Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Activism or egotism? A critical view of the NIMBY phenomenon in cases of energy infrastructure in Israel

  • Published:
GeoJournal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) phenomenon, in which stakeholders oppose new land uses and activities in their vicinity, has been a subject of discussion for several decades. For energy infrastructure, it results from the apparent juxtaposition between the desire to maintain resident well-being and a healthy environment on the one hand, and the demand for energy, and maintaining an energy-intensive standard of living, on the other. Based on a review of the literature on energy infrastructure NIMBY, interviews with key informants, documents, and media analysis, this article analyzes the NIMBY phenomenon in the context of two recent energy-infrastructure development projects in Israel. Specifically, it addresses cases relating to gas treatment facilities, which are rarely the focus of other existing literature in this context. The case analysis indicates that decision-makers and planners mainly regard NIMBYism as an unjustified obstacle to infrastructure development, whereas objecting residents consider it an articulation of their dissatisfaction with perceived environmental threats, and therefore a legitimate and effective means to ensure environmental and social justice for themselves and for their community. The main insight is that expanding public consultation and engagement with planners and developers at earlier planning stages could reduce or modify NIMBY objections, as well as the perception of NIMBYism by developers and planners. We emphasize that understanding NIMBY narratives offers advantages to policymakers, energy companies, and planners and suggests potential strategies for all three.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alster, T. (2022). Homeowners Saying “Yes, In My Back Yard”: Evidence from Israel. Urban Affairs Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874221102959

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, J. (1994). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(1), 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aruninta, A. (2009). WiMBY: A comparative interest’s analysis of the heterogeneity of redevelopment of publicly owned vacant land. Landscape and Urban Planning, 93(1), 38–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Eli, A. (2014). Noble Energy: The gas from Leviathan will be processed at sea. The Marker, 4.3.2014.

  • Been, V. (1994). Locally undesirable land uses in minority neighborhoods: Disproportionate siting or market dynamics? The Yale Law Journal, 103(6), 1383–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R. D., Moore, H. A., & Williams, J. A. (1993). In whose backyard? Concern about siting a nuclear waste facility. Sociological Inquiry, 63(1), 30–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkman, J. T., & Hirsh, R. F. (2017). Welcoming wind turbines and the PIMBY (‘please in my backyard’) phenomenon: The culture of the machine in the rural American midwest. Technology and Culture, 58(2), 335–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G., & Glanz, H. (2018). Identifying potential NIMBY and YIMBY effects in general land use planning and zoning. Applied Geography, 99, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burningham, K. (2000). Using the language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environment, 5(1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmon, D., & Alterman, R. (2011). Would my voice be heard? The right to oppose at the planning administration in Israel. Technion.

  • CBS, Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. (2019). Sources of population growth by type of locality, population group and religion. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics.

  • Chiou, C. T., Lee, J., & Fung, T. (2011). Negotiated compensation for NIMBY facilities: Siting of incinerators in Taiwan. Asian Geographer, 28(2), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, W. (2015). Deepwater horizon: After the oil. Science, 348(6230), 22–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B. C., & Bali, V. A. (2008). Examining the role of race, NIMBY, and local politics in FEMA trailer park placement. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1175–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de-Shalit, A. (2003). Europe, Israel and environmental politics: Lessons to be learnt. In K. Boehnke (Eds.), Israel and Europe. Deutscher Universitätsverlag.

  • Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(3), 288–300.

  • Devine-Wright, P. (2005). Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy, 8(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine-Wright, P., & Wiersma, B. (2020). Understanding community acceptance of a potential offshore wind energy project in different locations: An island-based analysis of ‘place-technology fit.’ Energy Policy, 137, 111086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Vivier, K., & Witt, T. (2017). NIMBY to NOPE—or YESS? Cardozo Law Review, 38(4), 1453–1504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinerman, E., et al. (2004). On a political solution to the NIMBY conflict. The American Economic Review, 94(1), 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez Martinez, D. (2007). From theory to method: A methodological approach within critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 4(2), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhendler, I., & Nathan, D. (2014). In the name of energy security: The struggle over the exportation of Israeli natural gas. Energy Policy, 70, 152–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fish, D. (2004). Environmental justice in Israel: The intersection between human rights law and environmental law. Mishpat ve-Mimshal, 7(2), 911–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournis, Y., & Fortin, M. J. (2017). From social ‘acceptance’ to social ‘acceptability’ of wind energy projects: Towards a territorial perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(1), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg, W. R., & Pastor, S. K. (1992). NIMBYs and LULUs: Stalking the syndromes. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furst, B. (2014). Environmental Campaigns in Israel and their spatial impact. In L. Leonard & S. B. Kedzior (Eds.), Occupy the Earth: Global environmental movements (pp. 137–170). Bingley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Furst, B., & Portman, M. (2018). “Opposing any locating at my area”: Characteristics, causes and coping with the NIMBY phenomenon in Israel-demonstration on energy infrastructure. Ecology and Environment, 2(9), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gafni, D. (2015). More risks should not be added to the risks already piled up in Ashdod. Kan Darom Ashdod (local newspaper), 16(2), 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedeke, T. L., Gonyo, S. B., Fleming, C. S., Loerzel, J. L., Feitag, A., & Ellis, C. (2019). Resident perceptions of local offshore wind energy development: Support level and intended action in coastal North and South Carolina. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. OCS Study BOEM, 54, 100.

  • Greenberg, M. R. (2009). NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: US national and 11 site-specific surveys. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 29(9), 1242–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutman, L. (2013). The plan to construct on shore gas processing plants has been postponed for six months. Calcalist, 20(8), 16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggett, C. (2011). Understanding public responses to offshore wind power. Energy Policy, 39(2), 503–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hananel, R. (2010). Zionism and agricultural land: National narratives, environmental objectives and land policy in Israel. Land Use Policy, 27(4), 1160–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. J., & Scicchitano, M. J. (2012). Don’t call me NIMBY: Public attitudes toward solid waste facilities. Environment and Behavior, 44(3), 410–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, I., & Fischhendler, I. (2015). The pitfalls of implementing host community compensation: A power balance perspective. Land Use Policy, 49, 499–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koren, O. (2019). The gas from Leviathan began flowing, no unusual levels of pollution registered in emissions test 31 December, 2019. https://www.themarker.com/dynamo/2020-01-05/ty-article/0000017f-e4fe-df2c-a1ff-feffabae0000

  • Lake, R. W. (1993). Rethinking NIMBY. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(1), 87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, S. (2020). Class actions and the regulatory state—Lessons from Israel. In B. Fitzpatrick & R. Thomas, (Eds.), Cambridge international handbook of class actions. Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).

  • Mandelik, Y., Dayan, T., & Feitelson, E. (2005). Planning for biodiversity: The role of ecological impact assessment. Conservation Biology, 19(4), 1254–1261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matejczyk, A. P. (2001). Why not NIMBY? Reputation, neighborhood organizations and zoning roads in a US midwestern city. Urban Studies, 38(3), 507–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hare, M. (1977). Not on my block you don’t: Facility siting and the strategic importance of compensation. Public Policy, 25(4), 407–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2000). The danger of self-evident truths. Political Science and Politics, 33(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papazu, I. (2017). Nearshore wind resistance on Denmark’s renewable energy island: Not another NIMBY story. Science & Technology Studies, 30(1), 4–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendall, R. (1999). Opposition to housing: NIMBY and beyond. Urban Affairs Review, 35(1), 112–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peri, E., Becker, N., & Tal, A. (2020). What really undermines public acceptance of wind turbines? A choice experiment analysis in Israel. Land Use Policy, 99, 105113. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrova, M. A. (2016). From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework—VESPA—For organizing and interpreting community concerns. Renewable Energy, 86, 1280–1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portman, M. E. (2006). Tidelands management: Implementation of the Massachusetts public waterfront act. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 8(4), 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portman, M. E. (2014). Regulatory capture by default: Offshore exploratory drilling for oil and gas. Energy Policy, 65, 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portman, M. E. (2019). Detached islands: Artificial islands as adaptation challenges in the making. Die Erde, 150(3), 158–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N.H. Posthumus., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., & Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saint, P. M., Flavell, R., & Fox, P. (2009). NIMBY Wars: The politics of land use (p. 217). Saint University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schively, C. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(3), 255–266.

  • Shmueli, D. F. (2008). Environmental justice in the Israeli context. Environment and Planning A, 40(10), 2384–2401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M. (2014). Neighborhood opposition or community inclusion? Understanding response to the siting of human services facilities for people with special needs, M.A. Thesis, Department of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

  • Smith, E., & Marquez, M. (2000). The other side of the NIMBY syndrome. Society & Natural Resources, 13(3), 273–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi, L. M. (1997). Information and attitudes toward mental health care facilities: Implications for addressing the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(2), 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tal, A. (2016). The land is full. Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Teff-Seker, Y., Berger-Tal, O., Lehnardt, Y., & Teschner, N. (2022a). Noise pollution from wind turbines and its effects on wildlife: A cross-national analysis of current policies and planning regulations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 168, 112801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teff-Seker, Y., Eiran, E., & Rubin, A. (2018). Israel turns to the sea. The Middle East Journal, 72(4), 610–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teff-Seker, Y., Rasilo, T., Dick, J., Goldsborough, D., & Orenstein, D. (2022b). What does nature feel like? Using embodied walking interviews to discover cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 55, 101425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teschner, N. A., McDonald, A., Foxon, T. J., & Paavola, J. (2012). Integrated transitions toward sustainability: The case of water and energy policies in Israel. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(3), 457–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uji, A., Prakash, A., & Song, J. (2021). Does the “NIMBY syndrome” undermine public support for nuclear power in Japan? Energy Policy, 148, 111944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldo, A. (2012). Offshore wind power in Sweden—A qualitative analysis of attitudes with particular focus on opponents. Energy Policy, 41, 692–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilton, R. (2000). Grounding hierarchies of acceptance: The social construction of disability in NIMBY conflicts. Urban Geography, 21(7), 586–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolsink, M. (1994). Entanglement of interests and motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on facility siting. Urban Studies, 31(6), 851–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolsink, M. (2006). Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(1), 85–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolsink, M. (2012). Undesired reinforcement of harmful ‘self-evident truths’ concerning the implementation of wind power. Energy Policy, 48, 83–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolsink, M., & Devilee, J. (2009). The motives for accepting or rejecting waste infrastructure facilities, Shifting the focus from the planners’ perspective to fairness and community commitment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(2), 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanocco, C., Boudet, H., Clarke, C. E., Stedman, R., & Evensen, D. (2020). NIMBY, YIMBY, or something else? Geographies of public perceptions of shale gas development in the Marcellus Shale. Environmental Research Letters, 15(7), 074039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, G., & Liu, W. (2018). Same projects, different endings—Comparative case studies on NIMBY facility construction in Beijing. Cities, 7, 63–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by post-doctorate grant from MarCoast Ecosystems Integration Lab at the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion.— The authors thank A. Sussman for research and GIS assistance. The Technion’s Social and Behavioral Institutional Review Board issued Approval 2017-49 to conduct interviews.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, 32000, Haifa, Israel

    Benny Furst, Michelle E. Portman & Yael Teff-Seker

  2. Department of Sociology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Yael Teff-Seker

Authors
  1. Benny Furst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle E. Portman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yael Teff-Seker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benny Furst.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Survey and interview questions

  1. 1.

    How would you define or describe the NIMBY phenomenon in Israel (related to infrastructure in general and specifically to energy projects)?

  2. 2.

    What, in your opinion, are the reasons or the explanation for the NIMBY phenomenon in Israel?

  3. 3.

    What do you think is the direction of this phenomenon? Is it weakening or strengthening? What is your explanation for that?

  4. 4.

    In your opinion, is the NIMBY phenomenon more common among certain groups of the population? Or certain, organizations, geographic areas, or socioeconomic status?

  5. 5.

    What is your standing regarding the following two phrases:

    1. a.

      NIMBY objections are honest and stem from an understandable and legitimate need of residents to maintain their quality of life and protect their environment.

    2. b.

      NIMBY objections stem from external motivations that are not directly related to the proposed project, such as political or economic interests.

  6. 6.

    In your opinion, in what ways or methods can or should the state manage the NIMBY phenomenon?

  7. 7.

    In certain Western countries, there is the notion of the host community compensation, a mechanism that relies on a dialogue that leads to an agreement over economic or spatial compensation given to a local community or municipality, which agree to host the project that was the source of NIMBY opposition on their grounds. Do you feel that this kind of practice is applicable in Israel?

  8. 8.

    Do you have any other comments or insights regarding the NIMBY phenomenon?

Appendix 2: Detailed data sources

Informants: Researchers approached 35 actors, from them 9 replied to the questionnaire (see Appendix 1) and 7 were interviewed personally by the corresponding author (n = 16). The interviews, lasting ~ 50 to 60 min, were recorded and transcribed. The informants represent professional fields of urban planning, decision makers at the national and local levels (Ministry of Energy, Planning Administration, municipality of a big city in central district) (6), academic researchers and (3) environmental activists (3) environmental and urban planning free-lance consultants (2), law (1) and media (1). The full list and names are kept by the corresponding author and are discreet, according to the ethical instructions approved by the ethics committee of the Technion.

Gender male—10, female—6.

Time of the survey July–October 2017.

Ethics the research and the questionnaire have been approved by the behavioral sciences research ethics committee of the Technion on July 18, 2017 (Approval Number 2017—49). Each one of the informants submitted an informed consent form.

Media For each case study, the corresponding author browsed all of the six Israeli on-line prime newspapers covering economics, infrastructures development and social news that are relevant: The Marker, Globes, Calcalist, Haaretz, Ynet and Maariv. Also, the social media (Facebook and web sites) of the main actors who are mentioned in the research and related to the case studies were visited continuously from July 2017 until January 2020 (the beginning of research until end of the public protest related to both case studies).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Furst, B., Portman, M.E. & Teff-Seker, Y. Activism or egotism? A critical view of the NIMBY phenomenon in cases of energy infrastructure in Israel. GeoJournal 88, 4921–4938 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-023-10902-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-023-10902-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation