The widely used acronym, NIMBY, or ‘Not In My Back Yard’ has been associated with descriptions and/or explanations concerning numerous siting conflicts since the late 1980s (Burningham, 2000). Many of the academic studies based around this phenomenon study local opposition to the siting of unwanted land uses in their area, in which the individuals would not be opposed to a similar development elsewhere (Hubbard, 2005); “NIMBY refers to the protectionist attitudes of and oppositional tactics adopted by community groups facing an unwelcome development in their neighbourhood … Residents usually concede that these “noxious” facilities are necessary, but not near their homes, hence the term “not in my back yard”.” (Dear, 1992: 288). Geographical proximity is inherently the universal underlying factor of the NIMBY argument, assuming the closer residents are to an unwanted facility, the more likely they are to oppose it (Dear, 1992), yet for selfish and irrational reasons (Freudenburg and Pastor, 1992). Social facilities such as housing developments and homeless shelters, environmental technologies such as waste incinerators, and more recently, wind farms, have been key focuses of debate. However, many academics deem the NIMBY label to be vague and simplistic, overlooking the complexity and variety of public responses to a proposed development.
This essay will discuss the background of the NIMBY concept, and its use as both a descriptive and an explanatory framework for public opposition to siting proposals. Moreover, it will draw on existing literature and empirical research to examine the use of NIMBY to determine its effectiveness as a tool for analysis.
There is a widespread, implicit view across the majority of literature that NIMBYism represents a negative way of thinking about public engagement over certain potential and existing land uses. NIMBYs are regarded as narrow-minded people opposing rational planning proposals (Lake, 1993); their hostility is mainly attributed to their own self-interest, ignorance, irrationality and a lack of sufficient knowledge (Devine-Wright, 2011). Although this pejorative label is prominent throughout the literature, the NIMBY concept is dynamic. In the 1980s, NIMBYs were seen as ‘villains’, going against public interest with their selfish ideas (Sebastien, 2017). Contrastingly, in the 1990s, NIMBYs were seen as ‘heroes’, acting on behalf of the wider public’s interest. In the 2000s, with more knowledge and understanding of the complexity of the concept, the use of NIMBY was highly criticised as inaccurate and unfair: a pejorative way of describing local opposition to unwanted land uses (Devine-Wright, 2011), leading to suggestions for the term to be modified, or even abandoned altogether (Wolsink, 2006).
When used descriptively, NIMBY is a highly value-laden term: characterising the public in this way is likely to result in those labelled feeling aggravated and excluded, provoking conflict and opposition (Burningham, 2000). Most participants involved in siting disputes are aware of the term NIMBY and its pejorative nature: although they want to assert their local knowledge and identity, they are aware that their opposition and assertive nature could be labelled negatively as ‘NIMBY’ if they live near the proposed development (Burningham, 2000). The role of the NIMBY language in planning disputes is significant: it is necessary to avoid attributing NIMBY motives to certain groups, resolving conflict by ensuring locals feel respected, and their voices heard. There is a tendency in both academia and the media to over-use the word, labelling all siting conflicts as NIMBY, without proper evidence of its rightful application, or necessarily indenting to imply that the public are selfish or irrational (Sebastien, 2017; Burningham, 2000). However, when attitudes and motives of public opposition are measured directly, empirical research suggests they are much more complex than to be labelled under the one category of ‘NIMBY’ (Wolsink, 2006).
When used in explanatory terms, NIMBY behaviour can be associated with a number of perceived factors: information deficit, high level of anticipated risk, environmental concern, and geographical proximity to the development, to name a few. Despite this, most empirical research only considers two of these underlying factors: risk perception, and geographic proximity (Thornton and Knox, 2002). In general, it is assumed that the greater the perceived risk and the more personally relevant the consequences of the development may be, the higher the chance of a ‘NIMBY’ response (Thornton and Knox, 2002). A study by Kraft and Clary (1991) on the public’s response to a proposed site for nuclear waste found that risk perception is indeed a key factor in determining project opposition. However, the study did not find evidence to support the other NIMBY attributes such as a public information deficit (67% of those interviewed had a high/moderate level of understanding of the technical issue), localised attitudes, or highly emotional responses (Kraft and Clary, 1991). Furthermore, despite this presumed ‘information-deficit’ adding to the NIMBY opposition, it is actually the participants who are more knowledgeable of the technology that display greater concerns of the risk (Kraft and Clary, 1991). Attempting to combat the deficit by educating the public on the technology may actually conversely reinforce people’s beliefs and increase their resistance to the development (Vittes et al., 1993). Resultantly, Kraft and Clary (1991) conclude that NIMBY, as conventionally defined, does not account for much of the public opposition to the siting proposals; more so, it is a number of interrelated attributes, perceptions and attitudes towards the issue (Kraft and Clary, 1991).
As mentioned previously, NIMBY assumes that proximity between a person’s home and the site of the proposed development is the most significant factor influencing opposition (Devine-Wright, 2009). However, there is little consensus on this statement within the literature. On one hand, a study on the Altamont Wind Energy Development in California observed that those living closer to the development and who were more familiar with the landscape were less supportive of the development than those living further away (Thayer and Freeman, 1987). However, on the other hand, increasingly more studies propose a ‘reverse NIMBY’ effect, in that the degree of acceptance for wind farms actually increases with proximity to them, with locals becoming more favourable to a development after its construction (Warren et al., 2005). In Ireland, 92% of candidates support renewable energy in general, yet 66% initially opposed its local implementation, suggesting a NIMBY attitude (Warren et al., 2005). However, with time, there was no observed difference between attitudes towards national wind power and a further wind farm in the area: the initial negative presumptions such as visual intrusion and noise were not as strong as presumed, easing the locals negative views on the technology (Warren et al., 2005).
Moreover, a study by Botetzagias et al. (2013) revealed that geographical proximity was neither the sole, nor the most important determinant of opposition. However, it was strongly correlated to other negative underlying factors of the development such as perceived unfairness of the siting decisions risks, and the costs of the wind farms. The results undermined the ‘common sense’ idea that any objection is just purely a personal, selfish NIMBY attitude (Botetzagias et al., 2013). They noted that this understanding of local opposition ends up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy: people who do not trust the government or policy makers are more likely to consider the siting to be unfair to both the area and their best interests, further increasing opposition and a push to site the development elsewhere (displaying ‘NIMBY’ attitudes as a way to be heard) (Botetzagias et al., 2013). Resultantly, it was concluded that the public are rejecting the siting not because they purely want to shift burden of the project elsewhere, but because they consider the decision to be unfair and their voices not being heard.
A further aspect of explaining NIMBYism is the perceived strong environmental values locals hold, especially concerning the development of wind farms which may spoil the scenery, increase noise, and disrupt natural habitats. However, empirical research has conflicting views, suggesting environmental concern is highly dependent on the type of land-use: Vittes et al., (1993) observed that environmental orientation was not a significant factor in opposing a waste disposal facility, with almost no difference in opinion concerning the siting between those with high, and those with low, environmental concern. However, looking at the Altamont Pass wind energy development study, 88% of opponents reasoned their opposition to despoliation of the scenery, and 45% due to disturbing animal and plant life (Thayer and Freeman, 1987). Opposition to development for environmental reasons may be attributed to an emotional attachment and sense of identity felt within the landscape and locality. Devine-Wright (2009) suggests rephrasing NIMBY to refer to more place-protective action; this is supported by empirical research whereby a key oppositional factor to large-scale projects is that the public feel their construction threatens their place-related identities (Devine-Wright, 2011). The public reject such developments as they want to protect the landscape’s natural beauty and environmental qualities such as habitat and aesthetics in which they have formed emotional attachment to.
However, the NIMBY argument does play a somewhat important and influencing role in policy making and siting decisions, helping to shape the development plans of specific technologies such as promoting offshore wind energy. Despite its increased cost and technical challenges, this siting decision is though to meet a presumption that distancing the technology from localities will reduce the prospective NIMBY opposition (Devine-Wright, 2011). Furthermore, there have been recent changes to the planning laws in order to combat presumed opposition such as the 2008 Planning Act streamlining and speeding up the planning process and removing public enquiry (Devine-Wright, 2011). Attempts to distance the planning and decision making from localities aim to prevent opportunity for NIMBY arguments to arise (Devine-Wright, 2011).
It is evident the NIMBY concept is ambiguous, confusing, and vague in nature, putting public opposition down to numerous factors such as geographical proximity, information deficit, environmental concern and ultimately, selfishness. However, empirical evidence fails to support these factors, with only a small number of studies concluding opposition may be driven solely by geographical proximity or other assumed NIMBY factors (Wolsink, 2006). Many participants have more complex underlying reasons for opposition that go beyond the breadth a single term can explain. It is evident from the literature that we should steer clear from using the language of NIMBY to label people. This results in further conflict and aggravation (Burningham, 2000), and it is academically unacceptable to make assumptions and label people in such a pejorative manner (Sebastien, 2017). Up until recently, NIMBY was the only theoretical framework for understanding and explaining opposition to new land uses (Sebastien, 2017). However, as we have become more aware of the complexity of the underlying reasoning behind opposition, solely relying on NIMBY as an explanatory framework is not useful (Sebastien, 2017); it is both a social, and spatial process (Hubbard, 2005) and we must better engage publics and allow them to voice their opinions in order to create a better understanding.
However, the term NIMBY is too widely used in academia and the media to avoid using it or and abandon it all together. If we were to eradicate the term, it does not mean that the theoretical concepts behind it no longer exist (Sebastien, 2017). NIMBY does somewhat prove useful in understanding reasons for locational conflicts, such as risk, and plays an influencing role in the planning process of specific developments. However, it is still necessary to develop new ways of thinking about the publics in the process, by better connecting the locals with the policy makers.
Overall, the blanket use of NIMBY across all siting conflicts is wrong and we should be cautious when using the NIMBY language and attributing it to certain individuals or groups. However, it is still a valid argument that NIMBY considerations do play some role in a complex, interlinked explanation of local concerns and reactions to a proposed development; it is inevitable to want to protect your own ‘backyard’, yet for a number of underlying, meaningful reasons (Burningham, 2000), not necessarily due to the pure selfishness NIMBY portrays. Public opposition is not a problem, and provides societal value, especially when regarding environmental quality of the area and place-protective action (Devine-Wright, 2009). To conclude, we should not reject the term NIMBY completely, provided that it is defined correctly and used rationally and in the correct manner.