The Role of Local Communities in the Process of Siting of the Unwanted Facilities within the Rural Areas in Poland
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/EEC.2019.003Keywords
Poland, local communities, unwanted facilities, NIMBY, participationAbstract
The subject of this study is the activity of rural communities in the face of plans of locating unwanted projects within their locations of residence, and the influence of the activity on the decision makers and, ultimately, on the final fate of the envisaged projects. The participation of inhabitants and decisions of the authorities, taken in response to these activities, and concerning the respective projects, were analysed on a basis of a questionnaire-based survey which was undertaken in the municipalities, in which conflicts have taken place. In-depth investigations were also carried out in five municipalities. The following activities: preparing a collective petition to decision-maker, organizing local meetings, taking part in meetings organised by the authorities or investor, filing of proposals and remarks to the projects of decisions and documents, entering into cooperation with actors from outside of the municipality were undertaken by groups of residents in more than 65% cases of conflicts. The activity of inhabitants generally exerted an influence on the final outcome from the respective conflicts. In the majority of cases, the unwanted projects, for which the decision making body was the local authority, either were not realised, or were realised with modifications, resulting from the social protests.
References
Arnstein, S. R. 1969 ‘Ladder of citizen participation’ Journal of American Institute of Planners 35: 216–224.
Bourdieu, P. 1986 ‘The forms of capital’ in: J. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education Greenwood, New York, pp. 241–258.
Burningham, K. 2000 ‘Using the language of NIMBY: a topic for research, not an activity for researchers’ Local Environment 5(1): 55–67.
Czapiński, J. 2006 ‘Polska – państwo bez społeczeństwa’ Nauka 1: 7–26. Davidoff, P. 1965 ‘Advocacy and pluralism in planning’ Journal of the American Institute of Planning 31: 331–338.
Dear, M. 1992 ‘Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome’ Journal of the American Planning Association 58(3): 288–300.
Devine-Wright, P. 2009 ‘Rethinking NIMBYism: The Role of Place Attachment and Place Identity in Explaining Place-protective Action’ Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 19: 426–441.
Dekker, K. 2007 ‘Social capital, neighbourhood attachment and participation in distressed urban areas. A case study in the Hague and Utrecht, The Nether- lands’ Housing Studies 22(3): 355–379.
Dmochowska-Dudek, K. and M. Bednarek-Szczepańska 2018 ‘A profile of the Polish rural NIMBYist’ Journal of Rural Studies 58: 52–66.
Działek, J. 2009 ‘Social capital and economic growth in Polish regions’, Munich Personal RePEc Archive no. 18287, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18287/1/ MPRA_paper_18287.pdf
Faehnlea, M., Bäcklundb, P., Tyrväinenc, L., Niemeläd, J. and V. Yli-Pelkonend 2014 ‘How can residents’ experiences inform planning of urban green infra- structure? Case Finland’ Landscape and Urban Planning 130: 171–183.
Fukuyama F. 1995 Trust: the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York: Free Press.
Gans, H. 1969 ‘Planning for people, not buildings’ Environment and Planning A, 1: 33–46.
Gąsior-Niemiec, A. 2010 ‘Wzory samoorganizacji Polaków na przełomie XX i XXI’ Polityka i Społeczeństwo 7: 66–76.
Goldstein B. E. and W. H. Butler 2010 ‘Expanding the Scope and Impact of Collaborative Planning’ Journal of the American Planning Association 76(2): 238–250.
Gunton T. and J. C. Day 2003 ‘The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resource and environmental management’ Environments 31(2): 5–19.
Hager, C. 2015 ‘Introduction. The New Look at NIMBY’ in: C. Hager and M. Haddad (eds.) NIMBY is beautiful. Cases of local activism and environmental innovation around the world, Berghahn Books: 1–14.
Hanifan, L. J. 1916 ‘The Rural School Community Center’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science no. 67.
Healey, P. 1997 ‘Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places’ in: Fragmented Societies, Planning – Environment – Cities.
Hermansson, H. 2007 ‘The ethics of NIMBY conflicts’ Ethic theory and Moral practice 10: 23–34.
Innes, I. and D. Boher 2004 ‘Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century’ Planning Theory & Practice 5(4): 419–436.
Kinowska, Z. 2012 ‘Kondycja społeczeństwa obywatelskiego w Polsce’ in: Infos. Zagadnienia społeczno-ekonomiczne. Biuro analiz sejmowych 22: 1–4.
Lidskog, R. 1997 ‘From Conflict to Communication? Public Participation and Critical Communication as a Solution to Siting Conflict in Planning for Hazardous Waste’ Planning Practice and Research 12(3): 239–249.
Magnani, N. and L. Struffi 2009 ‘Translation sociology and social capital in rural development initiatives. A case study from the Italian Alps’ Journal of Rural Studies 25: 231–238.
McClymont, K. and P. O’Hare 2008 ‘“We’re not NIMBYs!” Contrasting local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable communities’ Local Environment 13(4): 321–335.
Michałowska, E. 2008 ‘Syndrom NIMBY jako przykład samoorganizacji społecznej na poziomie lokalnym’ Studia Regionalne i Lokalne 31(1): 60–80.
Mihaylov, N. and D. Perkins 2015 ‘Local environmental grassroots activism: con- tributions from environmental psychology, sociology and politics’ Behavioral Sciences 5: 121–153.
Owens, S. 2001 ‘”Engaging the public’’: Information and deliberation in environ- mental policy’ Environment and Planning A. 32: 1141–1148.
Panicz, U. 2014 ‘Protest NIMBY jako przejaw społeczeństwa obywatelskiego’ in: J. Osiński and J. Popławska (eds.) Oblicza społeczeństwa obywatelskiego, Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Szkoły Głównej Handlowej, pp. 107–118.
Patel, M., Kok, K. and D. Rothman 2007 ‘Participatory scenario construction in land use analysis: An insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the Northern Mediterranean’ Land Use Policy 24: 546–561. Poulos, H. 2015 ‘How do grassroots environmental protests incite innovaation’ in: C. Hager and M. Haddad (eds.) NIMBY is beautiful. Cases of local activism and environmental innovation around the world, Berghahn Books, pp. 15–32. Putnam, R. 2000 ‘Bowling alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community’, New York: Simon&Schuster.
Putnam, R. 1993 ‘Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy’, Princeton University Press.
Renn, O. 2006 ‘Participatory processes for designing environmental policies’ Land Use Policy 23: 34–43.
Rohe, W. 2004 ‘Building Social Capital through Community Development’ Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): 158–164.
Rydin, Y. and M. Pennington 2000 ‘Public Participation and Local Environmental Planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital’ Local Environment 2: 153–169.
Sager, T. 2001 ‘A planning theory perspective on the EIA’ in: Hilding-Rydevik (ed.) EIA, large development projects and decision-making in the Nordic countries, Nordregio Reports, Stockholm, 6: 197–222.
Sevenant, M. and M. Antrop 2010 ‘Transdisciplinary landscape planning: Does the public have aspirations? Experiences from a case study in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium)’ Land Use Policy 27: 373–386.
Shively, C. 2007 ‘Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research’ Journal of Planning Literature 21(3): 255–266.
Śleszyński, P., Komornicki, T., Solon, J. and M. Więckowski 2012 Planowanie przestrzenne w gminach, Warszawa: IGiPZ PAN.
Teilmann, K. 2012 ‘Measuring social capital accumulation in rural development’ Journal of Rural Studies 28: 458–465.
Upreti, B. 2004 ‘Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales’ Energy Policy 32: 785–800.
Young, M. G. 2012 ‘Necessary but insufficient: NIMBY and the development of a therapeutic community for homeless persons with co-morbid disorders’ Local Environment 17(3): 281–293.
Van der Horst and D. Toke 2010 ‘Exploring the landscape of wind farm devel- opments; local area characteristics and planning process outcomes in rural England’ Land Use Policy 27: 214–221.
White, S. 2001 ‘Public participation and organizational change in Wisconsin land use management’ Land Use Policy 18: 341–350.
Wolsink, M. 2007 ‘Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision- making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non- cooperation’ Energy Policy 35: 2692–2704.
Zarycki, T. 2008 ‘Dwa wymiary kapitału społecznego w kontekście polskim’ Pomorski Przegląd Gospodarczy 37(2): 49–52.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Maria Bednarek-Szczepańska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 62
Number of citations: 0
