NIMBYism as Place-Protective Action: The Politics of Housebuilding

Abstract

Using British data, I argue that NIMBYism primarily arises from a desire to preserve the character of one’s area and existing ways of life, and to protect communities against rapid changes that could result from new housing developments. A wide range of characteristics that lead to these ‘place-protective’ motives, including conservativism and long-term residence in an area, strongly predict opposition to housebuilding. A conjoint experiment demonstrates that NIMBYism can be reduced by designing new developments in ways that preserve and protect existing communities, such as providing new public services alongside them. Doing so increases the coalition for housebuilding by raising the support of groups most opposed to housing, without lowering the support of others. This paper adds a comparative focus to the politics of NIMBYism, showing that outside the USA – characterised by an entrenched divide between homeowners and non-homeowners, fueled by price anxiety -- NIMBYism can take a different form.

Planning instruments enhance the acceptance of urban densification

“…Whereas such individuals accept densification in theory, they oppose it at the local level, as they wish to preserve the existing ways of life and the character of their area ( 31 ). In line with existing literature, we therefore expect to find that respondents’ acceptance of housing densification decreases with closer proximity to their home ( 13 – 17 ).…”

“…Since the majority of cities lack free central building plots, densification mainly occurs through the redevelopment and transformation of older and comparably cheaper housing stock that comes with the danger of displacing lower-income renters ( 24 ). Similarly, new housing developments can be interpreted as a sign of gentrification, and renters may be afraid to be priced out ( 16 , 17 ). In summary, these studies have focused on unpacking individual-level factors driving opposition and reveal that self-interest seems to be an important factor informing individual attitudes toward urban densification.…”

“…While there is scant opposition to the abstract planning paradigm of densification, opposition to housing developments on the ground is widespread, especially from residents who are in close proximity to such projects ( 13 – 18 ). This discrepancy between general and local support for densification ( 13 , 16 ) can be explained by the long-term and large-scale unfolding of positive sustainability effects stemming from densification projects versus the immediate changes that occur at the neighborhood level.…”

“…Previous studies have thus focused on better understanding how individual-level factors (e.g., age, political ideology, or homeownership) ( 13 – 16 , 20 ) and project-related characteristics of the new housing development (e.g., usage types or the type of project investors) ( 13 , 22 , 23 ) can explain public acceptance and opposition to such projects. Moreover, some research investigates how accompanying urban planning instruments—such as providing a fixed amount of affordable housing units for low-income residents—might trigger or mitigate perceived negative effects of housing densification projects ( 14 , 16 , 17 ). However, a systematic analysis of the influence of planning instruments on public acceptance of densification has, to the best of our knowledge, not yet been carried out.…”

Why Parties Displace Their Voters: Gentrification, Coalitional Change, and the Demise of Public Housing

“… 10 Resistance to large-scale development (and hence politician reticence) in part stems from worries about strains on public services; see Bowie (2010, 208) on insufficient infrastructure monitoring related to residential development in London and O’Grady (2020) on local opposition to home building.…”