ABSTRACT
Controversies over large-scale renewable energy projects involving bitter disputes between private developers and local protestors have occurred in many countries (e.g. the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States) (Bell et al. 2005; Cowell 2007; Groth and Vogt 2014). Local opposition to specific facility siting is often labelled as nimby (i.e. not in my back yard); this label is problematic because it wrongly characterizes local residents as irrational and selfishly unwilling to support projects benefiting the broader society (Burningham 2000; Cotton and Devine-Wright 2011). Although nimby suggests local opposition based on selfishness, it does not explain the reason that the individuals in question are opposed to the concerned development. Local opposition is partially rooted in the environmental justice implications of unevenly distributed risks and benefits as well as concerns over public health and pollution, and unhappiness with the decision-making process (Firestone 2011; Cotton and Devine-Wright 2011). Devine-Wright (2011) highlighted that nimbyism is a destructive, self-fulfilling way of thinking that risks undermining the fragile, qualified social consent that exists to increase renewable energy use. Breaking the cycle of nimbyism requires practising public engagement to better connect national policy-making to local areas directly affected by development projects.
