Not-in-my-backyard !

1. Not-in-my-backyard! A Comparison of NIMBY Responses to Wind Turbines and Sex Offender Rehabilitation Facilities Presented at the Division of Forensic Psychology Annual Conference 2013, Belfast Lauren Cook & Todd Hogue

2. Introduction • NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) refers to the social rejection of the location of a facility • It’s a response seen to a number facilities. • Wind Turbines often encounter opposition • noise, harm to wildlife, electromagnetic interference, decrease housing prices and visual impact • Factors effecting NIMBY response to wind turbines • Experience (Krohn & Damborg, 1999), gender (Clancy & Roehr, 2003) & age (Fischer, Morgan, Fischhoff, Nair & Lave, 1991)

3. INTRODUCTION • Sex offender rehabilitation facilities and NIMBY? • NIMBY has previously been criticised • Too simplistic (Wolsink, 1996) • Utilised but rarely explained, leading to research which has been poorly grounded in existing social science theory • NIMBY • Risk perceptions, place identity, social distance, equity theory, rational choice

4. Aim & Hypotheses • If a NIMBY reaction exists to the placement of facilities • This includes distinguishing whether there is a general or specific NIMBY reaction • Find the differences (if any) between NIMBY responses to sex offender rehabilitation facilities and wind turbines • See if attitudes towards sex offenders effect NIMBY responses to sex offender rehabilitation facilities

5. Method • Online study- Opportunity Sampling • 165 participants, 71 females and 94 males. • Demographic • Vignettes • NIMBY questionnaire • Wind Turbine NIMBY Questionnaire- WTNQ • Sex Offender Rehabilitation NIMBY Questionnaire- SONQ • “It would create useful benefits to society” • “I would demand it to be placed elsewhere” • Attitude Toward Sex Offenders (ATS; Hogue, 1996)

6. Results • New NIMBY questionnaire being used • Pearson’s correlation, Crobach’s alpha, factor analysis • A paired t-test was carried out on the WTNQ and SONQ to see the differences • All pairs of questions and totals were significantly different • A Pearson’s correlation was performed to see if attitudes towards sex offenders had an effect on the SONQ. [r (163)= -0.632, p < 0.001]

7. Results • One way ANOVAs were run on the difference score created (SONQ-WTNQ) and demographic variables • Political vote, age, parenthood, gender, experience of working in the renewable energy sector, experience of working with sex offenders- Non-significant results on the difference score • Type of sex offender [F(6, 158)= 2.380, p=0.031] • Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) -ATS covariant [F(6, 157)= 1.135, p=0.345]. • Neighbourhood Type [F(1, 162)= 7.559, p=0.007]. • ANCOVA -ATS covariant. (F(1, 161)= 5.614, p=0.019). Partial Eta Squared = 3% .

8. Discussion • Interesting results were seen in the mean scores: • Positive attitudes towards sex offenders- lower SONQ scores • Liberal Democrat voters lowest mean score for WTNQ & SONQ • Type of sex offender with the highest difference scores were ‘rapists and paedophiles’ and ‘paedophiles’. • 18-24 year olds had the lowest mean on SONQ & WTNQ • Parents had higher means on SONQ & WTNQ

9. Discussion • Women had higher means WTNQ & SORFNQ. • Those with experience of working with sex offenders had the lowest mean on SONQ. • Those with experience of working in the renewable sector had the highest mean on WTNQ. • Rural neighbourhoods had the highest means on SORFNQ and urban neighbourhoods had the highest mean for WTNQ .

10. Conclusions • Overall, the results of the study provided information on sex offender rehabilitation facilities and NIMBY responses. • Future placements of sex offender rehabilitation facilities. • NIMBY hierarchy?? • Neighbourhood type and attitudes toward sex offenders played an important role in the strong NIMBY responses toward sex offender rehabilitation facilities. • This study has provided a beginning into NIMBY reactions towards sex offender rehabilitation facilities, with numerous studies which could follow to investigate this further. • Other human facilities, experience and neighbourhood type, knowledge & real life study

11. References • Clancy, J., & Roehr, U. (2003). Gender and energy: is there a northern perspective? Energy for Sustainable Development, 7(3), 44-49. • Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(3), 288-300. doi: 10.1080/01944369208975808 • Fischer, G.W., Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Nair, I., & Lave, L.B. (1991). What risks are people concerned about? Risk Analysis, 11(2), 303-314. • Hogue, T. (1993). Attitudes towards prisoners and sexual offenders. Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, 9, 27-32. • Krohn, S., & Damborg, S. (1999). On public attitudes towards wind power. Renewable Energy, 16, 954-960. doi: 10.1016/S0960-1481(98)00339-5 • Pol, E., Di Masso, A., Castrechini, A., Bonet, M.R. & Vidal, T. (2006). Psychological parameters to understand and manage the NIMBY effect. European Review of Applied Psychology, 56(1), 43-51. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2005.02.009 • Wolsink, M. (1996). Dutch wind power policy: Stagnating implementation of renewable. Energy Policy, 24(12), 1079-1088. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(97)80002-5 • Wolsink, M. (2000). Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy, 21(1), 49-64. doi: 10.1016/S0960-1481(99)00130-5

12. Questions? • Any queries or questions please feel free to contact me via email: lauren.cook4@hotmail.co.uk