Page 99 [99]
OCR
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.
