Article
May 19, 2026
NIMBYism and data centres: Closing the gap on key public objections
Data centre growth continues apace but this is not without controversy. Across the world, communities are voicing their concerns – and sometimes stopping construction in the process. Ramboll identified the most common complaints, and what data centre developers can do to respond.
Contact our expert
Ed Ansett
Global Director, Data Centre Technology and Innovation
Demand for computing power is surging worldwide. By 2028, 8% of global electricity consumption will be due to data centres. As these vital, mission-critical facilities grow in scale, so too does the controversy. Communities continue to raise concerns and as a result, can slow down the process. ‘Not in my backyard’ – NIMBY – is often the charge levelled at such community pushback.
While there are recurring complaints that arise across the world, particular issues are of greater concern in different regions. What’s more, these can even vary within the same country. If concerns are not identified, acknowledged, and addressed, data centre developers face a risk of delayed or cancelled projects.
As a global provider of full cycle data centre solutions, Ramboll has encountered several such concerns globally – and addressed them through engineering solutions and robust community engagement.
Technological progress and liveability are not mutually exclusive. Ramboll’s commitment to being the partner for sustainable change is unchanged. Many environmental, water, and biodiversity impacts are addressed in the whitepaper ‘Developing sustainable data centres’, and the business has already put many of these, in addition to further social impacts – such as noise reduction – into practice across many projects.
Ramboll identified common complaints leading to data centre NIMBYism in the US, UK, Japan, Germany, Australia, and Singapore, and – following the company’s example – how clients address them to ensure their next data centre development is a success.
What are common public concerns that drive objection to data centres?
Power demand and grid capacity constraints in Germany
In Germany, the most significant issue shaping local responses to new data centre developments is power availability – particularly grid capacity and long grid connection lead times. For communities near proposed sites, the core concern is whether local electricity infrastructure can accommodate additional demand without creating wider supply risks.
Technical solutions such as microgrids for data centres or on-site generation can address these constraints, but for non-technical audiences they are often difficult to interpret. As a result, residents may fear that new data centre demand could lead to grid strain, load reallocation, or future power shortages for households and local businesses.
The solution: Engage communities early on power strategy
Addressing objections in Germany requires early, accessible engagement focused specifically on power and grid impact. Clear explanations of how electricity will be sourced, how pressure on local grids is avoided, and how risks are monitored and communicated can help build confidence.
Noise pollution and quality-of-life in Japan’s urban areas
In Japan, noise pollution is one of the most frequent and sensitive triggers for local opposition to data centre developments. Concerns tend to centre on generator noise and operational sound levels, particularly in areas close to residential neighbourhoods. Even where noise remains within regulatory thresholds, community tolerance is often lower, and uncertainty around peak or emergency operations can intensify local resistance.
These concerns have proven decisive in planning outcomes, with projects delayed or abandoned where councils or communities remain unconvinced that noise impacts can be adequately controlled over the long term.
The solution: Implement design and engineering solutions to lower noise levels
Addressing noise-related objections requires early engagement focused explicitly on sound impact and mitigation. Engineering solutions such as acoustic shielding, improved enclosure design, site layout optimisation, and operational controls can significantly reduce noise output. However, these measures need to be clearly communicated to local stakeholders, with transparent explanation of when generators operate, how noise is measured, and what safeguards are in place to ensure compliance beyond minimum regulatory standards.
Socioeconomic value to communities is unclear in the United Kingdom
In the UK, data centres are a key part of critical national infrastructure, but at the local level, their value is often poorly understood. For communities, they can appear as closed, anonymous developments with limited visible benefit, making it harder to build local support through the planning process. This lack of a clear local socioeconomic narrative can quickly translate into resistance.
The solution: Link data centres to local economic priorities
Where data centres are linked explicitly to local economic priorities, outcomes improve. In Buckinghamshire, for example, planning approval was supported because the data centre was shown to underpin growth sectors such as the creative industries and high-performance technology, strengthening existing clusters rather than operating in isolation.
Where communities understand the power infrastructure strategy – and see tangible local benefits – concerns are far less likely to harden into opposition.
The lesson is straightforward: economic benefits need to be made visible and place‑ specific. Framing data centres as enabling infrastructure – supporting higher‑value jobs, local productivity and long‑term economic resilience – helps shift the conversation from abstract national need to tangible local gain.
Head of Socioeconomics – Environment & Health, Ramboll
Concerns over data centre water use and local resources in the United States
Opposition to data centre development in the US is particularly acute in arid and water stressed regions. Public scrutiny has already prompted California to introduce water disclosure requirements, while operators such as Amazon and Google have reassessed water strategies in states including Arizona and Virginia.
The root of concern lies in cooling. Most data centre water use is tied to thermal management, creating a tension between lowering power use effectiveness (PUE) and minimising pressure on local water resources. Traditional cooling approaches can deliver energy efficiency gains but often rely on significant volumes of water, raising concerns about long-term resilience and competition with agricultural and domestic supply.
The solution: Shift to a more sustainable water strategy
Responding to water related opposition requires a visible shift in approach. This includes reducing reliance on evaporative cooling, prioritising wastewater effluent rather than freshwater sources, and conducting regular, transparent water impact assessments. By aligning cooling strategies more closely with local hydrology and climate conditions, operators are better placed to demonstrate that data centres can coexist with – rather than exacerbate – regional water stress.
Fears about waste heat and thermal efficiency in Singapore
In Singapore, waste heat presents a different challenge. In a tropical environment, opportunities for district heating are limited, and communities can question the value of excess heat generated by large digital infrastructure.
The solution: Redirect waste heat to industrial users
Rather than attempting residential heat reuse, emerging approaches focus on redirecting waste heat to nearby industrial processes. Positioning data centres within or close to industrial zones creates opportunities for symbiotic energy use, helping reframe waste heat as a productive resource rather than an unavoidable by product.
Concerns over biodiversity and land-use impacts across Australia
In Australia, proposed data centre developments increasingly face scrutiny over biodiversity loss and land use change. These concerns are heightened where projects affect peri urban or semi natural landscapes, and where communities see limited local benefit from large, visually dominant infrastructure.
The solution: Nature based solutions backed by biodiversity metrics
Addressing biodiversity related opposition requires more than mitigation statements. Nature based solutions – such as habitat creation, green corridors, and landscape restoration – need to be designed from the outset and backed by clear, measurable biodiversity metrics. Quantifying outcomes helps move the conversation from intent to impact, giving communities greater confidence that ecological considerations are being treated as integral rather than incidental.
By aligning cooling strategies more closely with local hydrology and climate conditions, operators are better placed to demonstrate that data centres can coexist with – rather than exacerbate – regional water stress.
Contact our expert
Global Director, Data Centre Technology and Innovation
