The acceptance of climate adaptation measures in cities: Why the will to fight for climate goals stops in our backyards

This paper examines the tension between political efforts to implement climate goals in urban planning and design and the acceptance of climate adaptation measures at the local level. We hypothesise that, while there is consensus on the desirability of climate goals, the implementation of such concerns can lead to conflicts causing delay or hindrance. We argue that a holistic understanding of the causes and motivations for protests and resistance, often described as NIMBYsm, can help increase acceptance among citizens and inform governance processes. Our analysis focuses on the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area, especially on current initiatives and plans related to energy transition (wind turbines), mobility (traffic and parking restrictions), and urban water and heat management (urban greening). We report on a quantitative and qualitative discourse analysis covering articles from Dutch public media about climate resilience plans and the implementation of climate adaptation measures. Our study covers the period from 2015 to 2020, i.e., from the Paris Climate Agreement to the development of the Environmental Vision and the Climate Neutral Roadmap 2050. The analysis also considers publications of relevant public institutions and administrative bodies on climate goals and implementation strategies. Debates on large-scale environmental measures, such as flood control, tend to focus on public interest and compensation processes. Yet, when discussing climate adaptation measures in cities, private interests, e.g., the protection of ownership, property value, and character of place, often dominate. These arguments often reflect conflicting social values, such as perceived limitations of freedom of choice, but may also be related to a lack of influence in decision-making processes.