Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

NIMBYs & LULUs Locally Unwanted Change RD300 30 September 2002.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NIMBYs & LULUs Locally Unwanted Change RD300 30 September 2002."— Presentation transcript:

1 NIMBYs & LULUs Locally Unwanted Change RD300 30 September 2002

2 Definitions of NIMBYs and LULUs Not-In-My-Backyard Syndrome Definition: An individual or community sentiment that expresses the undesirability of proximity to a particular land use. Typically involves perception that their health and/or quality of life is under threat. LULUs = Locally Unwanted Land Uses

3 What is a LULU? Landfills Toxic Waste Facilities Nuclear Power Plants Prisons Halfway Houses, Group Homes, etc. Airports, Highways, Rail Lines Low income housing Theme Parks, Sports Stadiums Walmarts, McDonalds, Shopping Malls Phone Towers, Electrical transmission Lines Large Scale Livestock Operations Industrial Parks

4 Perceived Consequences Functional consequences Spatial redistribution of activities Economic consequences Effect a new land use may have on adjacent properties. Environmental Consequences Health effects Reduction in quality, Aesthetics Social Consequences Those who are perceived different than existing residence.

5 Perspectives of NIMBY Activists Public Selfishness Public acts to protect their own interests. Public Prudence Public may provide a broader but equally important kind of guidance. More “Big Picture” than the scientists. Public Ignorance/Irrationality “Good” Science vs Ignorant public Assumes people are poor decision-makers Ignore or over look risk (i.e. gamblers)

6 Policy Implications If Selfishness is assumed Then C/B Analysis would better reflect cost to community. If Prudence is assumed Suggest need for citizen concern to be taken more seriously. If Irrationality is assumed Public fear is unmitigated, therefore it might be ignored

7 GSX Waste Treatment What was the NIMBY issue? What are the 3 views of the public in NIMBY conflicts? Define them. Do you think that NIMBY conflicts are simply a product of self-interest? Is there anything wrong with that? How do you think GSX “viewed”the local community? Find support. List the stakeholders? Give an example of a trust issue that existed between 2 or more of the stakeholders.

8 GSX Con’T Give an example of a procedural justice issue. Give an example of distributional justice. What were some of the evolutional milestones the NIMBY group experienced? Some people consider the closing of the plant a victory, others “ less than satisfactory. What do you think? And Why?

9 Lessons Learned and beyond Three views of the public: ignorant/irrational, selfish and prudent. Often characterized by issues of power, status and wealth? Did you see any of these in GSX? Public wants to participate in meaningful decision-making processes regarding NIMBYs. Social and group processes can heighten individual perceptions of issues and other stakeholders.

10 Lessons con’t NIMBY groups are typically under funded, under stress, and often inexperienced. Importance of information gathering to NIMBY groups. Ongoing process. Learn the system (hearing, courts, etc.) Decide on goals, Stop or modify proposal. Both sides will employ tactics.

11 Credibility is an issue. Many NIMBY groups are experienced or trained negotiators. Often friction exists within NIMBY groups Use of the media Each NIMBY campaign is unique. Lessons con’t

12 Important Factors in NIMBY Conflicts Distributional equity (risks/costs and benefits). Trust in decision- makers and proponent. Risk to children Uncertainty Procedural justice Involuntary nature Personal control Issues of power Lack of experience or knowledge Environmental justice issues

Download ppt "NIMBYs & LULUs Locally Unwanted Change RD300 30 September 2002."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google