Professional Documents
Culture Documents
N.I.M.B.Y. Syndrome and Landfills The Ca PDF
N.I.M.B.Y. Syndrome and Landfills The Ca PDF
N.I.M.B.Y. Syndrome and Landfills The Ca PDF
Abstract: The main aim of the paper is the exploration of a possible Not in My Backyard Phenomenon (NIMBY) in the
region of Pella, because of the irrational functioning of the Landfills of Aridaia and Edessa. The exploration that central
hypothesis initially attempted through clarification of bibliographic and theoretical sources (social, economic, political,
etc.) involved in the expression of the syndrome N.I.M.Β.Y. and with regard to the waste management practices. The
primary research with questionnaires and interviews concerned the inhabitants of the communities that are located in
the area of the landfills of Aridaia and Edessa. The objective was to relate the environmental knowledge and citizens’
action with their socio-demographic and educational profile and ultimately their willingness to play a role in
participatory planning and environmental control processes of the landfills operating in their areas. Our parallel
objective was to identify the potential factors that may be a cause of rebound NIMBY phenomena.
Keywords: N.I.M.B.Y. (Not In My Back Yard); Landfills; waste management; sociology of space; Regional Unit of
Pellas
1. Introduction
The so–called N.I.M.B.Y. syndrome refers to models that are based simply on the social reaction of citizens against
unwanted facilities that can generate environmental, economical, social (exclusion) and other dangers. The territorial
adjacency of place with an activity which from social regard is comprehended as dangerous and threatening, leads to
various behaviours of opposition. Τherefore, the place in the space and the perception of danger and risk from the
society regarding N.I.M.B.Y syndrome can be considered as two independent variables. According to Glaberso as he is
mentioned from Kraft & Clary[1] the theoretical approaches that spring from literary, scientific and journalistic sources
report that N.I.M.B.Y noisy, powerful and express itself everywhere. «Nimbys» usually demand from the authorities to
fully involve the public with the openness and integrity in all aspects of the planning process. Although the N.I.M.B.Y.
phenomenon appears now days more and more often and assembles dynamic mobilisations the scientific literature on
the determinants and magnitude of the N.I.M.B.Y. syndrome is still scant[2].
According to Likou[3], waste management term, refers the activities of provisional storage, collection, transport,
transhipment, treatment, exploitation, re-use or final disposal in natural recipients of the waste including the monitoring
of this work as well as the later care of spaces of disposal. Aim of the waste management is the reduction of their
production. This reduction is possible to be achieved via technical, economic and legislative regulations as well as
through a frame of social behaviour and attendance of citizens, that will aim at as the drastic reduction of weight and the
volume of produced litter. The management of litter is a particularly complex process inside which coexist various
economic,
Copyright © 2018 Y. Frangopoulos et al.
doi: 10.18686/mmf.v2i3.1123
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Unported License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
Also, a percentage of 24.4% of women is related to the occurrence of a protest reaction in the Municipality and
Regional Services, as opposed to men, at 7.3%. The difference is explained by the fact that women are “legitimized” in
more mild reactions that are here institutional rather than dynamic as shown above. As regards the way of reaction, the
making of complaints to both the competent auditing bodies and the prosecutor of the region, presented percentages for
men and women at the level of 11.1% and 7.3% on the one hand and 6.7% and 7.3% respectively. Lastly, it’s interesting
that the reaction of informing ecological organizations in the region about the problem, for both men and women,
presented almost zero rates, which is related to the fact that ecological organizations and ecological activism in rural
areas are not very prominent through environmental education.
4.3.2 Social dynamics in environmental hazards in relation to the educational profile of
respondents
Then it is checked whether the variable regarding the level of training of the sample is related to the way the
dynamic reaction would take if it understood that the Landfill operating in the area caused environmental degradation.
The X2 test showed that the two variables are related, as the P-value is so small that it tends to 0. Therefore, since the
P-value <0.01, our specific research assumption is accepted and therefore the variables are dependent and correlated at a
statistical significance level of 99%.
From Figure 5, it appears that as regards for respondents with middle and high educational levels (from high
school and above) the way of dynamic reaction concerning the organization or participation in a race committee for the
closure of Landfill presented the highest percentages of 66.7%, 60.6%, 100% and 66.7%, respectively. As observed,
these percentages, with the exception of IEK graduates, are similar, which may lead to the conclusion that the social
culture of respondents does not appear to affect significantly the vigor with which they react. So, the hypothesis that
educational level would eventually differentiated people reactions to this problem seems to be collapsed. So, one could
speculate that the test sample from a level of education and above understands in the same way the threats which
Landfill’s function poses for the environment and is activated by engaging in a dynamic way of activist action.
Another category also, that shows dynamics refers to the protest to the Municipality and the Regional Services
which presents percentages of 16,7%, 15,25 and 8,3% for respondents with high school grades, lyceum and TEI / AUE,
respectively. From these responses, it appears that these groups have developed a level of trust about the effectiveness
of the administrative structures and consider that they can contribute to solving problems. From the interviews, they
seemed to consider that administrative structures are more capable to be informed about the actions of the actors
involved, due to their position, but also about the environmental processes in order not to feel that they are being
Figure 5; Cross-correlations Variable: Level of Education and Types of Social Reaction of Residents.
Finally the distribution of the Municipal School graduates is remarkable, where the way of reacting dynamically to
the closure of Landfill, which involves joining into organizations or participation of the respondents in a struggle
committee, is totally absent. On the contrary, the results of this category are limited the three ways of reacting, namely
attempting to make complaints to the Municipality and the Regional Services with 33.3%, 22.2% to the competent
auditing bodies, and 44.4% to the District Prosecutor. From the above, it is clear that the respondents who presented the
lower levels of education tend to trust, more than the higher educational levels, the state structures about solving
effectively the problems identified. At the same time, it seems that this category lacks the modern perception of civil
society as a group of self-organization and activism in environmental collective issues.
4.3.3 Professional categories of the sample and forms of activity in Landfills environmental
risk
It is then checked whether the variable presenting the professional structure of the sample is related to the way in
Figure 7; Cross-correlations Variable: Proximity of Residents in Landfills and Types of Social Reaction of
Residents.
From these responses, it seems that the local population's reaction has to do with the proximity of the residential
area to the Landfill and therefore residents of areas living at a very close distance from Landfills appear to be prepared
to react more intensively than other residents who live longer. This is expected, as the residents of the area that is in
direct proximity to the Landfill and they are directly affected and those who first perceive the effects of such an
infrastructure. Of course, this perception also shows one of the most anti-social aspects of NIMBY, “as my
court belongs to me, I only see this and I do not care about what happens next”. This view is not verifiable in
environmental terms, as the contamination is not only a function of the distance from the pollutant source but neither
does it contribute to a concise planning of socio-environmental dispositions based on collective sustainable profit