A new whitepaper from BBG Intelligence titled Not in my backyard reveals that data centre developments across the Asia-Pacific region are facing an escalating public trust challenge as the demand for artificial intelligence infrastructure accelerates. The report examines how these facilities have transitioned from low-profile industrial structures into flashpoints for public debate, becoming proxy issues for broader anxieties around artificial intelligence, energy security, water scarcity, foreign investment, and economic sovereignty.
The paper notes that public understanding is severely lagging behind the rapid pace of development. Because data centres lack the everyday consumer visibility of banks or supermarkets, operators are struggling to build confidence while communities grapple with what these facilities are and why they are needed. This information vacuum often breeds skepticism and opposition, particularly when local communities bear tangible burdens—such as industrial noise, construction disruption, and resource strain—while national economic benefits feel abstract and distant.
Regional examples underscore the widespread nature of the issue:
• In Batam, Indonesia, proposed data centres face heavy scrutiny over water security, with projects projected to consume roughly 32 million litres daily—enough to meet the needs of 320,000 people.
• In New Zealand, data centres have ignited political debates regarding electricity constraints, prompting calls from the Green Party to pause AI-focused developments until stronger regulatory frameworks are enacted.
• In Malaysia, rapid expansion in Johor has sparked environmental and community concerns over local infrastructure and power networks.
• In Australia, local backlash is severe; a proposed development in Lane Cove, Sydney, drew 374 resident objections against only nine supporting submissions. Furthermore, recent polling cited in the report shows that 83 per cent of Australians would not want to live near an AI data centre, and 52 per cent distrust major tech companies regarding transparency over water and power usage.
BBG Intelligence warns that communications alone cannot compensate for flawed planning or poor project siting. Communities increasingly demand concrete evidence, visible local benefits, and genuine involvement rather than polished corporate messaging and delayed consultation. To rebuild social licence, the whitepaper outlines six core lessons for organizations:
• Start engagement before public positions harden.
• Explicitly explain the underlying "why" behind a project.
• Make local community benefits clearly visible.
• Treat transparency as a fundamental operating principle.
• Design infrastructure with community acceptance in mind, not just regulatory approval.
• Assume that intense public scrutiny is permanent.
