Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research

Journal of Planning Literature

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 255-266

  Schively, Carissa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Facility siting; LULU; NIMBY; Participation; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

LAND USE PLANNING; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PERCEPTION; PLANNING PRACTICE; RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 33846483207     PISSN: 08854122     EISSN: 15526593     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0885412206295845     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Arnold, Craig Anthony. 2000. Land use regulation and environmental justice. Environmental Law Reporter 30 (6): 10395-10433.
2. Bacot, Hunter, Terry Bowen, and Michael R. Fitzgerald. 1994. Managing the solid waste crisis: Exploring the link between citizen attitudes, policy incentives, and siting landfills. Policy Studies Journal 22 (2):229-244.
3. Basolo, Victoria, and Dorian Hastings. 2003. Obstacles to regional housing solutions: A comparison of four metropolitan areas. Journal of Urban Affairs 25 (4): 449-472.
4. Baumeister, Roy F., and Leonard S. Newman. 1994. Self-regulation and the cognitive inference and decision processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20 (1): 3 - 19.
5. Boone, Christopher G., and Ali Modarres. 1999. Creating a toxic neighborhood in Los Angeles County: A historical examination of environmental inequity. Urban Affairs Review 35 (2): 163-187.
6. Brion, Denis J. 1991. Essential industry and the NIMBY phenomenon. New York: Quorum.
7. Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Anne R. Carroll. 1991. Fighting the not-in-my-backyard syndrome in Minneapolis. Journal of Planning Education and Research 11 (1): 66-74.
8. Busenberg, George J. 1999. Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy. Policy Sciences 32 (1): 1-11.
9. Clingermayer, James C. 1994. Electoral representation, zoning politics, and the exclusion of group homes. Political Research Quarterly 47 (4): 969-984.
10. Clingermayer, James C.. 1996. Quasi-judicial decision making and exclusionary zoning. Urban Affairs Review 31 (4): 544-553.
11. Clingermayer, James C.. 2004. Heresthetics and happenstance: Intentional and unintentional exclusionary impacts of the zoning decision-making process. Urban Studies 41 (2): 377-388.
12. Covello, Vincent T., and Jeryl Mumpower. 1985. Risk analysis and risk management: An historical perspective. Risk Analysis 5 (2): 103-120.
13. Cowan, Sue. 2003. NIMBY syndrome and public consultant policy: The implications of a discourse analysis of local responses to the establishment of a community mental health facility. Health and Social Care in the Community 11 (5): 379-386.
14. Dear, Michael. 1992. Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (3): 288 - 301.
15. Deng, F. Frederic. 2003. The rebound of private zoning: Property rights and local governance in urban land use. Environment and Planning A 35 (1): 133-149.
16. Drew, Christina H., Timothy L. Nyerges, and Thomas M. Leschine. 2004. Promoting transparency of long-term environmental decisions: The Hanford decision mapping system pilot project. Risk Analysis 24 (6): 1641-1664.
17. Easterling, Doug, and Howard Kunreuther. 1995. The dilemma of siting a high-level nuclear waste repository. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
18. Farber, Stephen. 1998. Undesirable facilities and property values: A summary of empirical studies. Ecological Economics 24 (1): 1-14.
19. Fischel, William A. 2001. Why are there NIMBYs? Land Economics 77 (1): 144-152.
20. Fleischmann, Arnold. 1989. Politics, administration, and local land-use regulation: Analyzing zoning as a policy process. Public Administration Review 49 (4): 337-344.
21. Fort, Rodney, Robert Rosenman, and William Budd. 1993. Perception costs and NIMBY. Journal of Environmental Management 38 (3): 185-200.
22. Freudenberg, William R., and Susan K. Pastor. 1992. NIMBYS and LULUs: Stalking the syndromes. Journal of Social Issues 48 (4): 39-61.
23. Frey, Bruno S., and Felix Oberholzer-Gee. 1996. Fair siting procedures: An empirical analysis of their importance and characteristics. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15 (3): 353-376.
24. Frey, Bruno S., Felix Oberholzer-Gee, and Reiner Eichenberger. 1996. The old lady visits your backyard: A tale of morals and markets. Journal of Political Economy 104 (6): 1297-1313.
25. Futrell, Robert. 2003. Framing processes, cognitive liberation, and NIMBY protest in the U.S. chemical-weapons disposal conflict. Sociological Inquiry 73 (3): 359-386.
26. Goodno, James B. 2005. Housing's 800-pound gorilla. Planning 71 (4): 26-31.
27. Groothuis, Peter A., and Gail Miller. 1994. Locating hazardous waste facilities: The influence of NIMBY beliefs. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 53 (3): 335-347.
28. Heiman, Michael. 1990. From "not in my backyard!" to "not in anybody's backyard!" Journal of the American Planning Association 56 (3): 359-363.
29. Heiman, Michael. 1997. Science by the people: Grassroots environmental monitoring and the debate over scientific expertise. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16 (4): 291-299.
30. Hunold, Christian, and Iris Marion Young. 1998. Justice, democracy, and hazardous siting. Political Studies 46 (1): 82-96.
31. Hunter, Susan, and Kevin M. Leyden. 1995. Beyond NIMBY: Explaining opposition to hazardous waste facilities. Policy Studies Journal 23 (4): 601-620.
32. Ibitayo, O. O., and K. D. Pijawka. 1999. Reversing NIMBY: An assessment of state strategies for siting hazardous-waste facilities. Environment and Planning C 17 (4): 379-389.
33. Illsley, Barbara M. 2002. Good neighbour agreements: The first step to environmental justice? Local Environment 7 (1): 69-79.
34. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2): 263-291.
35. Kasperson, Roger E., Dominic Golding, and Seth Tuler. 1992. Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues 48 (4): 161-187.
36. Kearney, Richard C., and Ande A. Smith. 1994. The low-level radioactive waste siting process in Connecticut: Anatomy of a failure. Policy Studies Journal 22 (4): 617-631.
37. Kirlin, John J. 1991. Creating the conditions for devising reasonable and regional solutions. In Confronting regional challenges: Approaches to LULUs, growth, and other vexing governance problems, edited by J. F. DiMento and L. Graymer, 121-132. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
38. Kraft, Michael E. 1991-1992. Public and state responses to high-level nuclear waste disposal: Learning from policy failure. Policy Studies Review 10 (4): 152-166.
39. Kunreuther, Howard, Douglas Easterling, William Desvousges, and Paul Slovic. 1990. Public attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis 10 (4): 469-484.
40. Kunreuther, Howard, and Ruth Patrick. 1991. Managing the risks of hazardous waste. Environment 33 (3): 12-15, 31-36.
41. Lake, Robert W. 1987. Introduction. In Resolving locational conflict, edited by R. W. Lake, xv-xxviii. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban and Policy Research.
42. Lake, Robert W. 1993. Rethinking NIMBY. Journal of the American Planning Association 59 (1): 87-93.
43. Lewis, Sanford, and Diane Henkels. 1996. Good neighbor agreements: A tool for environmental and social justice. Social Justice 23 (4): 134-151.
44. Lober, Douglas J. 1995a. Resolving the siting impasse: Modeling social and environmental locational criteria with a geographic information system. Journal of the American Planning Association 61 (4): 482-496.
45. Lober, Douglas J. 1995b. Why protest? Public behavioral and attitudinal response to siting a waste disposal facility. Policy Studies Journal 23 (3): 499-512.
46. Lober, Douglas J., and Donald Philip Green. 1994. NIMBY or NIABY: A logit model of opposition to solid-waste-disposal facility siting. Journal of Environmental Management 49 (1): 33-50.
47. Maantay, Juliana. 2002. Zoning law, health, and environmental justice: What's the connection? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (4): 572-593.
48. Mansfield, Carol, George Van Houtven, and Joel Huber. 2001. The efficiency of political mechanisms for siting nuisance facilities: Are opponents more likely to participate than supporters? Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 22 (2): 141-161.
49. McAvoy, Gregory E. 1998. Partisan probing and democratic decisionmaking: Rethinking the NIMBY syndrome. Policy Studies Journal 26 (2): 274-293.
50. McAvoy, Gregory E. 1999. Controlling technocracy: Citizen rationality and the NIMBY syndrome. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
51. McClelland, Gary H., William D. Schulze, and Brian Hurd. 1990. The effect of risk beliefs on property values: A case study of a hazardous waste site. Risk Analysis 10 (4): 485-497.
52. McKenzie, Evan. 1994. Privatopia: Homeowner associations and the rise of residential private government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53. Minehart, Deborah, and Zvika Neeman. 2002. Effective siting of waste treatment facilities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43 (2): 303-324.
54. O'Hare, Michael, Lawrence Bacow, and Debra Sanderson. 1983. Facility siting and public opposition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
55. Peirce, Neil. 2005. Privatized neighborhoods: The future we want? Nation's Cities Weekly 28 (8): 2-3.
56. Pendall, Rolf. 1999. Opposition to housing: NIMBY and beyond. Urban Affairs Review 35 (1): 112-136.
57. Peters, Richard G., Vincent T. Covello, and David B. McCallum. 1997. The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis 17 (1): 43-54.
58. Piller, Charles. 1991. The fail-safe society: Community defiance and the end of American technological optimism. New York: Basic Books.
59. Plotkin, Sidney. 1987. Property, policy and politics: Towards a theory of urban land-use conflict. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 11 (3): 382-403.
60. Plough, Alonzo, and Sheldon Krimsky. 1987. The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context. Science, Technology, and Human Values 12 (3/4): 4-10.
61. Popper, Frank J. 1985. The environmentalist and the LULU. Environment 27 (1): 7-11, 37-40.
62. Portney, Kent E. 1991. Siting hazardous waste treatment facilities: Incentives to participate and the efficiency of siting decisions. New York: Auburn.
63. Quah, E., and K. C. Tan. 1998. The siting problem of NIMBY facilities: Cost-benefit analysis and auction mechanisms. Environment and Planning C 16 (3): 255-264.
64. Rabe, Barry G. 1994. Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous waste siting in Canada and the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
65. Richman, Barak D. 2001-2002. Mandating negotiations to solve the NIMBY problem: A creative regulatory response. Journal of Environmental Law 20 (233): 223-236.
66. Sandman, Peter M. 1986. Getting to maybe: Some communications aspects of siting hazardous waste facilities. Seton Hall Legislative Journal 9 (2): 442-465.
67. Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein. 1982. Why study risk perception? Risk Analysis 2 (2): 83-93.
68. Slovic, Paul, Mark Layman, Nancy Krauss, James Flynn, James Chalmers, and Gail Gesell. 1991. Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis 11 (4): 683-696.
69. Smith, Eric R. A. N., and Marisela Marquez. 2000. The other side of the NIMBY syndrome. Society and Natural Resources 13 (3): 273-280.
70. Snary, Christopher. 2004. Understanding risk: The planning officers' perspective. Urban Studies 41 (1): 33-55.
71. Takahashi, Lois M. 1998. Homelessness, AIDS, and stigmatization: The NIMBY syndrome in the United States at the end of the twentieth century. Oxford: Clarendon.
72. Takahashi, Lois M., and Michael J. Dear. 1997. The changing dynamics of community opposition to human service facilities. Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (1): 79-93.
73. Takahashi, Lois M., and Sharon Lord Gaber. 1998. Controversial facility siting in the urban environment: Resident and planner perceptions in the United States. Environment and Behavior 30 (2): 184-215.
74. Tesh, Sylvia N. 1999. Citizen experts in environmental risk. Policy Sciences 32 (1): 39-58.
75. Walsh, Edward, Rex Warland, and D. Clayton Smith. 1997. Don't burn it here: Grassroots challenges to trash incinerators. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
76. Wolsink, Maarten. 1994. Entanglement of interests and motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on facility siting. Urban Studies 31 (6): 851-866.
77. Zeiss, Chris, and James Atwater. 1989. Waste facility impacts on residential property values. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 115 (2): 64-80.