Anonymous user
NIMBY: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
Line 13:
The Oxford English Dictionary identifies the earliest use of the 'NIMBY' acronym' as being in 1980 in the Christian Science Monitor:
<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> ▼
<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 definitions ==
=== Hankinson [2018] ===
Line 22 ⟶ 20:
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>
=== <br/> Dear [1992] ===▼
== Monkkonen & Manville (2018): Anti-developer sentiment ==▼
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> ▼
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.▼
<blockquote>'''''"Abstract:'''<br/> '''Problem, Research Strategy and Findings''':<br/> Opposition to new housing at higher densities is a pervasive problem in planning. Such opposition constrains the housing supply and undermines both affordability and sustainability in growing metropolitan areas. Relatively little research, however, examines the motives behind such opposition, and much of the research that does exist examines only opponents’ stated concerns, which may differ from their underlying reasons. We use a survey-framing experiment, administered to over 1,300 people in Los Angeles County, to measure the relative power of different arguments against new housing. We test the impact of common anti-housing arguments: about traffic congestion, neighborhood character, and strained local services. We also, however, introduce the idea that local residents might not like development because they do not like developers. We find strong evidence for this idea: opposition to new development increases by 20 percentage points when respondents see the argument that a developer is likely to earn a large profit from the building. This magnitude is double the increase in opposition associated with concerns about traffic congestion.''<br/> <br/> ''"'''Takeaway for Practice''':<br/> Housing opposition is often framed as a form of risk aversion. Our findings, however, suggest that at least some opposition to housing might be motivated not by residents’ fears of their own losses, but resentment of others’ gains. This finding in turn suggests the possibility that housing opposition could be influenced by vicious cycles of regulation and resentment. Many expensive cities are heavily-regulated, and in such cities only deep-pocketed and aggressive developers can afford to build. The prevalence of such developers might reinforce negative stereotypes about them, and fuel animus against them, further complicating efforts to build housing. Finally, such resentment might help explain the popularity of regulations—such as exactions—whose costs to developers are certain but whose benefits to society are less so. If residents derive satisfaction from seeing developers punished, the persistence of these programs in the face of ambiguous evidence about their efficacy becomes less mysterious."''</blockquote> ▼
=== Nall & Marble [2018] - homeowner interest trumps ideology ===
Clayton Nall 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.
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] :<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."''
▲</blockquote>
<BR>
=== Pendall [1999] ===
Line 34 ⟶ 43:
▲== Monkkonen & Manville (2018): Anti-developer sentiment ==
▲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.
▲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.
▲<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>
▲<blockquote>'''''"Abstract:'''<br/> '''Problem, Research Strategy and Findings''':<br/> Opposition to new housing at higher densities is a pervasive problem in planning. Such opposition constrains the housing supply and undermines both affordability and sustainability in growing metropolitan areas. Relatively little research, however, examines the motives behind such opposition, and much of the research that does exist examines only opponents’ stated concerns, which may differ from their underlying reasons. We use a survey-framing experiment, administered to over 1,300 people in Los Angeles County, to measure the relative power of different arguments against new housing. We test the impact of common anti-housing arguments: about traffic congestion, neighborhood character, and strained local services. We also, however, introduce the idea that local residents might not like development because they do not like developers. We find strong evidence for this idea: opposition to new development increases by 20 percentage points when respondents see the argument that a developer is likely to earn a large profit from the building. This magnitude is double the increase in opposition associated with concerns about traffic congestion.''<br/> <br/> ''"'''Takeaway for Practice''':<br/> Housing opposition is often framed as a form of risk aversion. Our findings, however, suggest that at least some opposition to housing might be motivated not by residents’ fears of their own losses, but resentment of others’ gains. This finding in turn suggests the possibility that housing opposition could be influenced by vicious cycles of regulation and resentment. Many expensive cities are heavily-regulated, and in such cities only deep-pocketed and aggressive developers can afford to build. The prevalence of such developers might reinforce negative stereotypes about them, and fuel animus against them, further complicating efforts to build housing. Finally, such resentment might help explain the popularity of regulations—such as exactions—whose costs to developers are certain but whose benefits to society are less so. If residents derive satisfaction from seeing developers punished, the persistence of these programs in the face of ambiguous evidence about their efficacy becomes less mysterious."''</blockquote>
== in San Francisco Bay Area ==
Line 100 ⟶ 111:
*Hankinson, M. (2018). When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism. American Political Science Review, 1-21. doi:10.1017/S0003055418000035. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000035 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000035].<br/> Preprint 2017: “[http://mhankinson.com/assets/jmpWeb.pdf When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism.]”<br/> [http://mhankinson.com/assets/jmpWeb.pdf. http://mhankinson.com/assets/jmpWeb.pdf. ]<br/>
*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. <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/>
*Jacobus, Rick. “[https://shelterforce.org/2017/09/12/we-are-all-nimbys-sometimes/ We Are All NIMBYs…Sometimes.]” Shelterforce, September 12, 2017.<br/> [https://shelterforce.org/2017/09/12/we-are-all-nimbys-sometimes/ https://shelterforce.org/2017/09/12/we-are-all-nimbys-sometimes/].<br/>
| |||