not in my backyard n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Not-in-my-backyard ! PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Not-in-my-backyard !

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 12

Not-in-my-backyard ! - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 149 Views
  • Uploaded on

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. Introduction.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Not-in-my-backyard !' - brede


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
not in my backyard
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

introduction
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)
introduction1
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
aim hypotheses
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
method
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)
results
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]

results1
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% .
discussion
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
discussion1
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 .
conclusions
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
references
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
questions
Questions?
  • Any queries or questions please feel free to contact me via email:

lauren.cook4@hotmail.co.uk