The Changing Dynamics of Community Opposition to Human Service Facilities

Abstract Community opposition is an increasingly common response to the siting of controversial human service facilities. This paper explores the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome by presenting an analysis of the first national survey of attitudes toward controversial human services conducted in the United States. The analysis focuses on the volatility and synergy of attitude change, the degree of regionalization of rejecting and accepting attitudes, the differences between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan responses, and the perceived exclusionary nature of suburban respondents. The results indicate that the dynamics of community opposition consist of client, community, and facility variations significantly influenced by regional context and the spatial location of respondents.

[1]  J. Baumohl,et al.  Neighborhood types and community reaction to the mentally ill: a paradox of intensity. , 1980, Journal of health and social behavior.

[2]  Christopher J. Smith,et al.  ANY PLACE BUT HERE! MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES AS NOXIOUS NEIGHBORS , 1981 .

[3]  P. J. Fischer.  Criminal activity among the homeless: a study of arrests in Baltimore. , 1988, Hospital & community psychiatry.

[4]  J. Tringo.  The Hierarchy of Preference Toward Disability Groups , 1970 .

[5]  Land Use Negotiation Reducing Conflict and Creating Wanted Land Uses , 1993 .

[6]  D. J. Pittman,et al.  Regional differences in alcohol consumption and drinkers' attitudes toward drinking. , 1993, The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse.

[7]  P. Breyer,et al.  Promoting community involvement in deinstitutionalization planning: the experience in one community. , 1982, Hospital & community psychiatry.

[8]  L. Graham,et al.  Social Class and Tactics: Neighborhood Opposition to Group Homes , 1990 .

[9]  E. Parker,et al.  The Quiet Evolution: Power, Planning, and Profits in New York State.@@@Keep Out: The Struggle for Land Use Control. , 1989 .

[10]  Mary Pardo.  Mexican American Women Grassroots Community Activists: "Mothers of East Los Angeles" , 1990 .

[11]  H. Berdiansky,et al.  Establishing a group home for the adult mentally retarded in North Carolina. , 1977, Mental retardation.

[12]  Michael Dear,et al.  Landscapes of Despair: From Deinstitutionalization to Homelessness , 1987 .

[13]  J. Wolch,et al.  Malign Neglect: Homelessness in an American City , 1993 .

[14]  A. Taylor,et al.  Community attitudes to mental illness in New Zealand twenty-two years on. , 1987, Social science & medicine.

[15]  D. W. Lewis,et al.  Public Beliefs About the Causes of Homelessness , 1990 .

[16]  J. E. Seley.  The politics of public-facility planning , 1983 .

[17]  Michal Heiman,et al.  From ‘Not in My Backyard!’ to ‘Not in Anybody's Backyard!’ , 1990 .

[18]  Shirley J. Fiske,et al.  Local Resistance to Community-Based Care Facilities , 1982 .

[19]  B. Gleeson,et al.  Community Attitudes Toward the Homeless. , 1991 .

[20]  Peter Hall,et al.  The Turbulent Eighth Decade: Challenges to American City Planning , 1989 .

[21]  T. Arcury,et al.  Regional Diversity in Environmental Attitudes, Knowledge, and Policy: The Kentucky River Authority , 1992 .

[22]  M. Dear,et al.  Attitudes toward the mentally ill and reactions to mental health facilities. , 1979, Social science & medicine. Medical geography.

[23]  L. Pulido.  Restructuring and the Contraction and Expansion of Environmental Rights in the United States , 1994 .

[24]  G. Clark,et al.  State apparatus : structures and language of legitimacy , 1984 .

[25]  R. Lake,et al.  Planners' Alchemy Transforming NIMBY to YIMBY: Rethinking NIMBY , 1993 .

[26]  R. Bullard,et al.  Ecological inequities and the new South: black communities under siege. , 1990, The Journal of ethnic studies.

[27]  D. E. Weber.  Neighborhood entry in group home development. , 1978, Child welfare.

[28]  Michael Dear,et al.  Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome , 1992 .