Large-scale infrastructure projects such as dams, nuclear plants or mining generally raise concerns based on their social and environmental impacts. Interest coalitions gathering impacted members of the community may be formed to oppose a given project, sometimes benefiting the support of established interest groups (local or national environmental groups, for instance). In efforts to distance themselves from the so-called NIMBY (Not in my backyard) syndrome, these coalitions must develop their argument around the public good, through a “rise in generalisation”. This is an essential step to gain some legitimacy, have media’ and, by extension, public office holders’ (POH) attention. We propose to examine these dynamics in a longitudinal perspective, through four cases of public infrastructure projects discussed in Quebec (Canada) from the 1970s to the 2000s. Our results are drawn from an extensive analyse of media coverage as well as semi-structured interviews conducted with selected stakeholders. We conclude that if the notion of representativeness was loosely referred to in the 1970s, it has become paramount in contemporary debates, where coalitions are now pressed to demonstrate that their stance is representative of a majority view in the public. The media are instrumental to this exercise, which appears essential for coalitions’ social acceptance.
