**4. The pervasiveness of the Not-in-my-Backyard syndrome (NIMBYism)**

A short overview of national and international newspapers4 will demonstrate the allpervasiveness of NIMBYism: Kagkelidon (April 13, 2007) reports from Greece: "Serifos island opposes gigantic wind park plans". Siegel (November 27, 2007) also reports about the island of Serifos: "NIMBYism – Global obstacle to a renewable energy future". Howden (June 12, 2007) writes about "Conservationists fight to keep wind farms off Skyros". Russel (January 1, 2008) looks at the situation in Great Britain: "Local planning logjams are preventing renewable power projects being given the green light, research reveals two out of three applications for onshore wind farms are being rejected". He further comments that "Britain could fulfil its full potential for land-based wind power if the proposals currently going through the planning system were built". Walker (January 19, 2011) considers Great Britain's *Localism agenda* which seems to oppose low-carbon strategy: "Wind industry warns Localism bill could spark yet more planning delays for new renewable energy projects". And Woods discusses conflicting environmental visions of the rural:

The proposal to construct the 39 turbine power station provoked considerable controversy from its announcement in early 2000. By the time that the application was approved by the local planning authority in July 2001, it had generated a public debate that split communities, political parties and pressure groups, and prompted public meetings, demonstrations, petitions and letters to the press (Woods, 2003, p. 271).

<sup>3</sup> For further discussion see Sections 5 and 6.

<sup>4</sup>An internet search regarding Australia and NIMBYism established 659,000 entries on the web but only two books in our library; these two books deal with the NIMBYism and waste disposal.

Wind Farming and the Not-in-My-Backyard Syndrome: A Literature Review

perceived or actual risks:

including uncertainty.

not.

Regarding Australia's Challenge in Relation to Climate Change and CO2 Emissions 459

NIMBYism is defined by Wolsink (2006) as "an attitude ascribed to persons who object to the siting of something they regard as detrimental or hazardous in their own neighbourhood, while by implication raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere" (p. 86). NIMBYism can refer to the establishment of nuclear power plants, nuclear waste or general waste disposal, housing the underprivileged, or to racism. Here NIMBYism is related to wind farming in Australia, referring to public opposition to unwanted local developments. NIMBYism "is not new, but it has never been as pervasive and so quickly ignited as today", it is "a triumph of self-interest over principle" (Offor, 2002, p. 2). Offor contemplates on "how quickly one disgruntled landowner appears to become a major campaign with a ground swell of support that could derail an entire project" (p. 2). An insight into the development of NIMBYism may provide an understanding why it is such a powerful tool in opposing something that has potentially very positive effects. Futrell (cited in Glickel, 2011) argues that true NIMBYism reactions include a "shift in awareness based on a sense of injustice and obligation to act". Freudenberg and Pastor (also cited in Glickel, 2011) find that three theories can explain NIMBYism in response to

 The community is either ignorant or irrational, unwilling to accept any risk for the benefit of society: Proponents of this theory conclude that the public is uninformed and thus unreasonable. This argument, however, does not recognise that issues of uncertainty will always be a part of any assessment dealing with impacts on the natural world; experts and residents have to consider the same principles of assessment,

 The community is selfish: The concept of public selfishness is embedded in the freeenterprise economic model of a market society; it is based on the assumption that it is rational for individuals to look out for their own interests. Scholars now have the difficult task to determine which self-interested attitudes can be justified and which can

 The community is prudent: Recent research has recognised some public opposition as valuable to an impact assessment: Organised protests challenging scientific assessment can reveal elements of the bigger picture scientists may otherwise not consider. Going beyond either blaming or understanding specific opposing views can lead to an

understanding of the broader system that creates opposition in the first place. The characteristics of NIMBYism often overlap (Glickel, 2011). Some further explanation and support of the syndrome is provided by Esaiasson (2010). He finds that in the 1980s the concept of NIMBYism gained importance among frustrated politicians and developers who argued that "narrow-minded citizens were a hindrance for societal development" (p. 27). At that time, the "simplistic NIMBYism did not take into account the needs and values of local communities" (p. 27). Esaiasson finds that "self-interest and local concerns are important in relation to individuals' responses to planned facility sitings" and that "the basic idea of NIMBYism should be part of our understanding of the complexities of public facility sitings" (p. 1). The author concludes that "without informed consent of affected individuals, the decision to site a public facility is an expression of contested legitimate power" (Mansbridge cited in Esaiasson, 2010, p. 28). This may be so, but somehow the civic good has to be fitted into the equation. Gibson (2005) raises the issue of the civic good and is critical of NIMBYism. The traditional view of NIMBYism is an "opposition between the

**5. Characteristics of the Not-in-my-Backyard syndrome (NIMBYism)** 

Attitudes towards wind turbines are similar in the United States: Lynley (May 24, 2011) reports "Maine wind farm could be the latest 'not in my backyard' casualty". The establishment of wind farms are being delayed (Wisconsin) or rejected (Connecticut). "Wind farm? Not off my back porch" is an interesting article by Schoetz (March 30, 2007) dealing with a "major battle in the politics of alternative energy [which] has moved to a final phase in Washington: Senator Edward Kennedy with a waterfront view and a bone to pick". But Seelye wrote (April 28, 2010) "after nine years of regulatory review, the federal government gave the green light to the nation's first offshore wind farm, a fiercely contested project off the coast of Cape Cod" (vicinity of the Kennedy property).

NIMBYism could also be detected in New Zealand: Cross (July 5, 2010) reports about "wind farms and the NIMBY Phenomenon", that New Zealand's "climate and geography lend themselves to the efficient use of wind power", however, "public objections to wind farm development and Environment Court rulings highlight some controversial issues associated with the modern energy source".

Objections to the establishment of wind turbines are very similar across the world and in Australia: "NIMBYs 'a threat to proper planning'" and "'Not in my backyard' sentiments pose one of the biggest obstacles to good planning and infrastructure development" writes Hurst (March 17, 2011). Interesting are the comments by Ryder (April 30, 2011): "I may have to buy a new filing cabinet to record all the events people claim will decimate their property values". And he continues:

One family attracted media attention by claiming a wind farm on distant hills would destroy every thing they had worked all their young lives for. The views of wind turbines waving in the breeze would kill their property's value. What about our property rights, they said (Ryder, April 30, 2011).

Jopston (April 2, 2010) argues "Wind farm approval blows town apart" and "Tilting at windmills: why families are at war"; and Strong (May 22, 2010) reflects on "Towns split on which way the wind blows". These stories are about residents in rural Australian communities who object to the establishment of wind farms in their area. Clarke (2010/2011) finds that the anti-power-movement could present a threat to wind power. He argues:

While it is not strong and the NIMBY principle … is involved, it does have some justification and some potential to harm the industry. There is at least anecdotal evidence that a few people's health may be adversely affected by sound and infrasound from turbines. As there seems to be no known mechanism for the health effects, it seems likely that there is a large psychogenic factor involved (p. 2).

How can these strong objections towards wind farming, which produces clean, renewable energy, be explained? Involved in the debate are non-rational concerns, which are produced by anti-wind farm proponents by deliberately creating fears, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) (Courtice, July 30, 2011). The practical consequences of FUD are suspension or abandonment of wind energy projects. There are also the non-rational concerns regarding place attachment and place identity. The arguments presented in different newspapers are sensationalised5, nevertheless, they capture the attitudes of local residents. In order to try and better understand NIMBYism, here is a look at its characteristics.

<sup>5</sup> Qualitative research (discussions, focus groups) may have produced a different outcome.

Attitudes towards wind turbines are similar in the United States: Lynley (May 24, 2011) reports "Maine wind farm could be the latest 'not in my backyard' casualty". The establishment of wind farms are being delayed (Wisconsin) or rejected (Connecticut). "Wind farm? Not off my back porch" is an interesting article by Schoetz (March 30, 2007) dealing with a "major battle in the politics of alternative energy [which] has moved to a final phase in Washington: Senator Edward Kennedy with a waterfront view and a bone to pick". But Seelye wrote (April 28, 2010) "after nine years of regulatory review, the federal government gave the green light to the nation's first offshore wind farm, a fiercely contested project off

NIMBYism could also be detected in New Zealand: Cross (July 5, 2010) reports about "wind farms and the NIMBY Phenomenon", that New Zealand's "climate and geography lend themselves to the efficient use of wind power", however, "public objections to wind farm development and Environment Court rulings highlight some controversial issues associated

Objections to the establishment of wind turbines are very similar across the world and in Australia: "NIMBYs 'a threat to proper planning'" and "'Not in my backyard' sentiments pose one of the biggest obstacles to good planning and infrastructure development" writes Hurst (March 17, 2011). Interesting are the comments by Ryder (April 30, 2011): "I may have to buy a new filing cabinet to record all the events people claim will decimate their property

One family attracted media attention by claiming a wind farm on distant hills would destroy every thing they had worked all their young lives for. The views of wind turbines waving in the breeze would kill their property's value. What about our

Jopston (April 2, 2010) argues "Wind farm approval blows town apart" and "Tilting at windmills: why families are at war"; and Strong (May 22, 2010) reflects on "Towns split on which way the wind blows". These stories are about residents in rural Australian communities who object to the establishment of wind farms in their area. Clarke (2010/2011) finds that the anti-power-movement could present a threat to wind power.

While it is not strong and the NIMBY principle … is involved, it does have some justification and some potential to harm the industry. There is at least anecdotal evidence that a few people's health may be adversely affected by sound and infrasound from turbines. As there seems to be no known mechanism for the health effects, it seems

How can these strong objections towards wind farming, which produces clean, renewable energy, be explained? Involved in the debate are non-rational concerns, which are produced by anti-wind farm proponents by deliberately creating fears, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) (Courtice, July 30, 2011). The practical consequences of FUD are suspension or abandonment of wind energy projects. There are also the non-rational concerns regarding place attachment and place identity. The arguments presented in different newspapers are sensationalised5, nevertheless, they capture the attitudes of local residents. In order to try

the coast of Cape Cod" (vicinity of the Kennedy property).

property rights, they said (Ryder, April 30, 2011).

likely that there is a large psychogenic factor involved (p. 2).

and better understand NIMBYism, here is a look at its characteristics.

5 Qualitative research (discussions, focus groups) may have produced a different outcome.

with the modern energy source".

values". And he continues:

He argues:
