In Dutch policy documents resistance to planned trajectories and sites for facilities is accounted for in terms of the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) attitudes held by local residents. Therefore, as a desperate effort to crush the opposition against some major projects, new physical planning legislation is proposed. A new instrument is introduced for the central authorities which drastically limits the influence of the local authorities and the public on the siting process. Since the basic idea behind it is the 'theory' of people defending their own backyard without recognising the needs of society as a whole, it is called the NIMBY instrument. If certain conditions concerning the nature of attitudes held by local residents are fulfilled, siting decisions can be theoretically described and classified as social dilemmas. Six implicit assumptions which can be distinguished in the backyard theory are examined, leading to the conclusion that the theory does not hold for most people. Interests of local residents are entangled with their behavioural motives. The new Dutch NIMBY policy will change priorities and power structures in the process of facility siting. Probably the new policy will prove to be counterproductive. The public are offended when they are treated as selfish and irrational and opposition will probably be stimulated by the use of the NIMBY instrument.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andriessen, J.E. (1992) Formal opening, in European Wind Energy Conference 1991: Proceedings Part II. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
2.
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S. (1970) Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Blowers, A.T. (1984) Something in the Air: Corporate Power and the Environment . London: Harper and Row.
4.
Blowers, A.T., Lowry D. and Solomon, B.D. (1991) The International Politics of Nuclear Waste. London: Macmillan.
5.
Bosley, P. and Bosley, K. (1988) Public acceptability of California's wind energy developments: three studies, Wind Engineering, 12(5), pp.311-318.
6.
Byers, E. (1990) Now entering the age of nimby?, Waste Age, 10(2), pp. 36-39.
7.
Dear, M.J. and Taylor, S.M. (1982) Not on Our Street: Community Attitudes to Mental Health Care. London: Pion.
8.
Deelstra, K. (1991) Lokatiegebonden milieuproblemen: conflicten tussen eigenbelang en algemeen belang. Een onderzoek naar collectieve actie rond de vuilverbrandingsproblematiek in Alkmaar. Faculteit der Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen, Amsterdam. [Location-bounded environmental problems: conflicts between self interest and public good. A study of collective action around the waste incineration issue in Alkmaar].
9.
Diekmann, A. (1985) Volunteer's dilemma, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29, pp. 605-610.
10.
Ducsik, D. (1987) Citizen participation in power plant siting: Alladin's lamp or Pandora's box?, in: R. Lake (Ed.) Resolving Locational Conflict. Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick.
11.
Easterling, D. (1992) Fair rules for siting a high-level nuclear waste repository, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11(3), pp. 442-475.
12.
Ehrenfeld, J.R., Craig, E.P. and Nash, J. (1989) Waste incineration: confronting the sources of disagreement, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 359(3), pp. 305-315.
13.
Feldman, E.J. and Milch, J. (1982) Technocracy versus Democracy: The Comparative Politics of International Airports. Boston: Auburn House.
14.
Furuseth, O.J. and O'Callaghan.J. (1991) Community response to a municipal waste incinerator: NIMBY or neighbor?, Landscape and Urban Planning, 21(2), pp. 163-171.
15.
Gatrell, A.C. and Lovett, A.A. (1992) Burning questions: incineration of wastes and implications for human health, in: M. Clark, D. Smith and A. Blowers (Eds) Waste Location: Spatial Aspects of Waste Management, Hazards and Disposal, pp. 143-157. London/ New York : Routledge.
16.
Gore, A. (1992) Earth in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose . London: Earthscan.
17.
Gregory, R. and Kunreuther, H. (1990) Successful siting incentives, Civil Engineering, 1990(4), pp. 73-75.
18.
James, P. and Thompson, M. (1989) The plural rationality approach, in: J. Brown (Ed.) Environmental Threats: Perception, Analysis and Management, pp. 87-94. London/ New York: Belhaven Press.
19.
Kovacs, W.L. (1993) Solid waste management: historical and future perspectives , Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 8(1,2), pp. 113-130.
20.
Krupar, K.R. and Krupar, J.J. (1989) Communication stategies for resolving environmental issues, TheInternational Journal of Environmental Studies , 34(1/2), pp. 11-23.
21.
Marks, G. and Von Winterfeld D. (1984) 'Not in My Back Yard': influence of motivational concerns on judgments about risky technology, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, pp. 408-415.
22.
O'Hare, M. (1977) 'Not on MY block you don't': facility siting and the strategic importance of compensation, Public Policy, 25(4), pp. 407-458.
23.
O'Hare, M., Bacow, L. and Sanderson, D. (1983) Facility Siting and Public Opposition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
24.
Petts, J. (1992) Incineration risk perceptions and public concern: experience in the UK improving risk communication, Waste Management and Research, 10(2), pp. 169-182.
25.
Popper, F.J. (1985) The environmentalist and the LULU, Environment, 27(2), pp. 7-11.
26.
Portney, K.E. (1984) Allaying the nimby syndrome: potential for compensation in hazardous waste treatment facility siting, Hazardous Waste , 1(3), pp. 411-421.
27.
Rabe, B.G. (1991) Beyond the nimby syndrome in hazardous waste facility siting: the Albertan breakthrough and the prospects for co-operation in Canada and the United States, Governance, 4(2), pp. 184-206.
28.
Rivm (Rijksinstituut Voor Volksgezondheid En Milieuhygiëne) (1991) Nationale milieuverkenning 2 1990-2010 . Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom H.D. Tjeenk Willink.
29.
Siskind, E. and Susskind, L.E. (1989) The incineration conflict: adressing public concerns , Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 359(3), pp. 317-329.
30.
Slovic, P., Layman, M., Kraus, N. ET AL. (1991) Perceived risk, stigma and potential economic impacts on a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada, Risk Analysis, 11(4), pp. 683-696.
31.
Solomon, B.D. and Cameron, D.M. (1985) Nuclear waste repository siting: an alternative approach, Energy Policy, 13(6), pp. 564-580. Stark Hasan, N. and Simmons, J.R. (1989) 'Local' control as a model or myth? The Westinghouse-Bloomington Superfund clean-up, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 339(1), pp. 9-32.
32.
Thayer, R.L. and Hansen, H. (1988) Wind on the land: renewable energy and pastoral scenery vie for dominance in the siting of wind energy developments, Landscape Architecture, 78(2); pp. 69-73.
33.
Thurow, L.C. (1980) The Zero-sum Society: Distribution and Possibilities for Economic Change. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
34.
Vlek, C. and Keren, G. (1992) Behavioral decision theory and environmental risk management: assessment and resolution of four 'survival' dilemmas, Acta Psychologica, 80(1-3), pp. 249-278.
35.
De Vries, H.S. (1992) Ontgrondingen: not in my backyard!, Bodem, 2(2), pp. 68-71.
36.
Wolsink, M. (1988) The social impact of a large windturbine, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 328(4), pp. 301-312.
37.
Wolsink, M. (1989) Attitudes and expectancies about wind turbines and wind farms, Wind Engineering, 13(4), pp. 196-206.
38.
Wolsink, M. (1990a) The siting problem: wind power as a social dilemma , in: W. Palz (Ed.) EC Wind Energy Conference Madrid, pp. 725-729. Bedford: Stephens & Ass.
39.
Wolsink, M. (1990b) Maatschappelijke acceptatie van windenergie: Houdingen en oordelen van de bevolking. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers. [Public acceptance of wind energy: Attitudes and judgments].
40.
Wolsink, M. (1991) The noise issue in siting decisions, in: P. Smulders, F. Van Hulle and J. Dragt (Eds) Wind Energy: Technology and Implementation, pp. 715-720. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
41.
Wolsink, M. and Van De Wardt, J.W. (1989) Visual impact assessment: a review of recent research, in: European Wind Energy Conference Glasgow (Part I), pp. 471-475. London: Peter Peregrinus.
