This article discusses a particular type of social conflict, which is NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) syndrome. It has been very well studied and described by American sociologists. Although NIMBY syndrome has been present in Poland for relatively short time it is de?nately a sign of organising different types of local communities against interfering processes. Although usually depicted as negative phenomenon in most con?icts in the region of lodz it has proved to increase local activity, created new channels of social communication and leaders. It can be also stated that NIMBY syndrome has its source in omitting or separating local community from decision-making procedures and insufficient information on affair/venture being planned. The research revealed that NIMBY protests were characterised by violent beginning, significant time of existence and appearance of sudden, violent and often abrupt reactions of community during time of the con?ict. Dominating forms of activity were petitions and letters being written form. Another activities covered blockades, manifestations, demonstrations and destruction of construction machines or construction site itself. Most frequent form of extinguishing the con?ict was arbitrage which is forcing administrative decision against community which resulted in increasing distance between the community, local authorities and investor.
Decision-making in a conflict situation in public policy practice is most often associated with conflicts of interest. One of the frequent forms of this conflict is the so-called NIMBY phenomenon, which has become a subject of interest mainly because of the distinctive spatial characteristics of the conflicts. A very rich base of empirical research has been provided by the Polish geographical sciences, which allowed us to attempt in this study to propose an analysis of NIMBY-type conflicts in terms of different types of collectivised interests. Hypothetically, on this basis, it would be possible to find a new approach to the resolution of these conflicts no longer only in the processes of participation of stakeholders but based on merit-based criteria. When making these decisions, it is necessary, first, to check whether there are legitimate supra-individual (group) interests at stake, since sometimes this legitimacy is questionable, and it may be only an individual interest. Different types of individual interests are justified and collectivised according to different criteria. When it comes to legitimate interests, there may be a conflict between the vertically differentiated bearers of these interests. However, even in this case, the higher hierarchical position of one of the bearers cannot imply a preference for his/her legitimate interest. As in the case of a horizontally-situated conflict, the decisive factor is the content, where interests with a higher degree of substance should be privileged over others: interests that are already concerned at the individual level with values such as human life, health, etc., must be privileged over others. They must be privileged over the interests of an economic nature, etc., and these over ordinary short-term interests. It turns out to be obvious that it is the degree of legitimate collectivised supraindividual interests that is the primary criterion for assessing preferences in decision-making in conflicts of public interests, rather than the simple preference of legitimate supra-individual interests only according to the position of their bearers in the vertical hierarchy.