Seite 99 [99]
ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICTS, SOCIAL RESPONSES 97
expansion of the protesting group may imply the appearance of additional interests
at the local level, while also spreading the initiative to a larger region or the whole
country. The rhetoric also often changes, as it gets adjusted to the set of goals and
possibilities. Initially, the “rhetoric of the direct goal” — thwarting the planned
development — dominates the communication of the protesting individuals and
the community. Later, the discourse may acquire additional values from voicing
the protection of global environmental values and their “vulnerability”. The purpose
of the latter is to win the public over to their cause. David Snow and Robert D.
Bendford’s (1988) research proves that important factors to consider when choosing
the right rhetoric include the protestors’ social position, their financial standing,
school qualifications and the index of trust. NIMBY is most effective where
individuals and groups from the middle and higher middle classes with good
political connections take part in the initiative, as they can exert considerable
influence on the opinion of the community (Shemtov 2003).
In support of the opponents of a development project, green organizations and
networks usually join a NIMBY conflict as well, trying to enlarge the expected
risks. Terance J. Rephann (1997) compiled a typology of protests against diverse
prospective investments, in which he stresses the responsibility of the Greens. He
claims that the Greens appear in NIMBY issues in conflict enhancing and not
mediating roles, because they only point out the hazards but do not propose an
alternative. For the sake of completeness, one must add that sometimes a local
collective may support or tolerate the expected or hoped for compensation for the
building of a facility judged as polluting. The population may have the hope that
the gains from the investment (e.g., business taxes and infrastructural developments)
will offset the negative impacts. This is called Put In My Back Yard (PIMBY).
Possibilities for the resolution of environmental conflicts
In the mitigation and prevention of conflicts, important roles can be played by
diverse mechanisms of information and the reconciliation of interests, as well as
the decentralization of decision-making (Linhart 2020). Providing the affected
population and civil organizations with information is of key importance. Access
to information on environmental matters, public participation in decision-making
and legal remedies are detailed in the Aarhus Convention of 1998, which was
signed by 35 countries under the aegis of the UN Economic Commission for
Europe. Its novelty lies in being the first international document of binding force
which tries to define the environmental rights of public participation, creating a
close link between the protection of human rights and environmental aspects
(Panovics 2015).
Although, considering society as a whole, few actors choose the possibility of
avoiding conflicts and an alternative way of life by isolating themselves from society,
it is still an option. This can occur in various communities such as those of squatters
or in ecovillages. In these cases, the community members’ goal is not to resolve
the tension but to create a way of living for themselves in which the possibility of
conflicts lessens or is excluded (Farkas 2018).
Several methods exist for the avoidance of environmental conflicts.