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

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