Systematic review highlights regional divergences in NIMBY research, indicating the need for adaptive governance in urbanization.
This study conducts a cross-cultural analysis of the NIMBY phenomenon in urban infrastructure development, focusing on contemporary China. Through a systematic review of 129 studies (2010–2024) from global and Chinese databases, it examines theoretical, methodological, and strategic dimensions of NIMBY research across Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Findings reveal regional divergences: Asian studies emphasize governance efficiency and technical optimization, European research prioritizes place attachment and institutional equity, while American scholarship integrates community empowerment and spatial justice. In China's rapid urbanization, NIMBY conflicts intensify between infrastructure demands and public rights, particularly in waste management, energy projects, and social services. The study identifies a paradigm shift from reactive conflict resolution to proactive risk governance, advocating adaptive strategies like participatory planning and transparency mechanisms. By synthesizing interdisciplinary perspectives – environmental sociology, spatial politics, and deliberative democracy – this work bridges international precedents with China's governance challenges, proposing a hybrid model balancing technical rationality, institutional innovation, and community well-being. It enriches NIMBY theory and offers actionable insights for China's urbanization policies to enhance spatial equity and resilience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: