Anonymous user
NIMBY: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 24:
=== 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>
"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."▼
''"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
Line 112 ⟶ 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/>
| |||