Prague Economic Papers 2017, 26(2):240-252 | DOI: 10.18267/j.pep.607

Location of Unwanted Facilities in Prague: NIMBY in Public Administration Hierarchy

Martin Dlouhý1, Tomáš Hudeček2
1 Faculty of Informatics and Statistics, University of Economics in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic (dlouhy@vse.cz)
2 Faculty of Science, Department of Applied Geoinformatics and Cartography, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic (hudecek@dr.com) and Czech Technical University in Prague, The Masaryk Institute of Advanced Studies, Prague, Czech Republic

The paper investigates how the problem of NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) related to the location of unwanted facilities is dealt in a hierarchically organized city. The conventional view of NIMBY is based on two premises: first, that locally unwanted facilities are essential to achieve an important societal benefit and realize the public good; second, that selfish opposition of local community prevents the realization of that societal good. The NIMBY effect is studied as a conflict between the City of Prague and its city districts. The official documents of the Prague City Council and of the Prague City Assembly were searched to find examples of decisions on the location of unwanted facilities. The documents search was concentrated on five selected facilities: municipal waste dumps, services for the homeless, services for drug users, regulation of gambling facilities, and the system of parking zones. In the documents, the authors identified five types of approaches to NIMBY that are called financial compensation, fair distribution, local autonomy, gradual problem shifting, and consultation/cooperation. It was observed that city districts, lower level of public administration, behave as guardians of local interests if they communicate with a higher level of public administration, a guardian of global interests. As local politicians depend on their local voters, it is not surprising that they prefer local interests to global ones. This naturally creates an internal policy conflict in the city that is divided into smaller units.

Keywords: NIMBY, LULUs, Prague, public administration, negative externality
JEL classification: H49, R53

Published: April 1, 2017  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Dlouhý, M., & Hudeček, T. (2017). Location of Unwanted Facilities in Prague: NIMBY in Public Administration Hierarchy. Prague Economic Papers, 26(2), 240-252. doi: 10.18267/j.pep.607
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. City of Prague (1995). Příprava zóny placeného stání v centrální části hlavního města Prahy (The Preparation of Parking Zones in the Centre of Prague). Prague: Prague City Council, 11 July 1995.
    2. City of Prague (2005). Koncepce dalšího rozvoje zón placeného stání v podmínkách hlavního města Prahy (The Concept of the Further Development of Parking Zones in Prague). Prague: Prague City Assembly, 31 March 2005.
    3. City of Prague (2012). Koncepce návrhů řešení problematiky bezdomovectví v Praze v letech 2013 - 2020 (The Concept of Proposals Addressing the Problem of Homelessness in Prague in the Years 2013 - 2020). Prague: Prague City Assembly, 18 December 2012.
    4. City of Prague (2013). K návrhu rozpočtu vlastního hlavního města Prahy na rok 2014, dotačních vztahů k městským částem na rok 2014 a rozpočtového výhledu do roku 2019 (On the Proposal of Budget of the City of Prague for the Year 2014, of the Subsidy Relations to City Districts of the City of Prague for the Year 2014, and Budget Outlook till 2019). Prague: Prague City Assembly, 12 December 2013.
    5. City of Prague (2013a). K návrhu na poskytnutí dotace městským částem hl. m. Prahy z finančních prostředků obdržených jako odvod z loterií dle ust. § 41i odst. 1 písm. b) zákona č. 202/1990 Sb., o loteriích a jiných podobných hrách v průběhu ledna až dubna 2013 (On the Proposal to Allocate Subsidies to City Districts of Prague from the Financial Resources Obtained as the Tax from Lotteries According to Law no. 202/1990 Coll. on Lotteries and Other Similar Games for the Period January to April 2013). Prague: Prague City Assembly, 20 June 2013.
    6. City of Prague (2013b). Obecně závazná vyhláška č. 20/2013, kterou se stanoví místa a čas, na kterých lze provozovat loterie a jiné podobné hry, a kterou se stanoví opatření k omezení jejich propagace (Decree No. 20/2013 on Determining the Places and Time for Operating Lotteries and Similar Games and on Determining Measures to Limit their Marketing). City of Prague, 20 September 2013.
    7. City of Prague (2014). K petici proti drogám, za přemístění služeb poskytujích substituční léčbu a poradenství pro drogově závislé (On the Petition against Drugs, for the Relocation of Services Providing Substitution Treatment and Counseling for Drug Addicts). Prague: Prague City Assembly, 24 April 2014.
    8. City of Prague (2014a). Protidrogová politika hlavního města Prahy 2014 - 2020 (Drug Policy in the City of Prague 2014 - 2020). Prague: Prague City Assembly, 27 March 2014.
    9. City of Prague (2014b). Akční plán protidrogové politiky hlavního města Prahy 2014 - 2016 (Action Plan of Drug Policy 2014 - 2016). Prague: Prague City Assembly, 11 September 2014.
    10. City of Prague (2014c). Výroční zpráva o realizaci protidrogové politiky hlavního města Prahy 2013 (Annual Report on the Implementation of Drug Policy of the City of Prague 2013). Prague: Prague City Assembly, 11 September 2014.
    11. City of Prague (2014d). Rozpracování principu spravedlivé distribuce nízkoprahových služeb na území hlavního města Prahy (Development of the Principle of Fair Distribution of Low-Threshold Services in the City of Prague). Prague: Prague City Assembly, 29 May 2014.
    12. City of Prague (2014e). Zásady pro zřizování zón placeného stání na území hl. m. Prahy dle nové Koncepce rozvoje zón placeného stání na území hlavního města Prahy (Rules for Establishing Parking Zones in Prague according to the New Concept of Parking Policy on the Territory of the Capital City of Prague). Prague: Prague City Council, 9 September 2014.
    13. City of Prague (2015). Rozpracování principu spravedlivé distribuce nízkoprahových služeb na území hlavního města Prahy (Development of the Principle of Fair Distribution of Low-Threshold Services in the City of Prague). Prague: Prague City Assembly, 26 November 2015.
    14. Davis, C. (1986). Public Involvement in Hazardous Waste Siting Decisions. Polity, 19(2), 296-304, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3234916 Go to original source...
    15. Hager, C., Haddad, M. A. (Eds) (2015). NIMBY is Beautiful: Cases of Local Activism and Environmental Innovation around the World. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. ISBN: 978-1-78238-601-8. Go to original source...
    16. Hall, R. H. (1981). Industrial Waste. The Globe and Mail, 5 January 1981, 6.
    17. Johnson, T. (2013). The Health Factor in Anti-Waste Incinerator Campaigns in Beijing and Quanzhou. The China Quarterly, 214, 356-375, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0305741013000660 Go to original source...
    18. Kraft, M. E., Clary, B. B. (1991). Citizens Participation and the NIMBY Syndrome: Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal. The Western Political Quarterly, 44(2), 299-238, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448780 Go to original source...
    19. Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D. (1996). The Role of Compensation in Siting Hazardous Facilities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(4), 601-622, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6688(199623)15:43.0.co;2-l Go to original source...
    20. Lake, R. W. (1993). Rethinking NIMBY. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(1), 87-93, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975847 Go to original source...
    21. Livezey, E. T. (1980). Hazardous Waste. The Christian Science Monitor, 6 November 1980. Available at: http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/1106/110653.html
    22. Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., Green, J. R. (1995). Microeconomic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0195073409.
    23. Mitchell, R. C., Carson, T. C. (1986). Property Rights, Protests, and the Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities. American Economic Review, 76(2), 285-290. Available at: http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~rcarson/papers/Siting.pdf
    24. Popper, F. J. (1992). The Great LULU Trading Game. Planning, 58(5), 15-17.
    25. 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, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975849 Go to original source...
    26. Samuelson, P. A., Nordhaus, W. D. (1995). Economics, 15. Ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
    27. Weisberg, B. (1993). One City's Approach to NIMBY: How New York City Developed a Fair Share Siting Process. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(1), 93-97, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975848 Go to original source...
    28. Wolsink, M. (2007). Wind Power Implementation: The Nature of Public Attitudes: Equity and Fairness Instead of Backyard Motives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(6), 1188-1207, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.005 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content