Not In My Back Yard – NIMBYism – is a belief that expert stakeholders often hold. It places the blame for conflicts around energy projects on the public simply not wanting energy infrastructures close to where they live. For decades, social science experts have found it unhelpful and inaccurate. This piece of research sought to more critically examine the beliefs that energy experts in Sweden hold regarding the deployment of different energy infrastructures (wind, powerlines) – where they should be deployed, how those places are described, and what the expected reactions of local communities might be.
This briefing note is based on interviews with 16 stakeholders across government and energy industry sectors in Sweden concerned with energy infrastructure deployment at the national level. It also contains interviews with the NGO sector who often have important perspectives on energy infrastructure deployment.
The interviews show that Swedish energy industry and government stakeholders subdivide Sweden into two main regions – North and South – when thinking about Sweden’s energy transitions and energy infrastructure deployment.
‘Northern Sweden’ is considered an area of high potential for future infrastructure deployment, due to lower population density, and the history of resource extraction. ‘Northern People’ are believed to have higher levels of public acceptance. The Sami are viewed as having low acceptance, and hence, as a problem without an obvious solution.
‘Southern Sweden’ is considered to have lower potential for future infrastructure deployment, due to higher population density and low levels of public acceptance. ‘Southern People’ are believed to be more “selfish” due to limited energy infrastructure deployment in ‘Southern Sweden’ in the past. This echoes NIMBY beliefs, which are considered highly problematic by social scientists as a way of explaining objections.
The energy industry seems to be more clearly driving ideas about future technology pathways which are self-fulfilling prophesies that justify decisions. These ideas could constrain creative alternative ideas or solutions about ‘where’ projects should be sited and could also lead to ‘unjust transitions’ with cumulative impacts in the North.
We recommend stakeholders to reflect on their opinions about where to deploy infrastructure and power production. One way would be to hold inclusive stakeholder workshops in which participants were encouraged to make their assumptions visible and salient, and then try to identify alternatives and encourage new ideas.
Special consideration needs to be given to the Sami in shaping Sweden’s national energy transition. For example, a state-supported mechanism to enable greater participation by Sami representatives could overcome a sense of fatalism about how to address their concerns.
Read more
Read the full policy briefing Expert stakeholder beliefs driving the deployment of renewable energy infrastructures in Sweden.
