ORIGINAL ARTICLE

N.I.M.B.Y. Syndrome and Landfills: The case of the landfills in the Region of and the emergence of a NIMBY syndrome Y. Frangopoulos, E. Kolovou, D. Kourkouridis Aristotle University of

Abstract: The main aim of the paper is the exploration of a possible Not in My Backyard Phenomenon (NIMBY) in the region of Pella, because of the irrational functioning of the Landfills of and Edessa. The exploration that central hypothesis initially attempted through clarification of bibliographic and theoretical sources (social, economic, political, etc.) involved in the expression of the syndrome N.I.M.Β.Y. and with regard to the waste management practices. The primary research with questionnaires and interviews concerned the inhabitants of the communities that are located in the area of the landfills of Aridaia and Edessa. The objective was to relate the environmental knowledge and citizens’ action with their socio-demographic and educational profile and ultimately their willingness to play a role in participatory planning and environmental control processes of the landfills operating in their areas. Our parallel objective was to identify the potential factors that may be a cause of rebound NIMBY phenomena. Keywords: N.I.M.B.Y. (Not In My Back Yard); Landfills; waste management; sociology of space; Regional Unit of Pellas

1. Introduction The so–called N.I.M.B.Y. syndrome refers to models that are based simply on the social reaction of citizens against unwanted facilities that can generate environmental, economical, social (exclusion) and other dangers. The territorial adjacency of place with an activity which from social regard is comprehended as dangerous and threatening, leads to various behaviours of opposition. Τherefore, the place in the space and the perception of danger and risk from the society regarding N.I.M.B.Y syndrome can be considered as two independent variables. According to Glaberso as he is mentioned from Kraft & Clary[1] the theoretical approaches that spring from literary, scientific and journalistic sources report that N.I.M.B.Y noisy, powerful and express itself everywhere. «Nimbys» usually demand from the authorities to fully involve the public with the openness and integrity in all aspects of the planning process. Although the N.I.M.B.Y. phenomenon appears now days more and more often and assembles dynamic mobilisations the scientific literature on the determinants and magnitude of the N.I.M.B.Y. syndrome is still scant[2]. According to Likou[3], waste management term, refers the activities of provisional storage, collection, transport, transhipment, treatment, exploitation, re-use or final disposal in natural recipients of the waste including the monitoring of this work as well as the later care of spaces of disposal. Aim of the waste management is the reduction of their production. This reduction is possible to be achieved via technical, economic and legislative regulations as well as through a frame of social behaviour and attendance of citizens, that will aim at as the drastic reduction of weight and the volume of produced litter. The management of litter is a particularly complex process inside which coexist various economic,

Copyright © 2018 Y. Frangopoulos et al. doi: 10.18686/mmf.v2i3.1123 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Modern Management Forum Volume 2 Issue 3 | 2018 | 1 social and environmental components. In the system in question and so that is ensured his rational and completed management, is essential the collaboration of all independent parts that is involved. Landfilling has been used for many years as the most common method for the disposal of solid waste generated by different communities[4]. Along with other waste disposal option such as, recycling, combustion-incineration and composting, landfilling is mostly preferred, because of its easy operation, low cost, less technological involvement and comfort of implementation[5]. The guidelines for appropriate site selection are provided through national and international (EU directive 99/31/EC) legislations. The institutional framework should aim to protect environmentally sensitive areas and ensure development prospects and citizens’ prosperity. In , the national legislation (Greek Governmental Ministry Decision 114218/97) includes exclusion criteria as well as evaluation criteria. Amongst the evaluation criteria prevails i) geology/hydrogeology/hydrology, ii) environmental criteria, iii) spatial criteria, iv) operational/general and v) economic criteria. Apart from the national legislative regulations on landfill sitting that exist in each real life case study, many and various criteria have been used in the computation process. Several landfill siting techniques can be found in the literature, using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), multiple criteria analysis or their combination. Demesouka et al. (2013) included in their analysis the hydrogeology/geology, morphology, environmental, socioeconomic and design/technical/economic as decision criteria[6]. It should be noted that almost in all cases the social component (agents, groups and individuals) is present but it mostly only refers to the distance from residential areas and a total absence of the criterion of social acceptability is noticed. The reasons causing environmental problems is obvious that it is not possible to be solved only via their scientific and technical interpretation. According to Kanatschnig & Weber as they are referred from Velli (2006:3), the sociological and economic dimension that coexists in the interpretation of problem has also very important consequences. It is therefore obvious, that the protection of environment should be in step with its scientific dimension and to be interpreted through the prism of human attitude and behaviour. The effort of dialogic between the human behaviour and the protection of environment means plurality, which can answer from concurrent up to fervent supporters up to opposite, intense disagreeing or simple incurious. The main aim of the paper is the exploration of a possible N.I.M.B.Y syndrome event in the region of Pella, because of the irrational operation of Landfills of Aridaia and Edessa. The investigation of central affair in question was initially attempted via the clarification by bibliographic and theoretical sources all of those factors – components (social, finances, policies etc) that are involved in the event of N.I.M.B.Y. syndrome always in relation with practices of waste management. Following, were mentioned empiric case studies so much from the national as from European space with regard to the applied practices of management of waste from which we also exported interesting conclusions related to the causes of event of N.I.M.B.Y.. In continuity, was realized the basic inquiring department of work which constituted the investigation via sociological research of case studies for the landfills of Aridaia and Edessa inside the limits of P.E. Pella, in relation always with Phenomenon N.I.M.B.Y. At this investigation, we drew primary data from the regions of interest aiming at the interpretation of sociology of space inside which functioned the two landfills. Objective was via this data, to export conclusions initial for how the social profile of sample influences the probability of event of a syndrome such as the N.I.M.B.Y. At the same time were searched questions that concerned the management of litter and the environment concerning of the local communities, subjects of sociology that were related to the planning and the arrangement of landfills, questions that concerned the relation of local citizens with the administrative structure as well as the intention of citizens for social reaction in potential environmental dangers. All the above empiric study of case, led to the export of conclusions regarding the influence of the social characteristics of individuals to the probability of event of a N.I.M.B.Y. syndrome, as well as in very interesting interpretations with regard to the perception of citizens with regard to the space, administrative structures and their ways of reaction in questions of environmental devalorisation. Finally, on the occasion all but also according to the methodology that was selected for the empiric investigation, we attempted to answer the question if in the limits of P.E. Pella will appear - outburt a N.I.M.B.Y. phenomenon as a result of the irrational operation of the landfills of Aridaia and Edessa. 2. Nature and Dimensions of the N.I.M.B.Y. Syndrome

2 | Y. Frangopoulos et al. Modern Management Forum The N.I.M.B.Y. syndrome is an extremely complicated task that influences and is influenced by a wide variety of factors. The main reason for the thoroughly investigation of the NIMBY syndrome as a social phenomenon lies on the fact that it has resulted in the cancellation of numerous interventions and projects. The appearance of NIMBY syndrome could be shortly attributed to the following factors: 1. Personal beliefs and options: Many studies have shown (Van Liere, Dunlap, Stern) that both structural social elements such as sex, social class, age, place of residence and the psychological social elements such as political belief, the activation of standards and values act as catalysts in individuals’ behavior and thus contribute to the evolution of attitudes and subsequent practice. 2. Environmental fears: The most common reason for NIMBY appearance is based on the potential environmental degradation of the area where the disturbing activity is going to appear and consequently to the decrease of quality of life[7]. 3. Sociopolitical contrasts: In many cases, the NIMBY syndrome is developed because of suspiciousness of local people to science, technology and government’s functions and processes. Moreover, lack of information and absence of public participation and involvement in decision-making, intensify social reactions. 4. Economic degradation, developmental exclusion and politicization of siting of disturbing activities: This parameter raises the highest debate concerning the underlying motives of NIMBY phenomenon and the actual reasons for its appearance. The NIMBY syndrome neither is expressed with the same intensity nor does it cause the same type of resistance by population groups. The intensity of NIMBY depends on: i) the type of the activity or project, ii) the natural features of the area under study, iii) the land ownership and iv) the spatial method practice[8]. Scharff (2004), in a survey of expert contributions about NIMBY syndrome, referred to the three types of resistance by population groups against proposed projects or activities distinguished by Wolsink (1990)[9,10]: 1. Pure NIMBY, 2. Complete repudiation of the proposed project or activity, 3. Impartial attitude, which later on changes into a negative attitude. 3. Landfills and the NIMBY Syndrome in Pella Region The Regional Planning concerning the waste management of litter in the Regional Unit of Pella, includes the function of landfills of Aridaia and Edessa. In this chapter of the paper there will be a presentation of the technical characteristics of the landfills of Aridaia and Edessa and there will also be a review of attitudes and behaviours of institutions and local societies toward the irrational operation of those installations. In the end, there will be an attempt to answer the question if in the limits of P.E. Pella will appear - outburt a N.I.M.B.Y. phenomenon as a result of the irrational operation of the landfills of Aridaia and Edessa. 3.1 Case study 1: Landfill of Aridaia – Pella Region

The landfill of (Aridaia) manufactured in 1998 and arranged to be in the administrative limits of the municipality, in Mavrolakkos region at a distance of 1500 meters of the village Chrisi. The space the landfill was constructed belonged to the Greek State (Figure 1). Almopias landfill had a capacity of 10.000 ton/year or 190.000 m3 with a circle of life of 10 years. Landfill of Aridaia was within the first landfills that constructed in Greek area. Institution of management and operation of landfill is the Contact of Cleanness Almopias which administratively is included in the Municipality Almopias. Although in year 2011 after a long time of operation of Aridaia landfill the first charge is recorded. According this charge citizens of Almopia expressed their concern for the health of people living next to the landfill as well as for the fall of financial elements that suffers the region from the irrational operation of it. The charge was expressed to the independent authority of the Greek Ombudsman. The Greek Ombudsman immediately asked the inspectorates of the Ministry of Environment and Energy to carry out an autopsy on the landfill and to public analytic reports concerning the charge. The investigators on their report concluded that the decision of approval of environmental terms of the landfill was not observed. Years that followed the situation was immutable and eventually in 2014 the Department of Environment of Regional Unity of Central imposes to the Regional

Modern Management Forum Volume 2 Issue 3 | 2018 | 3 Contact of Institutions of Management of Solid Waste the closure of the landfill.

Source: Wikimapia, 2016 (http://wikimapia.org) Figure 1; Location of the Landfill of Aridaia – Pella Region. Figure 2; Location of the Landfill of Edessa - Pella Region. 3.2 Case study 2: Landfill of Edessa - Pella Region The initial idea for the construction of a landfill in the region of Edessa, was realised inside the administrative limits of Municipality of Edessa in the region “White Head” in the local community of Kleissochori and in distance roughly 3.000m from the limits of settlement (Figure 2.). The landfill was manufactured in plot of extent of 200 acres and began his operation in June 2008. It has total capacity 899.520 cubic metres of litter and duration of life of 30 years. It serves population of roughly 50.000 individuals while responsible institution of management and his operation is the Contact of Municipal Collaboration of Completed Management of Solid Outcast 2 Administrative Unit N. Pella. (Mpoyrtsalas, Themelis, Kalogiroy, 2011:121). The operation of the landfill of Edessa was developed without particular problems until year 2010. Although in August 2010 the Ecological Team realises that the reservoirs of humid diastalagmaton that is to say humid heavy metals are overdraft contrary to the environmental terms with result a lot of birds are led to the death. The situation stayed immutable until 2014 despite the fact that numerous of governing institutions concluded defective operation of the landfill. Eventually in 2015 the citizens of Nea Zoi village which is near to the landfill of Edessa decided to protest in the entry of the landfill. Their energy aimed in the notification of problem of pollution of waters in all the local apartments of Municipality of . This last development, could very well be interpreted as the beginning of phenomenon N.I.M.B.Y, in which is appeared the first and perhaps more important component of production of syndrome that is related with the space and his particular characteristics. 4. Empiric investigation of attitudes and perceptions of citizens for Landfills and Phenomenon N.I.M.B.Y. 4.1. Research Framework – Identity In present chapter is realised a pumping of primary data from the regions of interest (Municipalities of Edessa and Almopia) in order to examine the consolidation of the central affair of work that had been placed. The methodology of exporting primary data was based on interviews. It began in November 2015 and was completed in January 2016. Initially therefore was realised the choice under study of regions and was realised relative bibliographic research and briefing on them. Constantly exploratory interviews (7) were realised inside in municipalities of Edessa and Almopia. The reason of particular choice was the better access in interlocutors, since the researcher maintained social relations that would ensure easy access in preferential interlocutors in both regions. Besides that in those regions there could be located accidental interlocutors that would occupy the subject of operation of the landfills. From those interviews resulted various conclusions and perceptions with regard to the subject of operation of the landfills that each time were related with the knowledge that brought our interlocutors for the subject.

4 | Y. Frangopoulos et al. Modern Management Forum Finally, the collection of primary data was realised via the distribution of 100 questionnaires inside the regions of interest as these were determined with land-planning and demographic criteria. The questionnaires were shared and assembled from December 2015 up to January 2016. More analytically, the methodology of empiric study followed concrete steps: i) determination the general and special inquiring objectives that lead to the configuration of questions, the ii) determination of team of objective (target group), the iii) choice of her technical sampling, the iv) exploratory interviews that they lead to the configuration of questionnaire, the v) pilot research so that it is improved and is corrected the questionnaire, the vi) distribution and collection of questionnaires, the vii) coding and treatment of questionnaires, the viii) interpretation of results. 4.2. Sample Description and Research Results Our sample is judged enough representative the population while follows in general characteristically his as for the basic characteristics (sex, age, place of residence etc).

Table 1. Sample Description Finally the region of residence and work of asked our sample covers almost entire the wider region the two landfills, with bigger concentration in the two semi-urban centres of region. More specifically the 31% asked live in the city of Edessa, the 18% in the city of Aridaias, the 7% in the community of Nea Zoi, the 5% in Exaplatano while the all remainder local communities assemble low percentages (1-2%). Then we focus on the results of the main survey. From the answers to the questions, where is investigated the social representations of the local communities for the waste management and the protection of environment, it appears that the local population is not very familiar with these concepts. Some typical findings that show this fact are the significant percentage of 29% of respondents who state that they do not even know that there is landfill in his area and secondly that the overwhelming majority of respondents declare that they do not know ( no or little) the procedures and functions within the landfill. This lack of knowledge of the locals related to landfill, makes them quite cautious to the specific infrastructure and operation. In particular, this is apparent from the large percentage of 79% of respondents, who consider that the landfill operation can pose environmental risks, and the vast majority of 90% of respondents consider that this risk is greater for the settlements bordering the landfill. Moreover, respondents report that the operation of a landfill affects negatively the attractiveness of the area, especially as a place of residence by 60%, while at the same time it is possible to affect negatively the property values by 73% in the surrounding area. Then, from the answers to the questions related to the “sociology” of the spatial planning, it seems essentially the complete lack of participatory processes of the local population. Specifically, the overwhelming 97% of respondents reported that they were completely unaware of the initial planning and siting procedures of the landfill of their area. After, from the answers to the questions related to issues referring to the relation between the citizens and the management bodies, it seems that local population is not aware of the Administration’s role in the Landfill’s operation. In particular, 79% of the respondents stated that they do not know under which institutional framework a landfill operates, 79% of the respondents’ report that they don’t know whether local or hyperlocal administration bodies carry out periodic inspections for the proper landfill’s operation. 90% of the respondents do not seem to trust the administration about carried out inspections and finally 66% of the sample is not informed of the, related to the operation of the Landfill, environmental inspections results carried out by administrations.

Modern Management Forum Volume 2 Issue 3 | 2018 | 5 Also from the answers to the questions referring to issues related to the social reaction dynamics that could be developed by citizens in the case of environmental hazards, it seems that the local population has the intention to react even dynamically if environmental issues arise. Specifically, 76% of the respondents would react if they found environmental degradation in their area from the operation of the CYTA, while a percentage of 17% said they might react to such a possibility. On the contrary, only 1% of respondents seem to be staggering and say they would not react to such a risk. From these responses, it getting evidently the intention of the citizens to react by a large majority in this case, which suggests the emergence of a dynamic reaction such as the N.I.M.B.Y. Finally, the most recent and perhaps the most significant question of our research is related to the way in which citizens react dynamically to the situation that the operation of the Landfill poses serious environmental risks for their region. From the respondents’ replies, it emerged that the 60% of respondents, who declared that they would reacted to potential environmental degradation in their area from the Landfill’s operation, would organised or participated actively in a struggle committee to close the Landfill. This specific reaction is the most dynamic response included in the answers to this question, which suggests that the majority of the respondents would be guided by the components of the NI.M.B.Y phenomenon. Furthermore, a percentage the 15% responded that they would protest at the Municipality and the Regional Authorities, while a 9% said they would complain to the competent auditing bodies. Finally, smaller percentages of 8%, 7% and 1% of respondents said they would do something else, complain to the Prosecutor of the area and inform the environmental organizations of the area respectively. These answers are the culmination of the central working case’s confirmation as it was set at the beginning of the specific work. It is thus confirmed through these responses a creeping momentum of citizens’ reaction to the environmental degradation issues that may arise from the Landfill’s operation. The communities’ protests of Chryssi and Nea Zoi could be considered as the initial reaction to these phenomena of environmental degradation, which, however, are not exhausted by the inhabitants of these two settlements, but there is the possibility of generalizing them as a result of the survey. The environment and its sustainable management processes are relevant to all concerned and its defense is not a privilege or care only for those who are within close proximity to the emerging problem.

Figure 3; Types of Social Reaction of Residents.

4.3. Cross-correlations Variable In this subsection, a number of research cases are formulated, which are statistically checked for confirmation or rejection. These research cases are the following: Research Case 1. Gender is related to how citizens react dynamically to the finding that the Landfill’s function poses serious environmental risks for their region.

6 | Y. Frangopoulos et al. Modern Management Forum Research Case 2. The educational level of the local population is related to how they reacted dynamically to the finding that the operation of the Landfill poses serious environmental risks for the region. Research Case 3. The professional structure of the local population is related to how it reacted dynamically to the finding that the function of the Landfill hides serious environmental risks for the region. Research Case 4. The attitude of the local population towards the operation of the Landfill in the area is related to the distance of the place of residence from the Landfill. Research Case 5. The ways of reacting dynamically on the part of citizens to the fact that the operation of the Landfill poses serious environmental risks for their area, is related to the distance of the place of residence from the Landfill. All of the above research cases are tested using the X2 Independence Testing Statistics. These statistical checks are performed to examine whether there is a dependency between the two variables listed in each case (Zacharopoulou, 2011). Thus, when the P-value> 0.10, then the two controlled variables are independent, while on the other hand, when: the P-value <0.10, then the variables are correlated to a 90% statistical significance level. the P-value <0.05, then the variables are correlated to a 95% significance level. the P-value <0.01, then the variables are correlated to a statistical significance level of 99%. 4.3.1 Gender aspects of the social dynamics in environmental hazards Initially, as mentioned above, it is checked whether the sample-related variable is related to the way a dynamic reaction would take if it understood that the operating Landfills of its area caused environmental degradation. The X2 test showed that the two variables are related, as the P-value is equal to 0.055. Therefore, since the P-value <0.10, our specific research case is accepted and therefore the variables are dependent and correlate to a 90% statistical significance. From Figure 4 it appears that the highest percentage of men and women would choose the way of reacting to the problem by joining in organizations or participations in a struggle committee for the closure of the Landfill. What, however, is particularly striking, is that in the case of men this percentage is extremely large reaching 72.7%. However, in the case of women this percentage is lower and reaches the level of 44.4%. This differentiation, that is, most men opted for the most powerful of the social reaction, which in turn reveals the latent and hidden tendency to manifest a possible phenomenon of N.I.M.B.Y can initially be interpreted through the very social “construction” of gendered relationships in the Greek rural area where usually the "weaker" sex is not legitimized to participate in the community, so it’s limited to domestic work and private space. Besides, from the interviews it turned out that women in these regions because of the conservative society in which they live is not particularly politicized. Finally, in today’s economic crisis, women are even more limited to the care of living needs and ensuring family equilibrium. On the other hand, as traditional division of labor, which presents, male participation in public life is a given, plus there is more socialization - politicization and participation in the public, and therefore more information about public issues such as the environment.

Modern Management Forum Volume 2 Issue 3 | 2018 | 7 Figure 4; Cross-correlations Variable: Sex and Types of Social Reaction of Residents.

Also, a percentage of 24.4% of women is related to the occurrence of a protest reaction in the Municipality and Regional Services, as opposed to men, at 7.3%. The difference is explained by the fact that women are “legitimized” in more mild reactions that are here institutional rather than dynamic as shown above. As regards the way of reaction, the making of complaints to both the competent auditing bodies and the prosecutor of the region, presented percentages for men and women at the level of 11.1% and 7.3% on the one hand and 6.7% and 7.3% respectively. Lastly, it’s interesting that the reaction of informing ecological organizations in the region about the problem, for both men and women, presented almost zero rates, which is related to the fact that ecological organizations and ecological activism in rural areas are not very prominent through environmental education. 4.3.2 Social dynamics in environmental hazards in relation to the educational profile of respondents Then it is checked whether the variable regarding the level of training of the sample is related to the way the dynamic reaction would take if it understood that the Landfill operating in the area caused environmental degradation. The X2 test showed that the two variables are related, as the P-value is so small that it tends to 0. Therefore, since the P-value <0.01, our specific research assumption is accepted and therefore the variables are dependent and correlated at a statistical significance level of 99%. From Figure 5, it appears that as regards for respondents with middle and high educational levels (from high school and above) the way of dynamic reaction concerning the organization or participation in a race committee for the closure of Landfill presented the highest percentages of 66.7%, 60.6%, 100% and 66.7%, respectively. As observed, these percentages, with the exception of IEK graduates, are similar, which may lead to the conclusion that the social culture of respondents does not appear to affect significantly the vigor with which they react. So, the hypothesis that educational level would eventually differentiated people reactions to this problem seems to be collapsed. So, one could speculate that the test sample from a level of education and above understands in the same way the threats which Landfill’s function poses for the environment and is activated by engaging in a dynamic way of activist action. Another category also, that shows dynamics refers to the protest to the Municipality and the Regional Services which presents percentages of 16,7%, 15,25 and 8,3% for respondents with high school grades, lyceum and TEI / AUE, respectively. From these responses, it appears that these groups have developed a level of trust about the effectiveness of the administrative structures and consider that they can contribute to solving problems. From the interviews, they seemed to consider that administrative structures are more capable to be informed about the actions of the actors involved, due to their position, but also about the environmental processes in order not to feel that they are being

8 | Y. Frangopoulos et al. Modern Management Forum deceived.

Figure 5; Cross-correlations Variable: Level of Education and Types of Social Reaction of Residents.

Figure 6; Cross-correlations Variable: Profession and Types of Social Reaction of Residents.

Finally the distribution of the Municipal School graduates is remarkable, where the way of reacting dynamically to the closure of Landfill, which involves joining into organizations or participation of the respondents in a struggle committee, is totally absent. On the contrary, the results of this category are limited the three ways of reacting, namely attempting to make complaints to the Municipality and the Regional Services with 33.3%, 22.2% to the competent auditing bodies, and 44.4% to the District Prosecutor. From the above, it is clear that the respondents who presented the lower levels of education tend to trust, more than the higher educational levels, the state structures about solving effectively the problems identified. At the same time, it seems that this category lacks the modern perception of civil society as a group of self-organization and activism in environmental collective issues. 4.3.3 Professional categories of the sample and forms of activity in Landfills environmental risk It is then checked whether the variable presenting the professional structure of the sample is related to the way in

Modern Management Forum Volume 2 Issue 3 | 2018 | 9 which it would react dynamically if it understood that the Landfill function in the area caused environmental degradation. The X2 test showed that the two variables are related, as the P-value is 0.001. Therefore, since the P-value <0.01, our specific research assumption is accepted and therefore the variables are dependent and correlate with a statistical significance level of 99%. Figure 6 shows that in the professional categories of self-employed, public / civil servants, farmers / stockbreeders and the unemployed, the most dynamic way of responding is to organize or involve the respondents in a closing committee of the Landfill at 94.1%, 63.6%, 80% and 50%, respectively. From the above, it can be considered that the specific professional profiles of respondents seem to have a modern perception of civil society as a group of self-organization and activism in environmental collective issues. At the same time, being in contact with a problematic aspect of the institutions at local (municipal and regional), but also on a supra-local scale (state services of justice, environmental inspectors, etc.), tend to trust less the institutions in particular, during a crisis that plagues Greece from 2009 until the time of our research. This coincidence triggered new dynamics of participatory democracy ways across the country, which are unprecedented towards the last decades after the post-conflict (1974). Of course, in the case of farmers / breeders, this was expected as they were the first to realize the potential contamination and even suffered the first consequences on their rural capital (irrigation, animal death, etc.). At the same time, the class of students / pupils in this case differs, presenting more dynamically the way of reaction which involves the protest in the Municipality and the Regional Services at 45.5% - number that shows they may trust the Municipality more than other categories of professionals due to the lack of co-operation and involvement with the public, while at the same time there is the reaction of joining in a struggle committee at 36.4%. Finally, with regard to the category of retired / domestic employees, it seems that it has the largest range of answers (4 out of 6), with no particular prevalence of any of the above answers.

Figure 7; Cross-correlations Variable: Proximity of Residents in Landfills and Types of Social Reaction of Residents. From these responses, it seems that the local population's reaction has to do with the proximity of the residential area to the Landfill and therefore residents of areas living at a very close distance from Landfills appear to be prepared to react more intensively than other residents who live longer. This is expected, as the residents of the area that is in direct proximity to the Landfill and they are directly affected and those who first perceive the effects of such an infrastructure. Of course, this perception also shows one of the most anti-social aspects of NIMBY, “as my court belongs to me, I only see this and I do not care about what happens next”. This view is not verifiable in environmental terms, as the contamination is not only a function of the distance from the pollutant source but neither does it contribute to a concise planning of socio-environmental dispositions based on collective sustainable profit

10 | Y. Frangopoulos et al. Modern Management Forum 5. Conclusion Following the central hypothesis of our research, which examined the relation between N.I.M.B.Y and with waste management practices through bibliographic and theoretical sources (social, economic, political, etc.) as well as through case study empirical research, we lead to certain conclusions. Initially it was elected that the arrangements and the operation of landfills to the Greece as well as to Europe activate syndromes as N.I.M.B.Y.. Factors that generate those syndromes and the intensity with which they are expressed are related with social, economical, cultural and political factors. N.I.M.B.Y., as it was previously reported, springs also from the lack of briefing of societies with regard to subjects of litter management, as well as from the absence of participative planning at the arrangement and operation of structures of management of litter. Through the case study and concretely from the case study research that was realized it appeared that the local population is not particularly familiarized with the significances of litter management and the protection of environment. This lack of knowledge of local population for landfills seated their area makes them circumspect towards those infrastructures and operations. Moreover with regard to the “sociology” of planning the research elected substantially, the entire lack of participative processes of local population. Still the investigation of relation of citizens with the institutions of Administration showed that the local population does not know the part of Administration on operation issues of landfills. From the intersection of the variables on the gendered aspects of the dynamics of the social reaction to environmental dangers, it was concluded that the women participate in environmental mobilizations, but in a more passive way as the patriarchal formation of the Greek rural area requires even in our days. Regarding the dynamic social response to environmental hazards in relation to the educational profile of respondents, our sample from a level of education and above understands in the same way the threats that come from the environment and is activated by participating in a dynamic way of activistic action. This confirms a modern perception of civil society as a group of self-organization and activism in environmental collective issues when they have a level of education. The professional composition of the population in relation to the forms of environmental risk exposure from the Landfill site in most professional categories other than the students seems to highlight a modern perception of civil society as a group of self-organization and activist action on environmental collective issues. This is interpreted by their frequent contact with a problematic aspect of the institutions at local (municipal and regional government) as well as on a supra-local scale (state services of justice, environmental inspectors, etc.) and thus trust less the institutions especially in a difficult relationship between the state and the citizen due to the financial crisis that plagues Greece from 2009 to today. Also by the answers of the questioners (citizens) that are related with subjects that concern their dynamic social reaction in potential appearance of environmental dangers, it is appeared that the local population has the intention of dynamic reaction. It also appears that citizens intend to adopt a more dynamic way of reaction in case the operation of landfills includes serious environmental dangers for their region. At the same time, through the cross – correlation of variables of research the initial research hypothesis was confirmed, that is to say the attitude and the dynamics of reaction of local population are related with the proximity of the regions with the landfills. More concretely, it appeared that, residents of regions that reside near the landfills are more circumspect and have the intention to react more dynamic comparative with the residents that reside in bigger distances. Through the case study, a scrolling dynamic reaction of citizens was confirmed concerning issues of environmental devalorisation that potentially emanate from the operation of landfills which probably could lead to the event of Phenomenon N.I.M.B.Y. References 1. Kraft E. Michael and Bruce B. Clary , 1991, Citizen Participation and the Nimby Syndrome: Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal, Published by: University of Utah on behalf of the Western Political Science Association, 302 – 303. 2. Maddalena Buffoli, Anna Odone),Julie Leask), Carlo Signorelli, 2016, Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY), an endemic

Modern Management Forum Volume 2 Issue 3 | 2018 | 11 syndrome influencing Environmental Policies, Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health, Volume 13, Number 4, 11256-1. 3. Likou A., 2009, Waste Management in Greece Case Study: Konistra and Avlona Municipalities in Central Evvoia, Harokopio University, 27. 4. Komilis D.P., Ham R.K., Stegmann R., 1999. The effect of municipal solid waste pretreatment on landfill behavior: a literature review. Waste Management & Research, 17, 10–19. 5. Hasan M.R., Tetsuo K., Islam S.A., 2009. Landfill demand and allocation for municipal solid waste disposal in Dhaka city – an assessment in a GIS environment. Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB), 37(2), 133-149. 6. Demesouka, O.E., Vavatsikos A.P. and Anagnostopoulos K.P., 2013. Suitability analysis for siting MSW landfills and its multicriteria spatial decision support system: Method, implementation and case study. Waste Management, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.030 7. Achillas C., Vlachokostas C., Moussiopoulos N., Banias G., Kafetzopoulos G., Karagiannidisa A., 2011. Social acceptance for the development of a waste-to-energy plant in an urban area, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 657-863. 8. Kikuchi R, Gerardo R., 2009. More than a decade of conflict between hazardous waste management and public resistance: a case study of NIMBY syndrome in Souselas (Portugal), Journal of Hazardous Materials, 172, 1681–5. 9. Joos W., Carabias V., Winistoerfer H. and Stuecheli A., 1999. Social aspects of public waste management in Switzerland, Waste Management, 19(6), 417–25. 10. Remy J., Voye L. and Servais E., 1978. Produire ou reproduire? Tome I. Conflits et transaction sociale, Bruxelles, Vie Ouvrière. 11. Remy J. and Leclercq E., 1998. Sociologie urbaine et rurale. L’espace et l’agir, entretiens et textes présentés par E. Leclercq, L’ Harmattan. Paris, Montréal, Québec. 12. Michaud, Kristy, Juliet Carlisle, and Eric R. A. N. Smith., 2008. Nimbyism vs. Environmentalism in Attitudes Toward Energy Development, Environmental Politics, 17(1), 20-39. 13. Bosdogianni Α., 2007. Municipal solid waste management in Greece – Legislation – Implementation – Problems. Eleventh International Waste Management And Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, Italy, October 2007. 14. Scharff J., 2004. NIMBY, a first investigation. The NIMBY “Not In My Back Yard” Reader 2004, A survey of Expert Contributors, ISWA Working Group on Communication and Social Issues (eds), 2- 23, Denmark. 15. Wolsink M., 1990. Maatschappelijke acceptatie van windenergie, PhD Thesis, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. 16. Al-Yaqout, A.F., Koushki, P.A., Hamoda, M.F., 2002. Public opinion and siting solid waste landfills in Kuwait. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 35, 215–227. 17. Morrissey, A.J., Browne, J., 2004. Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management. Waste Management, 24, 297–308. 18. Chang, N.B., Parvathinathan, G., Breeden, J.B., 2008. Combining GIS with fuzzy multicriteria decision-making for landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region. Journal of Environmental Management, 87 (1), 139–153. 19. Schively C., 2007. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21, 255-266. 20. Kontos T.D., Komilis D.P., Halvadakis C.P., 2005. Siting MSW landfills with a spatial multiple criteria analysis methodology, Waste Management, 25, 818-832. 21. Al-Jarrah O. and Abu-Qdais H., 2006. Municipal solid waste landfill siting using intelligent system, Waste Management, 26, 299-306. 22. Wang G., Qin L., Li G., Chenc L., 2009. Landfill site selection using spatial information technologies and AHP: A case study in Beijing, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(8), 2414-2421. 23. Eskandari M., Homaee M., and Mahmodic S., 2012. An integrated multi criteria approach for landfill siting in a conflicting environmental, economical and socio-cultural area, Waste Management, 32(8), 1528-1538.

12 | Y. Frangopoulos et al. Modern Management Forum