Understanding why people say ‘No’ - The current debate about Wind Farms makes us think seriously about NIMBYism

Last week’s Key Issue Workshop was about Wind Farms!

But it could equally have been about a range of other infrastructure developments which local residents would, in the ideal world, prefer to reject. The issues go to the heart of the contemporary consultation dilemma. How to convince the public that their views will be genuinely taken into account, whilst obtaining sufficient agreement to go ahead with essential projects for the benefit of communities as whole? Many people have given up on this one. They have concluded that such consultation as takes place is largely symbolic. Sherry Arnstein’s fifty-year old ‘ladder of participation’ wrongly called it tokenistic, but some still think she was right. Then there are dozens of local authorities who feel sore that decisions they have taken have been overturned at higher levels; they grumble that ‘localism’ is a deception and that their ability to listen to citizens is compromised.

But, looked at from the other end of the telescope, we hear different complaints. Policy-makers acknowledge that some initiatives are bound to be unpopular, and press on with those projects that appear sensible, secure in the knowledge that most of the opposition is based on that venerable slogan - NIMBY – not in my back yard. In the case of wind farms, Ministers point to opinion polls still showing substantial support for wind power so, they argue, refusals of planning permission will either be because the detailed proposals are ill-founded or because local people adopt a NIMBY-type attitude.

So it is really fascinating to look at academic research that probes into what’s happening under this slogan of NIMBYism and last week, we took the opportunity to examine a valuable research project called Beyond Nimbyism. Led by Professor Patrick Devine-Wright, and ESRC-funded in 2007-2009, this was an investigation into public engagement over eight renewable energy projects. Four of these went ahead; four didn’t! And by looking into these, they have offered a new insight into the underlying forces here.

One has to be careful summarising the complex conclusions of academic research, but what’s most interesting is that it suggests four different factors are at work.

• Perceived personal & local impacts of projects This is the obvious one, and the more people feel threatened by the specific proposals on offer, the more likely they are to campaign and oppose • General beliefs about the technology sector What is emerging is that people’s behaviour is influenced by public perceptions around different technologies. These move around, and change after major events like the Japanese Tsunami. Wind still enjoys major support, but it is waning. Right now, the public likes the idea of tidal power! Nuclear is a bit marginal! • Beliefs about the developer’s engagement practices & levels of trust Who wants the development to take place seems to make a difference. On the Continent, many renewable proposals are community-led, but in the UK it is often perceived as big-business trying to make big profits. So it matters whether developers have earned the respect and trust of these communities. Have they been seen to have been listening? • Beliefs about planning procedures (fairness & transparency etc.) It is not just the ‘what’ but also the ‘how’. People like to feel they ‘own’ the local planning process and are upset if they are intimidated or overruled from outside. They also dislike jargon or officers hiding behind obscure professional rules making the rationale of decisions impenetrable to ordinary residents

What’s most significant about this list is that there is more to this than people reacting logically to perceived personal impact. It shows, for example, that developers and promoters who try to get public engagement right stand a better chance of persuading communities. It also tells Planning authorities that better, more transparent, performance on their parts can make a difference. Professor Devine-Wright recommends that we stop using the word ‘NIMBY’ and concentrate on addressing people’s concerns.

We still don’t quite know how the Government’s Localism agenda will work here. (The revised, reduced Planning Guidance showed a degree of compromise many had thought unlikely to emerge from the Department of Communities and Local Government). But one thing is certain; getting the go-ahead for unpopular projects is going to be very difficult unless its supporters win the argument. Too many project promoters have failed to invest sufficiently in this aspect.

As Beyond Nimbyism shows, the public take note of a developer’s attitudes, and if it fails to convince people, its plans may be left ... blowing in the wind?

Trigger points

• Is the term ‘NIMBY’ used a bit too freely in your organisation? Think again?
• To find out more about the Beyond Nimbyism project - click here
• We expect to organise a further Key Issue Workshop on Wind Farms later in the year somewhere in the North of England.

This is the 209th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement