RECENT VIEWS ON THE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF OFFSHORE WINDFARMS IN

GREECE
1

Asimina Karali , Konstantinos Gkarakis , Dimitrios Kaliampakos , Dimitrios Damigos

1

Lab of Mining Engineering & Environmental Mining, Department of Mining Engineering,

National Technical University of Athens (NTUA)
9 Heroon Polytechneiou street, Zografos, Athens 15780 Greece
Tel.: +30 210 7722211, Fax: +30 210 7722156 e-mail: minakarali@hotmail.com,
dkal@central.ntua.gr, damigos@metal.ntua.gr

RES Lab, Department of Energy Technology, Technological Educational Institute of Athens

(TEI Athens), Ag. Spyridona 17, GR - 12210 Egaleo, Attica Greece,
Tel.: +30 210 5385307 Fax: +30 210 5385306 e-mail: ape@teiath.gr, kgarakis@otenet.gr

Abstract
In this paper, an attempt is made to describe and compare the different ways in which the
NIMBY syndrome is caused and finally dealt with, according to wind parks installation, in other
countries and in Greece. As a result, a survey was conducted in a region of Greece, i.e. the
region of Marathonas in Eastern Attica, which is a proposed site for an offshore wind farm
installation (450MW at Petalioi Gulf). The survey was made during the period between
November 2009 and July 2010, based on a representative sample of local habitants, using a
two-part "door to door" questionnaire. It uses semi-opened type questions, trying to investigate
the public knowledge and the sources of it, as far as the specific project is concerned, the levels
of public acceptance, the reasons of accepting or not what the project proposes, the
environmental impacts from the construction and the operation of the offshore windfarm and the
willingness to pay (WTP) in order to get rid of the installation. The local community is in favor of
the project (56%), keeping a positive attitude towards the RES in general (62%). Those
opposed to the project (39%) provide several reasons, such as aesthetic, damage of the fauna
and the aquatic ecosystem, financial and environmental issues, etc. In conclusion, the public is
not willing (80%) to pay in order to cancel the installation of the windfarm, providing more
reasons of "protest", showing that they don't trust the State controls.
1. Introduction
During the past five years wind energy capacity has increased more than any other power
generating technology, especially in the EU. Such are the benefits the technology offers, that
they put it in charge of dealing with climate change and reaching the desirable sustainable
future. Wind energy can also be considered vital to economies, as it offers energy
independence, reduced fuel price risks and lower energy costs. However, there is a great
difference between wind energy as an idea and wind turbines as acceptable structures in the
landscape. There are many examples of people who support the general idea of renewable
energy sources and wind power, but when it comes to a project in a local area, the public
acceptance of wind power seems to vanish. This is the so called NIMBY syndrome.
The NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) effect may be defined as social rejection of facilities,
infrastructure and services location, which are socially necessary but have a negative
connotation. Other acronyms in literature, though similar, imply a different degree of rejection,
for example, the LULU effect (local-unwanted-land-uses), the BANANA effect (buildinganything-at-all-near-anyone), the more radical NIABY effect (not-in-any-back-yard) that entails
absolute opposition to a project or a kind of projects, regardless of the intended location, or the
new phenomenon called YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) related to search of economic benefits of
compensation for having the facility [1].
In this paper, we will focus mainly on the NIMBY effect as the most general and widespread
phenomenon, in relation to renewable energy projects and the offshore windfarms in particular.
Public awareness of the potential of renewable energy has been increasing in the last few
decades. Energy dependence on fossil fuels has led to increased air pollution, amplified health

risks, and global climate change. Overall public support for the development of renewable
energy sources is well over 60 percent [2] and renewable energy sources, such as wind, are
becoming increasingly cost effective. Yet the ability to construct large-scale windfarms is much
more difficult than these statistics would suggest. The planning process for wind farms has
increasingly been slowed and even blocked by local opposition.
In order to investigate how the NIMBY phenomenon affects the public opinion towards
windfarms in Greece, a social research was conducted in the region of Marathonas in Eastern
Attica, which is a proposed site for an offshore wind farm installation (450MW at Petalioi Gulf).
2. The NIMBY phenomenon
The NIMBY syndrome is a neighborhood or community reaction to an undesirable facility
proposed for an area. Many communities have implemented exclusionary zoning that effectively
precludes undesirable development. In many instances this regulatory action is the result of
political pressure applied by the NIMBYs.
To begin with, the NIMBY reaction almost always progresses through three stages [3]: youth,
maturity, and old age.
Youth is the stage when the news break regarding the proposed development. Opposition
tends to be confined to a small, local group from the area close to the proposed site. NIMBY
sentiments are usually expressed in blunt terms, often reflecting an irrational response with
fear of reduced property values, increase in traffic, and/or changed neighborhood character.
At Maturity, pro and con forces have solidified and debate has moved from behind the
scenes to the public forum. Once in the public view, opposing positions are usually more
rational.
Old Age is characterized by arbitration with concessions on both sides. Resolution of the
conflict has become protracted and sometimes inconclusive. Persistence and stamina are
frequently associated with victory. Facing a stalemate, victory tends to fall to those with the
most staying power.
Different factors can generate a NIMBY effect, especially fear of loss of the perceived quality of
life status and economic value of property. The NIMBY effect could be considered normal due
to perceived risk and nuisances associated with some social and environmental facilities. It
includes fear of both objective and subjective risks (attributed risks), fear of loss of achieved
well-being and quality-of-life status; and fear of loss of the economic value of property [4]. The
NIMBY effect is particularly relevant to public administration entities which must pinpoint and
manage certain environmental and social facilities that though deemed necessary and essential
often have a negative social image.
Researchers have developed three main theories to explain the NIMBY response to perceived
or actual risks: The public is either ignorant or irrational, selfish, or prudent [5].
The initial definition of the NIMBY syndrome characterized the public response as irrational and
uneducated. This perspective characterizes the public as unwilling to accept any risk at all for
the benefit of society. Proponents of this theory conclude that the public is uninformed and thus
unreasonable. The argument does not recognize that issues of uncertainty will always be a part
of any decision dealing with impacts on the natural world. Both experts and citizens are bound
by the same principles of assessment, which include uncertainty, and are thus put in the
position of making a judgment call.
Public selfishness is legitimized in a free-enterprise economic model which is based on the
assumption that it is inherently rational for individuals to look out for their own interests.
Researchers have the difficult task of determining which self-interested attitudes are justified
and which arent.
More recent research has recognized some public opposition as prudent and valuable to a
complete impact assessment. Organized protest challenging science-based assessments can
uncover elements of the big picture scientists might otherwise not consider. Furthermore, there
is much to be gained by going beyond either blaming or understanding specific opposing views
to an understanding of the broader system that creates opposition in the first place. In addition
to providing a gauge for appropriate compensation from beneficiaries of a project to the affected

communities, this perspective can enable institutions and agencies to reconsider the basis for
their credibility in communities.
However, the NIMBY phenomenon is not always caused by the selfish and ignorant attitude of
the local community. A thorough analysis into the deeper causes of this opposition blames:
The procedure of taking decisions. Traditionally, developers sit facilities using what has
been termed the DAD paradigm: Decide, Announce and Defend. Developers decide the
best location for their facility, take out options on the land, announce to political leaders of
the community their intention to site, and then defend their decisions from local opposition
groups [6].
The erosion of social trust. Roger Kasperson et al. explore the erosion of social trust in
policy makers and discuss how this has influenced local opposition to projects. Social
distrust is a persons expectation that other people and institutions in a social relationship
are likely to act in ways that are incompetent, unpredictable, uncaring and thus probably
inimical [7]. This research shows that in the past three decades there has been a broadbased loss of trust in leaders of major social institutions in the US. Of the multiple causes of
this phenomenon, the two most important are the increasing complexity of the issues, and a
rising demand that resources be directed toward the common good. The growing demand for
environmental, health, and safety protections has strained these available resources. These
factors underlie the proliferation of NIMBY responses toward risks such as those perceived
in the siting of hazardous waste facilities.
The type of the activity which is going to be sited. A basic distinction is between those
facilities that have demonstrated significant environmental impacts, such as landfills, waste
incineration plants, atomic reactors, landfills of hazardous chemicals and those that influence
social perceptions, attitudes or prejudices, as are various social welfare services, institutional
roofing for the poor or people with physical or mental handicaps, or rehabilitation centers for
drug addicts, the reformatories and prisons, and of course, the home of some national, racial
or religious minorities.
The characteristics of the siting area. Differences in resistance to new land uses are
noted between the central urban areas, with a large mix of uses, social classes and types of
households with relatively high densities, and the suburban areas with socially and
economically homogeneous population of owned households. And thats because it is known
that the factor of the ownership of land is high in the hierarchy of the criteria that affect the
siting of public facilities.
People that present usually a NIMBY attitude [8], [9]:
are old
in majority are women
have high educational level
are financially wealthy
have time to organize and participate in meetings
are very sure for their reaction
have been living for a long time in the region
are not amenable to any change in the natural and built environment in their region, since
they are basically owners and rarely tenants.
3. NIMBY in a Greek RES plant
Greece is a quite favored country as far as it concerns the Geothermal Energy sector, while
significant research has taken place over the last 30 years on the location and characterization
of a big number of geothermal fields [10]. One of the most important research outcomes was
the exploration of the low, medium and high enthalpy geothermal fields in the islands of Milos
and Nisiros. Despite of the geothermal energy wealth of Greece, its development is still non
satisfactory compared to either the development of other Renewable Energy Sources or the
progress that other countries exhibit in this sector.

One of the most important considerations for this delay are the oppositions of the local societies
and particularly in Milos and Nisiros. The social study [11] that took place during the spring of
2004 in the island of Milos and during the autumn of the same year in the island of Nisiros, in
order to investigate this opposition, covered a significant sample of the two societies and
multiple issues of the geothermal energy matter.
The target population was selected to be the households of Milos and Nisiros. In the case of
Milos, a number of 250 households form a representative sample from the 1,839 households of
the island. In the case of Nisiros, the respective sample was defined to 90 households from the
367 ones.
According to a part of this study, the 86.8% of the interviewees in Milos and the 94.4% in Nisiros
know about geothermal energy. The main source of knowledge at a percentage of 79% in Milos
and 72% in Nisiros is the peoples personal experience from the activities taken place in both
islands. It is remarkable that the contribution of the school and the occupational environment to
the knowledge of the people is very small (a percentage of 9.7% and 9.4%, respectively) while
the contribution of the mass media on this subject is almost negligible.
The overwhelming majority of the interviewees in Milos (80%) consider that geothermal energy
is a polluting for the environment activity, with significant impacts. This picture is slightly different
in Nisiros, where also the majority of the interviewees (85%) think that geothermal energy
affects the environment ranging this impact from significant (57%) to enough (27.6%).
It appears that the majority of the interviewees expressed a negative attitude (the 70% in Milos
and the 57%, in Nisiros) form their opinion on the impacts that geothermal development may
causes on health and environment, while a significant percentage (16.2% and 22.7%,
respectively) shows a lack of confidence on the way that a relevant project will take place. It
should be mentioned that a part of the local community of Nisiros (a percentage of 13.7%) used
the simple and not validated answer we dont want it.
4. Social acceptance of windfarms
Public acceptability is increasingly seen as a constraint on the utilization of renewable energy, in
which no toxic danger is involved. Electricity power plants have all the characteristics of
contention-prone developments: They are large, intrusive, technically complex and perceived to
pose serious, possibly irreversible environmental and health impacts. At the earlier stages of
development, with environmental groups strongly advocating their use, renewable power plants
were expected to produce far less opposition than traditional power plants. However, as largescale renewable energy projects are being proposed more often, opposition has emerged. The
planning process has increasingly had to accommodate the type of intense conflict and debate
previously associated with the siting of hazardous facilities [12].
Wind power is the option of greatest interest at present to reduce dependence on fossil fuels for
energy. It is currently more cost effective than solar and constitutes a huge resource for clean
power. A number of surveys have been taken to determine public attitudes towards wind. In
Walker [2], a review of surveys showed a high proportion of positive views of wind farms in the
abstract, indicating that respondents felt the facilities would have little impact on the surrounding
environment. The public was especially positive about the development of small wind farms.
Despite the overall positive views, specific wind farms are viewed less favorably than is the
abstract idea of wind power. This is particularly significant because among these opponents are
environmental activists.
Wind turbines have been widely accepted once they are in place [13]. In a number of European
surveys, people with a high degree of knowledge about renewable energy generation and wind
turbines have a more favorable opinion of wind turbines than those with little knowledge. In a
study done in Sydthy, Krohn and Damborg show that peoples attitudes towards wind turbines
were not correlated to the distance between their homes and the turbines. In fact, those living
closer (500 meters) had a more positive attitude than those living farther away. The study also
finds that people living within a more densely populated area have a more negative impression
than rural residents. City dwellers visiting the country seek unspoiled landscapes, while the rural
inhabitants themselves want to use available resources including wind.
According to Maarten Wolsink [14], the range of common responses against or in favor of wind
energy include:

Against
Renewable energy cannot solve our energy problems.
Wind turbines are unreliable and expensive.
Wind turbines spoil the scenery and cause noise pollution.
Wind turbines kill birds.
In Favor
Renewable energy is very much an alternative to other energy sources.
Climate change must be taken seriously.
Wind energy is limitless, non-polluting and safe.
The finding that people overwhelmingly support wind energy in the abstract but object to
specific local projects for various reasons is not a special feature of wind energy. The NIMBY
syndrome is the same whether directed toward a highway, nuclear waste facility, or other
generating plants.
However, NIMBY in the case of wind energy reveals some interesting attitudinal elements. A
number of studies [15] have demonstrated that local acceptance is high in reference to the
abstract idea, low when discussing a specific local development, and increases to higher levels
after a project is complete. These surveys also indicate that levels of acceptance increase with
knowledge. Areas where knowledge levels are low show increased NIMBY effect [12].
Wolsink [16] does not agree that wind development is generally subject to NIMBY syndrome.
While he acknowledges the huge gap between public acceptance of wind energy and the
amount of installed capacity, Wolsink states that opposition stems from the process during the
planning phase of a development. Typically, organizations and groups involved in planning
issues are perceived to have fixed, static positions.
In fact, public attitudes can be dynamic and changeable during the planning phase of a project,
a factor which can be easily overlooked [17]. Although the attitudes may be personal, they are
apparently dependent highly on the way physical planning is conducted. Simply put, the
institutional and regulatory framework can create opposition just as effectively as NIMBY
sentiment. Planners would do well to create a process that accommodates public attitudes early
on.
5. The Offshore Windfarm (OFW) at Petalioi Gulf
The proposed project will be located northeast of Rafina, in the coastal area of southern Evia. In
the Petalioi Gulf, named as the sea area begins from Rafina, Nea Makri continues and reaches
the Marathon, as shown in Figure 1, in an area covering 42 sq km.

Athens
Project area

Figure 1: Area of the project

The layout of the windfarm are windturbines in lines, perpendicular to the beach and the used
windturbine type is Repower 5M 5MW with hub height of 80m and rotor diameter of 126m.
The total capacity will be 450 MW (90 windturbines). The distance between the windturbines is
500m and the distance between windturbine lines is 1000m. The proposed foundation is
monopile.
The internal electrical connection of the windturbines will be realized with 33 kV voltage
submarine cables and a new 33/150 kV substation will be constructed in the sea area. From
there through two High Voltage submarine cables (150kV) will be connected to Extra High
Voltage Substation (150/400kV) (EHV) Pallini [18].
The minimum distance of the windturbine to the near beach is 2.5 km (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The siting of the windturbines and distances

The estimated annual mean speed at hub height is 8.5m/s and the net energy production is
1,226 GWh. The estimated project budget is 1.6 billion Euro (3.5 mil. Euro/MW).
6. Social research The methodology
The survey which was conducted used a "door to door" questionnaire based on a representative
sample of local habitants from the regions of Nea Makri, Rafina and Marathonas in Eastern
Attica. The sample size of the survey was chosen in 250 households, selected in random, with
95% confidence level and 0.06 error rate (worst case).
The site survey, with personal interviews, was made during the period between November 2009
and July 2010. The need to collect a representative sample from all social classes and labor
made it necessary to carry out interviews both in the morning and the evening hours, given that
a large proportion of the population was not available during working hours everyday. Also,
taken into consideration the tourist nature of these areas, during the spring and summer months
among the interviewees were also included non-residents of the areas, but who still have a
country house there, as well as tourists who frequently visit the beaches and squares of the
above areas, since it is considered that they are also affected from the installation of the
offshore windfarm in the Gulf of Petalioi.
The questionnaire of this survey was developed using the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM).
The CVM is used to estimate economic values for all kinds of ecosystem and environmental
services. It can be used to estimate both use and non use values, and it is the most widely used
method for estimating non-use values. It is also the most controversial of the non-market
valuation methods. The CVM involves directly asking people, in a survey, how much they would
be willing to pay for specific environmental services. In some cases, people are asked for the
amount of compensation they would be willing to accept to give up specific environmental
services. It is called contingent valuation, because people are asked to state their willingness
to pay, contingent on a specific hypothetical scenario and description of the environmental
service.

The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part contains 4, semi-opened, questions,
which are related to the main subject of the investigation, while the second part consists of 8
questions of demographic nature. The number of questions made was arranged in a way that it
was possible to gather all the necessary information in a reasonable time of interview.
The scope of the first question was to introduce the interviewee to the research theme and to
gather information regarding the source of knowledge of the proposed project.
In the second question, the interviewee was asked whether he agrees or not with the
implementation of the proposed project in his district. This question consists of two subquestions in order to identify the reasons of the agreement or disagreement with this proposal.
In the third question, the interviewee was asked to highlight the main effects that he considers
likely to result from the installation and operation of the offshore windfarm.
The "heart" of the questionnaire of this research is the fourth question. After a short introduction
on why the construction of windfarms in our country is considered to be an urgent issue, under
the regulations of the European Union, this question examines the willingness of households to
pay voluntarily an amount of money in order to get rid of the installation of the windfarm in their
area. This fact does not mean that the project is canceled, but it will be installed in another
region of Attica. In addition, the reasons why the residents are not willing to pay money so as to
get rid of the installation are examined in question of figure 11, so as to distinguish refusals of
"protest" from actual denials.
In the second part of the questionnaire basic demographic data of interviewees (place of
residence, sex, age of interviewee, education level, etc.) were gathered so as to be used later in
the statistical treatment of the results.
7. Results [19]
Knowledge of the proposed project and sources of knowledge

Yes
No
43,6%

56,4%

Figure 3: Knowledge of the proposed

offshore windfarm

Figure 4: Sources of knowledge

The 56.4% of the interviewees know about the proposed project. The main source of knowledge
at a percentage of 39.4%, as presented in Figure 4, are the local publications and follow, with a
percentage of 27.5%, public discussions in the area of the project and the nearby regions. Other
sources are the Municipality and the internet (a percentage of 12.4% and 9.3%, respectively),
while the contribution of the mass media on this subject is almost negligible.
Attitude towards the project proposal and the reasons
The 55.6% of the interviewees are in favor of the proposed project, while the 38.8% has a
negative attitude. From those who agree with the project (Figure 6), the large percentage of
61.9% is in favor of Renewable Energy Sources in general, the 23.7% thinks that climate

change must be taken seriously into consideration, so the use of wind energy is one of the best
available ways to produce electricity, while 14.4% believe that the construction of the windfarm
will create new jobs, thus contributing to local development. The majority of the interviewees,
from those who are against the construction of the project, think that the installation of the
windfarm will convert the area into an industrial zone (43.3%), while the 27.8% thinks that the
visual nuisance will affect the tourism. It is remarkable that the 24.7% is concerned about the
Marathon Gulf and its historical meaning (Figure 7).

Figure 5: In favor or against the project?

61,9%

70%
60%
50%
40%
23,7%

30%
14,4%

20%
10%
0%
Favor in RES
generally

New jobs

Wind energy Climate change

Figure 6: Reasons in favor of offshore

windfarm construction

Figure 7: Reasons against of offshore

windfarm construction

Impacts from the installation of the proposed project

Figure 8: Are there impacts from the installation

of the proposed offshore windfarm?

Figure 9: Major impacts from the

offshore windfarm

The majority of the interviewees (61.6%) consider that the construction of the proposed project
will come with significant consequences (Figure 8). The most frequent answer was about the
visual nuisance (a percentage of 24.1%), while the aquatic ecosystem and the fauna followed
by a percentage of 20.8% and 19.3%, respectively. The fishery, the reduction of price in real
estate market and the noise (a percentage of 11.3%, 9.9% and 9.5%, respectively) come after
with a great difference (Figure 9).
Willingness to pay
The overwhelming majority of the interviewees (79.6%) are not willing to pay an amount of
money once so as to cancel the construction of the windfarm in their area. The large percentage
of 46.2% is for those who are in favor of the implementation of the project. A percentage of
12.1% shows the erosion of social trust as it states that is not willing to pay because the money
will not go for the specific purpose. There are also those who support that money must be paid
from the municipality or from the company that is in charge of the project (a percentage of
11.6% and 9% respectively) (Figure 11).

Figure 10: Would you pay for not

installing the windfarm in the area?
Figure 11: Why you wouldnt pay?
8. Conclusions

The local community is familiar with the proposed offshore windfarm and 56% is in favour.
The main reason is the general positive attitude for renewable energy sources.

Those who are against the construction of the offshore wind farm (around 39%) consider
that the implementation of the project will downgrade the quality of life and will convert the
area into an industrial zone (43%).

As for the potential impacts of the wind farm in the Petalioi Gulf, the main problem is the
degradation of the aesthetics of landscape and visual nuisance (24%), followed by the
impact on the aquatic ecosystem (21%) and fauna (19%).

The financial assessment of the problem, according to the research, is based on the
willingness of households in the Municipalities of Nea Makri, Rafina and Marathonas to pay
voluntarily an amount of money for the removal of the offshore windfarm from the area. The
majority of interviewees (80%) said that they are not willing to contribute financially.
Something of note is that all households are not willing to assist financially expressed
reasons which are classified as "reasons of protest" (eg. the companies should pay", "the
Municipality should pay", "money will not go to that purpose") and they strongly distrust the
State and its control mechanisms, while only 10% mention real reasons for refusal (eg. it
is not my priority in this matter, I cannot spend money, because of my low income, etc.).
In conclusion, active participation of the local society should be ensured from the very beginning
and before forming any decision. People will never accept of being entrapped to plans imposed
from public or private bodies ignoring their acquiescence. Nevertheless, a major initiative still
remains to be taken on by the state: To win the lost public confidence and to recover its
credibility.

Acknowledgments
The work presented in this paper is part of the postgraduate thesis "Dealing with public
acceptance: The case study of windfarms" of the first author.
The research in this thesis would have taken far longer to complete without the encouragement
from many people, so it is delight to acknowledge those who have supported me over the last
two years. I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Dimitris Kaliampakos, Prof. NTUA, for his
guidance and relaxed, thoughtful insight. I thank also Dr. Dimitris Damigos, Assistant Prof.
NTUA, whose recommendations and suggestions have been invaluable for the research.
I am particularly thankful for the help and support of my friends, whom I thank for providing such
a rich source of conversation, education and entertainment.
Finally, I wish to thank my parents and my sister for their love and encouragement, without
whom I would never have enjoyed so many opportunities.
References
1. Martn-Crespo, M., (1996) Why Yes and why No in My Backyard. A revision of the concept of
the NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) Syndrome around the Theme of the Production of
Radioactive Waste. En Poltica y Sociedad 23, Sept-Dec, (147152).
2. Walker, Gordon. 1995. Renewable energy and the public. Land Use Policy 12 (1): 49-59.
3. Dear, Michael. Gaining Community Acceptance. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, P.O.
Box 2316, Princeton, NJ 05843. May 1991. 70 pages.
4. E. Pol, A. Di Masso, A. Castrechini, M.R. Bonet, T. Vidal (2005) Psychological parameters to
understand and manage the NIMBY effect, science direct
5. Freudenburg, William and Susan Pastor. 1992. NIMBYs and LULUs: Stalking the syndromes.
Journal of Social Issues 48 (4): 39-61.
6. Lambert, Thomas and Christopher Boerner. 1997. Environmental Inequity: Economic
Causes, Economic Solution. Yale Journal on Regulation. 14. New Haven, Ct.: Yale Law
School.
7. Kasperson, Roger, Dominic Golding, and Seth Tuler. 1992. Social distrust as a factor in siting
hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues 48 (4): 161-187.
8. Mansfield, C., Van Houtven, G., & Huber, J. (2001). The efficiency of political mechanisms for
siting nuisance facilities: Are opponents more likely to participate than supporters?, Journal
of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 22 (2-3):141-161
9. Walsh, E., Warland, R., & Clayton-Smith, D. (1993) 'Backyards, NIMBYs, and Incinerator
Sitings: Implications for Social Movement Theory' Social Problems Vol. 40(1):25-38.
10. Andritsos, N., Karambelas, A., Fytikas, M.: The exploitation of geothermal energy in Greece:
Current situation, Technical problems, Perspectives (Greek language), Proceedings, 6th
National Conference on Renewable Energy Sources, Volos, Greece, Vol. A, p. 461-470 (3- 5
November 1999).
11. Polyzou, O., Stamataki, S.: Geothermal Energy and Local Societies-A NIMBY Syndrome
Contradiction?, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, 25-29 April
2010.
12. Jacob Glickel, Siting wind turbines: Collaborative processes and joint fact finding to resolve
NIMBY disputes, http://web.mit.edu/dusp/epp/music/pdf/glickel.pdf
13. Krohn, Soren and Steffen Damborg. 1999. On public attitudes towards wind power.
Renewable Energy 16: 954-960.
14. Wolisink, Maarten. 2001. Institutional Capacity for Spatial Implementation of Renewable
Energy. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Department of Geography and Planning.
15. Bishop and Proctor. 1994. Love them or loathe them? Public attitudes towards wind. Cardiff.
16. Wolisink, Maarten. 2000. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the
limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 21: 49-64.
17. Healey, P. 1998. Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban
planning. Environment and Planning A 30: 1531-1546.
18. Preliminary Environmental Impact Study of Offshore windfarm of 450 MW in Petalioi Gulf,
Attica. Athens, 2009.
19. Karali A.,: Dealing with public acceptance: The case study of windfarms, Post-graduate
thesis, 2010, http://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/handle/123456789/3745, accessed on 24.01.2011.