For those interested in land use planning/zoning and the NIMBY effect (Not in my backyard) or YIMBY effect (Yes in my backyard), below is a link to a new publication that uses participatory mapping data to examine the evidence for the NIMBY/YIMBY effect in a general land use planning process. NIMBY is typically associated with a specific development proposal (e.g., waste facility, low income housing, industrial site, high density housing), but the phenomena has not been examined with respect to general planning/zoning for various land uses such as residential, commercial, tourism, open space, recreation, etc. The findings are not surprising, but sometimes it is important to provide the empirical evidence for what otherwise seems obvious. The article also reinforces the point that if one wants to influence land use in a community, responding to a specific development proposal is probably too late. Ones needs to question or challenge the zoning designation that is created in the general land use planning process.
Link to article here: http://www.landscapevalues.org/publications/nimby_final.pdf
Identifying potential NIMBY and YIMBY eﬀects in general land use planning and zoning
The terms NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) and YIMBY (Yes-In-My-Back-Yard) describe negative and positive attitudes toward proposed development projects respectively. These attitudes are posited to be inﬂuenced by geographic (spatial) discounting wherein the distance from domicile may contribute to local opposition or support. In contrast to speciﬁc development projects, the potential inﬂuence of NIMBY/YIMBY in a general land use planning process has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, we analyzed empirical data from a public participation GIS (PPGIS) process implemented for a general plan revision to examine the evidence for geographic discounting for a range of land uses using mapped preferences by community residents. Using distance analysis, we found signiﬁcant evidence for geographic discounting by land use type with variable discount rates inﬂuenced by location of residence and the spatial conﬁguration of land use in the planning area re-presented by zoning. The ﬁndings were consistent with NIMBY/YIMBY expectations with the exception of residential development where the results were more ambiguous. Residents want future land uses with amenities (open space, recreation, and trails) closer to domicile and more intensive, developed land uses (commercial, tourism, events, parking) further away. The ﬁndings have potentially broad implications because general/comprehensive planning—a requirement of most local governments in the U.S.—is operationalized through land use zones that appear subject to spatial discounting and the manifestation of potential NIMBY/YIMBY eﬀects in the planning process. Future research should examine other planning contexts such as large urban areas with a greater diversity of land uses.
Greg Brown (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Professor and Department Head
Natural Resource Management & Environmental Sciences
California Polytechnic State University