Reassessing NIMBY: The demographics, politics, and geography of opposition to high-density residential infill

References

• Abrams, C. (1966). The housing problem and the Negro. Daedalus, 95, 64–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2013). Commuting in America: The national report on commuting patterns and trends. Retrieved from http://traveltrends.transportation.org/Documents/CA10-4.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Aurand, A. (2010). Density, housing types and mixed land use: Smart tools for affordable housing. Urban Studies, 47, 1015–1036. doi:10.1177/0042098009353076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babcock, R. (1966). The zoning game: Municipal practices and policies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campoli, J., & MacLean, A. S. (2007). Visualizing density. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(3), 288–300. doi:10.1080/01944369208975808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devine-Wright, P. (2012). Explaining “NIMBY” objections to a power line: The role of personal, place attachment and project-related factors. Environment and Behavior, 45, 761–781. doi:10.1177/0013916512440435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Smart growth and economic success: The business case. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/business_case.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Farr, D. (2008). Sustainable urbanism: Urban design with nature. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Farris, J. T. (2001). The barriers to using urban infill development to achieve smart growth. Housing Policy Debate, 12, 1–30. doi:10.1080/10511482.2001.9521395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27, 861–874. doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischel, W. A. (2001). The homevoter hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischel, W. A. (2004). An economic history of zoning and a cure for its exclusionary effects. Urban Studies, 41, 317–340. doi:10.1080/0042098032000165271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freudenburg, W. R., & Pastor, S. K. (1992). NIMBYs and LULUs: Stalking the syndromes. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 39–61. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01944.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freund, D. M. (2007). Colored property: State policy and White racial politics in suburban America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frumkin, H. (2002). Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Reports, 117, 201–217. doi:10.1016/S0033-3549(04)50155-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, R., & Burgess, G. (2003). Analysis of Colorado growth conflict frames. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray. & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts(pp. 387–405). Washington, DC: Island Press. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2005.00144.x
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, T. A. (2005). NIMBY and the civic good. City and Community, 4, 381–401. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2005.00144.x
   Google Scholar
• Glaeser, E. L., & Gottlieb, J. D. (2006). Urban resurgence and the consumer city. Urban Studies, 43, 1275–1299. doi:10.1080/00420980600775683
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goetz, E. G. (2004). The big tent of growth management: Smart growth as a movement. In D. N. Bengston (Ed.), Policies for managing urban growth and landscape change: A key to conservation in the 21st century (pp. 45–51). St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Division.
   Google Scholar
• Hubbard, P. (2005). Accommodating otherness: Anti-asylum centre protest and the maintenance of White privilege. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30, 52–65. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2005.00151.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inhaber, H. (1992). Of LULUs, NIMBYs, and NIMTOOs. Public Interest, 107, 52–63.
   Google Scholar
• Institute for Quality Communities. (2013). Bike/walk/transit mode share 2012. Retrieved from http://iqc.ou.edu/2013/10/22/the-latest-bike-walk-and-transit-usage-data/
   Google Scholar
• Jenks, M. (2000). The acceptability of urban intensification. In K. Williams, E. Burton, & M. Jenks (Eds.), Achieving sustainable urban form (pp. 242–250). London, England: E & FN Spon.
   Google Scholar
• Kipp, D. L., Dwyer, J. P., & Rosenthal, L. A. (1995). Our town: Race, housing, and the soul of suburbia. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laidley, T. (2015). Measuring sprawl: A new index, recent trends, and future research. Urban Affairs Review, 52, 66–97. doi:10.1177/1078087414568812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lake, R. W. (1993). Planners’ alchemy transforming NIMBY to YIMBY: Rethinking NIMBY. Journal of the American Plannign Association, 59, 87–93. doi:10.1080/01944369308975847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lens, M., & Monkkonen, P. (2015). Do strict land use regulations make metropolitan areas more segregated by income? Journal of the American Planning Association, 54, 6–21.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, J., & Frank, L. D. (2007). Transportation and land-use preferences and residents’ neighborhood choices: The sufficiency of compact development in the Atlanta region. Transportation, 34, 255–274. doi:10.1007/s11116-006-9104-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, P. G., & Baldassare, M. (2010). The complexity of public attitudes toward compact development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, 219–237. doi:10.1080/01944361003646471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2014). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lopez, R., & Hynes, H. P. (2003). Sprawl in the 1990s: Measurement, distribution, and trends. Urban Affairs Review, 38, 325–355. doi:10.1177/1078087402238805
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund, H. (2006). Reasons for living in a transit-oriented development, and associated transit use. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72, 357–366. doi:10.1080/01944360608976757
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCabe, B. J. (2013). Are homeowners better citizens? Homeownership and community participation in the United States. Social Forces, 91, 929–954. doi:10.1093/sf/sos185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGurty, E. M. (1997). NIMBY to civil rights: The origins of the environmental justice movement. Environmental History, 2, 301–323. doi:10.2307/3985253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3, 93–116. doi:10.1080/13574809808724418
   Google Scholar
• Morrow-Jones, H. A., Irwin, E. G., & Roe, B. (2004). Consumer preference for neotraditional neighborhood characteristics. Housing Policy Debate, 15, 171–202. doi:10.1080/10511482.2004.9521498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Family Opinion. (2002). Consumers survey conducted by NAR and NAHB. Chicago, IL: National Association of Realtors.
   Google Scholar
• Pendall, R. (1999). Opposition to housing: NIMBY and beyond. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 112–136. doi:10.1177/10780879922184310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perin, C. (1977). Everything in its place: Social order and land use in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Plotkin, S. (1987). Keep out: The struggle for land use control. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves, R. V. (2017). Dream hoarders: How the American upper middle class is leaving everyone else in the dust, why that is a problem, and what to do about it. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• S. Burlington County NAACP v. Twp. of Mount Laurel, 67 NJ 151 (1975).
   Google Scholar
• Scally, C. P., & Tighe, J. R. (2015). Democracy in action?: NIMBY as impediment to equitable affordable housing siting. Housing Studies, 30, 749–769. doi:10.1080/02673037.2015.1013093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schively, C. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(3), 255–266. doi:10.1177/0885412206295845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, Y., & Knapp, G. (2004). Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(6), 63–68. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2004.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takahashi, L. M. (1997). The socio-spatial stigmatization of homelessness and HIV/AIDS: Toward an explanation of the NIMBY syndrome. Social Science and Medicine, 45, 903–914. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00432-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takahashi, L. M., & Dear, M. J. (1997). The changing dynamics of community opposition to human service facilities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 79–93. doi:10.1080/01944369708975725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. D. (2002). Rethinking traffic congestion. Access, 21, 8–16.
   Google Scholar
• Twyman, J. (2008). Getting it right: YouGov and online survey research in Britain. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18(4), 343–354. doi:10.1080/17457280802305169
   Google Scholar
• U.S. v. City of Black Jack, MO, 508 F.2d 1179 (1974).
   Google Scholar
• Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Moore, K. (2005). The results of making a city more compact: Neighbours’ interpretation of urban infill. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32, 715–733. doi:10.1068/b31157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wexler, M. N. (1996). A sociological framing of the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) syndrome. International Review of Modern Sociology, 26, 91–110.
   Google Scholar
• Whittemore, A. H. (2013). Finding sustainability in conservative contexts: Topics for conversation between American conservative elites, planners, and the conservative base. Urban Studies, 50, 2460–2477. doi:10.1177/0042098012474698
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittemore, A. H. (2018). The role of racial bias in exclusionary zoning: The case of Durham, North Carolina, 1945–2014. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(4), 826–847 doi:10.1177/0308518X18755144
   Google Scholar
• Williams, K., Burton, E., & Jenks, M. (2000). Achieving sustainable urban form. London, England: E & FN Spon.
   Google Scholar
• Wolsink, M. (2006). Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institue of British Geographers, 31, 85–91. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00191.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar