IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v31y1994i6p851-866.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Entanglement of Interests and Motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on Facility Siting

Author

Listed:
  • Maarten Wolsink

    (Department of Environmental Science, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Maarten Wolsink, 1994. "Entanglement of Interests and Motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on Facility Siting," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 31(6), pages 851-866, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:31:y:1994:i:6:p:851-866
    DOI: 10.1080/00420989420080711
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/00420989420080711
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00420989420080711?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas Easterling, 1992. "Fair rules for siting a high-level nuclear waste repository," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 442-475.
    2. Andreas Diekmann, 1985. "Volunteer's Dilemma," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(4), pages 605-610, December.
    3. Solomon, Barry D. & Cameron, Diane M., 1985. "Nuclear waste repository siting: An alternative approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 564-580, December.
    4. Paul Slovic & Mark Layman & Nancy Kraus & James Flynn & James Chalmers & Gail Gesell, 1991. "Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Impacts of a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 683-696, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jacqueline Hettel Tidwell & Abraham Tidwell & Steffan Nelson, 2018. "Surveying the Solar Power Gap: Assessing the Spatial Distribution of Emerging Photovoltaic Solar Adoption in the State of Georgia, U.S.A," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Simón, Xavier & Copena, Damián & Montero, María, 2019. "Strong wind development with no community participation. The case of Galicia (1995–2009)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    3. Brunes, Fredrik & Hermansson, Cecilia & Song, Han-Suck & Wilhelmsson, Mats, 2016. "NIMBYs for the rich and YIMBYs for the poor: Analyzing the property price effects of infill development," Working Paper Series 16/2, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Real Estate and Construction Management & Banking and Finance.
    4. Prosperi, Maurizio & Lombardi, Mariarosaria & Spada, Alessia, 2019. "Ex ante assessment of social acceptance of small-scale agro-energy system: A case study in southern Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 346-354.
    5. Motosu, Memi & Maruyama, Yasushi, 2016. "Local acceptance by people with unvoiced opinions living close to a wind farm: A case study from Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 362-370.
    6. Jason Harold, Valentin Bertsch, Thomas Lawrence, and Magie Hall, 2021. "Drivers of People's Preferences for Spatial Proximity to Energy Infrastructure Technologies: A Cross-country Analysis," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    7. Reusswig, Fritz & Braun, Florian & Heger, Ines & Ludewig, Thomas & Eichenauer, Eva & Lass, Wiebke, 2016. "Against the wind: Local opposition to the German Energiewende," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 214-227.
    8. Ladenburg, Jacob & Dahlgaard, Jens-Olav, 2012. "Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects of the daily wind-turbine encounters," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 40-46.
    9. Rebecca Houghtaling, 2005. "Local impediments to realization of national policy: the role of stakeholders in siting wind projects," NEURUS papers neurusp97, NEURUS - Network of European and US Regional and Urban Studies.
    10. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 1188-1207, August.
    11. Boyle, Kevin J. & Boatwright, Jessica & Brahma, Sreeya & Xu, Weibin, 2019. "NIMBY, not, in siting community wind farms," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 85-100.
    12. Ladenburg, Jacob & Termansen, Mette & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Assessing acceptability of two onshore wind power development schemes: A test of viewshed effects and the cumulative effects of wind turbines," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 45-54.
    13. Scheer, Dirk & Konrad, Wilfried & Wassermann, Sandra, 2017. "The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: A qualitative study of public perceptions towards energy technologies and portfolios in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 89-100.
    14. Jacquet, Jeffrey B., 2012. "Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 677-688.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    2. Takuya Sekiguchi, 2023. "Fixation Probabilities of Strategies for Trimatrix Games and Their Applications to Triadic Conflict," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 1005-1033, September.
    3. Konrad, Kai A. & Morath, Florian, 2020. "The Volunteer’s Dilemma in Finite Populations," CEPR Discussion Papers 15536, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    5. Heifetz, Aviad & Heller, Ruth & Ostreiher, Roni, 2021. "Do Arabian babblers play mixed strategies in a “volunteer’s dilemma”?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    6. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    7. Jorge Peña & Georg Nöldeke, 2023. "Cooperative Dilemmas with Binary Actions and Multiple Players," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 1156-1193, December.
    8. Gee, Laura K. & Kiyawat, Anoushka & Meer, Jonathan & Schreck, Michael J., 2024. "Pivotal or popular: The effects of social information and feeling pivotal on civic actions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 404-413.
    9. Frédéric Koessler & Marieke Pahlke, 2023. "Feedback Design in Strategic-Form Games with Ambiguity Averse Players," PSE Working Papers halshs-04039083, HAL.
    10. Konrad, Kai A., 2024. "The collective security dilemma of preemptive strikes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(3), pages 1191-1199.
    11. Gee, Laura K. & Schreck, Michael J., 2018. "Do beliefs about peers matter for donation matching? Experiments in the field and laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 282-297.
    12. Christopher D. Wirz & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram Scheufele & Jennifer H. Chung & Luisa Massarani, 2018. "Rethinking Social Amplification of Risk: Social Media and Zika in Three Languages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2599-2624, December.
    13. Burak Oc & Maryam Kouchaki, 2024. "The More the Merrier: How Psychological Standing and Work Group Size Explain Managers’ Willingness to Communicate About Unethical Conduct in Their Work Group," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(4), pages 775-786, April.
    14. Holler Manfred J., 2002. "Classical, Modern, and New Game Theory / Klassische, Moderne und Neue Spieltheorie," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 222(5), pages 556-583, October.
    15. Kai A. Konrad & Florian Morath, 2021. "The volunteer’s dilemma in finite populations," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 1277-1290, September.
    16. Doğan, Pınar, 2020. "Gender differences in volunteer’s dilemma: Evidence from teamwork among graduate students," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    17. William C. Metz, 1996. "Historical Application of a Social Amplification of Risk Model: Economic Impacts of Risk Events at Nuclear Weapons Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 185-193, April.
    18. Goeschl, Timo & Soldà, Alice, 2024. "(Un)Trustworthy pledges and cooperation in social dilemmas," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 106-119.
    19. Maaser, Nicola & Stratmann, Thomas, 2024. "Costly voting in weighted committees: The case of moral costs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    20. McCluskey, Jill J. & Rausser, Gordon, 1999. "Stigmatized Asset value: Is It Temporary or Permanent?," CUDARE Working Papers 198679, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:31:y:1994:i:6:p:851-866. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.