POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 36 “Not Here Nor Elsewhere”: The Local-Global Dialectic in Locally Unwanted Land Use (LULU) Campaigns; The Case of Italy Paola Imperatore https://doi.org/10.22151/politikon.39.2 Paola Imperatore, 27, from Pisa (Italy), is a Ph.D Candidate at the University of Pisa. She holds a graduate degree in International Relations from the University of Pisa where she wrote her thesis on environmental conflicts and forms of protest practiced by local communities. She has additionally worked as a research assistant for various projects on the issue of social movements related with environment, city, refugee crisis and digital platforms. Her current research fields mainly concern environmental movements and LULU (Locally Unwanted Land Use) campaigns. She is also a member of OPI Social Movements, an observatory on conflict and democracy, as well as a member of Poli.Com where she worked on political communication across social networks during the Italian election. E-mail: paola.imperatore@sp.unipi.it. Abstract Over the last decades, several local populations throughout Italy have started to mobilize against the use of land to build infrastructure which is defined by its promoters as crucial to competitiveness in the global market. These challengers have been labeled by institutions and media as NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and egoistic actors who operate in opposition to the public interest. Local movements have created oppositional NOPE (Not On the Planet Earth) or NIABY (Not In Anyone's Back Yard) discourse to underline the local-global dialectic oriented toward broadly questioning the effects of globalization. Using frame analysis, this paper examines nine Italian LULU campaigns in order to investigate the presence of discursive strategies able to transcend the local dimension, the ability of the challengers to develop and spread a common key of interpretation to the different conflicts and, finally, the existence of recurring and successful frames despite the local peculiarities. Keywords Frame Analysis; LULU Campaigns; Model of Growth; NIABY/NOPE, NIMBY https://doi.org/10.22151/politikon.39.2 mailto:paola.imperatore@sp.unipi.it POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 37 Introduction The Nimby Forum’s16 annual report published at the end of 2017 (Nimby Forum, 2017) noted and confirmed a significant growth in territorial protests against large-scale infrastructure projects in Italy over the last decade. These environmental campaigns17 have more than redoubled un amount: from 130 contested installations in 2004 to 359 today (Nimby Forum, 2017). From an observation of the territorial allocation of these campaigns as is shown in the following map (Figure 1), it is possible to point out that they are broadly dispersed all over Italy. Figure 1 – Contested installations. Source: Nimby Forum (2016). 16 The Nimby Forum is an observatory on NIMBY protests and it has been active in Italy since 2004. The project is financed by government institutions, national environmental associations and private subjects which are involved in the construction of large-scale infrastructures in Italy. Though the body produces important data through the monitoring of these protests, it is also necessary to note the critical voices regarding the neutrality of the NIMBY Forum due to the participation of private and institutional promoters of the contested infrastructures (Balocco, 2011). 17 In this paper the environmental campaigns are understood as series of actions connected to each other in terms of issue and time, aimed toward a specific goal (della Porta and Rucht, 2002: 3), such as against the construction of an infrastructure. In this kind of campaigns participate several groups such as environmental associations, local committees, antagonistic groups and movements, radical left parties and other that can vary in relation to the conflict. POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 38 Labelled as “popolo del no” (people of the no) and defined as motivated by NIMBY reasons, these protest campaigns against several infrastructure projects have become important issues in local and national political agendas. To understand their origins, it is necessary to glance at how, since the 90s, neoliberalism has been restructuring economies in Western countries by creating strong competition between cities and territories when it comes to obtaining private investments. Globalization has thus imposed a “growth machine” (Logan and Molotch, 1987) along with related effects: welfare dismantling, gentrification, the privatization of public services and much more. One product of this process has been the promotion of infrastructure projects, portrayed in dominant rhetoric as fundamental for social and economic growth and legitimized as necessary to compete in a global market. As a result, different actors ranging from the no-global movement at the end of the 90s to the environmental movement have been mobilizing against this process. The latter aforementioned movement was strongly affected by the former in terms of its practices, and, over the years, environmental movements became more conflictual and more locally-oriented (della Porta and Diani, 2004). The relevance of the local dimension as a space in which conflict is expressed has become an object of study in political and social sciences (Slater, 1997; Routledge, 2003; Leitner et al., 2008) and many researchers (della Porta and Andretta, 2002; della Porta and Piazza, 2008; Caruso, 2010; Piazza, 2011) have started to investigate the NIMBY nature of local protest campaigns. Although this existing work represent an essential point of departure for any analysis of the topic, two gaps can be observed in the studies. First, the empirical evidence from which some hypotheses are elaborated stems from a small number of cases (such as one or two campaigns) or focuses only a single-contentious network (such as campaigns against fracking or incinerators). The second gap is related to a single-issue analysis of the contents within the framework of local protests (such as environmental and LULU campaigns, anti-corruption and NIMBY protests, etc.) being the most typical. This paper does not aim to fill these gaps but rather aims to contribute to the debate on NIMBY/not NIMBY using a wide comparison of cases and through a broader analysis of the contents in local actors discourses in order to be able to track a generic counter-frame if one exist. The research aims to discuss the issue by addressing the following research questions from an empirical point of view: 1. What are the real reasons for this broad phenomenon? Is it really the “popolo del no” that wants to obstruct progress? 2. What are the issues in the Italian LULU (Locally Unwanted Land Use) protests that allow for the spreading of common frames among these campaigns? 3. If they exist, what are the more successful and recurring frames? POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 39 Framing the Conflict: A Cultural Perspective on Social Movements In the 80s, the concept of frame, elaborated by Goffman in 1974, became and has since remained a highly successful methodological tool for analysing social movements. Frame has been conceptualized as an interpretative model based on the production of discourses, ideas, and arguments through which actors of a movements give common and shared meaning to reality (Snow and Benford, 1992). Therefore, by using frame analysis it becomes possible to focus on the interaction between collective action and symbolic production. As argued by Snow and Benford (1988), the frame is able to mobilize public opinion in support of social movements demands. In- so-far as a movement’s actors can influence decision-makers only through a broad mobilization of civil society, the frame represents not only an important element of this mobilization but also a key factor in its potential success (Gerhards and Rucht, 1992). Snow and Benford (1988) have identified three main steps that take place in a framing process: the diagnosis, which occurs when challengers of a phenomenon indicate its problems and causes, the prognosis which takes place through the elaboration of solutions and, at the end, the process of the production of motivations which incentivize action. At the same time, Gamson (1988) has stressed that the process of meaning-attribution is a conflictual process in which every actor tries to convince public opinion of their reasons. In this sense, while social movements will try to influence the public opinion and convince others about the reasons behind their protests, counter-movements will also operate in order to defend their interests. The concept of frame makes it possible to capture the cultural dimension of political conflict and to observe culture as an arena of action and disputes between the different parts. In this arena, each challenger defines discourses, languages, symbols and strategies which are considered able to mobilize (Williams, 2004). This cultural arena can also be transformed by the protests (Williams, 2004) which can produce new discursive opportunities more favourable for their claims. If every collective actor can develop a different frame according to their identity, they also have to consider that there are frames which can have more resonance (Snow and Benford, 1988) and that is more probable that such frames will have more potential to convince public opinion and in generalize a protest. Whilst considering political conflict also as cultural conflict between different perspectives in which each actor tries to legitimize itself and to discredit the adversary, the next paragraph discusses the relationship between the framing process and LULU campaigns. NIMBY or Not? The Local-Global Dialectic in LULU Campaigns There are two main antagonistic coalitions in conflicts related to the use of the territory to build new infrastructures. On one hand, there is the environmental coalition, in which a very POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 40 heterogeneous network generally composed of local committees, associations, antagonistic left groups, radical-left parties and, sometimes, local institutions frame their opposition to a project as a defence of the environment (della Porta and Andretta, 2002). On the other hand, there is the economic coalition, often composed of industries, unions and local institutions, which promotes the same project being contested by the respective environmental coalition and frame it as an opportunity to generate economic benefits for the given the territory as well as to raise employment levels (della Porta and Andretta, 2002). Since their origin in the 90s, LULU protests have been labelled by institutions, media, and infrastructures promoters as NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), parochial and localistic mobilizations with egoistic interests. As is pointed out by Neville and Weinthal (2016:570) “industry sees the phenomenon as stifling development, and governments view it as hindering social progress” and public good. The media’s construction and story-telling regarding these protests is mainly oriented towards devaluing them (Lake, 1993; Jobert, 1998; McLeod, 2007) by using a diversionary reframing (Freudenburg and Gramling, 1994) aimed at diverting attention from the pivotal problem and toward redefining the issue on the basis of the unreasonableness of the challengers (Freudenburg et al., 1998). Broad use of the NIMBY label allows for the discrediting of actors labelled as such as adverse to development and the common interest, and so undermines their legitimacy (Wolsink, 2006). Hence, the LULU mobilizations are identified as enemies in-so-far as they are seen as obstacles stemming from the rejection of a few people to pay the necessary costs to create public good useful for the society as a whole (della Porta and Piazza, 2008). These challengers are often charged as anti-democratic actors who paralyze public policies (Mannarini and Roccato, 2011). Facing a framing process which negatively affects LULU actors, scholars examining these movements have begun to investigate the issue more deeply. The contributions of Bobbio (1999; 2011), della Porta (1999), della Porta and Piazza (2008) Caruso (2010) and Piazza (2012) in Italy, as well as those of McAdam and Boudet (2012), Rootes (2013), and Neville and Weinthal (2016) in other countries have focused attention on the discursive evolution of local protest campaigns. They found that local actors have started to engage even more frequently in the challenge of broadening their frames to encompass other issues – environment, wealth, the model of growth, and participation – which are strongly connected with the main claims of their protests. For example, Schlosberg (2004) has examined the attempt to reclaim participation in environmental policy processes. Meanwhile, Della Porta (1999) has observed how campaigns are linked to a more general demand for democracy from below. This is something she has defined as a meta-discourse of democracy. Through their actions, local challengers question and reject the institutional DAD (Decide, Announce, Defend) approach to decision-making (Kemp, 1992). POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 41 By focusing their opposition not against the localization of but on the same existence of large-scale infrastructure, the campaign actors have redefined the debate. They have tried to overcome the NIMBY label by elaborating NOPE (Not On the Planet Earth) (Trom, 1999) or NIABY (Not In Anyone's Back Yard) (Lesbirel, 1998) frames in which the local-global dialectic is pivotal. In the context of globalization, the local protests are related to global topics and have become an opportunity to question the overall development model (Owens and Cowell, 2011). Caruso (2010) has argued that LULU movements are thus contributing to the building of an ideological discourse around specific themes of reflection. These include the use of the commons, lifestyles, the relationship between the centre and periphery, as well as that between homogenisation and multiplicity, and, in particular, the dominant concept of progress. In this discourse, globalization is considered to be a process responsible for producing centralization, homogenization and commodification (Caruso, 2010). In order to capture the process through which LULU actors can develop their frame, Walsh, Warland and Smith (1997) have elaborated the concepts of frame expansion and frame bridging. These processes can take place when a particular frame of collective action is successfully applied to a seemingly separate issue or conflict (Walsh et al., 1997). In this case, a scale shift of the LULU campaigns occurs and bridges “claims and identities” (McAdam et al., 2001: 331) and, at the same time, affects spatial/geographic dimensions because mobilization grows beyond its localized beginnings. Social movement researchers have agreed on considering the development of a generalized frame as a strategy for gaining consensus by searching for external allies (Roots, 2007; Neville and Weinthal, 2016). They have also agreed that by elaborating a transformation frame (Berbrier, 2002), the movement’s actors are able to avoid the stigma with which they are often labelled. Through such frame re-development, they thus try to reposition themselves in cultural space. However, what was initially only a tactic has over time become a real process in which local actors develop and internalize a universal frame (Rootes, 2013), and, finally, share a common and cohesive identity with other subjects. The final point concerning existing studies on the topic related to the master frame (Snow and Benford, 1989; 1992), that is the more recurring frames in local campaigns. Based on his study on anti-incinerator campaigns in England, Rootes (2013: 110) has argued for climate change as being a successful master frame concerning his particular case, having stated that it “provides local environmental campaigners with a new frame that provides effective bridging not merely between the local and the national but between the local and the global”. Whereas the case of Italy is concerned, della Porta and Andretta (2002) have identified four master frames in relation to the identities of involved actors: POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 42 1. Local communities which reject bearing the disadvantages generated by large-scale infrastructure support the NIMBY frame 2. Environmental associations which argue that their opposition is grounded in defending the ecosystem mainly use the frame of environmentalism 3. Further actors see large infrastructures as a source of public waste and corruption 4. And, finally, there are actors that consider decision-making related to the building of large- scale infrastructures as demonstration of centralized and non-democratic decision-making procedures. By using this theoretical framework as a departing point, this paper will investigate the discursive strategy put in place by different LULU campaigns across Italy, if and how they develop a local-global dialectic and the existence of master frames in movements related to opposing large- scale infrastructure projects. Conceptualization and Operationalization In this paper, the NIMBY frame is referred to as the dominant frame which is used by institutions, private investors and the media to portray protest campaigns against large-scale infrastructure projects. On the other hand, a generic NIABY frame developed by local challengers is considered as the counter-frame. The research therefore revolves around the pivotal question of how a frame can be defined as NIMBY or NIABY. In order to investigate the local-global dialectic in protest campaigns against large-scale infrastructure projects, several indicators have been chosen, each related to its own respective issue: 1) Not here; 2) Uselessness; 3) Health of local residents; 4) Right to health; 5) Environment; 6) Public spending; 7) Democracy and participation; 8) Model of growth and social justice; 9) Repression and war; 10) Anti-corruption; 11) Civil rights. I assume that in the cases in which only the “not here”, “uselessness” and “health of local residents” frames are used, the protest is locally-oriented and so the NIMBY label is confirmed. This does not mean that they have less legitimacy, but that the discourse is based on specific local claims and that networks with other collective actors and topics are narrow. When campaigns start to POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 43 interconnect their protests with more generic issues, ranging from the right to health (point 4) to civil rights (point 11), we may consider that these campaigns are engaged in a local-global dialectic. The more the issues are elaborated by the actors, the deeper the link between specific and universal or local and global concerns will be. In such cases, we can encounter a NIABY counter-frame. The comparison can reveal to us how different actors frame the same issue and it also allows us to verify the presence of a master-frame which may be shared by several campaigns. Moreover, the comparison makes it possible to answer the following important question: What types of issues and claims are there behind a NIABY frame? Methodology and Data In order to investigate the building of counter-frames by opponents to large -scale infrastructure projects, a qualitative approach based on frame analysis is used. As della Porta and Diani (2006: 74) have argued, frame analysis allows us “to capture the process of attribution of meaning which lies behind the explosion of any conflict”. Through the close examination of protest campaign manifestos and written texts such as articles and public statements in campaign blogs or other digital sources, the aim is to reconstruct the local actors frames. Through such methodology, the aim is to pass “from the text to the frame” (Johnston, 1995: 219). To evaluate and compare frames across different campaigns, I have used a standardized codebook. It includes qualitative indicators related to protest issues (as aforementioned) which make a more systematic analysis possible. When argumentations related to specific issues are found, a transference is made in the codebook to indicate the presence of these issues in the respective campaigns. By proceeding in this manner for each campaign, a table which denote the campaigns and their issues is produced and this data is consequently visualized and discussed in the “Analysis and findings” section of this paper. In order to investigate the construction of a universal counter-frame elaborated by protest actors in opposition to the dominant one, nine local protest campaigns in Italy are compared. The focus on a single country is for two main reasons. On one hand, it facilitates the selection of campaigns and also the understanding of the collected documents due to the contextual situation of myself as the paper’s author. On the other hand, since large-scale infrastructure projects are strongly debated in Italy as is shown by the Nimby Forum’s data (Nimby Forum, 2017) a deeper analysis of this phenomenon in Italy is particular useful. To collect data, I have selected campaigns with at least a basic level of structuring, in different areas of the country, of different duration with different histories, and related to different contested infrastructures projects. By combining Most Similar System Design (MSSD) and a Most Different System Design (MDSD) (Przeworski and Teune, 1970; Faure, 1994), I compare cases with common features (geographic area, national structure of opportunity, mobilization issues, etc.) but also with POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 44 specific and local peculiarities (political culture, occupation, growth levels, local structure of opportunity). In fact, the use of both MSSD and MDSM allows for a comparison of cases with common features but also with dissimilarities by showing how some variables can impact a phenomenon. If, in this study, the analysed campaigns have several similarities in terms of actors, aims, and national context, the territories in which these protests take place present different characteristics. In particular, there is a macro-level difference between the South, with high unemployment and underdeveloped infrastructures, and the North which is more competitive in the global market thanks to high-level of investments and well-developed infrastructures. It can be hypothesized that the dominant rhetoric can have different effects on local populations depending on the local context and, consequently, local actors can produce different counter-frames rather than a common and universal one. In fact, infrastructures policy is portrayed as able to encourage economic and employment growth by improving the integration and the competitiveness of territories in the global market. Taking into account these factors, the following protest campaigns are analysed in this paper: No Tav Terzo Valico, No Expo, No Grandi Navi, No Cave and Piana Contro le Nocività in Northern or Central-Northern Italy, and No Tubo, No Tap, No Muos and No Triv in Central-Southern or Southern Italy. Selected LULU campaings Northern Italy No Grandi Navi No Grandi Navi is a campaign supported by the residents of Venice to oppose the dangerous industry of tourist cruisers. The campaign has been active since 2012. No Tav Terzo Valico The No Tav Terzo Valico is a campaign against the construction of a High-Speed Train between Genoa and Milan which started in the 90s but has been gaining traction since 2012. No Expo The No Expo campaign was born in 2007 in Milan to oppose the project of a universal exposition in 2015 (Expo 2015 Milano). During the next years No Expo became popular in Italy with events on the issue happening all over the country. No Cave The No Cave campaign arose in 2014 to contest the intensive extraction of marble from the Apuan Alps. The extraction that produces recurring floods and it is responsible for environmental destruction and poor socio- economic situation. POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 45 Central Italy Piana contro le Nocività Piana contro le Nocività is a campaign that has joined the residents of three main cities (Florence, Prato and Pistoia) in opposition of the construction of a new incinerator and also of the enlargement of Florence airport. It began in 2012. No Tubo No Tubo is a campaign against the construction of a gas pipeline through different territories of Central-Italy which are seismic areas. Southern Italy No Tap No Tap campaign arose in 2013 to oppose the landing of a pipeline in a territory with a fragile ecosystem and aims to safeguard the environment and local activities. No Muos No Muos is a campaign which began in 2008 against the installation of antennas into the Usa Military Base arguing this is dangerous for the environment and for health. No Triv No Triv is a national campaign that joins together several local actors in opposition to the perforation of their territory with drills in order to exploit oil. Table 1 – Selected LULU Campaigns. Source: Author. Analysis and Findings On the one hand, there are institutions and private investors that try to encourage socio- economic development while, on the other hand, there are local communities that reject progress. These opposing positions behind the issue of large-scale infrastructure projects have often been represented in public debate in this manner. The media, in accordance with both public and private promoters, have simplified protest front ideas by referring to local actors as NIMBY subjects. This label has portrayed movements against infrastructure projects as irrational, emotional, ignorant, and anti-modern (Mannarini and Roccato, 2011), motivated by reasons of self-interest and lacking in civic orientation (Freudenberg and Pastor, 1992) thus obstructing the public good. Data collected by the Nimby Forum concerning the reasons of the protests shows that the two main motives behind them are related to the residents’ health and the conservation of the environment (Nimby Forum, 2017). These aspects seem to have remained pivotal over the years covered by this analysis (2004- 2017) with growth having taking place for the environmental issue, where it is concerned from 17% in 2004 (Nimby Forum, 2005) to 30% in 2017 (Nimby Forum, 2017), and having peaked at 38,9% in 2014 (Nimby Forum, 2015). The problem of lack of participation entered the foray in 2010 and gradually increased in prominence through to 2017 (Nimby Forum, 2017). POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 46 Though these data offer a first glance at the reasons behind NIMBY campaigns, they are limited. This is because the information is collected from newspapers which, as has been argued by Mannarini and Roccato (2011: 809), “contribute to spreading a negative and stigmatising representation of local oppositions” and rarely report in depth on the reasons behind the protests. A deeper comparison of documents produced by local campaign actors has allowed for the development of an understanding of the topics on which the mobilizations are and have been based. Not Here Figure 2 below shows the first meaningful finding of the analysed cases: none of the analysed cases are related to a “not here” claim. There are no documents in which local opponents, as the reasons behind their protests, argue that the infrastructure projects should be realized in other locations. By observing the discourses produced by local actors, what emerges is that the protest campaigns have problematized infrastructure policy and related rhetoric. In fact, the contention does not concern the location of the infrastructure but, rather, its very existence, as is shown by the recurring use of the “Nè qui nè altrove” (Not here nor elsewhere) slogan. Figure 2 – Protest Campaign Issues. Source: Author. Each one of the analysed campaigns sees the intersection of at least four topics among the selected indicators in an explicit way. The No Triv campaign seems to be a particular case involving less issues. However, if we analyse which issues are involved in this case, we can immediately perceive a universal dimension to it as well as it covers: the right to health, environment, democracy, and also the model of development. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No Cave No Tubo No Expo No Grandi Navi Piana contro le Nocività No Tap No Triv No Tav Terzo Valico No muos POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 47 Environment and Health As reported by the Nimby Forum (2017), environmental and health issues are both fundamental topics across the campaigns. Contrary to the mainstream label that portrays these local actors as irrational, the reasons behind the campaigns are often strongly supported by scientific studies (Bobbio, 1999). As has been pointed out by Bobbio (1999), the residents’ fear for their health and territories in relation to the construction of large-scale infrastructures finds confirmation in the reports that scholars and associations produce to reinforce their arguments. These topics can be included into the environmentalist frame (della Porta and Andretta, 2002), defined as a frame in which groups oppose themselves to an infrastructure project because it is considered as dangerous for the ecosystem as well as for humans and animals living in the territory that is to be affected. In other words, the claim is related to the potential impact of the infrastructure on the surrounding landscape and environment. Can this frame be defined as egoistic, localistic and unfounded? By seeking to reclaim a healthy environment, the campaigns actors are fighting not only for the interest of local residents, but they are also defending the interests of future generations (Comitato No Tap, 2016). This represents a key element in the discourse of local opponents and, in particular, in groups such as Mamme No Muos (La Sicilia, 2015) or Mamme No Tap (ComuneInfo, 2017) which join mothers in defence of their sons and future generation. At the same time environmentalism as a frame is not just usable within specific territorial borders but may be extended. This is because environmental realities have far-reaching effects and that what happens in one location can produce effects in other territories. In brief, environmentalism can be considered a universal frame. Together with the safeguarding of the environment and public health, Figure 2 shows that other “popular” issues are democracy (in 8 of the 9 cases), public spending (in 5 of the 9 cases), and the growth model (in all cases). Behind each one of these issues lies a radical conflict as concern values that I will proceed to analyse. Democracy, Legality, Corruption From the comparison in this paper, evidences emerge of what della Porta (1999) has referred to as meta-discourse of democracy. As has been argued by Bobbio (1999), during a campaign, local actors question not only the environmental and socio-economic impacts of an infrastructure project, but also the decisional-making process in which the local population is typically not included. Additionally, the Nimby Forum’s data shows that this lack of inclusion in decision-making arenas is an important issue for local campaigners; during 2017, 21,7% of people opposed projects due to the lack of their ability to participate in them (Nimby Forum, 2017). What the Nimby Forum’s Data doesn’t show nor explore, however, are the radical differences between infrastructures promoters and opponents has regard their understanding of the concept of democracy. What is explicitly POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 48 illustrated by the results of the analysis is a conflict between top down democracy - the dominant model based on liberal democracy - and bottom up model in which there is a more interactive relationship between institutions and citizens in the decision-making process. The latter do not necessarily reject the conventional modality of participation but additionally supports the necessity for more frequent, incisive. and inclusive democracy from below. From the analysis of the discourse across the various campaign documents, it appears evident that the defence of democracy constitutes part of the local actor’s frames. Infrastructure opponents denounce a deficit of democracy (No Expo, 2015), conflicts of interests (Ibid.) and the top down approach of institutions completely excluding local populations from decision-making processes (No Tap, 2018). Through their protests, opposing actors critically discuss mechanisms of delegation which are considered responsible for the progressive estrangement of institutions from citizens (Assemblea Permanente Carrara, 2014). Some actors underline the necessity to defend democracy through respecting the Italian Constitution (Coordinamento Nazionale No Triv, 2015) and law (Comitato No Tubo, 2013). In this sense, it is interesting to observe how divergent ideas can exist behind the same terms. In fact, infrastructure promoters often appeal to the law to impose a project, invoking public interest and the observance of the law. The opponents, meanwhile, make use of the law to counter decisions about a project. This appears particularly true when examining the anti- corruption frame (Piazza and Sorci, 2017) which local actors often support and it seems prevalent in 5 out of the 9 examined cases. By thus linking large infrastructure projects to corruption, LULU challengers strategically used the respect of legality against the project promoters. A telling example of anti-corruption frame is the No Tav campaign. This campaign is symbolic to movements against large infrastructure projects, having resulted in the use of the “No Tav No Mafia” slogan to underline anti-corruption issues as part of their protest. The No Muos (2012), No Tav Terzo Valico and No Expo (2015) campaigns have been framed by local actors as movements against mafia, corruption, the exploitation of illegal labour (in the construction sites), and collusion between political parties and investors. Large-scale infrastructures projects seem to provide a “Hummus for the Mafia” (No Tav Terzo Valico, 2012), so much so that No Tav Terzo Valico activists have nicknamed the High Speed Train project as a High Speed Mafia (Ibid.) opportunity. Along such and similar lines, LULU challengers invoke the respect of the law in order to stop the construction of large infrastructure projects and to fight related mechanisms of corruption and illegality that characterize them. In so doing, they also bring attention, once again, to the issue of participation in decision-making processes related to the projects. It is therefore possible to observe that local actors have introduced a fundamental element into their discourses, that of a call for a more de-centralized and participative mechanisms of democracy. Several actors argue for POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 49 the necessity of a new relationship between the national/transnational and local levels whereby decision-making processes should shift from the local to the global, i.e. from citizens to institutions. The No Triv manifesto is explicative of this demand: it declares that the activist’s action is meant to “defend commons, democracy and the local communities’ interests from power centralization” (Coordinamento Nazionale No Triv, 2016). Additionally, other actors denounce national and transnational institutions for lacking capacity to pay attention to the voices of territories (Re:Common, 2014) from which a demand for democracy is strongly emerging. The want for direct participation has become a key protest element in several campaigns. On one hand, some campaigns request and suggest the institution of concrete tools of direct democracy (Assemblea Permanente Carrara, 2015; Lucca Libera, 2015). Meanwhile, on the other hand, a will is expressed to take part in polis activities through horizontal, inclusive, and consensual practices and spaces (Assemblea Permanente Carrara, 2014). The vision of democracy that emerges in these campaigns does not exclude representative one (della Porta and Piazza, 2008), but rather stipulate that representation cannot be exhausted merely through administrative functions (Allasino, 2004). Instead, the request for democracy from below seems to embody a vision of local and direct participation. Altogether, the centralized and non-democratic decision-making procedure frame (della Porta and Andretta, 2002) seems to be a key-point of interpretation of the conflict for LULU actors that are promoting decentralized models of participation from below. Public Spending: What is the Public Interest? The issue of public investments is one which recurs frequently in the analysed texts. Several campaigns frame the large infrastructure projects as high public spending ventures that steals economic resources from social welfare. For instance, the No Tav Terzo Valico protest denounces a mechanism that cuts public spending on social services while simultaneously increasing spending on infrastructures (No Tav Terzo Valico, 2012). This divestment of funds is apparent from reported data which demonstrate an allocation of 6 billion Euros to infrastructure projects and an in tandem retraction of the same value from government spending on retirement (Ibid.). No Tap activists, for example, support redirecting these amounts towards social incomes, public schools and research (Chirenti, 2014). Several campaigns explain their oppositions to infrastructure projects through a public waste frame denouncing a bad use of collective resources in time of crisis and austerity (No Expo, 2015). In denouncing policies regarding large-scale infrastructure projects, they are denouncing a model in which public resources are used for private interests and in which few people profit to the disadvantage of the collective good. Activists of both the No Tap (Re:Common, 2014) and No Expo (Equal, 2014) campaigns define the different projects they are opposed to as profitable for businesses POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 50 and investors, but detrimental for contributors. No Tubo activists further denounce a policy aiming to subjugate the territories in question to the creation of the profits for infrastructure promoters and builders while local communities accrue considerable debt (Comitato No Tubo, 2018b). So framed by the challengers, these mobilizations are seen as an action of defence of the general interests against the particular interest of investors (Bobbio, 2011). From these cases, the use of a “public spending, private profits” counter-frame aiming to critically discuss these projects seems to emerge. At the same time, the conflict between the dominant “public interest” frame and the “public spending, private profits” counter-frame reveals a deeper rift as regards the concept of the public. No Tav Terzo Valico actors have argued that “something is broken in our own language and in our own common feeling. Something that has to do with the same idea of general interest and of being a community. The logic of large infrastructure projects, in particular of the high-speed train, dramatically underlines this rift” (No Tav Terzo Valico, 2013c). It is evident that the attempt to question and redefine the idea of the public relates to the collectivity as a whole and not just to a single campaign. These reflections around the concept of the public demonstrate a process of “remontée en généralité” (Lolive, 1999), understood as a discursive strategy that moves from the particular to the general. LULU actors have thus taken the accusation pointed by them by infrastructures promoters, of obstructing the public interest in a NIMBY sense, against them (Comitato No Tubo, 2018a). For the opponents, in fact, those who are pursuing private and egoistic goals to the detriment of local communities and the public good are in general infrastructure supporters, .in so doing for personal profit. What Kind of Growth Model? Along with concerns for the environment, a main issue in the studied LULU campaigns, according to the peculiarities of the specific contested projects, seems to be a worry about the potential consequences of the model of economic progress accompanying large infrastructure projects. Each local community respective to each campaign, has developed this topic in a different way. The No Triv (Coordinamento Nazionale No Triv, 2016), No Tap (Re:Common, 2014; Comitato No Tap, 2014), and No Tubo (Comitato No Tubo, 2018a) campaigns (all concerning the exploitation of oil and gas) frame their protests along the lines of the necessity to convert the economic model from the use of fossil fuels to renewable ones in order to have a more sustainable economy. No Cave is opposed to the intensive theft of marble from local mountains and suggests basing local development on responsible and sustainable tourism and also on the artistic use of marble (Salviamo le Apuane, 2014). Other campaigns such as No Expo (2015) and No Tav Terzo Valico (2013b) demand a fair and sustainable growth model by denouncing the overbuilding due to the construction of large-scale infrastructure. At the same time, the No Grandi Navi (2017a) POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 51 campaign frames its protest along a critical stance to mass tourism and related effects such as gentrification, the cruiser business and more. All these campaigns also question the social consequences of infrastructure policy, particularly as regard the exploitation of workers and social aggregation. What these campaigns share is a common critical stance to an economic model based on the intensive exploitation of resources and also on activities which negatively impacts on socio- economic development and on environment. The demand for a sustainable growth model is strongly connected to a demand for social justice. A good example of this is the No Tap campaign, which doesn’t only question the construction of a pipeline on the territory it seeks to defend, but also recognizes the right of other communities invested in the pipeline to decide about their resources for themselves (the pipeline is part of a European project but concerns the territories of Albania, Greece, Turkey, Azerbaijan and other countries) (Re:Common, 2014). Through denouncing the prevalent growth model, the No Expo activists, as another example, denounce a neoliberal economy based on the exploitation of resources of Southern countries and oppressed people. As concerns this hegemonic frame and the labelling of the neoliberal model of development as a categorical imperative to protest, LULU campaigns have introduced a counter-frame able to critically discuss the idea of progress. Protest actors argue for the necessity to perform other “better practices” (Ibid.), in order to guarantee a future for next generations. With a “there are other alternatives” (Piana contro le nocività, 2012) slogan, these actors support a model oriented towards recycling, reusing, and reconverting intensive activities into more sustainable ones, for example by diffusing post-extractivism values (Coordinamento Nazionale No Triv, 2016). What emerges is that, more than a “people of the no”, these actors are a “people of no to this growth model”. In fact, these campaigns show in an evident way an aversion against the dominant model of development based on consumerism, energy wastefulness, and an unhindered reaching for profit (Bobbio, 2011). In opposition to investments in large-scale infrastructure, the challengers propose to invest in what they consider the real priorities for the country. This claim strongly emerges through the slogan “Only one great infrastructure, home, and income for everyone”18, which has become very popular in these kinds of movements and has been adopted by several campaigns that combine the LULU issues with other claims such as precariousness and right to housing. In short, this slogan is able to show the inversion of priorities in the frame adopted by local actors. It is important to underline that at the core of these campaigns it is possible to identify a key value which orients the mobilizations against the infrastructural projects. These actors adopt the concept of “commons” (Caruso, 2010) and oppose a growth paradigm rooted in a global model 18 This slogan is common in Italy among various actors and campaigns. Here some examples: 'Una sola grande opera. Casa e reddito per tutti' (DinamoPress, 2013) or 'Una sola grande opera: casa, reddito, dignità per tutt*' (InfoAut, 2014). POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 52 based on the privatization, commodification and exploitation of local resources. As a matter of fact, the “safeguard of common goods” is one of the most popular counter-frame NIMBY actors utilize. As the No Expo’s manifesto declares, the movement seeks to criticize “[this] model of city, of development, of use of territory and of commons” (No Expo, 2015). At the end of their documents, the No Grandi Navi campaigners use the slogan “Laguna Bene Comune” (Laguna Common Good). The idea at the core of Commons paradigm is that local communities can participate in the management of their territory and overcome the state-market dichotomy (Ostrom, 1990). Are the local communities which should be able to decide on their future rather than national/transnational subjects or corporations. As is argued by Andretta and Guidi (2017: 264), “the emphasis on the common goods […] signals the intent to democratize the land use”. The cleavage between the dominant model of growth and alternative growth (Caruso, 2010; Piazza, 2011) is at the core of these kinds of conflicts and essentially puts the same concept of progress into question. In the end, the request for a more sustainable growth model meets and joins up with the request for more inclusive and decentralized forms of democratic participation. Other Issues In LULU campaigns, topics such as repression and war (mentioned only twice across the 9 cases analysed) or the civil rights (mentioned only once) seem to have less resonance. It could denote the absence of such frame a lack of attention for the other issues and thus leading to a limited field of possible ensuing action? By discussing what results from this comparison, I argue that some campaigns, due to their specific contexts, face certain topics more head-on than others. As it so happens, No Muos actors discuss the issue of war because they oppose the construction of a military base, yet their history is also ingrained with Sicily having often been used as an outpost for various countries (No Muos, 2012). For No Tav Terzo Valico attention to repression is linked with the political repression of dissident peoples, in their case of campaign activists themselves (No Tav Terzo Valico, 2013a). Concerning civil rights, though it is true that almost all campaigns pay some attention to the issue of participation and democracy, there is a lack of elaboration upon other civil and human rights. The No Muos campaign is an exception. It refers to anti-fascism, anti-racism, solidarity and equality among Mediterranean populations. No other actors, however, have framed their action along the lines of a fight for civil rights. In particular, there are no campaigns that refer to LGBTQ issues19. 19 LGBTQ (Lesbian, gay, bisex, transgender, queer). POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 53 If this result can be evaluated in a sense of civil rights being an area in which the counter- frame of LULU actors are lacking, it is also necessary to consider the networks in which these actors are engaged to understand how they interact with other subjects and topics. This is an important research mission which has not been explored in this paper due to the scope of the research. In the next paragraph, I only mention the relationships between individual LULU campaigns in order to underline the strong connections between them. Networks What emerges from a reading of the documents produced by LULU actors is an attempt to get in contact with other similar campaigns in order to overcome the local connotations of the individual protests. Nearly each analysed campaign has engaged in an effort to mobilize on a broader level. While No Tap, No Tav Terzo Valico, and Piana contro le Nocività activists have joined together multiple local communities over this greater project, No Muos has become a regional campaign through the coordination of 14 local committees into the “Coordinamento dei Comitati No Muos” (No Muos, 2013). At the same time, others such as No Triv and No Tubo, have been successful in transforming the level of coordination from local to national one. No Triv has therefore gained strength through coordination and organized collective action against the exploitation of oil in Italy. No Tap interacts closely with other campaigns such as No Snam20 and No Tubo. No Tap activists have also organized a caravan all around Italy to sensitize other communities to their struggle (Pressenza, 2017). No Grandi Navi has launched a transnational campaign named “Facciamo respirare il Mediterraneo” (let’s breath the Mediterranean) which aims to raise awareness about the environmental costs of the cruiser industry and to involve France, Greece, and Spain in a program reducing sulphur emissions (No Grandi Navi, 2017b). Whereas these attempts to broaden the scope of individual mobilizations is concerned, it is important to take into consideration two meetings, one on the national level and one on the European level, which have occurred over the past two years. The first meeting, named “Agorà of movements in defence of territories and for the environmental justice” (Cdca, 2017), took place in Naples in 2016. With mixed academic and activist participation, this event represented a first moment of confrontation on the issue among scholars and movement actors. On one hand this meeting represented an effort to give an empirical base to LULU claims, and on the other hand it gave birth to an interest in the construction of a broader network able to develop alternative 20 Snam is a gas pipeline project of 700 km that aims to pass through the Adriatic territories of Italy. The project is strongly opposed by local communities that denounce the serious and dangerous impacts of Snam for the environment and the health and safety of local population (TuttoOggi, 2017). POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 54 strategies to the existing growth model. This latter goal was been confirmed by the convocation of a second meeting in Venice at the end of 2017. On this occasion, a conference named “European days of movements for the defence of territories, environmental justice and democracy” (Global Project, 2017) was held. LULU actors were invited from all over Europe, and democracy was added to the event as a pivotal topic of the meeting. By mentioning these meetings is possible to bring attention to the dynamics in which LULU actors are engaged in order to structure a local-global dialectic and to overcome the local dimensions of their protests by framing their opposition in terms of resistance against land exploitation and as a demand for a different model of growth (Ibid.). Conclusion By considering the data collected and discussed in this paper, it is possible to draw a series of conclusions. First, the label of NIMBY typically associated with LULU campaigns does not reflect the attitude of the local actors involved in the campaigns. The use of the NIMBY frame, considered dominant, appears to be a strategic diversionary reframing (Freudenburg and Gramling, 1994) choice made by the economic coalition (infrastructure supporters) to delegitimize these forms of protests. In so doing, infrastructure supporters seek to shift the focus of public opinion from the pivotal claims of the campaigns towards the irrationality and particularism of the challengers. Local actors respond to this mainstream representation of them, by engaging in the development of a common counter-frame able to universalize the issues they protest by starting from a “Not here nor elsewhere” slogan to underline the transversal relevance of their claims. This slogan represents the Italian implementation of the so-called NOPE (Trom, 1999) or NIABY (Lesbirel, 1998) discourse. By framing their actions as a request for social justice, welfare, a fairer working system, a more inclusive forms of local democracy and for a sustainable growth model, the local actors realize a scale-shift in their campaigns through the “geographic expansion of contention” (McAdam and Boudet, 2012: 132). LULU actors have been successful in joining seemingly separate issues within a common interpretative scheme. This frame bridging (Snow and Benford, 1992) has allowed the actors of the analysed campaigns to interconnect issues such as democracy, the neoliberal model, globalization, social justice, anti-corruption, and others to the main claims of their protests. Even though della Porta and Andretta (2002) distinguish between various frames in relation to the actors, in the selected campaigns these frames intersect and seem to have been generalized across all the campaigns independently by the acting groups. This does not mean that there aren’t actors who give privileges to one frame over an-other, but that these keys of interpretation spread across all the campaign's actors and become a shared discourse. The environmental frame, the public waste and corruption frame, and the centralized and non-democratic decision-making procedure frame act in unison and cross paths across the analysed campaigns. POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 55 It is important to underline that the opposition to the hegemonic model of development is immediately connected with criticisms of the dominant model of progress and its notion that large- scale public infrastructures increase competitiveness. In fact, in the diagnosis process (Snow and Benford, 1988), LULU activists identify as the cause of the problem the neoliberal model of growth positing that it imposes specific priorities and also the representative model of democracy which centralizes decision-making processes and so leave the local communities under-represented. In their diagnosis, private investors, often in collusion with public institutions, are subjects which pursue this faulty growth model through the construction of large-scale infrastructures. At the same time, in the prognosis phase (Snow and Benford, 1988), the challengers propose to overcome these problems by promoting an alternative economic and political paradigm based on participation from below and on the common and sustainable use of land. The motivations (Snow and Benford, 1988) used to persuade third parties to mobilize and to support the protests is related to the defence of the public/general interest. From this perspective, each person has to defend the collective good against private speculations. A second point worth discussing here concerns the presence of common frames despite the specific differences between campaigns, territories, and local subcultures. In fact, the features of all campaigns and their contexts do not in particular affect their frames. From the north to the south Italy, the issues that characterize the protests are the same. In these Italian cases, there seems to exist a master frame encompassing participation from below and the management of territory. A “commons, democracy and environmental justice” (CDEj) frame bring issues to be closer to the meaning which Italian LULU actors attribute to their protests. In parallel with an enlargement of frames, there is an apparent process of scaling campaigns up through the development of wider networks as a way of “bridging claims and identities” (McAdam et al., 2001: 331). In fact, the construction of national and transnational networks among LULU campaigns demonstrates their awareness of common global implications regarding how the dominant model of progress affects territories and, at the same time, their awareness that unification is necessary to organize against and resist this process. Future Research The analysis in this paper has sought to observe if the NIMBY label as a frame mirrors the attitude of LULU movements. It has been found that it does not. The analysis has led to a recognition of the development of an alternative counter-frame and it has pointed to the existence of common discourses and master frames among various campaigns with different contexts. Nevertheless, there are still some aspects that are worth considering through deeper analysis. In particular, I suggest the carrying out of a more detailed analysis of the networks in which local actors engage from both a POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 56 territorial and a thematic perspective. This can allow us to understand the kinds of relationships local actors may have with other issues and other collective actors. In parallel, it is necessary to explore how the socio-economic, political, and cultural differences between different areas of Italy can be more or less relevant to conducting LULU campaigns. References Allasino, Enrico (2004): ‘Tra il cortile di casa e in network: la struttura organizzativa interna', in della Porta, Donatella (ed.) Comitati di cittadini e democrazia urbana. Rubbettino: Soveria Mannelli. pp 44-70. Andretta, Massimiliano and Riccardo Guidi (2017): 'Political Consumerism and Producerism in Times of Crisis. A Social Movement Perspective?.', PACO 10(1): pp. 246-274. DOI: https://doi.org./10.1285/i20356609v10i1p246 Berbrier, Mitch (2002): 'Making Minorities: Cultural Space, Stigma Transformation Frames, and the Categorical Status Claims of Deaf, Gay, and White Supremacist Activists in Late Twentieth Century America', Sociological Forum 17(4): pp. 553–591. Bobbio, Luigi (1999): 'Un processo equo per una localizzazione equa', in Bobbio, Luigi and Alberico Zeppetella (eds.) Perchè proprio qui? Grandi opere e opposizioni locali. Milano: Franco Angeli. pp. 185 -237. Bobbio, Luigi (2011): 'Conflitti territoriali: sei interpretazioni', TeMa 4(4): pp. 79-88. della Porta, Donatella (1999): 'Protest, Protesters and Protest Policing', in Giugni, Marco, Doug McAdam and Charles Tilly (eds.) How Movements Matter. Minnesota: The University of Minnesota Press. pp. 66-96. della Porta, Donatella and Dieter Rucht (2002): ‘The dynamics of environmental campaign’, An International Journal 7(I), pp. 1-14. della Porta, Donatella and Gianni Piazza (eds.) (2008): Le ragioni del no. Le campagne contro la TAV in Val di Susa e il Ponte sullo Stretto. Milano: Feltrinelli. della Porta, Donatella and Mario Diani (eds.) (2006): Social Movements: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. della Porta, Donatella and Massimiliano Andretta (2002): 'Changing forms of environmentalism in Italy: the protest campaign on the speed railway system', An International Journal: 7 (1): pp. 59-77. della Porta, Donatella e Mario, Diani (eds.) (2004): Movimenti senza protesta? Ambientalismo in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino. https://doi.org./10.1285/i20356609v10i1p246 POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 57 Faure, Andrew Murray (1994): 'Some Methodological Problems in Comparative Politics', Journal of theoretical politics 6(3): pp. 307-322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692894006003003 Freudenburg, William R. and Susan K. Pastor (1992): 'NIMBYs and LULUs: stalking the syndromes', Journal of Social Issues 48(4): pp. 39–61. Freudenburg, William. R. and Robert, Gramling (1994): Oil in troubled waters: Perception’s, politics, and the battle over offshore oil. Albany: Suny Press. Freudenburg, William R. et al. (1998): 'Diversity and diversion: Higher superstition and the dangers of insularity in science and technology studies', International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 18(5/6): pp. 6-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/01443339810788416 Gamson, William A. (1988): 'Political Discourse and Collective Action', in Klandermans, Bert, Hanspeter Kriesi and Sidney Tarrow (eds.), From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movements Research across Cultures. Greenwich: CT, Jai Press: pp. 219-246. Gerhards, Jürgen and Dieter Rucht (1992): 'Mesomobilization: Organizing and Framing in Two Protest Campaigns in West Germany', American Journal of Sociology 98(3): pp. 555-595. Goffman, Erving (1974): Frame Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Jobert, Arthur (1998): 'L’aménagement en politique. Ou ce que le syndrome NIMBY nous dit de l’intérêt général', Politix 11(42): pp. 67-92. Johnston, Hank (1995): 'A Methodology for Frame Analysis: From Discourse to Cognitive Schemata', in Johnston Hank and Bert Klandermans (eds.) Social Movements and Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 217-246. Lake, Robert W. (1993): 'Rethinking NIMBY', Journal of the American Planning Association 59(1): pp. 87-93. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975847 Leitner, Helga et al. (2008): 'The Spatialities of Contentious Politics', Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33(2): pp. 157–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2008.00293.x Lesbirel, Hayden (1998): NIMBY Politics in Japan: Energy Siting and the Management of Environmental Conflict. New York: Cornell University Press. Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch (eds.) (1987): Urban Fortunes. The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California. Lolive, Jacques (1999): Les contestations du TGV méditerranée: projet, controverse et espace public. Paris: L’Harmattan. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0951692894006003003 https://doi.org/10.1108/01443339810788416 http://doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975847 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2008.00293.x POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 58 Mannarini, Terri and Michele Roccato (2011): 'Uses of the term NIMBY in the Italian press, 1992– 2008', Environmental Politics 20(6): pp. 807-825. McAdam, Doug and Hilary S. Boudet (eds.) (2012): Putting social movements in their place: explaining opposition to energy project in the United States, 2000–2005. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow and Charles Tilly (2001): Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McLeod, Douglas M. (2007): 'News coverage and social protest: How the media’s protect paradigm exacerbates social conflict', Journal of Dispute Resolution 2007(1): pp. 185-194. Neville, Kate J. and Erika S. Weinthal (2016): 'Scaling up site disputes: strategies to redefine ‘local’ in the fight against fracking', Environmental Politics 25(4): pp. 569-592. Ostrom, Elinor (1990): Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Owens, Susan and Richard Cowell (2011): Land and limits: interpreting sustainability in the planning process. London: Routledge. Piazza, Gianni (2012): ‘Il movimento delle occupazioni di squat e centri sociali in Europa: Una Introduzione', PACO 1(12): pp. 5-18. DOI: http://doi.org/10.3280/PACO2012-001001 Piazza, Gianni and Giuliana Sorci (2017): 'Do LULU Movements in Italy Fight Mafia and Corruption? Framing processes and ‘anti-system’ struggles in the No Tav, No Bridge and No Muos case studies', PACO 10(3): pp. 747-772. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v10i3p747 Przeworski, Adam and Henry Teune (1970): The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Rootes, Christopher (2007): 'Acting locally: the character, contexts and significance of local environmental mobilizations', Environmental Politics 16(5): pp. 722–741. Rootes, Christopher (2013): 'From local conflict to national issue: when and how environmental campaigns succeed in transcending the local', Environmental Conflict 22(1): pp. 95-114. Routledge, Paul (2003): 'Convergence Space: Processes of Geographies of Grassroots Globalisation Networks', Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 28(3): pp. 333–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5661.00096 Schlosberg, David (2004): 'Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and political theories'. Environmental Politics 13(3): pp. 517–540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229025 http://doi.org/10.3280/PACO2012-001001 https://doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v10i3p747 https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5661.00096 https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229025 POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 59 Slater, David (1997): 'Spatial Politics/Social Movements: Questions of (B)orders and Resistance in Global Times', in Pile, Steve and Michael Keith (eds.) Geographies of Resistance. London: Routledge. pp. 258–276. Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford (1988): 'Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization', International Social Movement Research 1: pp. 197-217. Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford (1989): 'Schemi interpretativi dominanti e cicli di protesta', Polis 3: pp. 5-40. Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford (1992): 'Master Frames and Cycles of Protest', in Morris, Aldon and Carol Muller (eds.) Frontiers in Social Movements Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 133-155. Trom, Danny (1999): 'De la rèfutation de l'effet NIMBY considérée comme une pratique militante. Notes pour une approche pragmatique de l'activité revendicative'. Revue francaise de sciences politque 49: pp. 31-50. Walsh, Edward J. et al. (1997): Don't Burn It Here: Grassroots Challenges to Trash Incinerators. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Williams, Rhys H. (2004): 'The Cultural Context of Collective Action: Constrains, Opportunities, and the Symbolic Life of Social Movements', in Snow, David et al. (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 91-115. Wolsink, Maarten (2006): 'Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers', New Series 31(1): pp. 85-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.2006.31.issue-1 Primary online sources Assemblea Permanente Carrara (2014): 'Nessun passo indietro e nessuna trattativa con questa Amministrazione.'. Accessible at: http://www.assembleapermanentecarrara.org/comunicati/nessun-passo-indietro-e-nessuna- trattativa-con-questa-amministrazione/ (12 August 2018) Assemblea Permanente Carrara (2015): 'L’Assemblea chiede lo sgombero di sindaco e giunta dal comune di Carrara'. Accessible at: http://www.assembleapermanentecarrara.org/comunicati/lassemblea-chiede-lo-sgombero-di- sindaco-e-giunta-dal-comune-di-carrara/ (12 August 2018) Balocco, Fabio (2011): 'Il Nimby Forum: se lo conosci lo eviti'. Il Fatto Quotidiano. Accessible at: https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2011/07/19/il-nimby-forum-se-lo-conosci-lo-eviti/146333/ (12 August 2018) https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.2006.31.issue-1 http://www.assembleapermanentecarrara.org/comunicati/nessun-passo-indietro-e-nessuna-trattativa-con-questa-amministrazione/ http://www.assembleapermanentecarrara.org/comunicati/nessun-passo-indietro-e-nessuna-trattativa-con-questa-amministrazione/ http://www.assembleapermanentecarrara.org/comunicati/nessun-passo-indietro-e-nessuna-trattativa-con-questa-amministrazione/ http://www.assembleapermanentecarrara.org/comunicati/nessun-passo-indietro-e-nessuna-trattativa-con-questa-amministrazione/ http://www.assembleapermanentecarrara.org/comunicati/lassemblea-chiede-lo-sgombero-di-sindaco-e-giunta-dal-comune-di-carrara/ http://www.assembleapermanentecarrara.org/comunicati/lassemblea-chiede-lo-sgombero-di-sindaco-e-giunta-dal-comune-di-carrara/ http://www.assembleapermanentecarrara.org/comunicati/lassemblea-chiede-lo-sgombero-di-sindaco-e-giunta-dal-comune-di-carrara/ http://www.assembleapermanentecarrara.org/comunicati/lassemblea-chiede-lo-sgombero-di-sindaco-e-giunta-dal-comune-di-carrara/ https://www.ilfattoq/ https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2011/07/19/il-nimby-forum-se-lo-conosci-lo-eviti/146333/ https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2011/07/19/il-nimby-forum-se-lo-conosci-lo-eviti/146333/ POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 60 Cdca (2016): 'Agorà dei movimenti in difesa dei territori e per la giustizia ambientale'. Accessible at: http://cdca.it/archives/15568 (22 October 2018) Chirenti, Mauro (2014): 'SOS GRANDI OPERE'. Accessible at: http://notransadriaticpiperline.blogspot.com/2014/01/sos-grandi-opere-di-mauro-chirenti.html (22 October 2018) Comitato No Tap (2014): 'una sola strategia, il bene comune. NO TAP e chiusura immediata di Cerano'. Accessible at: http://notransadriaticpiperline.blogspot.it/2014/01/comunicato-una-sola- strategia-il-bene.html (12 August 2018) Comitato No Tap (2016): 'L'Alleato Azero - grafic novel - diritti umani - Roma e Rasul'. Accessible at: http://notransadriaticpiperline.blogspot.it/2016/12/lalleato-azero-grafic-novel-diritti.html (12 August 2018) Comitato No Tap (2016): 'STRANI EDITORIALI, INFILTRAZIONI MAFIOSE, GRANDI OPERE' Accessible at: http://notransadriaticpiperline.blogspot.it/2016/03/strani-editoriali- infiltrazioni.html (12 August 2018) Comitato No Tubo (2007): 'Il Blog del No Tubo'. Accessible at: http://notubo.blogspot.it/2007/05/ragazzi-per-favore-inserite-le-info.html (12 August 2018) Comitato No Tubo (2013): 'Centrale Snam: venerdì 15 Febbraio a Pescare presidio per la legalità e la democrazia'. Accessible at: http://notubo.blogspot.it/2013/02/centrale-snam-venerdi-15- febbraio.html (12 August 2018) Comitato No Tubo (2018a): 'Comunicato Stampa del 4 Febbraio 2018'. Accessible at: http://notubo.blogspot.com/2018/02/comunicato-stampa-del-4-febbraio-2018.html (22 October 2018) Comitato No Tubo (2018b): 'Comunicato Stampa 13/04/2018'. Accessible at: http://notubo.blogspot.it/2018/ (12 August 2018) ComuneInfo (2017): 'Noi, mamme No Tap, ci ribelliamo'. Accessible at: https://comune- info.net/2017/12/mamme-no-tap-ci-ribelliamo/ (8 October 2018) Coordinamento Nazionale No Triv (2016): 'Bio & Mission'. Accessible at: http://www.notriv.com/about/ (12 August 2018) Coordinamento Nazionale No Triv (2015): 'Democrazia. In difesa della Costituzione, della Democrazia, dei Territori (il Documento di Crotone'. Accessible at: http://www.notriv.com/lappello/(12 August 2018) http://cdca.it/archives/15568 http://notransadriaticpiperline.blogspot.com/2014/01/sos-grandi-opere-di-mauro-chirenti.html http://notransadriaticpiperline.blogspot.it/2014/01/comunicato-una-sola-strategia-il-bene.html http://notransadriaticpiperline.blogspot.it/2014/01/comunicato-una-sola-strategia-il-bene.html http://notransadriaticpiperline.blogspot.it/2016/12/lalleato-azero-grafic-novel-diritti.html http://notransadriaticpiperline.blogspot.it/2016/03/strani-editoriali-infiltrazioni.html http://notransadriaticpiperline.blogspot.it/2016/03/strani-editoriali-infiltrazioni.html http://notubo.blogspot.it/2007/05/ragazzi-per-favore-inserite-le-info.html http://notubo.blogspot.it/2013/02/centrale-snam-venerdi-15-febbraio.ht http://notubo.blogspot.it/2013/02/centrale-snam-venerdi-15-febbraio.ht http://notubo.blogspot.it/2013/02/centrale-snam-venerdi-15-febbraio.html http://notubo.blogspot.com/2018/02/comunicato-stampa-del-4-febbraio-2018.html http://notubo.blogspot.it/2018 http://notubo.blogspot.it/2018/ https://comune-info.net/2017/12/mamme-no-tap-ci-ribelliamo/ https://comune-info.net/2017/12/mamme-no-tap-ci-ribelliamo/ http://www.notriv.com/about/ http://www.notriv.com/lappello/ http://www.notriv.com/lappello/ POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 61 DinamoPress (2013): 'Una sola grande opera. Casa e reddito per tutti'. Accessible at: https://www.dinamopress.it/news/una-sola-grande-opera-casa-e-reddito-per-tutti/ (22 October 2018) Equal (2014): 'No Expo: presidio e volantinaggio a Mantova'. Accessible at: https://equalmn.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/noexpo-presidio-e-volantinaggio-a-mantova/ (22 October 2018) Re:Common (2014): 'Dieci ragioni per dire no al gasdotto Tap'. Accessible at: https://www.recommon.org/dieci-ragioni-per-dire-no-al-tap/ (22 October 2018) Global Project (2017): 'Venezia 23-24 Settembre. Appello europeo ai movimenti per la difesa dei territori, la giustizia ambientale e la democrazia.' Accessible at: https://www.globalproject.info/it/in_movimento/venezia-23-24-settembre-appello-europeo-ai- movimenti-per-la-difesa-dei-territori-la-giustizia-ambientale-e-la-democrazia/20968 (22 October 2018) InfoAut (2014): 'Una sola grande opera: casa, reddito, dignità per tutt*'. Accessible at: https://www.infoaut.org/metropoli/una-sola-grande-opera-casa-reddito-dignita-per-tutt* (22 October 2018) La Sicilia (2015): 'Le mamme No Muos scrivono a Mattarella: «Siamo preoccupate»'. Accessible at: https://www.lasicilia.it/news/cronaca/10139/le-mamme-no-muos-scrivono-a-mattarella-siamo- preoccupate.html (8 October 2018) Lucca Libera (2015): 'Carrara: sgomberi, il sindaco e la sua giunta'. Accessible at: http://www.inventati.org/cantiereresistente/?p=4743 (12 August 2018) Nimby Forum (2005): 'Non nel mio giardino'. Accessible at: http://www.nimbyforum.it/images/stories/areastampa/comunicati/2005/05_07_06_miogiardino .pdf (12 August 2018) Nimby Forum (2015): 'Convegno Nazionale NIMBY Forum – decima edizione'. Accessible at: http://www.nimbyforum.it/area-stampa/comunicati (15 February 2018) Nimby Forum (2016): 'Convegno nazionale NIMBY Forum - undicesima edizione – Mappa Impianti'. Accessible at: http://www.nimbyforum.it/images/stories/areastampa/comunicati/2016/Cartina_XI_ed.-page- 001.jpg (12 August 2018) Nimby Forum (2017): 'Convegno Nazionale Nimby Forum – dodicesima edizione'. Accessible at: http://www.nimbyforum.it/area-stampa/comunicati (12 August 2018) No Expo (2015): 'Chi Siamo'. Accessible at: http://www.noexpo.org/chi-siamo/ (12 August 2018) https://www.dinamopress.it/news/una-sola-grande-opera-casa-e-reddito-per-tutti/ https://equalmn.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/noexpo-presidio-e-volantinaggio-a-mantova/ https://www.recommon.org/dieci-ragioni-per-dire-no-al-tap/ https://www.globalproject.info/it/in_movimento/venezia-23-24-settembre-appello-europeo-ai-movimenti-per-la-difesa-dei-territori-la-giustizia-ambientale-e-la-democrazia/20968 https://www.globalproject.info/it/in_movimento/venezia-23-24-settembre-appello-europeo-ai-movimenti-per-la-difesa-dei-territori-la-giustizia-ambientale-e-la-democrazia/20968 https://www.infoaut.org/metropoli/una-sola-grande-opera-casa-reddito-dignita-per-tutt https://www.lasicilia.it/news/cronaca/10139/le-mamme-no-muos-scrivono-a-mattarella-siamo-preoccupate.html https://www.lasicilia.it/news/cronaca/10139/le-mamme-no-muos-scrivono-a-mattarella-siamo-preoccupate.html http://www.inventati.org/cantiereresistente/?p=4743 http://www.nimbyforum.it/images/stories/areastampa/comunicati/2005/05_07_06_miogiardino.pdf http://www.nimbyforum.it/images/stories/areastampa/comunicati/2005/05_07_06_miogiardino.pdf http://www.nimbyforum.it/area-stampa/comunicati http://www.nimbyforum.it/images/stories/areastampa/comunicati/2016/Cartina_XI_ed.-pa http://www.nimbyforum.it/images/stories/area-stampa/comunicati/2016/Cartina_XI_ed.-page-001.jpg http://www.nimbyforum.it/images/stories/area-stampa/comunicati/2016/Cartina_XI_ed.-page-001.jpg http://www.nimbyforum.it/area-stampa/comunicati http://www.noexpo.org/chi-siamo http://www.noexpo.org/chi-siamo/ POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 62 No Grandi Navi (2017a): 'Cosa chiediamo'. Accessible at: http://www.nograndinavi.it/cosa- chiediamo-2/ (12 August 2018) No Grandi Navi (2017b): 'Da Venezia i comitati di diverse città portuali rilanciano la campagna internazionale facciamo respirare il Mediterraneo'. Accessible at: http://www.nograndinavi.it/da- venezia-i-comitati-di-diverse-citta-portuali-rilanciano-la-campagna-internazionale-facciamo- respirare-il-mediterraneo/(12 August 2018) No Grandi Navi (2017c): 'Referendum Grandi Navi. Non ha vinto solo il Si', ha vinto la democrazia'. Accessible at: http://www.nograndinavi.it/referendum-grandi-navi-non-ha-vinto-solo-il-si-ha- vinto-la-democrazia/(12 August 2018) No Muos (2012): 'Carta d’intenti del Coordinamento Regionale dei Comitati NO MUOS '. Accessible at: www.nomuos.info/carta-d-intenti// (12 August 2018) No Muos (2013): 'Comitati'. Accessible at: https://www.nomuos.info/comitati/ (22 October 2018) No Muos: 'il M.U.O.S.'. Accessible at: http://nomuos.org/it/index/muos/ (12 August 2018) No Tap (2018): 'Perchè diciamo NO a TAP'. Accessible at:: https://www.notap.it/i-motivi-del-no/ (11 October 2018) No Tav Terzo Valico (2012): 'L'assurdità del Tav – Terzo Valico'. Accessible at:http://www.notavterzovalico.info/2012/03/lassurdita-del-tav-terzo-valico/ (12 August 2018) No Tav Terzo Valico (2013a): 'Essere No Tav è un reato?'. Accessible at: http://noterzovalico.org/2013/09/12/essere-no-tav-e-un-reato/ (12 August 2018) No Tav Terzo Valico (2013b): 'Le alternative al Terzo Valico merci'. Accessible at: http://noterzovalico.org/2013/06/23/le-alternative-al-terzo-valico-merci/ (12 August 2018) No Tav Terzo Valico (2013c): 'Nel Pubblico Interesse'. Accessible at: http://noterzovalico.org/2013/08/08/nel-pubblico-interesse/ (12 August 2018) No Triv: 'Blogspot No Triv Coordinamento Nazionale'. Accessible at: http://notriv.blogspot.it/(12 August 2018) Piana contro le nocività (2012): 'Chi Siamo'. Accessible at: https://pianacontronocivita.noblogs.org/chi-siamo/(12 August 2018) Pressenza (2017): 'Carovana NO TAP “per la tutela e benessere dei territori” '. Accessible at: https://www.pressenza.com/it/2017/11/carovana-no-tap-la-tutela-benessere-dei-territori/ (12 August 2018) http://www.nograndinavi.it/cosa-chiediamo http://www.nograndinavi.it/cosa-chiediamo http://www.nograndinavi.it/cosa-chiediamo-2/ http://www.nograndinavi.it/da-venezia-i-comitati-di-diverse-citta-portuali-rilanciano-la-campagna-internazionale-facciamo-respirare-il-mediterraneo/ http://www.nograndinavi.it/da-venezia-i-comitati-di-diverse-citta-portuali-rilanciano-la-campagna-internazionale-facciamo-respirare-il-mediterraneo/ http://www.nograndinavi.it/da-venezia-i-comitati-di-diverse-citta-portuali-rilanciano-la-campagna-internazionale-facciamo-respirare-il-mediterraneo/ http://www.nograndinavi.it/referendum-grandi-navi-non-ha-vinto-solo-il-si-ha-vinto-la-democrazia http://www.nograndinavi.it/referendum-grandi-navi-non-ha-vinto-solo-il-si-ha-vinto-la-democrazia http://www.nograndinavi.it/referendum-grandi-navi-non-ha-vinto-solo-il-si-ha-vinto-la-democrazia http://www.nograndinavi.it/referendum-grandi-navi-non-ha-vinto-solo-il-si-ha-vinto-la-democrazia http://www.nograndinavi.it/referendum-grandi-navi-non-ha-vinto-solo-il-si-ha-vinto-la-democrazia/ http://www.nomuos.i/ http://www.nomuos.info/carta-d-intenti/ https://www.nomuos.info/comitati/ http://nomuos.org/it/index/muos/ https://www.notap.it/i-motivi-del-no/ http://www.nota/ http://www.notavterzovalico.info/2012/03/lassurdita-del-tav-terzo-valico/ http://noterzovalico.org/2013/09/12/essere-no-tav-e-u http://noterzovalico.org/2013/09/12/essere-no-tav-e-u http://noterzovalico.org/2013/09/12/essere-no-tav-e-un-reato/ http://noterzovalico.org/2013/06/23/le-alternative-al-terzo-valico-merci/ http://noterzovalico.org/2013/08/08/nel-pubblico-interesse/ http://notriv.blog/ http://notriv.blogspot.it/ https://pianacontro/ https://pianacontronocivita.noblogs.org/chi-siamo/ https://www.pressenza.com/it/2017/11/carovana-no-tap-la-tutela-benessere-dei-territori/ POLITIKON: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science Vol 39 (December 2018) 63 Salviamo le Apune (2014): 'Un Piano Programma di Sviluppo Economico Alternativo per le Apuane (PIPSEA)'. Accessible at: http://www.salviamoleapuane.org/pdf/pipsea2014.pdf (12 August 2018) TuttoOggi (2017): 'Gasdotto Snam dentro al sisma | Le proteste dal Salento a Colfiorito'. Accessible at: http://tuttoggi.info/gasdotto-snam-dentro-al-sisma-le-proteste-dal-salento-colfiorito/386036/ (12 August 2018) http://www.salviamoleapuane.org/pdf/pipsea2014.pdf http://tuttoggi.info/gasdotto-snam-dentro-al-sisma http://tuttoggi.info/gasdotto-snam-dentro-al-sisma-le-proteste-dal-salento-colfiorito/386036/ “Not Here Nor Elsewhere”: The Local-Global Dialectic in Locally Unwanted Land Use (LULU) Campaigns; The Case of Italy Introduction Framing the Conflict: A Cultural Perspective on Social Movements NIMBY or Not? The Local-Global Dialectic in LULU Campaigns Conceptualization and Operationalization Methodology and Data Analysis and Findings Not Here Environment and Health Democracy, Legality, Corruption Public Spending: What is the Public Interest? What Kind of Growth Model? Other Issues Networks Conclusion Future Research References Primary online sources