Top

Published in:

2022 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

5. Effects of Nominating an Area as the Candidate Place of a New NIMBY Facility: A Consideration

Author : Sen Eguchi

Published in: Theory and History in Regional Perspective

Publisher: Springer Nature Singapore

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Generally, when a local government releases the construction plan for a “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) facility to the public, they nominate only one area as the candidate area of the proposed facility and fail to mention other areas that would benefit from it. This study theoretically explores the implications of releasing the NIMBY facility’s construction plan to the public in this manner, especially whether the candidate area’s nomination compels its residents to accept the facility. Our analysis shows that, if a candidate area’s nomination induces the public to perceive that there is no alternative to building the facility in the nominated area, the nomination requires residents in the nominated area to approve the facility. On the other hand, residents in the nominated area would not be content to accept the facility if it came under such public perception, excluding the possibility of the facility being built in other areas. They would hope for such public perceptions to be corrected and the siting to be reconsidered without excluding other possibilities. Our analysis also investigates the conditions under which the abovementioned reactions occur, which do not necessarily oppose the proposed facility, but hope for a site to be selected without the exclusion of any possible sites. Our analysis suggests that residents in the candidate area know (or can specify) the residents in the non-nominated areas are crucially important for the emergence of such reactions.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Analysis of Spatial Economic System and Adaptive Transportation Policy for Regional Welfare Improvement

next chapter On the Existence and Sustainability of Long-Standing Japanese Shinise Firms

Facilities generating NIMBY conflicts are sometimes called “NIMBY facilities,” and we use this term in this study.

For example, as described in Shimizu (1999) and Siniawer (2018), in 1966, before the “war on garbage” in Tokyo in the 1970s, the Tokyo metropolitan government released a plan for constructing an incinerator to the residents in the Suginami ward in Takaido district in Suginami, but the government did not mention (the names of) other districts in Suginami that would also benefits from the incinerator in Takaido.

The responses of the Takaido residents in Suginami ward in 1966 are reported in several case studies and/or articles (e.g., Shimizu (1999) and Siniawer (2018)), but the responses and/or attitudes of the residents in other districts in Suginami at that time are not reported. The same is true for many case studies on NIMBY analyzing other cases, including those referred in Eguchi (2020) (e.g., Flynn (2011), Guidotti and Abercrombie (2008), Sakurai (2010), Shimizu (1999, 2002), Zheng and Liu (2018)).

The case of the Takaido residents in Suginami ward reported in Shimizu (1999) would be an example.

For example, Burningham et al. (2006), and Suzuki (2011) provided useful surveys for discussions and research on NIMBY conflicts. Eguchi (2020) also refers to Fredriksson (2000), Feinerman et al. (2004), and Bellettini and Kempf (2013) investigating the NIMBY possibility to be efficiently resolved through appropriately designed processes or plausible political processes, Kunreuther and Kleindorfer (1986) and Mitchel and Carson (1986) seeking to find decentralized decision-mechanisms that would lead to the agreement, Frey et al. 1996, Frey and Oberholzer-Gee (1997), and Besfamille and Lozachmeur (2010) investing NIMBY from different viewpoints.

Figure 5.1 of this study is the same as that of Eguchi (2020), with the permission of the Japanese Section of Regional Science Association International, 2020.

From the economics viewpoint of uncertainty, Sakai (2015) and Sakai (2019) provide explanations of how residents would feel and react when confronted with a nuclear power generation plant, one of the largest sources of risks, including possible unknown risks, which they would have to live with every day.

For example, the facility whose site being decided later by coin tossing if both residents oppose, belong to <A-A>, where the value of b_i is, if the residents are risk-neutral, the average of FB_i and sb_i, which is greater than sb_i, and both residents would choose “oppose.”

The games belonging to <B-B> have a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium in which residents choose “oppose” with the probability p_i = (−FB_j + a_j)/(a_j + b_j − FB_j − sb_j) (i, j = 1 or 2, j ≠ i). When a NIMBY conflict, which is the conflict over the choice of a Nash equilibrium, occurs in a situation belonging to <B-B>, the residents might engage in this mixed strategy equilibrium, and the conflicting situation of both choosing “oppose” might follow with probability p₁p₂.

Not only the media but also scholars in social science (for example, Feldman and Turner (2010) in the field of environmental philosophy), who are paying their attention to the NIMBY conflicts and often expressing their opinions about the conflicts, would correspond to player 3 in our model.

In Sect. 5.2, we observed that in Eguchi (2020)’s framework, the typical NIMBY conflict of every resident opposes the facility is a phenomenon that occurs in the <A-A> case of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Thus, we focus on the <A-A> case in the rest of this study.

In the real world, the residents under NIMBY conflict are criticized by the public, sometimes through the media. However, we do not specify the way player 3 criticize resident 2.

It would be difficult to prove that resident 1 has also the strategy “welcome,” without specifying who resident 1 is.

Bellettini G, Kempf H (2013) Why not in my backyard? On the location and size of a public facility. Region Sci Urban Econ 43:22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2012.11.001CrossRef

Besfamille M, Lozachmeur J-M (2010) NIMBY and mechanism design under different constitutional constraints. Int Tax Policy Finance 17:114–132CrossRef

Burningham K, Barnett J, Thrush D (2006) The limitations of the NIMBY concept for understanding public engagement with renewable energy technologies: A literature review, Working Paper 1.3. The School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester

Eguchi S (2020) NIMBY (not in my backyard) Conflicts: a simple game-theoretic analysis. Asia-Pacific J Reg Sci 4(3):821–833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-020-00166-4CrossRef

Feinerman E, Finkelshtain I, Kan I (2004) On a political solution to the NIMBY conflict. Am Econ Rev 94(1):369–381CrossRef

Feldman S, Turner D (2010) Why not NIMBY? Ethics Place Environ 13(3):251–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366879X.2010.516493CrossRef

Flynn G (2011) Court decisions, NIMBY claims, and the siting of unwanted facilities: Policy frames and the impact of judicialization in locating a landfill for Toronto’s solid waste. Can Public Policy 37(3):381. https://doi.org/10.3138/cpp.37.3.381CrossRef

Fredriksson PG (2000) The siting of hazardous waste facilities in federal systems: The political economy of NIMBY. Environ Resource Econ 15:75–87. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008313612369CrossRef

Frey BS, Oberholzer-Gee F (1997) The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. Am Econ Rev 87(4):746–755

Frey BS, Oberholzer-Gee F, Eichenberger R (1996) The old lady visits your backyard: A tale of morals and markets. J Polit Economy 104(6):1297–1313CrossRef

Guidotti TL, Abercrombie S (2008) Aurum: A case study in the politics in NIMBY. Waste Manag Res 26(6):582–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X08092023CrossRef

Kunreuther H, Kleindorfer PR (1986) A sealed-bid auction mechanism for siting noxious facilities. Am Econ Rev 76(2):295–299. Paper and Proceedings

Mitchel RC, Carson RT (1986) Property rights, protest, and the siting of hazardous waste facilities. Am Econ Rev 76(2):285–290. Paper and Proceedings

Sakai Y (2015) J.M Keynes versus Knight: Comparing the two economic giants in the age of uncertainty (in Japanese). Minerva, Kyoto

Sakai Y (2019) An application to nuclear power generation: From Daniel Bernoulli to Keynes, J.M. and Knight, F.H. In: J.M. Keynes versus F.H. Knight evolutionary, Economics and Social Complexity Science, 18. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8000-6_8

Sakurai H (2010) Nimbyism: Prospects under increased international resource recycling activities (in Japanese). Kikan Seisaku/keiei kenkyu 3:51–71, Mitsubishi UFJ Bank, 2010

Shimizu S (1999) NIMBY Syndrome Kou (Thinking about NIMBY syndrome, in Japanese). Tokyo Shimbun Shuppan-Kyoku, Tokyo

Shimizu S (2002) Haikibutsu shori shisetsu no ricchi to Juumin Goui keisei (Siting of unwanted facility and consensus building among residents, in Japanese). J Center Regional Aff Fukushima Univ 14(1):3–13

Siniawer EM (2018) A war against garbage in postwar Japan. Asia-Pacific J 16(22):5217. https://apjjf.org/2018/22/Maruko.html. Accessed 30 Nov 2019

Suzuki K (2011) NIMBY studies: Problems and prospects (in Japanese). Proceedings of JITA annual conference, December 2011, Japan Institute of Tourism, pp 17–20

Zheng G, Liu W (2018) Same projects, different endings: Comparative case studies on NIMBY facility construction in Beijing. Cities 73:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.10.010CrossRef

Title: Effects of Nominating an Area as the Candidate Place of a New NIMBY Facility: A Consideration
Author: Sen Eguchi
Publisher: Springer Nature Singapore
Book: Theory and History in Regional Perspective
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-6694-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-981-16-6695-7

Copyright Year: 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6695-7_5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"