The ‘Nimby’ stereotype of an older person who supports renewable energy schemes like wind farms but ‘Not In My Back Yard’ does not exist, a new study has found.

The idea of the Nimby first emerged in the 1990s when protest groups in small villages around England began to stand up against wind farms.

With the Government set to build thousands more onshore wind turbines in Britain over the next decade the stereotype is often referred to when protest groups emerge.

Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, was recently reported as saying opposing a wind farm should be as unacceptable as refusing to wear a seat belt.

However a survey of 3,000 people living near renewable energy projects like wind farms, energy from waste generators and wave or tidal projects found just two per cent fitted the “Not In My Back Yard” or Nimby stereotype of someone in favour of green power but not in their area.

Dr Patrick Devine-Wright from The University of Manchester, one of six universities taking part in the study, said the public is largely supportive of renewable energy. Where there are protests he said people have legitimate concerns about visual impact, the planning application or environment.

“Our results show that people generally support renewable energy, but that this support can be fragile, particularly for biomass and onshore wind energy.

“Offshore marine energy projects are so far being largely welcomed by nearby coastal communities, but large offshore wind farms can still sometimes be controversial.

“We have identified what the key issues are that shape public concerns about new proposals. Developers and government should be acting to address these key issues, not labelling protesters as Nimbies.

“They need to pay more attention to how the benefits or drawbacks of a proposal are perceived by local people.”

Professor Gordon Walker of Lancaster University also said criticising people for opposing wind farms was counter productive.

“Just calling protesters ‘Nimbies’ and suggesting, as Ed Miliband recently did, that it should be socially unacceptable to oppose wind turbines, is just counterproductive,” he said.

“People have a democratic right to express their views, to scrutinise development proposals and to argue their case.”

Mr Miliband said planning rules are being changed to take more account of local concerns while pushing through more projects.

“The planning rules are being changed by the government from April next year. As we all know, the rules matter, but so does public opposition or support. We are unlikely to be a centre for onshore wind production, if up and down the country, onshore wind applications are consistently turned down. So we have to win a political argument that environmentally and industrially, onshore wind is part of the solution.”

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

Read the whole article here
 


Comments

Mike Saint and Ben Kelahan

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:27:41

By Mike Saint and Ben Kelahan

As consultants who have worked on land use project battles in the US, in the UK and in Canada and who have conducted national public opinion polls in all three countries for several years, we disagree with the conclusions of the University of Manchester study described on NIMBY Experts Aug. 4.

Our research shows that the average person does have a favorable attitude toward clean energy projects, like wind farms, but that support in theory often shifts to opposition in fact when an actual project is proposed nearby. The latest Saint Index demonstrates this with 82 percent of those surveyed responded that they accept a wind farm in their backyard, with no tangible local project motivating their response. However, that is not reflected in 82 percent turnout of supporters who face a real project in town and respond with the passion of a perceived "threat" of change coming to their community. We have found the same “I am in favor of them, but not here” NIMBY opinions are often expressed concerning home building, supermarkets and hospitals by those who can best be described as classic NIMBY’s.

While some who live nearby a proposed wind farm and who oppose it do voice legitimate questions and concerns, -- which should be thoughtfully and fully addressed by the developers -- these claims are often voiced simply to give the NIMBY opponent a less selfish basis for opposing the project. We tend to place more credibility in the environmental and safety concerns, questions and claims by individuals and groups who live nowhere near the site and whose motives therefore are less suspect.

NIMBY to us is more a broad, socially scientific factor in the political environment of our workspace than a slight. The NIMBY moniker is at times used incorrectly in our view as a negative label or to pass judgment on those who are opposing projects. That is not our contention or intention in describing its micro and macro effect on land use applications and implementation of national energy policies. Our job as land use politics professionals is to objectively diagnose its impact on our clients' projects and prescribe a remedy. In fact, when a disfavored use is proposed in our own hometowns, we might just as easily be organizing a group of people to oppose it based on personal concerns and be called a NIMBY.

We also agree with Professor Gordon that calling people NIMBY’s for being opposed does not win them over or convince their elected officials who must make the controversial political decisions to allow the wind farms.
We counsel door to door outreach to solicit support and identify concerns early, before those concerns can escalate into the basis of an opposition campaign.

NIMBY is not something to be loved or hated (unless it's impacting your project). It just is what it is.

(Mike Saint is chairman and CEO of The Saint Consulting Group) and Ben Kelahan is senior vice president for energy for The Saint Consulting Group.)

 



Leave a Reply