Not in My Backyard (NIMBY)

Not in my backyard is commonly referred to by the acronym NIMBY. The term refers to the phenomenon of public opposition to unwanted facilities including both public and private projects. NIMBY responses are often associated with facilities that have perceived negative health and environmental impacts, such as industrial facilities, incinerators, landfills, and power plants. Concerns about aesthetic or property value impacts may also motivate NIMBY responses associated with the above types of facilities. Other projects that offer public services and benefits to a portion of the population, including drug treatment centers, transit facilities, recreational trails, and prisons can also generate NIMBY responses. Housing, particularly affordable housing, halfway houses, and homeless shelters, can generate similar NIMBY responses based on concerns about safety, crime, traffic, and property value impacts. Those living nearest to a proposed facility are the most likely to exhibit NIMBY responses, but some facilities may generate a broader response as existing groups mobilize or new organized groups emerge in opposition.

NIMBY is often used interchangeably with a variety of other terms including locally unwanted land uses (LULUs), which refers to the facilities that generate public opposition. Other examples include not in my term of office (NIMTOO), not in anyone's backyard (NIABY), build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone (BANANA), and not on planet Earth (NOPE). Those exhibiting NIMBY responses might also receive the pejorative label of citizens against virtually everything (CAVEs).

Each of the terms noted above reflects a generally negative characterization of those who exhibit NIMBY responses. Opponents, or NIMBYs, may be seen as self-interested and not representative of the broader community. They may further be characterized as challenging industrialized or capitalist economies. The alternative characterization of the NIMBY phenomenon is that opponents exemplify democracy. Through opposition, the public is able to accomplish public debate and discourse that can lead to broader political and societal changes. Some see opposition as empowering to marginalized groups who may be left out of participatory processes. Others suggest that opponents improve decision-making processes by offering [Page 522]local knowledge and perspective on impacts. This information is added to expert analyses, which are often challenged by opponents who may see them as biased, inconsistent, or insufficient.

Relative to housing, research on the NIMBY phenomenon has focused largely on affordable housing. Studies have highlighted efforts by opposition groups in stalling or preventing the construction of affordable housing units in their communities. Concerns cited by opponents of affordable housing include reduced property values, design quality of project, increased traffic, impacts on neighborhood character, and introduction of undesirable people and activities. Studies of property value impacts have shown mixed outcomes relative to the effects of affordable housing on nearby properties. Overall, as highlighted by Mai Nguyen in her meta-analysis of property value impacts studies, findings suggest that property value impacts are small relative to other factors, that compatible design and quality management of the affordable housing are helpful in minimizing property value impacts, and that dispersed affordable housing outside of already disadvantaged areas reduces negative impacts. Efforts to plan for housing at a community and regional scale have been suggested as a way to proactively identify sites. Streamlining siting processes has also been suggested as a means to address the supply side of affordable housing. Using vouchers may avoid the siting challenges. Engagement around broader housing and poverty policies may reduce demand.

...