NIMBY'E ELEŞTİREL BİR BAKIŞ: SENDROM MU YOKSA TOPLUMSAL HAREKET Mİ?

Bu çalışma, arazi kullanımına bağlı ortaya çıkan ve NIMBY olarak adlandırılan yerel çatışmalara ilişkin farklı yorumları sunmaktadır. NIMBY kavramı (Benim arka bahçemde değil) 1980’li yıllarda sosyal bilimler literatüründe yer almaya başlamıştır. Modern dünyadaki her türlü yatırımın hem kendimize hem de bir başkasına sağlık ve çevresel açıdan etkide bulunabileceği göz ardı edilemeyecek bir gerçektir. Bu bağlamda NIMBY davranışının altındaki temel sebep vatandaşların kendi yakınlarına yapılacak/yapılmakta olan yatırımdan olumsuz bir şekilde etkileneceklerini düşünmeleridir. Genel olarak kabul gören çerçevesi ise, yerel halkın özellikle kendi yörelerinde yapılması planlanan çevresel yatırımlara karşı gösterdikleri tepki/protesto şeklindedir. Bu bağlamda bu hareket sendrom gibi tedavi edilmesi gereken bir hastalık gibi görülmektedir. Nitekim bu çalışmanın amacı NIMBY hareketine çok taraflı bakmak ve NIMBY’nin “sosyal bir hareket” olarak da algılanabilecek yapıda olduğunu ortaya koymaktır. Bu kavram çok farklı alanlarda ve bağlamlarda kullanılabilir, ancak araştırmalar çoğunlukla çevresel konular bağlamında ortaya çıkan çevresel hareketlere yoğunlaşmaktadır. Bu çalışmada öncelikle NIMBY protestolarına yönelik farklı yaklaşımları ortaya koymaktayız. Amacımız, bir yandan farklı perspektiflerin, protestoların sonuçlarına ilişkin değerlendirmeleri üzerindeki etkilerini ortaya koymak ve diğer yandan NIMBY hareketlerinin bu perspektiflerin ötesinde daha geniş toplumsal etkileri olduğunu göstermektir. Bu yapısı ile hareket, yerel ölçekten uluslararası ölçeğe kadar etkisini gösteren çevresel sorunlar için pozitif ve aktif bir role sahip olabilir.

THE CRITICAL VIEW OF NIMBY: IS IT JUST A SYNDROME OR A SOCIAL MOVEMENT?

This paper presents the ways of understanding local land-use conflicts which are called NIMBY. The term NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) started to take place in social sciences literature in the 1980s. Every investment of the modern world have impacts either on us or on other people in terms of health and environment and we could not ignored this reality. In this context, perceiving the planned / founded facilities as risky and threatening for the citizens ́ lives is the underlying reason of NIMBY. A generally accepted frame of this concept is the reaction/protest of the local people against the planned environmental investments especially in their own regions. In this context, this reactivity generally is considered as a syndrome and is seen as a disease to be treated. Thus, the aim of this study is to address multilaterally the NIMBY movement and to reveal the structure of NIMBY that can be perceived as a ‘social movement’. This concept can be used in a great variety of academic areas and contexts but researches mostly focus on the movements in the context of the environmental issues. In this study we describe the divergent perspectives about NIMBY protests. Our purpose is to show on the one hand the effects of different perspectives to the assessments about the outcomes of these protests and on the other hand broader societal impacts of NIMBY movements apart from these perspectives. With this structure, the movement can have a positive and active roles on environmental issues that are ranging from the local scale to the international scale.

___

  • Barry, G. R. (1994). Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  • Benford, R. (1997). An Insiderʼs Critique of the Social Movement Framing Perspective. Sociological Inquiry, 67 (4), 409-430.
  • Burningham, K. (2000). Using the Language of NIMBY: A Topic For Research, Not an Activity For Researchers. Local Environment, 5 (1), 55-67.
  • Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K. & Benford, R. (1986). Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review, 51 (4), 464-481
  • Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58:3, 288-300.
  • Gibson, T. A. (2005). NIMBY and the Civic Good. American Sociological Association.
  • Haddad, M.A. (2015). From Backyard Environmental Advocacy to National Democratization: The Cases of South Korea and Taiwan. In C. Hager, & M. A. Haddad (Eds.), Nimby Is Beautiful: Cases of Local Activism and Environmental Innovation Around The World, New York: Berghahn Books, 179-199.
  • Haddad, M.A. (2015). Nimby Is Beautiful: How Local Environmental Protests Are Changing the World. In C. Hager, & M. A. Haddad (Eds.), Nimby Is Beautiful: Cases of Local Activism and Environmental Innovation Around The World, New York: Berghahn Books, 200-212.
  • Hager, C. (2015), Introduction: A New Look at NIMBY. In C. Hager, & M. A. Haddad (Eds.), Nimby Is Beautiful: Cases of Local Activism and Environmental Innovation Around The World, New York: Berghahn Books, 1-14.
  • Hermansson, H. (2007). The Ethics of NIMBY Conflicts. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 10 (1), 23-34.
  • Kanatsu, T. (2015). Local Activism and Environmental Innovation in Japan. In C. Hager, & M. A. Haddad (Eds.), Nimby Is Beautiful: Cases of Local Activism and Environmental Innovation Around The World, New York: Berghahn Books, 161-178.
  • Kraft, M. E. & Clary, B. B. (1991). Citizen Participation and the Nimby Syndrome: Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal. The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 44 (2), 299-328.
  • Lake, R. W. (1993). Rethinking NIMBY. Journal of the American Planning Association 59, 87-93.
  • Maney, G. M. & Abraham, A. (2008-09). Whose Backyard? Boundary Making in NIMBY Opposition to Immigrant Services. Social Justice, 35:4, 66-82.
  • Poulos, H. M. (2015). How Do Grassroots Environmental Protests Incite Innovation?. In C. Hager, & M. A. Haddad (Eds.), Nimby Is Beautiful: Cases of Local Activism and Environmental Innovation Around The World, New York: Berghahn Books, 15-32.
  • Schively, C. (2007). ‘Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Researchʼ, Journal of Planning Literature. Vol. 21 (3), 255-266.
  • Schreurs, M. & Ohlhorst, D. (2015). NIMBY and YIMBY: Movements For and Against Renewable Energy in Germany and the United States. In C. Hager, & M. A. Haddad (Eds.), Nimby Is Beautiful: Cases of Local Activism and Environmental Innovation Around The World, New York: Berghahn Books, 60-86.
  • Sherman, D. J. (2015). Hell No, We Wonʼt Glow! How Targeted Communities Deployed an Injustice Frame to Shed the NIMBY Label and Defeat Low-Level Radioactive Waste Facilities in the United States. In C. Hager, & M. A. Haddad (Eds.), Nimby Is Beautiful: Cases of Local Activism and Environmental Innovation Around The World, New York: Berghahn Books, 87-110.
  • Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tarrow, S. (2008). Charles Tilly and the Practice of Contentious Politics. Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 225-246.
  • Tilly, C. & Tarrow, S. (2006). Contentious Politics. Paradigm Publishers.
  • Tilly, C. (2005). Introduction to Part II, Invention, Diffusion and Transformation of the Social Movement Repertoire. European Review of History, Vol. 12, No. 2, 307-320.
  • Wolsink, M. (1994). Entanglement of Interests and Motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on Facility Siting. Urban Studies, 31 (6), 851-866.