Not In My Backyard 'NIMBY'
NIMBY has become the symbol for neighborhoods that exclude certain people because they are homeless, poor, disabled, or because of their race or ethnicity. (NLIHC)
WHAT IS NIMBY?
NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) consists of organized resident, business, government, and/or community-based organization opposition to proposed or existing facilities or land uses. Most often, stated concerns center on these common themes: diminishing property values, increased traffic or congestion, rising crime rates, and impacts on health and well-being.
WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF NIMBY?
There are four basic types of sources that researchers have identified for NIMBY. Actual cases of NIMBY often stem, however, from combinations of these varying sources.
1. Attitudes/Perceptions (focuses on individuals and groups) Explanation for NIMBY: People have negative attitudes and perceptions toward groups or land use types, so they form negative perceptions of associated proposed facilities or land uses. When people form negative perceptions of proposed facilities or land uses, they may act to oppose those facilities or land uses when specific sites are proposed that are geographically close to their homes, businesses, schools, churches/temples, or other important social locations.
2. Political Economy (focuses on economies and development) Explanation for NIMBY: Production and economic growth inevitably create negative spillover effects (such as air/water pollution, traffic congestion, unemployment, lack of affordable housing). Consequently, opposition over the location of facilities or land uses addressing these issues (such as water treatment plants, freeway expansion, homeless shelters) is unavoidable.
3. Stigma (focuses on social norms) Explanation for NIMBY: Specific social groups are defined as undesirable, dangerous, or disturbing. To maintain social and physical distance from these social groups, residents, businesses, government agencies, and local organizations will oppose the siting of facilities or land uses serving these groups. Opposition to facility siting is seen as preventing the stigmatization of places; the assumption is that places hosting controversial facilities become linked to the stigma of groups.
4. Justice (focuses on processes and outcomes) Explanation for NIMBY: The benefits of controversial facilities/land uses are widespread (benefiting many neighborhoods, cities, counties, states), but the costs/burdens/potential dangers are localized in particular neighborhoods or municipalities. Concerns usually revolve around the issues of overconcentration (too many facilities or land use types compared to other neighborhoods or jurisdictions) and saturation (exceeding neighborhood/municipal capacity for hosting facilities or land use types).
WHAT STRATEGIES WOULD ADDRESS THESE SOURCES? The following strategy examples address each of the distinct sources of NIMBY outlined above.
If attitudes/perceptions comprise the source of NIMBY, then negative attitudes of opposing individuals and groups about the nature and potential impacts of proposed facilities or land uses must be addressed. Information dissemination and education through trusted conduits consequently constitute an appropriate strategy to address this source.
If political economy comprises the source of NIMBY, then a readjustment of capital interests is necessary. An appropriate strategy to address this source is more effectively aligning the impacts of controversial facility types/land uses (dealing with negative spillover effects) with economic growth (expansion of resources and capital investment).
If stigma comprises the source of NIMBY, then a readjustment of social norms defining stigma is necessary. Appropriate strategies include highlighting the similarities of stigmatized groups with mainstream society, and community participation (e.g., including members of stigmatized groups in public decision making).
If justice comprises the source of NIMBY, then neighborhoods, organizations, and/or government agencies have identified inequitable distributions of facilities/ land use types. An appropriate strategy for addressing this source consists of redistributing or distributing in more equitable ways proposed facilities/land use types to be more even across neighborhoods or jurisdictions (e.g., fair share strategies).
WHAT STRATEGIES HAVE BEEN USED TO ADDRESS NIMBY?
Varying strategies have been used by government agencies, social service organizations, and businesses to avoid, circumvent, or deal directly with NIMBY. The choice of strategy often assumes the attitudes/perceptions or justice explanations of the source of NIMBY.
Avoidance/Removal (facilities or land uses are not sited)
-Isolation (facilities or land uses are sited in unpopulated areas)
-Circumvention (no/limited discussion or disclosure of siting plans)
-Consensus or Dialogue
-Compensation (additional services such as health care, education; amenities such as parks; or public services such as improved infrastructure are provided for opposing groups in exchange for cooperative behavior)
-Cooperation (negotiation/mediation, coordination, or collaboration with opposing groups in siting decisions)
-Legislation or Mandate > Legislation (legislation or local ordinances used to (re)distribute facilities or land use)
-Preemption/Court Decisions (government or court decisions preempt local land use laws or siting decisions and mandate facility siting or land use in specific jurisdictions)
Seven Steps to Address NIMBY
Downloads from the National Law Center of Homelessness and Poverty
Access Delay, Access Denied
No Room in the Inn
