Anonymous user
NIMBY: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
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.
<blockquote>
"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 40 ⟶ 54:
===
▲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>
▲
Line 102 ⟶ 112:
*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.<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 111 ⟶ 122:
*
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.
*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/>
| |||