolph,
  • Franziska Quoß,
  • Thomas Bernauer

摘要

Supplying society-wide public goods often depends on site-specific provision. Yet, (perceived) localized provision costs may at times outweigh localized individual benefits and thus lead to “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY-)opposition (e.g., when trying to set up energy, transportation, social, or, in our case, communication infrastructure). Accurate estimation of the level of NIMBY-opposition per se is analytically challenging because general attitudes towards provision and NIMBY-motivated opposition are intertwined but need to be distinguished and because site selection can be endogenous to local support/opposition. We conducted an experiment that addresses these challenges, focusing on public attitudes toward 5G antenna placement in Switzerland. Using original data from a population-representative sample of Swiss residents ( \(N=5,035\) ), we observe a population split on the question of 5G network expansion. We survey-experimentally revealed actual 5G antenna locations around respondent homes to a sample largely unaware of these locations beforehand. This information increased individuals’ worry over proximity to antenna sites and reduced support for 5G rollout, with such effects becoming stronger with closer proximity. Differentiating respondents with ex ante higher perceived costs/lower perceived benefits and lower costs/higher benefits from provision, the former are more opposed to 5G rollout, regardless of distance. In contrast, the latter exhibit particularly pronounced NIMBY attitudes. This allows for unexpected political coalitions that, in our case, could affect majority support. In additional experiments, we show that NIMBY attitudes translate into a higher willingness to pay for opposition in close proximity to new provision sites—but this could potentially be mitigated by scenarios where citizens decide under a veil of ignorance.