References

• AKIM. (2014). מדד ההכללה השני של אנשים עם מוגבלות שכלית בחברה הישראלית [The second inclusionary index for people with intellectual disabilities in Israeli society]. Tel Aviv, IL: AKIM.
   Google Scholar
• Arens, D. (1993). What do the neighbors think now? Community residences on Long Island, New York. Community Mental Health Journal, 29, 235–245. doi:10.1007/BF00778809
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, S., & Bennett, D. (2013). Zoned Out: “NIMBYism”, addiction services and municipal governance in British Columbia. International Journal of Drug Policy, 24, e61–e65. dio:10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.04.001
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borinstein, A. (1992). Public attitudes toward persons with mental illness. Health Affairs, 11, 186–196. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.11.3.186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burningham, K. (2000). Using the language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environment, 5, 55–67. doi:10.1080/135498300113264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, T., & Crewe, K. (2006). Locating children’s group homes: The politics of neighbourhood participation. Planning, Practice & Research, 21, 323–335. doi:10.1080/02697450601090815
   Google Scholar
• Choshen, M., & Korach, M. (2015). The 2015 statistical yearbook. Jerusalem, IL: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Colon, I., & Marston, B. (1999). Resistance to a residential AIDS home: An empirical test of NIMBY. Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 135–145. doi:10.1300/J082v37n03_08
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly, B., & Merriam, D. (2015). Planning and zoning for group homes: Local government obligations and liability under the Fair Housing Amendments Act. The Urban Lawyer, 47, 225–273. Retrieved from http://home.heinonline.org/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan, S. (2003). NIMBY syndrome and public consultation policy: The implications of a discourse analysis of local responses to the establishment of a community mental health facility. Health and Social Care in the Community, 11, 379–386. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2524.2003.00439.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, B. (1997). State giveth and the court taketh away: Preserving the municipality’s ability to zone for group homes under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. The University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 59, 193–232. Retrieved from http://home.heinonline.org/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58, 288–300. doi:10.1080/01944369208975808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dear, M., Wilton, R., Gaber, S., & Takahashi, L. (1997). Seeing people differently: The sociospatial construction of disability. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 15, 455–480. doi:10.1068/d150455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dear, M., & Wolch, J. (1987). Landscapes of despair: From deinstitutionalization to homelessness. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dear, M., Wolch, J., & Wilton, R. (1994). The service hub concept in human services planning. Progress in Planning, 42, 173–271. doi:10.1016/0305-9006(94)90009-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVerteuil, G. (2006). The local state and homeless shelters: Beyond revanchism? Cities, 23, 109–120. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2005.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVerteuil, G. (2011). Evidence of gentrification-induced displacement among social services in London and Los Angeles. Urban Studies, 48, 1563–1580. doi:10.1177/0042098010379277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVerteuil, G. (2012). Resisting gentrification-induced displacement: Advantages and disadvantages to ‘staying put’ among non-profit social services in London and Los Angeles. Area, 44, 208–216. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01061.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVerteuil, G. (2013). Where has NIMBY gone in urban social geography? Social and Cultural Geography, 14, 599–603. doi:10.1080/14649365.2013.800224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVerteuil, G., May, J., & von Mahs, J. (2009). Complexity not collapse: Recasting the geographies of homelessness in a ‘punitive’ age. Progress in Human Geography, 33, 646–666. doi:10.1177/0309132508104995
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doron, I., & Davidi, A. (2006). Homes for the Aged and Residential Zoning. Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 20, 97–115. doi:10.1300/J081v20n01_06
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, G., Barry, J., & Robinson, C. (2007). Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50, 517–551. doi:10.1080/09640560701402075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esaiasson, P. (2014). NIMBYism – A re-examination of the phenomenon. Social Science Research, 48, 185–195. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, C. (2005). Sharing neighbourhoods order and disorder in homeless-domiciled encounters. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 1033–1054. doi:10.1177/0002764204274198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freudenburg, W., & Pastor, S. (1992). NIMBYs and LULUs: Stalking the syndromes. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 39–61. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01944.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaber, S. (1996). From NIMBY to fair share: The development of New York City’s municipal shelter siting policies, 1980–1990. Urban Geography, 17, 294–316. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.17.4.294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galster, G., Tatian, P., & Pettit, K. (2004). Supportive housing and neighborhood property value externalities. Land Economics, 80, 33–54. doi:10.2307/3147143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Georgiou, A. (1998). Nimby’s legacy-a challenge to local autonomy: Regulating the siting of group homes in New York. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 26, 209–245. Retrieved from http://home.heinonline.org/
   Google Scholar
• Gerdner, A., & Borell, K. (2003). Neighborhood reactions toward facilities for residential care: A Swedish survey study. Journal of Community Practice, 11, 59–79. doi:10.1300/J125v11n04_04
   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
• Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research. (2016). Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• Kanter, A. (1993). Home of one’s own: The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and housing discrimination against people with mental disabilities. American University Law Review, 43, 925–994. Retrieved from http://home.heinonline.org/
   Google Scholar
• Karsten, N. (2012). Explaining and justifying authoritative decisions: The case of controversial facilities for the homeless in Rotterdam. Local Government Studies, 38, 143–160. doi:10.1080/03003930.2011.636036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, M., Weil, F., & Shihadeh, E. (2007). The FEMA trailer parks: Negative perceptions and the social structure of avoidance. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 741–766. doi:10.1080/02732170701534242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leyser, Y., & Romi, S. (2008). Religion and attitudes of college preservice teachers toward students with disabilities: Implications for higher education. Higher Education, 55, 703–717. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9084-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lifshitz, H., & Glaubman, R. (2002). Religious and secular students’ sense of self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusion of pupils with intellectual disability and other types of needs. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46, 405–418. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.2002.00424.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Link, B., & Cullen, F. (1986). Contact with the mentally ill and perceptions of how dangerous they are. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 289–302. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org10.2307/2136945
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, D. (2003). “Place-Framing” as place-making: Constituting a neighborhood for organizing and activism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93, 730–750. doi:10.1111/1467-8306.9303011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, D. (2013). Up against the law: Legal structuring of political opportunities in neighborhood opposition to group home siting in Massachusetts. Urban Geography, 34, 523–540. doi:10.1080/02723638.2013.790640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, D., & Pierce, J. (2013). Reconceptualizing resistance: Residuals of the state and democratic radical pluralism. Antipode, 45, 61–79. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.00980.x
   Web of Science ®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
• Piat, M. (2000). The NIMBY phenomenon: Community residents’ concerns about housing for deinstitutionalized people. Health and Social Work, 25, 127–138. doi:10.1093/hsw/25.2.127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce, J., & Martin, D. (2016). The law is not enough: Seeking the theoretical frontier of urban justice via legal tools. Urban Studies, 54, 456–465. doi:10.1177/0042098016636574
   Google Scholar
• Pierce, J., Martin, D., Scherr, A., & Greiner, A. (2012). Urban politics and mental health: An agenda for health geographic research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102, 1084–1092. doi:10.1080/00045608.2012.671128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisgat Ze’ev Neighbourhood Council. (2009a). פרוטוקול ישיבה בנושא ריכוז הוסטלים [Protocol of meeting on the concentration of group-homes]. Jerusalem: Pisgat Ze’ev Neighbourhood Council (7.9.2009).
   Google Scholar
• Pisgat Ze’ev Neighbourhood Council. (2009b). סיכום פגישה מיום 11.8.2009 טיפול בהוסטלים פסגת זאב [Summary of meeting from 8.11.2009 on managing group-homes in Pisgat Ze’ev]. Jerusalem: Pisgat Ze’ev Neighbourhood Council (8.11.2009).
   Google Scholar
• Pisgat Ze’ev Neighbourhood Council. (2012). סיכום פגישה בנושא ריכוז הוסטלים בפרוייקט “בנה ביתך” – פסגת זאב מרכז [Summary of meeting on the concentration of group-homes in Pisgat Ze’ev Center]. Jerusalem: Pisgat Ze’ev Neighbourhood Council (8.7.2012).
   Google Scholar
• Popper, F. (1983). LULUs: Locally unwanted land uses. Resources, 73, 2–4.
   Google Scholar
• Roher, J. (2016). Zoning out discrimination: Working towards housing equality in Ontario. Journal of Law and Social Policy, 25, 26–52. Retrieved from http://home.heinonline.org/
   Google Scholar
• Ruming, K., Houston, D., & Amati, M. (2012). Multiple suburban publics: Rethinking community opposition to consolidation in Sydney. Geographical Research, 50, 421–435. doi:10.1111/j.1745-5871.2012.00751.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santiago, A., Galster, G., & Pettit, K. (2003). Neighbourhood crime and scattered-site public housing. Urban Studies, 40, 2147–2163. doi:10.1080/0042098032000123222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salsich, P. (1986). Group homes, shelters and congregate housing: Deinstitutionalization policies and the NIMBY syndrome. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 21, 413–434. Retrieved from http://home.heinonline.org/
   Google Scholar
• Scally, C. (2013). The nuances of NIMBY: Context and perceptions of affordable rental housing development. Urban Affairs Review, 49, 718–747. doi:10.1177/1078087412469341
   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, 255–266. doi:10.1177/0885412206295845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmelkin, A. (2014). Making space for a spectrum of community residences: Building sustainable and inclusive communities through New York’s Padavan Law. Vermont Law Review, 39, 1025–1055. Retrieved from http://home.heinonline.org/
   Google Scholar
• Shlay, A., & Rosen, G. (2015). Jerusalem: The spatial politics of a divided metropolis. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Takahashi, L. (1997a). Information and attitudes toward mental health care facilities: Implications for addressing the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17, 119–130. doi:10.1177/0739456X9701700203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takahashi, L. (1997b). Representation, attitudes, and behavior: Analyzing the spatial dimensions of community response to mental disability. Environment and Planning A, 29, 501–524. doi:10.1068/a290501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takahashi, L. (1997c). When does “race” matter? Exploring variation in attitudes toward controversial facilities. Urban Geography, 18, 451–459. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.18.5.451
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takahashi, L., & Dear, M. (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
• Takahashi, L., & Gaber, S. (1998). Controversial facility siting in the urban environment resident and planner perceptions in the United States. Environment and Behavior, 30, 184–215. doi:10.1177/0013916598302004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, S., Dear, M., & Hall, G. (1979). Attitudes toward the mentally ill and reactions to mental health facilities. Social Science and Medicine Part D, 13, 281–290. doi:10.1016/0160-8002(79)90051-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, B., & Knox, D. (2002). “Not in My Back Yard”: The situational and personality determinants of oppositional behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2554–2574. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02756.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tighe, J. (2012). How race and class stereotyping shapes attitudes toward affordable housing. Housing Studies, 27, 962–983. doi:10.1080/02673037.2012.725831
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. (1997). Access delayed, access denied: Local opposition to housing and service for homeless people across the United States. Washington, DC: National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.
   Google Scholar
• Wilton, R. (2000). Grounding hierarchies of acceptance: The social construction of disability in NIMBY conflicts. Urban Geography, 21, 586–608. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.21.7.586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolch, J. (1996). Community-based human service delivery. Housing Policy Debate, 7, 649–671. doi:10.1080/10511482.1996.9521237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolsink, M. (2006). Invalid theory impedes our understanding: A critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 85–91. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00191.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yogev, O., Yogev, T., & Man, Y. (2012). ועדת הבדיקה לבחינת אמות מידה למיקומן של מסגרות רווחה לדיור חוץ ביתי בקהילה [The committee for evaluating criteria for siting welfare facilities for out of home living in the community]. Jerusalem: The Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services.
   Google Scholar
• Zippay, A. (2007). Psychiatric residences: Notification, NIMBY, and neighborhood relations. Psychiatric Services, 58, 109–113. Retrieved from http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/10.1176/ps.2007.58.1.109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar