NIMBYism – A re-examination of the phenomenon
Introduction
The siting of public facilities constitutes a dilemma for democracies. On one hand, government must maintain societal infrastructure by replacing aging technology and institutions with infrastructure that is more viable in the long term. On the other hand, when public facilities are sited, small groups of citizens disproportionately experience negative externalities through changes in the local environment and the presence of new risks. The preferred outcome of facility siting decisions is, of course, the informed consent of those directly affected by them.
A potential obstacle to achieving the preferred outcome is NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard). The core idea of NIMBYism, which gained prevalence in the 1980s, is that citizens oppose the siting of facilities in their neighborhood for self-interested and parochial reasons (e.g. Hall, 1989). More formally, Wolsink (2000: 53) defines NIMBY as “people that combine a positive attitude and resistance motivated by calculated personal costs and benefits”. If NIMBYism is strong, as is argued by frustrated developers whose plans are hindered by citizen protests, facility siting authorities face insurmountable difficulties in their effort to gain acceptance from local residents.
Scholars specializing in facility siting decisions find only weak empirical support for NIMBYism (see Lake (1993) for an early example and Devine-Wright (2005) for a review of the literature with regard to wind power installations). Instead, the favored explanations are more understanding towards protesters: that protests are driven by ideological values concerning social justice and ecological sustainability (e.g. McAvoy, 1998, Wolsink, 1994, Wolsink, 2000, Wolsink, 2007), and that protests are the result of failed planning processes in which planning authorities break the line of trust between themselves and affected citizens (e.g. Kraft and Clary, 1991, Groothuis and Miller, 2005). Additional literature emphasizes the social character of protests; rather than being a simple reflexive response of individuals who are concerned about their own well-being, protest reactions are socially constructed (Kraft, 1996, Benford and Snow, 2000).
While facility-siting research demonstrates that protests are generated by a multitude of factors, theory suggests that self-interest is indeed a strong driving force for reactions towards siting decisions. Specifically, from a social–psychological perspective protest for self-interested reasons is the expected outcome of situations with the potential for negative consequences in which a person has a strong personal stake (Thornton and Knowx, 2002; and, more generally, Crano, 1995). In the light of theoretical expectations, the paper offers a re-examination of the NIMBY-phenomenon. The re-examination identifies new manifestations of the NIMBY-idea, suggests a methodological approach for the empirical study of these manifestations, and applies the suggested approach on an original set of data.
NIMBYism implies that individuals resist the location of a facility, which they otherwise find useful, in their vicinity. To examine this, empirical studies typically estimate the extent to which geographical proximity determines peoples’ reaction towards various public facilities. The primary treatment, thus, is geographical distance to a specific facility site. The recurrent finding is that proximity is weakly and inconsistently related to attitude towards the facility in question.
In contrast, this paper examines reactions towards the siting of a wide variety of facility types while holding geographical distance to the location constant at a low level. The treatment, thus, is facility type rather than geographical proximity. As developed below, this approach allows for the examination of two rarely researched manifestations of NIMBYism: (i) that people are so sensitive to nuisances that they oppose the siting of all facility types in their neighborhood; and (ii) that protesting individuals, when given the opportunity, adjust motivations for their resistance to appear more public minded.
The paper furthermore contributes with regard to methodology. Facility research is dominated by observational methods. To better sort out causal relationships, the paper suggests that observational and experimental data should be combined. The relevance of the suggested mixed-method approach is tested on an original set of data. The observational study focuses citizen reactions towards a large number of facility types in a given geographical context (a Swedish metropolitan area). The experiment tracks individuals’ reactions, and motivation for reactions, when they read a fake letter about government plans to site various types of facilities in their neighborhood. To enhance external validity, experimental treatments are based on findings from the observational study.
The paper proceeds as follows. Initially, two theoretical sections expand upon the logic of the new manifestations of NIMBYism and how they link to theories on the role of self-interest for opinion formation in the political domain. The following sections present the setting of the empirical studies and findings from the observational and experimental studies, respectively. Contrary to expectations of frustrated planners, results show that people are not equally likely to protest all types of facilities in their neighborhood. However, results also show that differentiation between facility types is reduced when individuals are aware about the siting (when the choice is clear), and that individuals stress the most public spirited motivation for protest that is available to them. On the basis of these findings, a final section concludes that NIMBYism is a relevant factor in siting processes.
Section snippets
Type of public facility as treatment variable
Siting decisions are controversial because public facilities have unwanted consequences for those immediately affected by them. With reference to psychological risk analysis and economic cost-benefit analysis, the siting literature identifies a number of negative externalities associated with public facilities: health concerns; environmental concerns; place attachment; and material concerns such as property values (e.g. Mansfield et al., 2001, Boholm, 2004, Wester-Herber, 2004, Farber, 1998,
Two manifestations of NIMBYism
Within the political domain, the idea of NIMBYism can be theoretically anchored in the literature on symbolic politics and self-interest (Sears et al., 1980, Sears and Funk, 1990, Sears and Funk, 1991, Lau and Heldman, 2009). The main insight from this research is that the role of self-interest (defined as short-term, personal material benefit) for citizens’ political choices is situational. The operating mechanisms are stake of choice and clarity of choice. When stakes are low and choices
The setting of the studies
NIMBYism is a general phenomenon which can be studied in all country contexts. However, as the core issue is the degree to which individuals are willing to accept nuisances for the benefits of the collective, NIMBYism can be predicted to be weaker in countries in which solidarity is a strong norm.2 The empirical studies reported below are set in Gothenburg, Sweden, the
Results: the observational study
To study citizens’ willingness to differentiate between facility types in a real-world context, the paper relies on a quantitative study of all planned public facility sitings in the city of Gothenburg during a ten year period. This type of large-N comparison across a wide range of facility types is rare within the siting literature.
For this research, a coder searched the archive of the local building committee in Gothenburg for all government applications for building permits submitted during
Results: the experimental study
The experiment addresses two questions: whether individuals who are informed about siting plans are so sensitive to nuisances that they fail to differentiate between facility types; and whether individuals adjust motivations for resistance to appear public minded. The experiment focuses on participants’ spontaneous responses when they first learn about a proposed facility siting. People may well become more willing to protest upon receiving further information about the issue at hand, and about
Conclusion
NIMBYism – resistance towards facility sitings for selfish reasons – is a potential obstacle for democratic governments seeking informed consent from affected individuals for siting decisions. Previous facility research finds only weak and inconsistent support for NIMBYism. With reference to theories on the role of self-interest for political choices, this paper has asked whether NIMBYism nevertheless is a relevant real-world phenomenon. The answer is in the affirmative.
The paper has explored
Acknowledgments
The research was supported by a grant from Swedish Research Council Formas (#2006-1193). I would like to thank Martin Johansson for excellent research assistance, and Marcia Grimes, Mikael Gilljam, Anders Larsson, Shaun Bowler, members of the IBF research seminar at Uppsala University, panel members at APSA, Midwest, and NOPSA, and four anonymous reviewers for valuable suggestions and comments.
References (54)
Undesirable facilities and property values: a summary of empirical studies
Ecol. Econ.
(1998)- et al.
Effective siting of waste treatment facilities
J. Environ. Manage.
(2002) - et al.
The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes
Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
(1991) - et al.
Incorporating annoyance in airport environmental policy: noise, societal response and community participation
J. Transp. Geogr.
(2011) The socio-spatial stigmatization of homelessness and HIV/Aids: toward an explanation of the NIMBY syndrome
Soc. Sci. Med.
(1997)NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies
Energy Polit.
(2007)Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts – the role of place-identity in risk perception
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2004)Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support
Renew. Energy
(2000)Planning of renewable schemes: deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation
Energy Policy
(2007)National-level planning in democratic countries: a comparative perspective
Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment
Annu. Rev. Sociol.
Beyond benevolence – solidarity and welfare state transition in Sweden
Int. J. Soc. Welfare
What are the new perspectives on siting controversy?
J. Risk Res.
Cellular Phones, Public Fears and a Culture of Precaution
Using the language of NIMBY: a topic for research, not an activity for researchers
Local Environ.
Locating children’s group homes: the politics of neighbourhood participation
Plann., Pract. Res.
When self-interest matters
Polit. Psychol.
Resistance to a residential AIDS home: an empirical test of NIMBY
J. Homosex.
Attitude strength and vested interests
The rebound of private zoning: property rights and local governance in urban land use
Environ. Plann.
Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy
Wind Energy
Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place protective action
J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
The market and the forum: three varieties of political theory
Why are there NIMBYs?
Land Econ.
NIMBYs and LULUs: stalking the syndromes
J. Soc. Issues
Framing processes, cognitive liberation, and NIMBY protest in the U.S. chemical-weapons disposal conflict
Sociol. Inquiry
Cited by (47)
Exploring public risk perception and its impact on the acceptance of basic oxygen furnace slags used in artificial reefs
2023, Ocean and Coastal ManagementUnpacking the black box: An investigation of online crisis communication patterns among stakeholders in the NIMBY conflict
2023, CitiesCitation Excerpt :Social media has transformed traditional crisis communication patterns (Wang & Lin, 2020). Online social media with diversified information can powerfully spread NIMBYism, which refers to public opposition to the siting of facilities in their own neighborhoods for self-interested reasons, instigating drastic social reactions (Esaiasson, 2014; Shan, Duan, Ji, Zhang, & Li, 2021). Diverse stakeholders can share NIMBY-related messages and express their perspectives almost anywhere (Morshed & Tanvir, 2021).
Accepting and resisting densification: The importance of project-related factors and the contextualizing role of neighbourhoods
2022, Landscape and Urban PlanningCitation Excerpt :In contrast, examples of negative spillover effects include the loss of open space, the loss of views, changes in neighbourhood character, increased local traffic, increased pollution and overcrowding. In addition, when densification involves affordable housing, residents may express their concerns, although not always openly, about the influx of lower-income residents, crime, noise and decreasing property values (Esaiasson, 2014). We expect residents to prefer densification projects that create positive effects and to dislike those that may be accompanied by negative effects.
The influence of the public's prior knowledge on their acceptance of risk control method for contaminated sites: A case study in China
2022, Alexandria Engineering JournalCitation Excerpt :A survey of American adult residents has a similar result [26]. In the area of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) facilities, the residents nearby have been found more sensitive when they know more about the authority’s plan for them [27]. Some studies on nuclear energy also suggest that the public may pay more attention to the risks of nuclear energy when they have relevant knowledge [28].
Aging in the downtown corridor: Mapping the neighborhood experiences of Seattle's unhoused adults over age 50
2022, Journal of Aging Studies