Conflict over facility siting has become increasingly common across facility types and neighborhoods throughout the United States. This article posits that the conflict about facility siting stems from the distinct roles played by the state (with a central role played by planners), the shadow state (consisting of voluntary and nonprofit organizations), and interest groups (primarily community residents). This article explores the similarities and differences in perception toward controversial facilities for two of these three actors: the state (represented by planning directors) and interest groups (in this case, community residents). To investigate the similarities and differences between resident and planner perceptions, this article analyzes the first national survey of resident attitudes, which included both environmental and human service facilities, and a recent national survey of planning directors. Implications of this analysis for understanding facility siting, community opposition, and planning responses are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ajzen, I. , & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Baldassare, M. (1995, November/December). The public opinion paradox. Sierra, 28-31.
3.
Baldassare, M. , Hassol, J., Hoffman, W., & Kanarek, A. (1996). What roles for regional government?: A survey of city planning directors in California. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(1), 17-29.
4.
Baldassare, M. , & Katz, C. (1992). The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor of environmental practices. Environment and Behavior, 24(5), 602-616.
5.
Blau, J. (1992). The visible poor: Homelessness in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Chiotti, Q. P. , & Joseph, A. E. (1995). Casey House-Interpreting the location of a Toronto AIDS hospice. Social Science and Medicine, 41(1), 131-140.
7.
Cox, K. (1989). The politics of turf and the question of class. In J. Wolch & M. Dear (Eds.), The power of geography (pp. 61-90). Boston: Unwin Hyman.
8.
Crowfoot, J. E. , & Wondolleck, J. M. (1990). Environmental disputes: Community involvement in conflict resolution. Washington, DC: Island Press.
9.
Currie, R. F. , Trute, B., Tefft, B., & Segall, A. (1989). Maybe on my street: The politics of community placement of the mentally disabled. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 25, 298-321.
10.
Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(3), 288-300.
11.
Dear, M. , & Gleeson, B. (1991). Community attitudes toward the homeless. Urban Geography, 12, 155-176.
12.
Dear, M. , & Taylor, S. M. (1982). Not on our street: Community attitudes to mental health care. London: Pion.
13.
Donovan, T. , Neiman, M., & Brumbaugh, S. (1994). Two dimensions of local growth strategies. In M. Baldassare (Ed.), Suburban communities: Change and policy responses (pp. 153-172). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
14.
Edelstein, M. R. (1988). Contaminated communities: The social and psychological impacts of residential toxic waste. Boulder, CO: Westview.
15.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
Gaber, S. L. (1996). From NIMBY to fair share: The development of New York City's municipal shelter siting policies, 1980-1990. Urban Geography, 17(4), 294-316.
17.
Gelberg, L. , Linn, L. S., & Leake, B. D. (1988). Mental health, alcohol and drug use, and criminal history among homeless adults. American Journal of Psychology, 145, 191-196.
18.
Glickfield, M. , & Levine, N. (1992). Regional growth, local reaction. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
19.
Greenberg, M. , Schneider, D., & Martell, J. (1994). Hazardous waste sites, stress, and neighborhood quality in USA. Environmentalist, 14(2), 93-105.
20.
Hall, P. (1989). The turbulent eighth decade: Challenges to American city planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55(3), 275-282.
21.
Halstead, J. M. , Luloff, A. E., & Myers, S. D. (1993). An examination of the NIMBY syndrome: Why not in my backyard?Journal of the Community Development Society, 24(1), 88-102.
22.
Human Resources Administration (HRA) . (1990, August). Monthly Shelter Report. New York: Author.
23.
Lake, R. (1993). Rethinking NIMBYJournal of the American Planning Association, 59(1), 87-93.
24.
Lake, R. W. , & Disch, L. (1992). Structural constraints and pluralist contradictions in hazardous waste regulation. Environment and Planning A, 24, 663-681.
25.
Lipietz, A. (1987). Mirages and miracles: The crisis in global Fordism. London: Verso.
26.
Meyer, W. B. (1995). NIMBY then and now: Land-use conflict in Worcester, Massachusetts, 1876-1900. Professional Geographer, 47(3), 298-308.
27.
Meyer, W. B. , & Brown, M. (1989). Locational conflict in a nineteenth-century city. Political Geography Quarterly, 8(2), 107-122.
28.
Olshansky, R. (1993). The California Environmental Quality Act and local planning. Planning and Public Policy, 16, 1-4.
29.
Rabe, B. (1994). Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous waste siting in Canada and the United States. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
30.
Rose, J. B. (1993). A critical assessment of New York City's fair share criteria. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(1), 97-100.
31.
Smith, C. J. , & Hanham, R. Q. (1981). Any place but here! Mental health facilities as noxious neighbors. Professional Geographer, 33, 326-334.
32.
Smolowe, J. (1993, December 6). Giving the cold shoulder. Time, 142, 28-31.
33.
Takahashi, L. M. , & Dear, M. J. (1997). The changing dynamics of community opposition to human service facilities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 79-93.
34.
Weisberg, B. (1993). One city's approach to NIMBY: How New York City developed a faire share siting process. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(1), 93-97.
