DOCSLIB.ORG

Airport Noise Nimbyism: an Empirical Investigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Airport Noise Nimbyism: an Empirical Investigation MERCATUS ON POLICY Airport Noise NIMBYism: An Empirical Investigation Eli Dourado and Raymond Russell very growing city encounters criticism from residents who will settle for little October 2016 else but the status quo. Local governments intent on building or expanding infrastruc- ture must contend with citizens opposed Eto the inconvenience and nuisance of increased construction, more neighbors, and heavier traffic. This hostility to expansion, called “NIMBYism” (not in my backyard), can be a barrier to denser development, lower housing prices, and ultimately economic growth. But NIMBYism extends beyond opposition to urban development, and its consequences can hinder eco- nomic growth in nonobvious ways. In this policy brief, we explore a particular category of NIMBY complaints surrounding airport noise. Airport noise can be a nui- sance, but it is also necessary for economic activity in the modern world. We evaluate noise complaint data Eli Dourado is a research fellow at the Mercatus from a selection of US airports to quantify opposition Center at George Mason University and director of to airport noise. We find that the source of airport noise its Technology Policy Program. He has researched complaints is highly concentrated in a few dedicated and written on a wide array of technology topics, complainers. including drones, cryptocurrency, Internet security, and the economics of technology. His popular writing Airport noise policy must strike a reasonable balance has appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street between noise abatement and the economic benefits Journal, the Washington Post, Foreign Policy, Vox, associated with noisy airplane takeoffs and landings. Slate, Ars Technica, and Wired, among other outlets. However, because the majority of noise complaints Dourado is a PhD candidate in economics at George come from a small number of loud objectors, there is Mason University and received his BA in economics and a danger that this balance has been tilted too far in the political science from Furman University. direction of noise abatement.1 We hope that increasing Raymond Russell was a 2016 Google Policy Fellow at awareness of the lopsided distribution of noise com- the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. His plaints can help promote noise standards that strike an research interests include data science and the eco- appropriate balance and facilitate the advancement of nomics of technological change. He is an undergrad- faster and cheaper commercial flight. uate at the University of Washington studying physics and economics. MERCATUS CENTER AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY MANY COMPLAINTS COME FROM A SMALL TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF AIRPORT NOISE COMPLAINTS Time NUMBER OF CALLERS Total number Airport period Evidence of concentration of complaints Most airports in the United States allow the public to covered submit noise complaints through dedicated hotlines and Ronald Reagan 2 individuals at 1 online portals. Nearly all of the country’s largest airports Washington residence in NW DC 2015 8,760 publish data on the calls they receive, but this informa- National accounted for 6,852 com- Airport (DCA) plaints (78 percent).4 tion varies in thoroughness. Some airport authorities, such as the Port of Seattle, allow public access to each 1 individual in Strasburg, complainant’s name, their personal information, and CO, 30 miles from the air- port, accounted for 3,555 Denver a summary of the call. Others, like Boston’s Massport, complaints (73 percent). International 2015 4,870 only publish the number of complaints received and the 4 callers accounted for Airport (DEN) number of unique callers. But even this summary infor- 4,653 complaints (96 per- mation is useful; data from Massport on Boston Logan cent). A total of 42 house- holds complained.5 International Airport still illustrate the distribution and 1 individual in Poolesville, Washington origin of complaints. MD, 13 miles away from Dulles 2015 1,223 the airport, accounted International Generally, a very small number of people account for 1,024 complaints (84 Airport (IAD) for a disproportionately high share of the total num- percent).6 ber of noise complaints. In 2015, for example, 6,852 Las Vegas 1 individual accounted for McCarran 450 calls in September of the 8,760 complaints submitted to Ronald Reagan 2015 3,963 International 2015 (98 percent of Washington National Airport originated from one Airport (LAS) monthly total).7 residence in the affluent Foxhall neighborhood of 1 individual in Monterey 2 northwest Washington, DC. The residents of that par- Park, CA, accounted for ticular house called Reagan National to express irrita- 489 complaints during Los Angeles June 2015 (50 percent of tion about aircraft noise an average of almost 19 times International 2015 8,862 monthly total). The top 3 Airport (LAX) per day during 2015. Other major airports report similar callers accounted for 88 trends. In Seattle’s detailed call-by-call lists, one indi- percent of June com- vidual complains so frequently that her grievances are plaints.8 not transcribed in full but simply tallied at the end of the Portland 5 individuals accounted month. While airport employees provide summaries of International 2015 688 for 420 complaints (61 Airport (PDX) percent).9 other calls, the description of this particular individu- al’s calls is, “Same complaint over and over. Records a/c 1,338 households in total 3 flying over.” lodged complaints. While data is not available by Phoenix Relative to other large US airports, San Francisco household, the airport Sky Harbor 2015 24,247 received 3,814 complaints International Airport receives an enormous number of International from 13 households in zip Airport (PHX) complaints each year. In 2015, it registered 890,376 com- code 85258, for an average plaints. Predictably, we find that these complaints were of 293 calls per house- not lodged by a correspondingly large number of people; hold.10 rather, hundreds of thousands of calls came from just 9,561 callers. Even if calls were uniformly distributed 3 individuals accounted among these callers, each would still have had to place Seattle-Tacoma for 648 complaints (64 93 calls. But as with other US airports, San Francisco’s International 2014 1,006 percent). Top caller Airport (SEA) accounted for 42 percent complaint records show a high degree of concentration of total.11 among a very small subset of total callers. In October 2015, 53 Portola Valley, CA, residents placed 25,259 calls 53 Portola Valley, CA, to the airport—nearly 477 per person. Similarly, three individuals accounted for San Francisco 25,259 complaints during residents of Daly City placed 1,034 calls in December International 2015 890,376 the month of October 2015, and six Woodside callers complained 2,432 times Airport (SFO) 2015, for an average of in November. 477 calls per person in that month.12 2 MERCATUS ON POLICY FIGURE 1. CONCENTRATION OF NOISE COMPLAINTS AT LAS VEGAS MCCARRAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (LAS), 2015 calls from one individual calls from all other sources 100% 6 11 10 11 14 2 11 15 24 27 30 80% 44 60% 94 98 89 90 89 86 89 85 40% 76 73 70 56 20% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Source: McCarran International Airport, “Noise Complaint Reports.” Table 1 summarizes the concentration of noise com- is potentially driving policy. While we do not have data plaints registered at several large US airports. Figure 1 on grievances lodged directly to the FAA or to members shows the monthly concentration of noise complaints of Congress, it is probable that those airport noise com- over the course of 2015 at McCarran International plaints follow a similar pattern. Airport in Las Vegas. AIRPORT NOISE AND FUEL EFFICIENCY SMALL NUMBER OF CALLERS HAVE DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT Airport noise is entangled with fuel efficiency in at least two ways. First, the FAA’s NextGen airspace moderniza- Airport noise complaint data paints a startling picture. tion program will enable aircraft to travel along denser A handful of individuals are responsible for most of the and more direct routes, particularly on approach for noise complaints at most airports we examine. Some landing. NextGen will remove much of the need for cir- of these individuals do not appear to live particularly cling above the airport in holding patterns, and it allows close to the airports to which they are complaining. For aircraft to descend more gradually, saving valuable fuel. example, one individual in Strasburg, CO, 30 miles from However, denser and more gradual approaches also cor- Denver International Airport, complained 3,555 times respond to more noise on the ground under approach in 2015, an average of 9.7 times per day. One individual in paths to the airport. Airports undergoing NextGen La Selva Beach, CA, about 55 miles from San Francisco implementation have experienced a significant uptick International Airport, complained about airport noise in noise complaints.14 186 times during October 2015. Second, airport noise standards are very important for There are worrisome signs that this small, frustrated fuel efficiency gains on potential new supersonic air- minority of citizens is affecting aviation policy. In recent craft. Aircraft are more fuel efficient when they can take decades, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) off at full throttle, and these gains in efficiency are of has imposed progressively more stringent noise stan- particular importance when aircraft are climbing to the dards on aircraft operating in US airspace.13 While noise high cruise speeds and altitudes of supersonic planes. abatement is desirable, it can have significant costs— Yet in the FAA’s most recent policy statement on super- particularly on the fuel efficiency of aircraft—resulting sonics, the agency said it “would propose that any future not only in higher carbon emissions but also in higher supersonic airplane produce no greater noise impact on ticket prices.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NIMBY to YIMBY: How to Win Votes by Building More Homes Part One: the Questions Less Asked
    From NIMBY to YIMBY: How to win votes by building more homes Part one: the questions less asked Nicholas Boys Smith Kieran Toms © CREATEstreets in 2018 Printed by Copyprint UK Ltd. Contents Summary .......................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1 – is Britain worse than others at building enough homes? ....................................... 8 Chapter 2 – How British planning is so odd and why it matters ............................................. 30 Chapter 3 – Why are people NIMBYs? ................................................................................ 59 Chapter 4 – A case study: Creating Streets in Cornwall with consent ...................................... 77 Chapter 5 – where and how to break the circle: a menu of options ....................................... 104 Conclusion – building homes, winning votes...................................................................... 119 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 120 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 121 The authors .................................................................................................................... 126 ‘Any citizen, who tries to defend their home and their neighbourhood from plans which would destroy the view, pollute the environment, overload the transport network, upset
    [Show full text]
  • Nimby Report
    “Why Not In Our Community?” Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing An Update to the Report of the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Visit PD&R’s Web Site www.huduser.org to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD USER, PD&R’s Research Information Service, include listservs; special interest, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources); access to public use databases; hotline 1-800-245-2691 for help accessing the information you need. “Why Not In Our Community?” Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing An Update to the Report of the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Foreword he mission of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is to increase T homeownership, promote community development, and expand access to decent affordable housing without discrimination. Increasingly, we find that many of the constraints to providing affordable housing and to developing communities lie within the communities and their regions in the form of regulatory barriers. Regulatory barriers were exposed as a problem 13 years ago, when the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing submitted its report, “Not In My Back Yard”: Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing. Despite some areas of progress, the Advisory Commission’s finding that exclusionary, discriminatory, or unnecessary regulations reduce the availability of affordable housing remains true today. At the direction of President Bush, I am therefore pleased to publish this update to the 1991 Advisory Commission’s report.
    [Show full text]
  • The Limitations of the NIMBY Concept for Understanding Public Engagement with Renewable Energy Technologies: a Literature Review
    The limitations of the NIMBY concept for understanding public engagement with renewable energy technologies: a literature review Kate Burningham, Julie Barnett & Diana Thrush University of Surrey August 2006 Working Paper 1.3 A working paper of the research project “Beyond Nimbyism: a multidisciplinary investigation of public engagement with renewable energy technologies” funded by the ESRC under the ‘Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy’ Programme On-Line Working Papers – Copyright This online paper may be cited or briefly quoted in line with the usual academic conventions. You may also download it for your own personal use. This paper must not be published elsewhere (e.g. to mailing lists, bulletin boards etc.) without the author's explicit permission. Please note that if you copy this paper you must include this copyright note and not use the paper for commercial purposes or gain in any way. You should observe the conventions of academic citation in a version of the following form: Burningham, K ., Barnett, J. & Thrush,D. (2006) The limitations of the NIMBY concept for understanding public engagement with renewable energy technologies: a literature review, published by the School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK, and available at the following web address: http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/beyond_nimbyism/ CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS 3. INDIVIDUAL EXPLANATIONS FOR OPPOSITION TO SITING PROPOSALS 3.1 Ignorance and selfishness 3.2 Beyond ignorance and selfishness 4. SOCIAL/STRUCTURAL EXPLANATIONS FOR LOCAL OPPOSITION 4.1 Features of decision making processes 4.2 The contextual generation of NIMBY responses 4.3 Land use disputes as symptomatic of deeper social conflicts 5.
    [Show full text]
  • The Environmental Impacts of Sprawl: Emergent Themes from the Past Decade of Planning Research
    Sustainability 2013, 5, 3302-3327; doi:10.3390/su5083302 OPEN ACCESS sustainability ISSN 2071-1050 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Review The Environmental Impacts of Sprawl: Emergent Themes from the Past Decade of Planning Research Bev Wilson * and Arnab Chakraborty Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 111 Temple Buell Hall, MC-619, 611 Lorado Taft Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-217-244-1761; Fax: +1-217-244-1717. Received: 6 February 2013; in revised form: 11 July 2013 / Accepted: 15 July 2013 / Published: 5 August 2013 Abstract: This article reviews studies published in English language planning journals since 2001 that focus on the environmental impacts of sprawl. We organise our analysis of the reviewed literature around: (1) the conceptualisation or measurement of sprawl; (2) a comparison of research methods employed and findings with respect to four categories of environmental impacts—air, energy, land, and water; and (3) an exploration of emergent and cross-cutting themes. We hypothesise that the trend towards breaking down silos observable in other areas of planning scholarship is also reflected in the recent sprawl literature and structure our review to test this proposition. International in scope, our work demonstrates how focusing on outcomes can facilitate balanced comparisons across geographic contexts with varying rates of urbanisation and affluence. We find that the sprawl research published in planning journals over the past decade frequently engages with broader themes of resilience and justice, increasingly considers multiple environmental outcomes, and suggests a convergence in the way sprawl is studied that transcends national boundaries as well as the developing-developed country dichotomy.
    [Show full text]
  • September 2004.Pmd
    FIFTY YEARS LATER BROWNBROWN VV.. BOARDBOARD OFOF EDUCAEDUCATIONTION ANDAND HOUSINGHOUSING OPPORTUNITOPPORTUNITYY The NIMBY Report September 2004 This report is made possible through the generosity of: The NIMBY Report September 2004 The NIMBY Report September 2004 FIFTFIFTYY YEARSYEARS LLAATERTER BrownBrown vv.. BoardBoard ofof EducationEducation andand HousingHousing OpporOpportunittunityy September 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS About this Issue . 3 Some Lessons from Brown for the Fair Housing Movement Philip Tegeler . 4 Fair Housing Enforcement and the Legacy of Brown John P. Relman . 9 Desegregating Yonkers: An Interview with Judge Leonard B. Sand Conducted by Jonathan Feldman . 14 Inclusionary Zoning: Opening up Opportunity-Based Housing David Rusk . 17 Housing Choice Voucher Discrimination: Another Obstacle to Achieving the Promise of Brown Reed Colfax . 20 The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program and Civil Rights Law: Updating the Fight for Residential Integration Kenneth H. Zimmerman . 24 The Case for Joining Forces: Affordable Housing and Quality Education Scott Goldstein and Robin Snyderman . 32 Copyright (c) 2004 National Low Income Housing Coalition The NIMBY Report September 2004 [this page intentionally left blank] The NIMBY Report September 2004 About This Issue This issue of The NIMBY Report joins many other An article on inclusionary zoning by David Rusk, an publications, symposia and events commemorating the urban policy consultant, opens with a description of the fiftieth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in passage, 30 years ago, of the Moderate Priced Dwelling Brown v. Board of Education. The anniversary Unit ordinance in Montgomery County, Maryland. This provides the opportunity to reexamine the nation’s law, which requires low income affordability for a progress in racial integration and equality, not just in percentage of new housing developed in a community, schools but in communities as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • A NIMBY Toolkit
    InOvercoming Our Community Resistance Backyard to Reentry Housing (A NIMBY Toolkit) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Summary and Table of Contents 2 Introductory Letter 3 Section 1: The Reentry Crisis 7 Section II: A Case Study 15 Section III: What Does the Fortune Academy Story Tell Us? 16 Section IV: Best Practices for Gaining Community Support - Applying Lessons Learned to Your Organization 19 Section V: Conclusion 20 Section VI: Endnotes SUMMARY With over 725,000 men and women being released from prison each year, the need for housing assistance for the formerly incarcerated population is immense. Indeed, in addition to linking homelessness and incarceration, research has formerly incarcerated population at a disadvantage when trying to access safe and stable housing. For some, returning homeidentified to their a significant family is notrelationship an option between as family homelessness members may and be re-offending. unwilling or unable Unfortunately, to accommodate a number them. of barriers Accessing place the housing in the private market also presents a challenge given high prices and landlords’ exercising their personal discretion to discriminate against people with criminal histories. Finally, public housing policies – both at the federal and local level – deny access to individuals with certain criminal convictions. overwhelming need with few resources. This toolkit highlights the experience of The Fortune Society in its development of a housingCommunity-based project in West service Harlem. providers Through around Fortune’s the country experience, working organizations in the reentry can gleanfield have strategies begun to to help respond them to overcome this one of the greatest challenges associated with providing housing to formerly incarcerated men and women.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Tennessee 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development
    State of Tennessee 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan For Housing and Community Development Lead agency: Tennessee Housing Development Agency May 2005 Table of Contents Part I. General........................................................................................................1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................1 Recent Changes and Impact on the State’s Plan......................................................2 Coordination and Leadership...................................................................................2 Institutional Structure ..............................................................................................3 Part II. Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment...............................................4 Market Conditions and Trends ...............................................................................4 Housing Needs Projections: 2005 and 2010..........................................................25 Homeless Needs and Other Special Needs Populations........................................31 Priority Non-Housing Community Development Needs.......................................38 Part III. Housing and Community Development Strategic Plan........................41 Design of the Strategic Plan and Priorities............................................................41 Housing and Community Development Goals and Initiatives .............................41 Performance Measures...........................................................................................43
    [Show full text]
  • Overcoming Community Opposition to Homelessness Sheltering Projects Under the National Homelessness Initiative September 2003
    National Homelessness Initiative nationale Initiative pour les sans-abri Overcoming Community Opposition to Homelessness Sheltering Projects under the National Homelessness Initiative September 2003 Jeannie Wynne-Edwards The views expressed in this document, published by the National Secretariat on Homelessness, are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Secretariat on Homelessness or the Government of Canada. For copies of this paper please visit: http://www.homelessness.gc.ca/publications/nimby/workingpapernimby_e.pdf Or contact: Jeannie Wynne-Edwards National Secretariat on Homelessness Place du Portage-Phase II, 7th Floor 165 rue Hotel de Ville Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0J2 Phone: (819) 956-8529 Fax : (819) 994-4211 Copyright © Jeannie Wynne-Edwards, 2003 Paper ISBN: 0-662-67905-9 Catalogue No.: RH4-24/2004 Internet / PDF ISBN: 0-662-35901-1 Catalogue No.: RH4-24/2004E-PDF Abstract Through the analysis of 14 case studies, across 7 cities, covering 5 provinces, this paper examines NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) opposition, lessons learned and best practices collected in overcoming this type of reaction to the development of sheltering facilities, i.e., emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, and affordable housing, for homeless men and women and their families or for those at risk of homelessness. Through a better understanding of fears and issues underlying NIMBY opposition and through the application of conflict theory, this paper advances recommendations to assist community social service providers, city planners and government officials to overcome NIMBY responses when planning, developing and implementing sheltering projects under the National Homelessness Initiative. Introduction ‘We don’t want you people here’ reads a headline in the Toronto Star newspaper on August 31, 2002.1 This quote from a resident expresses opposition over the prospect of a homelessness shelter moving into his neighbourhood, Iroquois Ridge in Oakville, Ontario.
    [Show full text]
  • Achieving Our Country: Geographic Desegregation and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
    ACHIEVING OUR COUNTRY: GEOGRAPHIC DESEGREGATION AND THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT * J. WILLIAM CALLISON I. INTRODUCTION In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls challenged the view that “utilitarianism,” which he described as a structure that “would re- quire a lesser life prospect[] for some simply for the sake of greater advantage for others,” was the correct way to construct a just social order.1 Instead, Rawls established a construct based on a “veil of ig- * Partner, Faegre & Benson LLP, Denver Colorado; A.B., Oberlin College, 1977; J.D., University of Colorado School of Law, 1982; LL.M., Yale University, 2000. I dedicate this article to Owen M. Fiss. I thank Sheryll Cashin, Nestor Da- vidson, and Robert Ellickson for their wisdom and insights. I also thank Laurie Jaeckel and Sera Chong for their research assistance; and my wife, Maureen A. Sullivan, both for pushing me to get this article written and for her editorial assis- tance. 1 JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE 13 (rev. ed. 1999) (1971) [hereinafter RAWLS, THEORY]. Rawls stated that his aim was to work out a theory of justice that was an alternative to utilitarian thought. Id. at 20. John Stuart Mill defined utilitarianism as: The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in propor- tion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. JOHN STUART MILL, UTILITARIANISM, LIBERTY, AND REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT 6 (Ernest Rhys, ed., J.M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Costs of Nimbyism: Evidence from Renewable Energy Projects
    Energy Institute WP 311 The Economic Costs of NIMBYism: Evidence from Renewable Energy Projects Stephen Jarvis January 2021 Energy Institute at Haas working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to review by any editorial board. The Energy Institute acknowledges the generous support it has received from the organizations and individuals listed at https://haas.berkeley.edu/energy-institute/about/funders/. © 2021 by Stephen Jarvis. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit is given to the source. The Economic Costs of NIMBYism Evidence from Renewable Energy Projects Stephen Jarvis* January 2021 (Click here for the latest version) Abstract Large infrastructure projects can create widespread societal benefits, but also frequently prompt strong local opposition. This is sometimes pejoratively labeled NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) behavior. In this paper I estimate the economic costs of NIMBYism and its role in local planning decisions. To do this I use detailed data on all major renewable energy projects proposed in the United Kingdom spanning three decades. First, I use hedonic methods to show that wind projects impose significant negative local costs, while solar projects do not. I then show that planning officials are particularly responsive to the local costs imposed within their jurisdictions, but fail to account for variation in these costs across jurisdictions. The result has been a systematic misallocation of investment, which may have increased the cost of deploying wind power by 10-29%. Much of this can be attributed to the fragmented and localized nature of the planning process.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Potential NIMBY and YIMBY Effects in General Land Use
    Applied Geography 99 (2018) 1–11 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Applied Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog Identifying potential NIMBY and YIMBY effects in general land use planning and zoning T ∗ Greg Browna,b, , Hunter Glanzc a Natural Resources Management & Environmental Sciences, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA b University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia c Department of Mathematics, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The terms NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) and YIMBY (Yes-In-My-Back-Yard) describe negative and positive Zoning attitudes toward proposed development projects respectively. These attitudes are posited to be influenced by General plan geographic (spatial) discounting wherein the distance from domicile may contribute to local opposition or Participatory mapping support. In contrast to specific development projects, the potential influence of NIMBY/YIMBY in a general land PPGIS use planning process has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, we analyzed empirical data from a VGI 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 dis- tance 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 re- sidential 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining NIMBY Opposition to Wind Power
    Explaining NIMBY Opposition to Wind Power Eric R. A. N. Smith Department of Political Science University of California, Santa Barbara [email protected] Holly Klick Department of Political Science University of California, Santa Barbara [email protected] Abstract Public opinion polls show that the American public strongly supports the development of wind power as an alternative to fossil fuels. Yet when specific wind farm proposals are made, they often meet local opposition, which is usually described as Nimby ("not-in-my- backyard") opposition. We examine public toward wind power in depth using an internet survey. Instead of only asking about support for wind power, we investigate how people respond to advantages and disadvantages of wind power. Our data show that questions asked in national surveys about proposals such as wind farms exaggerate the support for wind farms because the answers are typically superficial, top-of-the-head responses. When people think about the advantages and disadvantages of wind farms, as they would if a wind farm were proposed for their community, their support diminishes. Therefore, to explain NIMBY effects, researchers must look at both local and national opinion. Revised version of a paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts, August 29, 2007 We would like to thank the Institute of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research, U.C. Santa Barbara, for funding to support this research 1 Introduction According to national opinion surveys, Americans overwhelmingly support government investment in renewable energy resources in general, and in wind power in particular. Despite this general popularity, proposals for specific wind power farms often face resistance from individual citizens, political leaders, grassroots organizations, national interest groups, and in some cases, even environmental groups.
    [Show full text]