Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. ‘Not the Wolf Itself’: Distinguishing Hunters’ Criticisms of Wolves from Procedures for Making Wolf Management Decisions.Erica von Essen & Michael Allen - 2020 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 23 (1):97-113.
    Swedish hunters sometimes appeal to an inviolate ‘right to exist’ for wolves, apparently rejecting NIMBY. Nevertheless, the conditions existence hunters impose on wolves in practice fundamentally contradict their use of right to exist language. Hunters appeal to this language hoping to gain uptake in a conservation and management discourse demanding appropriately objective ecological language. However, their contradictory use of ‘right to exist' opens them up to the charge that they are being deceptive – indeed, right to exist is a 'disguised (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • What is Wrong with Nimbys? Renewable Energy, Landscape Impacts and Incommensurable Values.Anne Schwenkenbecher - 2017 - Environmental Values 26 (6):711-732.
    Local opposition to infrastructure projects implementing renewable energy (RE) such as wind farms is often strong even if state-wide support for RE is strikingly high. The slogan “Not In My BackYard” (NIMBY) has become synonymous for this kind of protest. This paper revisits the question of what is wrong with NIMBYs about RE projects and how to best address them. I will argue that local opponents to wind farm (and other RE) developments do not necessarily fail to contribute their fair (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Creating ‘Local Publics’: Responsibility and Involvement in Decision-Making on Technologies with Local Impacts.Udo Pesch, Nicole M. A. Huijts, Gunter Bombaerts, Neelke Doorn & Agnieszka Hunka - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (4):2215-2234.
    This paper makes a conceptual inquiry into the notion of ‘publics’, and forwards an understanding of this notion that allows more responsible forms of decision-making with regards to technologies that have localized impacts, such as wind parks, hydrogen stations or flood barriers. The outcome of this inquiry is that the acceptability of a decision is to be assessed by a plurality of ‘publics’, including that of a local community. Even though a plurality of ‘publics’ might create competing normative demands, its (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Why Not NIMBY?Simon Feldman & Derek Turner - 2010 - Ethics, Place and Environment 13 (3):251-266.
    This paper examines a particularly egregious example of a NIMBY claim and considers three proposals for explaining what about that claim might be ethically problematic: The NIMBY claimant is being selfish or self-serving; The NIMBY claim cannot be morally justified, because respecting everyone's NIMBY claims leaves communities worse off; and if policymakers were to defer to people's NIMBY claims, they would end up perpetuating environmental injustices. We argue that these proposals fail to explain why there is anything wrong with the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Why Not NIMBY?Simon Feldman & Derek Turner - 2014 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 17 (1):105-115.
    This paper develops responses to several critics who commented on an earlier paper that we published in this journal. In that paper, we argued that there is nothing necessarily wrong with NIMBY claims or those who make them. The critics raised some important issues, such as whether “NIMBY” is essentially a pejorative term; the possibility that NIMBY claimants are saying something deep about the noncomparability of places; what exactly it means for policy makers to defer to a NIMBY claim; the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations