“We're not NIMBYs!” Contrasting local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable communities

Abstract

The term "NIMBY" is used prolifically in both academic literature and general public discourse to describe a locally based action group protesting against a proposed development. It is frequently used to dismiss groups as selfish or ill-informed, as is illustrated both by those who accuse opponents of possessing such characteristics and also by the attempts of many community groups to reject the label. This lies in sharp contrast to the much encouraged notions of public participation in planning and community life as proposed by the UK government's proclaimed vision of a "sustainable community". This paper argues that this dichotomy between "good" and "bad" participation can be misleading, by drawing on research from two case studies where locally based community groups opposed a specific, detailed development. The paper contributes to a burgeoning literature that reappraises conventional understandings of such groups by analysing often overlooked facets of protest groups, concluding that the conventional conceptualisations of them as NIMBY is inadequate and unhelpful in academic debate.

Public engagement in climate change – Disjunctions, tensions and blind spots in the UK

“…A subsequent expert assessment of the developer's proposal highlighted that it might indeed yield negative effects on local biodiversity, exacerbate congestion through encouraging commuting and prejudice the development of a neighboring municipality [53]. What the case illustrates though is that a normatively prescribed consultation process can actually devalue what is encouraged under a sustainability paradigm, namely the empowerment of citizens in the critical evaluation of community projects [13]. From a view on engagement as a means to democratic and substantive citizen empowerment, people's willingness to critically engage might have been harnessed as a starting point for constructive and transformative work between citizens and developers.…”

“…Closely connected to the first two reasons for public engagement is the vision of active citizens taking formative influence as vital ingredients of 'sustainable communities' in the UK [11,12,13].…”

Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK

“…The validity of this model of the public has been critically examined (Burningham, 2000, Burningham et al 2006, Wolsink, 2006 and latterly McClymont and O'Hare (2008) have noted the danger of the activities of groups labelled as NIMBY being viewed as 'bad' participation when juxtaposed against the 'good' participation instigated by government.…”

Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses

“…The relative consensus on (s11), (s20) and (s37) mirrors broader research into the NIMBY phenomenon that shows how the term itself as a blanket label for opposition fails to resonate with the experiences of residents within environmental opposition movements (Burningham, 2000;McClymont and O'Hare, 2008;van der Horst, 2007). Together this provides further evidence that the term is an unhelpful framing device in shale gas planning and should be dropped from industry and government vernacular (see also Cotton, 2013).…”