IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v36y2009i6p956-967.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Experimental Comparison of Negotiation Strategies for Siting NIMBY Facilities

Author

Listed:
  • Ching-Pin Chiu

    (Graduate Institute of Urban Planning, National Taipei University, 67, Section 3, Min Sheng East Road, Taipei, Taiwan)

  • Shih-Kung Lai

    (College of Public Administration, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China; and Department of Real Estate and Built Environment, National Taipei University, 67, Section 3, Min Sheng East Road, Taipei, Taiwan)

Abstract

The quality of the urban living environment is strongly related to the provision and planning or design of public facilities, of which NIMBY, not-in-my-back-yard, facilities are often resisted by residents. Therefore, selecting the location for NIMBY facilities has become more and more difficult and time consuming. In Taiwan in particular, when the tenure landholding system is adopted, along with financial difficulties, frequent mass protests take place in relation to environmental issues, and consequently lead to financial development issues for the country. Hence, the interaction between the government and the public becomes critical and urgent. O'Hare believes that NIMBY facilities can be seen as a prisoner's dilemma game in game theory, and Camerer also points out that public issues such as environmental concerns are also a type of prisoner's dilemma game. This research adopts an alternative methodology to that of Axelrod, in which a computer simulation was used to compare interactive strategies in prisoner's dilemma games. On the basis of a deductive analysis comparing different interactive strategies in prisoner's dilemma games, in this research an experiment was conducted to verify empirically the results of that analysis in the context of siting NIMBY facilities. The experiment has once again proven that tit-for-tat is indeed a comparatively more effective strategy than the others, not only for the player under consideration, but also for the society as a whole, with the assumption of symmetric information, and it can be used as a reference when political decisions are to be made from the government regarding NIMBY facilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Ching-Pin Chiu & Shih-Kung Lai, 2009. "An Experimental Comparison of Negotiation Strategies for Siting NIMBY Facilities," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(6), pages 956-967, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:36:y:2009:i:6:p:956-967
    DOI: 10.1068/b35037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b35037
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b35037?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barzel,Yoram, 1997. "Economic Analysis of Property Rights," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521597135, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Berthomé, Guy-El-Karim & Thomas, Alban, 2017. "A Context-based Procedure for Assessing Participatory Schemes in Environmental Planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 113-123.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kirsten Foss & Nicolai Foss, 2001. "Theoretical isolation in contract theory: suppressing margins and entrepreneurship," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 313-339.
    2. Whitten, Stuart M. & Salzman, James & Shelton, Dave & Procter, Wendy, 2003. "Markets for ecosystem services: Applying the concepts," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58269, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Foss Kirsten & Foss Nicolai & Klein Peter G. & Klein Sandra K., 2002. "Heterogeneous Capital, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Organization," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Kuerbis, Brenden & Mueller, Milton, 2023. "Exploring the role of data enclosure in the digital political economy," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8).
    5. Rossi, Enrico, 2020. "Reconsidering the dual nature of property rights: personal property and capital in the law and economics of property rights," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105840, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Thomas Vendryes, 2014. "Peasants Against Private Property Rights: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 971-995, December.
    7. Friel Martha & Santagata Walter, 2007. "Make Material Cultural Heritage Work," EBLA Working Papers 200710, University of Turin.
    8. Annette M. Kim, 2011. "Introduction: Real Rights to the City—Cases of Property Rights Changes towards Equity in Eastern Asia," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(3), pages 459-469, February.
    9. Byron B. Carson, 2022. "Individuals and Externalities in Economic Epidemiology: A Tension and Synthesis," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 37(Fall 2022), pages 1-24.
    10. Hendrik P. van Dalen & Aico P. van Vuuren, 2003. "Greasing the Wheels of Trade," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-066/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Jérémie GIGNOUX & Karen MACOURS & Liam WREN-LEWIS, 2015. "Impact of land administration programs on agricultural productivity and rural development: existing evidence, challenges and new approaches," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 96(3), pages 467-498.
    12. Samuel Garrido, 2010. "Mejorar y quedarse. La cesión de tierra a rentas por debajo del equilibrio en la Valencia del siglo XIX," Documentos de Trabajo de la Sociedad de Estudios de Historia Agraria 1009, Sociedad de Estudios de Historia Agraria.
    13. Armelle Mazé & Claude Ménard, 2010. "Private ordering, collective action, and the self-enforcing range of contracts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 131-153, February.
    14. Enrico Colombatto, 2002. "Towards a quasi-Lamarckian theory of institutional change," ICER Working Papers 26-2002, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    15. Ceyhun Haydaroglu, 2015. "The Relationship between Property Rights and Economic Growth: an Analysis of OECD and EU Countries," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 4, pages 217-239, December.
    16. Ghebru, Hosaena, 2015. "Is There a Merit to the Continuum Tenure Approach? A Case of Demand for Land Rights Formulation in Rural Mozambique," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211683, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Matyukha, Andriy, 2017. "Business groups in agriculture impact of ownership structures on performance: The case of Russia's agroholdings," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies 254051, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    18. Nicolai J. Foss, 2002. "The Strategy and Transaction Cost Nexus Past Debates, Central Questions, and Future Research Possibilities," DRUID Working Papers 02-04, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    19. Erwin Van Der Krabben & Edwin Buitelaar, 2010. "Industrial Land and Property Markets: Market Processes, Market Institutions and Market Outcomes: The Dutch Case," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(12), pages 2127-2146, September.
    20. Liesbet Vranken & Karen Macours & Nivelin Noev & Johan Swinnen, 2007. "Property Rights Imperfections, Asset Allocation, and Welfare: Co-Ownership in Bulgaria," LICOS Discussion Papers 18007, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:36:y:2009:i:6:p:956-967. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.