Our presentation refers to NIMBY syndrome ( not in my backyard ) as an example of the social conflict that can be mitigated by a proper compansation delivered to the local communities. For some investments such as wind turbines, hydropower plants or wastewater treatment plants almost no location seems to be proper. They are being perceived as potentially burdensome and are being rejected from the start.

The aim of our study was to determine what type of compensation makes the respondents more likely to agree to the construction of the new, potentially burdensome, investment near their place of residence.We have conducted an online survey regarding the responder's attitude towards the new investment being constructed near their place of residence. The investigated respondents ( N = 804) were randomly divided into four experimental groups (differences in type of compensations), and a control group, in which the respondents did not receive any compensation at all. The four experimental groups differed in two dimensions: group vs individual compensations and distributive vs procedural compensations. We controlled other variables, like: place attachment, social jauntiness and eagerness to process important information, eagerness to participate in the decision making process concerning the unwilling investment, and the overall acceptance for the the investment.

The results revealed that the most effective was a distributive compensation. Promised this kind of compensation, the respondents were the most likely to accept the investment and recognized it as the least onerous . The control group differed significantly from all other groups at virtually all scales. Respondents in this group recognized the investment as clearly less desirable and more onerous than all other groups. Thus any compensation proves to be better than nothing.

We will present the results by making various interpretations of the obtained data. As a conclusion we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of NIMBY study.