Anonymous user
NIMBY: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 15:
<blockquote>''"People are now thoroughly alert to the dangers of hazardous chemical wastes. The very thought of having even a secure landfill anywhere near them is anathema to most Americans today. It’s an attitude referred to in the trade as NIMBY—'not in my backyard.'"''<br/> —Emilie Travel Livezey, “Hazardous waste,” The Christian Science Monitor, November 6, 1980.<br/> </blockquote>
== Other discussions ==
=== Michael Dear [1992] ===
from one of the earliest discussions of NIMBY phenomenon: Michael Dear [1992] “Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome.” Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (3): 288–300.▼
<blockquote>''"In plain language, NIMBYis the motivation of residents who want to protect their turf. More formally, NIMBY refers to the protectionist attitudes of and oppositional tactics adopted by community groups facing an unwelcome development in theirneighborhood. Such controversial developments encom-pass a wide range of land-use proposals, including many human service facilities, landfill sites, hazardous wastefacilities, low-income housing, nuclear facilities, and air-ports. Residents usually concede that these “noxious” facilities are necessary, but not near their homes, hence the term “not in my back yard.”''<br/> <br/> ''"Of course, not all oppositionis counterproductive: Neighborhood complaints can result in valuable improvements to proposed programs;and vocal, client-led opposition may cause positive adjustments to the program plans of human service providers. This essay, however, focuses on the more self-interested, turf-protectionist behavior of facility opponents in an attempt to provide a perspective on the NIMBY phenomenon and to reduce an apparently chaotic concept to manageable proportions in ways that will beuseful for planners, advocates, and service providers. Thearticle addresses three important themes: the nature of community opposition, factors determining community attitudes, and a guide to alternative strategies for community relations."''</blockquote> ▼
=== Scott Campbell [1996] ===
Campbell, Scott. "Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development." ''Journal of the American Planning Assocation,'' Summer 1996, p.296-312. This excerpt discusses NIMBY phenomenon:
<blockquote>▼
<u>''Merging the Substantive and Procedural''</u>
''"The individual shortcomings of the approaches described above suggest that combining them can achieve both political and substantive progress in the environmental-economic crisis. The most successful solutions seem to undertake several different resolution strategies at once. For example, negotiation among developers, city planners, and land-use preservationists can produce an innovative, clustered design for a housing development, plus a per-unit fee for preserving open space. Substantive vision combined with negotiating skills thus allows planners to create winwin solutions, rather than either negotiating in a zerosum game or preparing inert, ecotopian plans. This approach is not a distant ideal for planners: they already have, from their education and experience, both this substantive knowledge and this political savvy. ''<br/>
''"In the end, however, the planner must also deal with conflicts where one or more parties have no interest in resolution. One nonresolution tactic is the '''NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard''', response: a crude marriage of local initiative and the age-old externalizing of pollution. This "take it elsewhere" strategy makes no overall claim to resolve conflict, though it can be a productive form of resistance rather than just irrational parochialism (Lake 1993). Nor does em-terrorism consider balance. Instead, it replaces the defensive stance of NIMBY with offensive, confrontational, symbolic action. Resolution is also avoided out of cavalier confidence that one's own side can manage the opposition through victory, not compromise ("My side will win, so why compromise?"). Finally, an "I don't care stance avoids the conflict altogether. Unfortunately, this ostensible escapism often masks a more pernicious NIMBY or "my side will win" hostility, just below the surface."''</blockquote>
=== Hankinson [2018] ===
Line 20 ⟶ 36:
Hankinson [2018] offers this definition and statement of problem:
<blockquote>''‘Not In My Back Yard’ or ‘NIMBY’ opposition (Dear, 1992; Schively, 2007) creates a collective action problem for the housing supply. Despite supporting supply citywide, residents individually have an incentive to ‘defect’ and block new housing proposed for their own neighborhood. If the permitting process allows individual residents to defect from a group interest of more supply, then NIMBYism will not only lead to less new housing overall, but to a level of supply below majoritarian preferences. This ability of NIMBYism to undermine collective action extends beyond housing to an array of land uses, from clean energy facilities (Stokes, 2016) and landfills (Lake, 1996) to homeless shelters and social service centers (Dear, 1992). So long as the costs are spatially concentrated, even broadly supported land uses will face NIMBY opposition.''</blockquote>
=== Monkkonen & Manville (2018): Anti-developer sentiment ===▼
▲== Monkkonen & Manville (2018): Anti-developer sentiment ==
Monkkonen, Paavo, and Michael Manville. "[http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr/ziman/2018-04WP.pdf Opposition to Development or Opposition to Developers?: Survey Evidence from Los Angeles County on Attitudes towards New Housing.]" Working paper. February 22, 2018.
Line 32 ⟶ 47:
Nall noted in tweet announcing paper: "includes many of the findings from our earlier working paper, 'Beyond NIMBYism' "
<blockquote>''"Summary [drawn from introduction section. -ed]
▲<blockquote>
▲''"Summary [drawn from introduction section. -ed] :<br/> We find that messages designed to appeal to economic liberals by emphasizing the effects of additional housing development on local housing prices generally have a minimal effect, and, depending on how economic arguments are framed, can even reduce liberal homeowners’ support of housing development. Additional messages that also emphasize the corresponding benefits of new housing on affordability for lower- and middle-income families generally offset this priming of homeowner interest. These results confirm that Americans do express substantial self-interested political behavior when the stakes are visible and consequential—even when this contradicts prior liberal commitments. Homeowners prioritize their interests as homeowners over their prior ideological commitments."''
=== Pendall [1999] ===
Line 43 ⟶ 56:
===
▲from one of the earliest discussions of NIMBY phenomenon: Michael Dear [1992] “Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome.” Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (3): 288–300.
▲<blockquote>''"In plain language, NIMBYis the motivation of residents who want to protect their turf. More formally, NIMBY refers to the protectionist attitudes of and oppositional tactics adopted by community groups facing an unwelcome development in theirneighborhood. Such controversial developments encom-pass a wide range of land-use proposals, including many human service facilities, landfill sites, hazardous wastefacilities, low-income housing, nuclear facilities, and air-ports. Residents usually concede that these “noxious” facilities are necessary, but not near their homes, hence the term “not in my back yard.”''<br/> <br/> ''"Of course, not all oppositionis counterproductive: Neighborhood complaints can result in valuable improvements to proposed programs;and vocal, client-led opposition may cause positive adjustments to the program plans of human service providers. This essay, however, focuses on the more self-interested, turf-protectionist behavior of facility opponents in an attempt to provide a perspective on the NIMBY phenomenon and to reduce an apparently chaotic concept to manageable proportions in ways that will beuseful for planners, advocates, and service providers. Thearticle addresses three important themes: the nature of community opposition, factors determining community attitudes, and a guide to alternative strategies for community relations."''</blockquote>
== in San Francisco Bay Area ==
Line 105 ⟶ 114:
*Bosetti, Nicolas, and Sam Sims. "[http://www.centreforlondon.org/publication/nimby-opposition/ STOPPED: Why People Oppose New Residential Developments in Their Back Yard]." Centre for London, 20 July 2016. An excellent study by Centre for London examined people's reasons for resisting new housing development. <br/>
*Campbell, Scott [1996]. "[https://my.vanderbilt.edu/greencities/files/2014/08/Campbell1.pdf Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development]." ''Journal of the American Planning Assocation'', Summer 1996, p.296-312.<br/> [https://my.vanderbilt.edu/greencities/files/2014/08/Campbell1.pdf https://my.vanderbilt.edu/greencities/files/2014/08/Campbell1.pdf].<br/>
*Dear, Michael. 1992. “Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome.” Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (3): 288–300.<br/> [https://drive.google.com/open?id=11H7kPi1mL3NM9YYgkrMAMxc2UKII0aGI https://drive.google.com/open?id=11H7kPi1mL3NM9YYgkrMAMxc2UKII0aGI].<br/>
*Dowall, David E. (1982). "[https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1983/1/cj2n3-4.pdf The Suburban Squeeze: Land-Use Policies in the San Francisco Bay Area]." Cato Journal, Vol 2, No 3 (Winter 1982). [https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1983/1/cj2n3-4.pdf https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1983/1/cj2n3-4.pdf].<br/>
Line 112 ⟶ 122:
*Livezey, Emilie Travel. “Hazardous waste.” The Christian Science Monitor, November 6, 1980.<br/> [cited by Oxford English Dictionary as the first published use of the term].<br/>
*Monkkonen, Paavo, and Michael Manville. "[http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr/ziman/2018-04WP.pdf Opposition to Development or Opposition to Developers?: Survey Evidence from Los Angeles County on Attitudes towards New Housing]." Working paper. February 22, 2018. [http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr/ziman/2018-04WP.pdf http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr/ziman/2018-04WP.pdf].
*
Nall, Clayton, and Will Marble (2018). "[https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QuqlPHqYb_Eu6gxwDNHneWEtSkGjgfwJ Where Interests Trump Ideology: The Persistent Influence of Homeownership in Local Development Politics]." Working paper, Feb 3 2018. <br/> [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QuqlPHqYb_Eu6gxwDNHneWEtSkGjgfwJ. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QuqlPHqYb_Eu6gxwDNHneWEtSkGjgfwJ. ]<br/> "includes many of the findings from our earlier working paper, 'Beyond NIMBYism' "<br/>
*Iannarone, Sarah. “[http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/a_fix_for_portlands_growing_pa.html A fix for Portland's growing pains: Less 'NIMBY,' more unity.]" (Guest opinion). Dec 31, 2017<br/> [http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/a_fix_for_portlands_growing_pa.html http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/a_fix_for_portlands_growing_pa.html].<br/>
| |||