From Resistance to Acceptance: The Role of NIMBY Phenomena in Sustainable Urban Development and Tourism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is a well-written and structured paper. The chosen topic is a good for the journal. The study focuses on a topic of great interest and contains a good number of examples it builds upon. The mixed-methods approach here is well-explained.

 

My recommendations are as follows:

1. Improve the Introduction and add a little bit more about the gap in literature the study seeks to fill in. The aim and objectives should be communicated more explicitly.
2. There is some room to delve more deeper into the literature and discuss the findings of the study in relation to the findings of previous studies.
3. Although there is a (short) section on areas for further research, the study should provide more recommendations for further research as well as practical implications.

Author Response

Changes and comments of the re-submitted paper "From Resistance to Acceptance: The Role of NIMBY Phenomena in Sustainable Urban Development and Tourism"

 

Reviewer 1

 

1. Improve the Introduction and add a little bit more about the gap in literature the study seeks to fill in.

 

Author comment: The introduction has been improved with additional explanation and added clarification of which gap in the literature the article fills.

 

Before

Re-submitted paper

… The paper is limited to NIMBY research in the fields of spatial interventions and tourism.     … This study examines selected cases of spatial conflicts arising from changes in land use, focusing on key factors such as project preparation time (tp) and benefit realization time (tb). Findings indicate that insufficient stakeholder engagement often prolongs preparatory phases, resulting in delays and increased costs [22,23]. Additionally, the absence of long-term vision and maintenance reduces project utility over time [24,25].                           … This paper offers a comprehensive approach to addressing these challenges, emphasizing inclusive spatial planning, stakeholder cooperation, and sustainable development. The findings highlight the need for systemic solutions that transcend short-term economic gains and focus on long-term impacts on communities, the environment, and cultural heritage. The goal is to create harmonized solutions that meet the interests of all parties involved while enabling the sustainable transformation of urban and tourist areas.

Lines 56-58 However, this study focuses specifically on spatial interventions and tourism-related conflicts, as these areas remain critical yet underexplored in existing research.   Lines 75-85 Despite extensive research on NIMBYism in infrastructure and energy projects, gaps remain regarding its implications in tourism-driven urban transformations. Current literature lacks comprehensive analysis on how different stakeholder engagement strategies, particularly those that account for long-term socio-economic and environmental impacts, can mitigate opposition and foster cooperation in tourism-related urban development. This study aims to fill this gap by examining selected cases of spatial conflicts arising from land-use changes, with a focus on project preparation time (tp) and benefit realization time (tb). Findings suggest that insufficient stakeholder involvement prolongs preparatory phases, leading to delays, increased costs, and reduced project utility over time [22,23]. Additionally, a lack of long-term vision and maintenance planning diminishes the sustainability of implemented projects [24,25].   Lines 106-113 This study contributes to the discourse by offering some insights into these challenges, emphasizing inclusive spatial planning, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and sustainable development strategies. By analyzing the interplay of stakeholder engagement, urban development, and sustainable tourism, this research highlights the need for systemic solutions that transcend short-term economic gains and prioritize long-term community well-being, environmental sustainability, and cultural heritage preservation. The goal is to propose some possible solutions that balance diverse interests, facilitating the sustainable transformation of urban and tourist areas.

 

2. The aim and objectives should be communicated more explicitly.

Author comment: A new paragraph that more clearly defines the aim and objectives of the article has been added to the Materials and Methods section.

 

Before

Re-submitted paper

Lines 249-263 This paper aims to investigate the role of the NIMBY ("Not in My Backyard") phenomenon in the context of sustainable urban development and tourism, focusing on its implications for spatial planning and stakeholder engagement. By analyzing global case studies, the study seeks to identify key barriers and opportunities associated with public opposition to urban projects and to propose strategies for more effective policy implementation. The objectives of this research are: To analyze the impact of the NIMBY phenomenon on project preparation time (tp) and benefit realization time (tb) in urban and tourism-related developments. To explore the dynamics of stakeholder interactions in sustainable urban planning. To investigate the relationship between new construction investments and maintenance costs for sustainable and attractive urban development. To examine the role of positive indirect revenue generated by the built environment and cultural heritage in relation to tourism. To evaluate the negative impacts of tourism in relation to the tourist tax.

 

3. There is some room to delve more deeper into the literature and discuss the findings of the study in relation to the findings of previous studies.

 

Author comment: A new paragraph that more clearly relates to the previous literature has been added to the Discussion section.

 

Before

Re-submitted paper

Lines 835-871 The findings of this study align with and extend previous research on the NIMBY phenomenon, stakeholder engagement, and sustainable urban development. Numerous studies have identified NIMBY opposition as a primary obstacle to the implementation of infrastructure and urban transformation projects, often resulting from insufficient stakeholder engagement and perceived inequities in the distribution of costs and benefits. This research confirms these findings, showing that ineffective communication between project developers and local communities prolongs project preparation time (tp) and increases the likelihood of opposition. Moreover, many authors emphasized that public resistance is not only a reaction to physical development itself but also a response to the exclusionary nature of decision-making processes. This study reinforces that argument by demonstrating that projects with early and transparent community involvement face fewer delays and greater acceptance. Furthermore, our results corroborate the findings of authors such as [8-9] that opposition to the infrastructure projects, such as renewable energy developments, often stem from a perceived imbalance between local costs and global benefits rather than an outright rejection of development. From a broader sustainability perspective, our study builds on [1] and [2], and conclusions that urban planning must integrate environmental, social, and economic considerations to achieve long-term resilience. We find that benefit realization time (tb) is maximized in projects where participatory planning fosters local ownership, reducing long-term resistance and ensuring sustainable urban transformation. In the field of cultural heritage and tourism, previous research [16, 51] has demonstrated that adaptive reuse of historic sites can mitigate NIMBY opposition by emphasizing long-term economic and social benefits. Our findings support this perspective, particularly in cases where cultural heritage projects provide indirect benefits (IB) through increased tourism revenue, job creation, and urban revitalization. Furthermore, our research echoes the concerns raised by [18, 19] regarding the threshold at which mass tourism triggers local resistance. Our data suggest that once a tourist-to-resident ratio of 4:1 is exceeded, local opposition becomes more pronounced, a pattern also observed in cities experiencing overtourism [106-108]. Finally, this study contributes to the literature by providing a quantitative assessment of the economic impact of project delays due to NIMBY opposition. By incorporating time-dependent factors (tp, tb, and IB) into our analysis, we offer a structured framework for balancing urban development, cultural heritage preservation, and environmental sustainability. Our results reinforce the need for systemic, inclusive planning approaches that prioritize long-term stakeholder engagement over short-term economic gains, aligning with global best practices in sustainable urban development. …

 

 

4. Although there is a (short) section on areas for further research, the study should provide more recommendations for further research as well as practical implications.

Author comment: In the Conclusions section a paragraph describing future research was rewritten as follows. Also, a new paragraph was added describing some more practical implications for policy and urban planning.

 

Before

Re-submitted paper

… Future research should further explore the intersection between public participation, policy effectiveness, and sustainable development. A deeper understanding of global best practices in stakeholder cooperation could provide valuable insights for mitigating NIMBY resistance and fostering balanced urban growth. Additionally, comparative studies between regions with successful and failed urban projects could help identify replicable strategies that facilitate community-driven development. Ultimately, sustainable urban planning requires a shift from conflict-driven decision-making to collaborative, inclusive strategies that harmonize diverse interests while ensuring long-term benefits for communities and the environment. By embracing participatory planning, transparent governance, and sustainable investment strategies, cities can navigate the complexities of development while fostering resilient, equitable, and thriving urban landscapes. …

Lines 954-1014 Future research should investigate the long-term evolution of NIMBY opposition in various urban and rural contexts. Understanding how public perception changes over time, especially after project implementation—could provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of participatory planning and communication strategies. More research is needed to develop predictive models that quantify the relationship between stakeholder engagement, project preparation time (tp), and benefit realization time (tb). The participation of stakeholders in spatial change projects can be likened to strategic games, where the outcome depends on the players' skills and decisions, as well as chance. One of the basic assumptions of game theory is that people behave rationally and choose strategies that maximize profit. In these scenarios, spatial change generates an indirect collective benefit, while individual interests often diverge from the common good. Computational simulations as the prisoner's dilemma and the public goods game, and system dynamics modeling could help policymakers assess the potential impacts of different engagement strategies before implementation. As urban planning regulations and public attitudes toward development projects differ globally, comparative studies across different governance systems, cultural contexts, and economic conditions could reveal best practices for mitigating NIMBY resistance. Research in emerging economies and regions experiencing rapid urbanization would be particularly valuable. The findings on the tourist-to-resident ratio threshold suggest that overtourism plays a significant role in local resistance. Further studies should analyze the tipping points of social carrying capacity in different urban settings and propose adaptive policies for mitigating tourism-related conflicts. Future studies could also explore the role of digital platforms, such as participatory GIS, digital twins, and AI-driven public consultation tools, in improving stakeholder engagement. Evaluating their impact on reducing opposition and increasing project acceptance could provide practical solutions for urban planners and policymakers. Governments and project developers must adopt a proactive and participatory approach to planning, ensuring that local communities are involved from the outset. This can help shorten project preparation time (tp), minimize resistance, and improve public trust. Projects facing strong opposition should consider compensation models such as local investment funds, tax reductions for affected residents, or direct community benefits (e.g., infrastructure improvements, green spaces, or job creation). These incentives can shift the perception of new developments from a burden to a shared opportunity. Planning authorities can adopt adaptive governance frameworks that allow for periodic reassessment of project impacts and enable modifications based on real-time feedback from stakeholders. This approach ensures that projects remain aligned with evolving social and environmental concerns. Cities experiencing overtourism should implement tiered tourist taxation, seasonal visitor limits, and redistribution strategies to balance economic benefits with local well-being. Policies that diversify tourism activities across different locations and seasons can prevent localized overburdening. Policymakers should integrate legal mandates for public participation into urban development laws. Requiring early-stage consultations and binding agreements on community benefits could reduce the frequency and intensity of NIMBY conflicts. The government occasionally prioritizes attracting foreign investors to boost the national budget, sometimes at the expense of its citizens' needs. When such investments enter the spatial planning process, the affected local population often organizes and begins to oppose the project. Cities and regions should capitalize on the indirect benefits (IB) of cultural heritage by integrating it into sustainable economic models. Investments in heritage conservation and adaptive reuse can generate long-term returns through increased tourism revenue while maintaining local identity and reducing development opposition. To minimize resistance to new infrastructure, governments and private investors should prioritize green and smart solutions that align with environmental sustainability goals. Implementing nature-based solutions, green architecture, and energy-efficient developments can reduce environmental concerns and improve project acceptance. By addressing these research gaps and implementing these policy recommendations, cities and communities can proactively manage NIMBY opposition, enhance public trust, and promote inclusive, sustainable urban development. Future planning efforts must prioritize collaborative decision-making, economic fairness, and long-term environmental resilience to create urban spaces that benefit all stakeholders.

 

Other author remarks:

 

For better understanding of the paper quite a few new references were added.

 

 Added references:

109. EUROSTAT, T. EUROSTAT. EC Eur.
110. citizens EUROSTAT EUROSTAT.
111. Tamma, P. Italy’s high-speed railway dilemma: POLITICO 2018.
112. Berger, P. MTA Awards $1.8 Billion Contract to Expand Long Island Rail Road. Wall Str. J. 2017.
113. Andrews, W. Sanrizuka: The Struggle to Stop Narita Airport. Throw Out Your Books 2014.
114. ZEU d.o.o., M. S. Primerjalna študija variantnih rešitev poteka daljnovoda 2 x 400 kV Cirkovce - Pince 2005.
115. Vahtarić, S. Lokalno partnerstvo Brežice v postopku iskanja lokacije za odlagališče NSRAO 2010.
116. Forgotten Lands, P. and T. Ghost Towns, Abandoned Places and Historic Sites Available online: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1UUfwmW5YntQiVznItYrXwHYn1D9eGkgU&hl=en_US&ll=34.92090202187946%2C-89.46123010138193&z=4 (accessed on Feb 8, 2024).
117. Christopher, M. Abandoned America: an autopsy of the American Dream.
118. Roblek, V.; Drpić, D.; Meško, M.; Milojica, V. Evolution of sustainable tourism concepts. Sustain. 2021, 13, 1–21, doi:10.3390/su132212829.
119. Ordóñez-Martínez, D.; Seguí-Pons, J. M.; Ruiz-Pérez, M. Conceptual Framework and Prospective Analysis of EU Tourism Data Spaces. Sustain. 2024, 16, doi:10.3390/su16010371.
120. Beton, K. Analiza vplivov turizma Available online: https://www.radolca.si/media/slo GREEN/ANALIZA vplivov turizma.pdf.
121. Ljubljana Turistična taksa v Ljubljani Available online: https://www.visitljubljana.com/sl/obiskovalci/informacije/turisticna-taksa-v-ljubljani/ (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
122. RH Dubrovačko-Neretvanska Županija Upravni odjel za poduzetništvo turizam i more Odluka o visini turističke pristojbe za 2024. godinu; 2022;
123. AREA ECONOMIA E FINANZA; RISCOSSIONE, S. T.-S. I. L. E. MPOSTA DI SOGGIORNO TARIFFE in vigore dal 01.07.2021 STRUTTURE CLASSIFICATE AI SENSI DELLA L.R.V. 11/2013; 2021;
124. Institut Municipal d’Hisenda de Barcelona Tourist Establishments Tax Available online: https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/hisenda/en/procedures-payments/tourist-establishments-tax?profile=1 (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
125. Norwegian Holidays Tourist Fee Available online: https://www.norwegianholidays.com/eu/tourist-fee (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
126. Meininger Hotels MEININGER Hotel Zürich Greencity Available online: https://help-center.meininger-hotels.com/en/support/solutions/articles/79000144063-city-tax-information-for-meininger-hotel-zürich-greencity (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
127. Trippz Tourist Tax Zurich 2025 Available online: https://trippz.com/tourist-tax/switzerland-zurich (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
128. expats_cz Prague 1 aims to significantly increase the city’s tourist tax Available online: https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/prague-1-aims-to-significantly-increase-city-s-tourist-tax (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
129. Immofy Travelling & Costa Blanca Region, Rejection of the tourist tax in the Valencian community Available online: https://blog.immofy.eu/en/rejection-of-the-tourist-tax-in-the-valencian-community (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
130. Hotellagriffe.com INFORMATION ON CITY TAX REGULATION;
131. Commune di Firenze Imposta di Soggiorno - Tourist tax - 2025;
132. Minoja, M.; Romano, G. Managing intellectual capital for sustainability: Evidence from a Re-municipalized, publicly owned waste management firm. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123213, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123213.
133. Schaefer, A. Corp Soc Responsibility Env - 2004 - Schaefer - Corporate sustainability integrating environmental and social concerns. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2004, 11, 179–187.
134. Castellanos-Galindo, G. A.; Casella, E.; Mejía-Rentería, J. C.; Rovere, A. Habitat mapping of remote coasts: Evaluating the usefulness of lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles for conservation and monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 239, 108282, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108282.
135. Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 871–880, doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.10.001.
136. Caust, J.; Vecco, M. Is UNESCO World Heritage recognition a blessing or burden? Evidence from developing Asian countries. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 27, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.culher.2017.02.004.
137. Galli, A.; Đurović, G.; Hanscom, L.; Knežević, J. Think globally, act locally: Implementing the sustainable development goals in Montenegro. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 84, 159–169, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.012.
138. Lak, A.; Gheitasi, M.; Timothy, D. J. Urban regeneration through heritage tourism: cultural policies and strategic management. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2020, 18, 386–403, doi:10.1080/14766825.2019.1668002.
139. Seyfi, S.; Hall, C. M.; Fagnoni, E. Managing World Heritage Site stakeholders: a grounded theory paradigm model approach. J. Herit. Tour. 2019, 14, 308–324, doi:10.1080/1743873X.2018.1527340.

 

 

Also a new Figure and its explanation was added in the Stakeholder chapter (Before Project management chapter)

 

Lines 189-193:

On Figure 1 we can see all the stakeholders involved in the processes of sustainable urban development and sustainable tourism. We can see how the NIMBY phenomenon affects decision-making processes and spatial interventions. We can also see when and where different variables or factors appear in the processes and how they are interconnected.

 

Figure 1: Flowchart of stakeholders and factors involved in the NIMBY phenomenon

 

All Figure numbers were corrected accordingly.

 

 

Also a new equation was added for better explanation of the Table 2.

 

Lines 538-545

In Table 2 there is a ratio calculated between the number of tourists and citizens in that city for an individual year (the number of tourists was divided by citizens, and the NIMBY expected factor NEF is calculated, see Eq. 1).

                                                                   (1)

 

Colored cells represent the initial year of resident disagreement with the mass tourists. If we exclude the cities of Dubrovnik and Venice (because here is all the city considered as a cultural heritage and not only point-by-point cultural sites) we can conclude that when the NEF ratio exceeds 3.63 the NIMBY phenomena to be expected.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article suggests a new and attractive topic for the academy. The effort made is evident, but it requires profound adjustments. I hope you find the following observations helpful:

1. You should use the keywords effectively by not using the same word (s) with the tittle so your manuscript will be more discoverable.

 

2. please don't make a paragraph that only contains 1 to 2 sentences.

 

3. Please rearrange your Introduction chapter into fewer paragraphs so the main idea of ​​your research will become clearer.

 

4. In lines 498 to 501, please provide the formula and calculation results for the conclusions you have presented.

 

5. Please mention the source of every table and graphic you have provided

 

6. I don’t understand why did you put a chapter about Project Management (page 93). Please rearrange into a comprehensive Literature Review chapter and show the idea of every variable or problem.

 

7. In the Methodology section, please provide a flowchart of the method you have used. Furthermore, you can show your findings based on the flowchart of the method. It will make the reader understand your work.
8. You need a lot of references about tourism and place making issue

 

 

I’m excited about the potential of your paper and think additional data work may help you define your contribution to the literature. I wish you all the best as you continue your work.

 

Author Response

Changes and comments of the re-submitted paper "From Resistance to Acceptance: The Role of NIMBY Phenomena in Sustainable Urban Development and Tourism"

 

Reviewer 2

 

1. You should use the keywords effectively by not using the same word (s) with the title so your manuscript will be more discoverable.

 

Author comment: Keywords were written again in a more effective way.

 

Before	Re-submitted paper
NIMBY, sustainable urban development, stakeholder engagement, sustainable tourism, spatial planning, cultural heritage preservation, environmental sustainability, project preparation time (tp), benefit realization time (tb),	NIMBY, spatial planning, sustainable urban development, sustainable tourism, maintenance, cultural heritage, tourism impact, project preparation, (negative) indirect benefit,

 

 

 

1. Please don't make a paragraph that only contains 1 to 2 sentences.

 

Author comment: Several paragraphs in Introduction were joined together. In the previous version we had 16 paragraphs and in resubmitted paper we have only 7 paragraphs. Similarly, in the previous chapter Project management (now entitled Stakeholders) we had 13 paragraphs and in the resubmitted paper we only have 8 paragraphs.

 

 

 

1. Please rearrange your Introduction chapter into fewer paragraphs so the main idea of ​​your research will become clearer.

 

Author comment: Several paragraphs in Introduction were joined together. In the previous version we had 16 paragraphs and in resubmitted paper we have only 7 paragraphs.

 

Before	Re-submitted paper
Introduction from lines 28-92	Introduction from line 28-113; but with amendments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. In lines 498 to 501, please provide the formula and calculation results for the conclusions you have presented.

 

Author comment: This paragraph was slightly corrected, and the equation was added.

 

Before

Re-submitted paper

In Table 2 there is a ratio calculated between the number of tourists and residents in that city for an individual year.               Colored cells represent the initial year of resident disagreement with the mass tourists. If we exclude the cities of Dubrovnik and Venice (because here is all the city considered as a cultural heritage and not only point-by-point cultural sites) we can conclude that when the ratio residents/tourists exceed 4 tourists on one resident there can be NIMBY phenomena to be expected.

Lines 538-545 In Table 2 there is a ratio calculated between the number of tourists and citizens in that city for an individual year (the number of tourists was divided by citizens, and the NIMBY expected factor NEF is calculated, see Eq. 1).                                                                     (1)   Colored cells represent the initial year of resident disagreement with the mass tourists. If we exclude the cities of Dubrovnik and Venice (because here is all the city considered as a cultural heritage and not only point-by-point cultural sites) we can conclude that when the NEF ratio exceeds 3.63 the NIMBY phenomena to be expected.

 

 

 

1. Please mention the source of every table and graphic you have provided

 

Author comment:

 

 The source for Table 1 is commented in the main text:

 

According to the authors [55–57] the design life of buildings is seen in Table 1. 

 

and

 

According to the China researcher [58], in China lifespan of buildings are shorter, for example for brick-concrete building in urban area is no more than 40 years, for Highway 50 years and for railways approximately 100 year.

 

Figure 1 was added to the paper. The figure is from our own source.

 

Figure 2 (before Figure 1) was slightly corrected with sources and is now correctly referenced:

 

According to the EUROSTAT [109,110] the number of tourists in year 2022 were higher than citizen in most tourist cities or countries in EU. Figure 1 shows the number of citizens and tourists in 2022. Data for citizens in 2022 are not available for some cities, therefore the last relevant data was used.

 

And

 

Figure 2. Citizens and tourists for year 2022 [109,110]

Before	Re-submitted paper
According to the EUROSTAT [109] the number of tourists in year 2022 were higher than citizen in most tourist cities or countries in EU. Figure 1 shows the number of citizens and tourists in 2022. Data for citizens in 2022 are not available for some cities, therefore the last relevant data was used.	Lines 532-535 According to the EUROSTAT [109,110] the number of tourists in year 2022 were higher than citizen in most tourist cities or countries in EU. Figure 1 shows the number of citizens and tourists in 2022. Data for citizens in 2022 are not available for some cities, therefore the last relevant data was used.

 

 

Table 2 is our own calculation, so no source needed. Please see also your remark no. 4 and our answer.

 

Table 3 is now referenced.

 

Before	Re-submitted paper
Table 3: Project phases with factors	Table 3: Project phases with factors Table 3: Project phases with factors [32,51,59,60]

 

 

Table 4 is already referenced for each country mentioned in the table.

 

 

Figure 3 (before Figure 2) is made from the Table 4. Which is already mentioned in the main text as:

 

Table 4 and Figure 2 summarize the data from the NIMBY cases described in chapter 4.2. on the projects and their progress over time (t_p) due to stakeholder resistance.

 

For Table 5 all references are added in the resubmitted paper

 

Before	Re-submitted paper
City Tourist tax Ljubljana 3,13 (2,5 TT + 25% *2,5 TT = promotion tax) Dubrovnik 2 EUR Venice 1,5 – 5 EUR Barcelona 3,25 EUR Oslo under consideration Zurich 2,5 CHF Prague 0,82-1,97 EUR Valencia 0 EUR Rome 4-10 EUR Florence 3,5-8 EUR Munchen 0 EUR	City Tourist tax Ljubljana [121] 3,13 (2,5 TT + 25% *2,5 TT = promotion tax) Dubrovnik [122] 2 EUR Venice [123] 1,5 – 5 EUR Barcelona [124] 3,25 EUR Oslo [125] under consideration Zurich [126,127] 2,5 CHF Prague [128] 0,82-1,97 EUR Valencia [129] under consideration Rome [130] 4-10 EUR Florence [131] 3,5-8 EUR Munchen [126] 0 EUR

 

Figure 4a and 4b (before Figure 3a and Figure 3b) is from our own source and is explained in the main text as three paragraphs before those Figures:

 

Lines: 717-732

For an investment of 100 million EUR (as an example) in new construction with a return of 10% and maintenance costs of 2% of the investment in the period of 10-20 years after operation, 4% in the period 20-30 years after operation, and 5% in the period 30-50 years, and with the expected time t_p + t_i (from Table 3) of 10 years, we find that the project benefit period (PB) begins after 35 years after starting the project. After 48 years, the total maintenance costs exceed the initial investment. If the NIMBY phenomenon occurs during the t_p period, the timeline is delayed by the duration of the negotiations for project implementation. The project can even be halted or failed.

Figure 3a illustrates the standard project timeline dynamics without the occurrence of NIMBY, where the project follows the planned schedule, and the benefit period (PB) begins after approximately 35 years. A critical moment is the transition to the phase where maintenance costs exceed the initial investment, which occurs after 48 years.

Figure 3b, on the other hand, depicts the impact of the NIMBY phenomenon on the project timeline. The main emphasis is on delays in the preparation phase (t_p), which result in a postponed start of the benefit phase (PB). Consequently, the period in which costs exceed revenues is extended, potentially leading to project failure or termination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I don’t understand why did you put a chapter about Project Management (page 93). Please rearrange into a comprehensive Literature Review chapter and show the idea of every variable or problem.

 

Author comment: The chapter "Project management" referred to the stakeholders who cause NIMBY phenomena in project management or tourism. We have rearranged/restructured the chapter »Project management« into the chapter "Stakeholders" and presented a flowchart (Figure 1) of the links between stakeholders, project management and tourists.

 

The idea and explanation of variables are already explained in lines (527-547-before; 563-583 resubmitted paper). The paper has now extensive literature review with 139 references (before there were 109 references) – see also our comment in the 8^th remark.

 

 

 

1. In the Methodology section, please provide a flowchart of the method you have used. Furthermore, you can show your findings based on the flowchart of the method. It will make the reader understand your work.

 

Author comment: The research methods are described in the Methodology section lines 271-286. I hope that we understood your comment correctly, so the Flowchart of stakeholders and factors involved in the NIMBY phenomenon was added as Figure 1.

 

Before

Re-submitted paper

Lines 189-193: On Figure 1 we can see all the stakeholders involved in the processes of sustainable urban development and sustainable tourism. We can see how the NIMBY phenomenon affects decision-making processes and spatial interventions. We can also see when and where different variables or factors appear in the processes and how they are interconnected.   Figure 1: Flowchart of stakeholders and factors involved in the NIMBY phenomenon

 

 

1. You need a lot of references about tourism and place making issue

 

Author comment: The submitted paper had 109 references. The list of references was expanded and in the resubmitted paper we have 139 references.

 

 Added references:

109. EUROSTAT, T. EUROSTAT. EC Eur.
110. citizens EUROSTAT EUROSTAT.
111. Tamma, P. Italy’s high-speed railway dilemma: POLITICO 2018.
112. Berger, P. MTA Awards $1.8 Billion Contract to Expand Long Island Rail Road. Wall Str. J. 2017.
113. Andrews, W. Sanrizuka: The Struggle to Stop Narita Airport. Throw Out Your Books 2014.
114. ZEU d.o.o., M. S. Primerjalna študija variantnih rešitev poteka daljnovoda 2 x 400 kV Cirkovce - Pince 2005.
115. Vahtarić, S. Lokalno partnerstvo Brežice v postopku iskanja lokacije za odlagališče NSRAO 2010.
116. Forgotten Lands, P. and T. Ghost Towns, Abandoned Places and Historic Sites Available online: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1UUfwmW5YntQiVznItYrXwHYn1D9eGkgU&hl=en_US&ll=34.92090202187946%2C-89.46123010138193&z=4 (accessed on Feb 8, 2024).
117. Christopher, M. Abandoned America: an autopsy of the American Dream.
118. Roblek, V.; Drpić, D.; Meško, M.; Milojica, V. Evolution of sustainable tourism concepts. Sustain. 2021, 13, 1–21, doi:10.3390/su132212829.
119. Ordóñez-Martínez, D.; Seguí-Pons, J. M.; Ruiz-Pérez, M. Conceptual Framework and Prospective Analysis of EU Tourism Data Spaces. Sustain. 2024, 16, doi:10.3390/su16010371.
120. Beton, K. Analiza vplivov turizma Available online: https://www.radolca.si/media/slo GREEN/ANALIZA vplivov turizma.pdf.
121. Ljubljana Turistična taksa v Ljubljani Available online: https://www.visitljubljana.com/sl/obiskovalci/informacije/turisticna-taksa-v-ljubljani/ (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
122. RH Dubrovačko-Neretvanska Županija Upravni odjel za poduzetništvo turizam i more Odluka o visini turističke pristojbe za 2024. godinu; 2022;
123. AREA ECONOMIA E FINANZA; RISCOSSIONE, S. T.-S. I. L. E. MPOSTA DI SOGGIORNO TARIFFE in vigore dal 01.07.2021 STRUTTURE CLASSIFICATE AI SENSI DELLA L.R.V. 11/2013; 2021;
124. Institut Municipal d’Hisenda de Barcelona Tourist Establishments Tax Available online: https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/hisenda/en/procedures-payments/tourist-establishments-tax?profile=1 (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
125. Norwegian Holidays Tourist Fee Available online: https://www.norwegianholidays.com/eu/tourist-fee (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
126. Meininger Hotels MEININGER Hotel Zürich Greencity Available online: https://help-center.meininger-hotels.com/en/support/solutions/articles/79000144063-city-tax-information-for-meininger-hotel-zürich-greencity (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
127. Trippz Tourist Tax Zurich 2025 Available online: https://trippz.com/tourist-tax/switzerland-zurich (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
128. expats_cz Prague 1 aims to significantly increase the city’s tourist tax Available online: https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/prague-1-aims-to-significantly-increase-city-s-tourist-tax (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
129. Immofy Travelling & Costa Blanca Region, Rejection of the tourist tax in the Valencian community Available online: https://blog.immofy.eu/en/rejection-of-the-tourist-tax-in-the-valencian-community (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
130. Hotellagriffe.com INFORMATION ON CITY TAX REGULATION;
131. Commune di Firenze Imposta di Soggiorno - Tourist tax - 2025;
132. Minoja, M.; Romano, G. Managing intellectual capital for sustainability: Evidence from a Re-municipalized, publicly owned waste management firm. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123213, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123213.
133. Schaefer, A. Corp Soc Responsibility Env - 2004 - Schaefer - Corporate sustainability integrating environmental and social concerns. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2004, 11, 179–187.
134. Castellanos-Galindo, G. A.; Casella, E.; Mejía-Rentería, J. C.; Rovere, A. Habitat mapping of remote coasts: Evaluating the usefulness of lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles for conservation and monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 239, 108282, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108282.
135. Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 871–880, doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.10.001.
136. Caust, J.; Vecco, M. Is UNESCO World Heritage recognition a blessing or burden? Evidence from developing Asian countries. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 27, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.culher.2017.02.004.
137. Galli, A.; Đurović, G.; Hanscom, L.; Knežević, J. Think globally, act locally: Implementing the sustainable development goals in Montenegro. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 84, 159–169, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.012.
138. Lak, A.; Gheitasi, M.; Timothy, D. J. Urban regeneration through heritage tourism: cultural policies and strategic management. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2020, 18, 386–403, doi:10.1080/14766825.2019.1668002.
139. Seyfi, S.; Hall, C. M.; Fagnoni, E. Managing World Heritage Site stakeholders: a grounded theory paradigm model approach. J. Herit. Tour. 2019, 14, 308–324, doi:10.1080/1743873X.2018.1527340.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

On the surface, the topic is timely and significant—bridging urban planning, social dynamics, and sustainability. However, several structural and conceptual gaps weaken the piece.

The paper provides interesting examples of NIMBY conflicts across different countries but does not succinctly state what precise knowledge gap it is trying to fill. It describes various projects and outcomes but never clarifies how this discussion leads to novel insights or expands upon existing research.

Academic articles exploring phenomena like NIMBY generally pose formal research questions or hypotheses—especially if they are doing comparative case analysis. While the manuscript mentions multiple real-world examples, it does not specify the analytical lens used to interpret these.

While the paper effectively gathers numerous case studies illustrating NIMBY, the discussion remains very broad, and it is unclear whether these examples were chosen through systematic selection criteria or were simply opportunistic illustrations.

The methods section is relatively high-level, mixing literature review, anecdotal evidence, and partial data without specifying how the authors collected, screened, or analyzed it. This makes it difficult for readers to judge the validity of your conclusions.

Although “sustainability” features prominently in the title, the article sometimes seems to focus more on listing NIMBY examples rather than analyzing the sustainability outcomes (e.g., environmental impacts, social equity implications) or how exactly tourism can be made more sustainable.

Overall, the idea of examining NIMBY’s role in sustainable urban planning and tourism is worthwhile, but the article must make its purpose explicit, demonstrate methodological rigor, and tie its examples to a coherent argument. By reorganizing the content around clearly formulated research questions and providing more thorough analysis of case studies, the authors can significantly strengthen both the academic and practical merits of their work.

Author Response

Changes and comments of the re-submitted paper "From Resistance to Acceptance: The Role of NIMBY Phenomena in Sustainable Urban Development and Tourism"

 

Reviewer 3

 

• The paper provides interesting examples of NIMBY conflicts across different countries but does not succinctly state what precise knowledge gap it is trying to fill.

 

Author comment: The Introduction chapter has been improved with additional explanation and added clarification of which gap in the literature the article fills.

 

Before

Re-submitted paper

The paper is limited to NIMBY research in the fields of spatial interventions and tourism.       This study examines selected cases of spatial conflicts arising from changes in land use, focusing on key factors such as project preparation time (tp) and benefit realization time (tb). Findings indicate that insufficient stakeholder engagement often prolongs preparatory phases, resulting in delays and increased costs [22,23]. Additionally, the absence of long-term vision and maintenance reduces project utility over time [24,25].                             This paper offers a comprehensive approach to addressing these challenges, emphasizing inclusive spatial planning, stakeholder cooperation, and sustainable development. The findings highlight the need for systemic solutions that transcend short-term economic gains and focus on long-term impacts on communities, the environment, and cultural heritage. The goal is to create harmonized solutions that meet the interests of all parties involved while enabling the sustainable transformation of urban and tourist areas.

Lines 56-58 However, this study focuses specifically on spatial interventions and tourism-related conflicts, as these areas remain critical yet underexplored in existing research.   Lines 75-85 Despite extensive research on NIMBYism in infrastructure and energy projects, gaps remain regarding its implications in tourism-driven urban transformations. Current literature lacks comprehensive analysis on how different stakeholder engagement strategies, particularly those that account for long-term socio-economic and environmental impacts, can mitigate opposition and foster cooperation in tourism-related urban development. This study aims to fill this gap by examining selected cases of spatial conflicts arising from land-use changes, with a focus on project preparation time (tp) and benefit realization time (tb). Findings suggest that insufficient stakeholder involvement prolongs preparatory phases, leading to delays, increased costs, and reduced project utility over time [22,23]. Additionally, a lack of long-term vision and maintenance planning diminishes the sustainability of implemented projects [24,25].   Lines 106-113 This study contributes to the discourse by offering some insights into these challenges, emphasizing inclusive spatial planning, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and sustainable development strategies. By analyzing the interplay of stakeholder engagement, urban development, and sustainable tourism, this research highlights the need for systemic solutions that transcend short-term economic gains and prioritize long-term community well-being, environmental sustainability, and cultural heritage preservation. The goal is to propose some possible solutions that balance diverse interests, facilitating the sustainable transformation of urban and tourist areas.

 

Author comment: A new paragraph that more clearly defines the aim and objectives of the article has been added to the Materials and Methods section.

 

Before

Re-submitted paper

Lines 251-263 By analyzing global case studies, the study seeks to identify key barriers and opportunities associated with public opposition to urban projects and to propose strategies for more effective policy implementation. The objectives of this research are: 1.      To analyze the impact of the NIMBY phenomenon on project preparation time (tp) and benefit realization time (tb) in urban and tourism-related developments. 2.      To explore the dynamics of stakeholder interactions in sustainable urban planning. 3.      To investigate the relationship between new construction investments and maintenance costs for sustainable and attractive urban development. 4.      To examine the role of positive indirect revenue generated by the built environment and cultural heritage in relation to tourism. 5.      To evaluate the negative impacts of tourism in relation to the tourist tax.

Author comment: A new paragraph that more clearly relates to the previous literature has been added to the Discussion section.

 

Before

Re-submitted paper

Lines 835-871 The findings of this study align with and extend previous research on the NIMBY phenomenon, stakeholder engagement, and sustainable urban development. Numerous studies have identified NIMBY opposition as a primary obstacle to the implementation of infrastructure and urban transformation projects, often resulting from insufficient stakeholder engagement and perceived inequities in the distribution of costs and benefits. This research confirms these findings, showing that ineffective communication between project developers and local communities prolongs project preparation time (tp) and increases the likelihood of opposition. Moreover, many authors emphasized that public resistance is not only a reaction to physical development itself but also a response to the exclusionary nature of decision-making processes. This study reinforces that argument by demonstrating that projects with early and transparent community involvement face fewer delays and greater acceptance. Furthermore, our results corroborate the findings of authors such as [8-9] that opposition to the infrastructure projects, such as renewable energy developments, often stem from a perceived imbalance between local costs and global benefits rather than an outright rejection of development. From a broader sustainability perspective, our study builds on [1] and [2], and conclusions that urban planning must integrate environmental, social, and economic considerations to achieve long-term resilience. We find that benefit realization time (tb) is maximized in projects where participatory planning fosters local ownership, reducing long-term resistance and ensuring sustainable urban transformation. In the field of cultural heritage and tourism, previous research [16, 51] has demonstrated that adaptive reuse of historic sites can mitigate NIMBY opposition by emphasizing long-term economic and social benefits. Our findings support this perspective, particularly in cases where cultural heritage projects provide indirect benefits (IB) through increased tourism revenue, job creation, and urban revitalization. Furthermore, our research echoes the concerns raised by [18, 19] regarding the threshold at which mass tourism triggers local resistance. Our data suggest that once a tourist-to-resident ratio of 4:1 is exceeded, local opposition becomes more pronounced, a pattern also observed in cities experiencing overtourism [106-108]. Finally, this study contributes to the literature by providing a quantitative assessment of the economic impact of project delays due to NIMBY opposition. By incorporating time-dependent factors (tp, tb, and IB) into our analysis, we offer a structured framework for balancing urban development, cultural heritage preservation, and environmental sustainability. Our results reinforce the need for systemic, inclusive planning approaches that prioritize long-term stakeholder engagement over short-term economic gains, aligning with global best practices in sustainable urban development.

 

 

 

 

 

2. Never clarifies how this discussion leads to novel insights or expands upon existing research.

Author comment: A new paragraph that more clearly explains the novel insights has been added to the Discussion section. Also please see our first comment on your first remark and your 7^th remark and our response.

 

Before

Re-submitted paper

Lines 886-918 Many experimental studies have shown that cooperation and the decision to participate are influenced by various factors, such as family tradition, age, culture, gender, education [39], religious affiliation [40], and the timing of the decision [41]. These unforeseen factors can be defined as the ratio of time to investors' costs, benefits to stakeholders, uncertainties for both investors and stakeholders, and indirect benefits for all parties involved. The research described in this article has led to new insights, such as: 1) Participants in spatial use projects can resist by extending the project preparation time (tp) beyond any reasonable measure, even when a benefit is expected for the public good (e.g., investment in the construction of green energy sources). 2) Participants can resist if their living space or habits are interfered with, even if the indirect benefits (IB) are positive (e.g., tourism). 3) There is a correlation between the number of tourists and the number of residents when the NIMBY  phenomenon occurs. 4) Some cities where the NIMBY phenomenon has occurred do not have an established mechanism (e.g., tourist tax) to mitigate the negative consequences of tourism (e.g., Valencia) or the mechanism is insufficient (e.g., Dubrovnik). Due to the complexity of the topic, at least three scenarios may occur in the future: 1) We may avoid NIMBY phenomena entirely due to increasingly powerful centralist governments with capital and indifference to democracy, global warming, and sustainable spatial development, where the population will become victims of capital and global centralist leaders. 2) We may not avoid NIMBY phenomena entirely, as there will still be selfish individuals driven by profit. 3) NIMBY phenomena may disappear due to a higher level of awareness for proactive cooperation and sustainable use of all resources, including space and sustainable tourism. There is no clear path to determining which scenario will unfold. As Bertalanffy stated [24], it involves complex arrangements of units or components that constitute the sustainable aspect of space and tourism. By studying individual components (investments, cultural heritage, tourism, benefits, capital, global warming), it is also necessary to examine the relationships between these components to fully understand the systemic consideration of sustainability.

 

 

3. While the manuscript mentions multiple real-world examples, it does not specify the analytical lens used to interpret these.

 

Author comment: Based on the author's extensive experience (over 10 years) in spatial planning as a project manager for highways, power lines, gas pipelines, sewage treatment plants, and cooperation with participants, she has found that residents value and protect "their" space much more effectively and passionately than the methodology of environmental impact assessments. Their decisions on interventions are not based on economics but on the value of rare goods. The author has been monitoring the NIMBY  phenomenon in both immediate and wider environments for several years, studying it extensively. She is the author of numerous professional articles, including:

 

• Public Participation in the Process of Spatial Planning of Infrastructure and Other Facilities
  • Dvornik Perhavec, Daniela
  • Type of work: 1.09 Published professional paper at a conference
  • Year: 2008
  • Source: Proceedings, pp. 573-578
  • si-ID 12121110
• Public Cooperation in the Process of Spatial Planning of Infrastructure and Other Facilities
  • Dvornik Perhavec, Daniela
  • Type of work: 1.04 Professional article
  • Year: 2009
  • Source: Prostor S: Journal for Architecture and Construction, ISSN 1840-4154, No. 3, pp. 86-90
  • si-ID 15122198
• Square and Park in the City Center - Diametrical Opposition or Unity: Renovation of Slomškov Trg in the City of Maribor as an Attempt to Prove the Diametrical Opposition of Park and Square
  • Dvornik Perhavec, Daniela; Kos Grabar, Jože; Drozg, Vladimir
  • In: Proceedings, International Scientific Meeting Greenery of the City of Zagreb, Zagreb, June 4-5, 2013
  • Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Znanstveno Vijeće za Promet, 2013, pp. 378-383, graphical displays
  • SI-ID 16970774
  • Category: NK (S)
  • Points: 1.67, No. of authors: 3
• Regional Development Opportunity in Tourism with Participant Participation
  • Dvornik Perhavec, Daniela
  • Type of work: 1.16 Independent scientific essay or chapter in a monographic publication
  • Year: 2017
  • Source: Space, Region, Development, pp. 167-182
  • si-ID 42158893
• Attitude Towards Space and Assessment of Participant Participation
  • In: Kerbler, Boštjan Kefo (ed.)
  • Innovating Regional Policies and Practices: 34th Sedlar Meeting and International Regional Development Conference: MB, November 16-17, 2023
  • Ljubljana: Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, 2024, pp. 131-143
  • Urban Challenge, 2024, No. 18, ISSN 2232-481X
  • SI-ID 222175235
  • Category: 4C (Z); Work type not yet verified
  • Items: 25, No. of authors: 1

 

 

 

The following lines were added to the Materials and methods section.

 

Before	Re-submitted paper
	Lines 267-270 Articles about NIMBY phenomena were collected randomly rather than systematically. In the Republic of Slovenia, NIMBY phenomena were monitored through direct or indirect participation. In other countries, NIMBY phenomena were selected based on the availability of journalistic articles.

 

 

4. The discussion remains very broad, and it is unclear whether these examples were chosen through systematic selection criteria or were simply opportunistic illustrations.

Author comment: Please, see comment before. The following lines were added to the Materials and methods section. See also your first remark and our response and added text.

 

Before	Re-submitted paper
	Lines 267-270 Articles about NIMBY phenomena were collected randomly rather than systematically. In the Republic of Slovenia, NIMBY phenomena were monitored through direct or indirect participation. In other countries, NIMBY phenomena were selected based on the availability of journalistic articles.

 

 

5. The methods section is relatively high-level, mixing literature review, anecdotal evidence, and partial data without specifying how the authors collected, screened, or analyzed it.

Author comment: Please see our response in your previous remarks 3 and 4.

 

 

 

 

 

6. Although “sustainability” features prominently in the title, the article sometimes seems to focus more on listing NIMBY examples rather than analyzing the sustainability outcomes (e.g., environmental impacts, social equity implications) or how exactly tourism can be made more sustainable.

Author comment: In the Conclusions section a paragraph describing future research was rewritten as follows. Also, a new paragraph was added describing some more practical implications for policy and urban planning.

 

Before

Re-submitted paper

… Future research should further explore the intersection between public participation, policy effectiveness, and sustainable development. A deeper understanding of global best practices in stakeholder cooperation could provide valuable insights for mitigating NIMBY resistance and fostering balanced urban growth. Additionally, comparative studies between regions with successful and failed urban projects could help identify replicable strategies that facilitate community-driven development. Ultimately, sustainable urban planning requires a shift from conflict-driven decision-making to collaborative, inclusive strategies that harmonize diverse interests while ensuring long-term benefits for communities and the environment. By embracing participatory planning, transparent governance, and sustainable investment strategies, cities can navigate the complexities of development while fostering resilient, equitable, and thriving urban landscapes. …

Lines 954-1014 Future research should investigate the long-term evolution of NIMBY opposition in various urban and rural contexts. Understanding how public perception changes over time, especially after project implementation—could provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of participatory planning and communication strategies. More research is needed to develop predictive models that quantify the relationship between stakeholder engagement, project preparation time (tp), and benefit realization time (tb). The participation of stakeholders in spatial change projects can be likened to strategic games, where the outcome depends on the players' skills and decisions, as well as chance. One of the basic assumptions of game theory is that people behave rationally and choose strategies that maximize profit. In these scenarios, spatial change generates an indirect collective benefit, while individual interests often diverge from the common good. Computational simulations as the prisoner's dilemma and the public goods game, and system dynamics modeling could help policymakers assess the potential impacts of different engagement strategies before implementation. As urban planning regulations and public attitudes toward development projects differ globally, comparative studies across different governance systems, cultural contexts, and economic conditions could reveal best practices for mitigating NIMBY resistance. Research in emerging economies and regions experiencing rapid urbanization would be particularly valuable. The findings on the tourist-to-resident ratio threshold suggest that overtourism plays a significant role in local resistance. Further studies should analyze the tipping points of social carrying capacity in different urban settings and propose adaptive policies for mitigating tourism-related conflicts. Future studies could also explore the role of digital platforms, such as participatory GIS, digital twins, and AI-driven public consultation tools, in improving stakeholder engagement. Evaluating their impact on reducing opposition and increasing project acceptance could provide practical solutions for urban planners and policymakers. Governments and project developers must adopt a proactive and participatory approach to planning, ensuring that local communities are involved from the outset. This can help shorten project preparation time (tp), minimize resistance, and improve public trust. Projects facing strong opposition should consider compensation models such as local investment funds, tax reductions for affected residents, or direct community benefits (e.g., infrastructure improvements, green spaces, or job creation). These incentives can shift the perception of new developments from a burden to a shared opportunity. Planning authorities can adopt adaptive governance frameworks that allow for periodic reassessment of project impacts and enable modifications based on real-time feedback from stakeholders. This approach ensures that projects remain aligned with evolving social and environmental concerns. Cities experiencing overtourism should implement tiered tourist taxation, seasonal visitor limits, and redistribution strategies to balance economic benefits with local well-being. Policies that diversify tourism activities across different locations and seasons can prevent localized overburdening. Policymakers should integrate legal mandates for public participation into urban development laws. Requiring early-stage consultations and binding agreements on community benefits could reduce the frequency and intensity of NIMBY conflicts. The government occasionally prioritizes attracting foreign investors to boost the national budget, sometimes at the expense of its citizens' needs. When such investments enter the spatial planning process, the affected local population often organizes and begins to oppose the project. Cities and regions should capitalize on the indirect benefits (IB) of cultural heritage by integrating it into sustainable economic models. Investments in heritage conservation and adaptive reuse can generate long-term returns through increased tourism revenue while maintaining local identity and reducing development opposition. To minimize resistance to new infrastructure, governments and private investors should prioritize green and smart solutions that align with environmental sustainability goals. Implementing nature-based solutions, green architecture, and energy-efficient developments can reduce environmental concerns and improve project acceptance. By addressing these research gaps and implementing these policy recommendations, cities and communities can proactively manage NIMBY opposition, enhance public trust, and promote inclusive, sustainable urban development. Future planning efforts must prioritize collaborative decision-making, economic fairness, and long-term environmental resilience to create urban spaces that benefit all stakeholders.

 

7. Overall, the idea of examining NIMBY’s role in sustainable urban planning and tourism is worthwhile, but the article must make its purpose explicit, demonstrate methodological rigor, and tie its examples to a coherent argument. By reorganizing the content around clearly formulated research questions and providing more thorough analysis of case studies, the authors can significantly strengthen both the academic and practical merits of their work.

Author comment: This remark is partly addressed in your first and second remark. Also, the following text was added to the Introduction section.

 

Before

Re-submitted paper

Lines 90-105 The power of interest is closely related to the social consequences of planned interventions, as income is implicitly or explicitly redistributed with every decision on land use. In specific cases, contradictions arise based on which specific parties have interests in a particular space or interference in it, and how different and motivationally strong these interests are. The strength of interests is closely related to the social consequences of planned interventions, as income is implicitly or explicitly redistributed with every land use decision. The main purpose of land use changes is to create a permanent, equitable, and attractive living environment through investment. The owners of space undergoing land use change, together with investors, need to understand the mechanisms for prosperity and the benefits of collective progress before prioritizing individual interests. People who believe in social justice agree with the principle that cities (in the case of tourism) should be affordable and accessible to all [14, 15]. The questions that cannot be answered at this moment are: Who is the defector (NIMBY initiator) and who represents them? The investor and tourists or the residents? Do the investors and tourists, and indirectly the government, represent a selfish individualist who wants to change or occupy space for more profit or personal satisfaction?

 

Other author remarks:

 

For better understanding of the paper quite a few new references were added.

 

 Added references:

109. EUROSTAT, T. EUROSTAT. EC Eur.
110. citizens EUROSTAT EUROSTAT.
111. Tamma, P. Italy’s high-speed railway dilemma: POLITICO 2018.
112. Berger, P. MTA Awards $1.8 Billion Contract to Expand Long Island Rail Road. Wall Str. J. 2017.
113. Andrews, W. Sanrizuka: The Struggle to Stop Narita Airport. Throw Out Your Books 2014.
114. ZEU d.o.o., M. S. Primerjalna študija variantnih rešitev poteka daljnovoda 2 x 400 kV Cirkovce - Pince 2005.
115. Vahtarić, S. Lokalno partnerstvo Brežice v postopku iskanja lokacije za odlagališče NSRAO 2010.
116. Forgotten Lands, P. and T. Ghost Towns, Abandoned Places and Historic Sites Available online: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1UUfwmW5YntQiVznItYrXwHYn1D9eGkgU&hl=en_US&ll=34.92090202187946%2C-89.46123010138193&z=4 (accessed on Feb 8, 2024).
117. Christopher, M. Abandoned America: an autopsy of the American Dream.
118. Roblek, V.; Drpić, D.; Meško, M.; Milojica, V. Evolution of sustainable tourism concepts. Sustain. 2021, 13, 1–21, doi:10.3390/su132212829.
119. Ordóñez-Martínez, D.; Seguí-Pons, J. M.; Ruiz-Pérez, M. Conceptual Framework and Prospective Analysis of EU Tourism Data Spaces. Sustain. 2024, 16, doi:10.3390/su16010371.
120. Beton, K. Analiza vplivov turizma Available online: https://www.radolca.si/media/slo GREEN/ANALIZA vplivov turizma.pdf.
121. Ljubljana Turistična taksa v Ljubljani Available online: https://www.visitljubljana.com/sl/obiskovalci/informacije/turisticna-taksa-v-ljubljani/ (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
122. RH Dubrovačko-Neretvanska Županija Upravni odjel za poduzetništvo turizam i more Odluka o visini turističke pristojbe za 2024. godinu; 2022;
123. AREA ECONOMIA E FINANZA; RISCOSSIONE, S. T.-S. I. L. E. MPOSTA DI SOGGIORNO TARIFFE in vigore dal 01.07.2021 STRUTTURE CLASSIFICATE AI SENSI DELLA L.R.V. 11/2013; 2021;
124. Institut Municipal d’Hisenda de Barcelona Tourist Establishments Tax Available online: https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/hisenda/en/procedures-payments/tourist-establishments-tax?profile=1 (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
125. Norwegian Holidays Tourist Fee Available online: https://www.norwegianholidays.com/eu/tourist-fee (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
126. Meininger Hotels MEININGER Hotel Zürich Greencity Available online: https://help-center.meininger-hotels.com/en/support/solutions/articles/79000144063-city-tax-information-for-meininger-hotel-zürich-greencity (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
127. Trippz Tourist Tax Zurich 2025 Available online: https://trippz.com/tourist-tax/switzerland-zurich (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
128. expats_cz Prague 1 aims to significantly increase the city’s tourist tax Available online: https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/prague-1-aims-to-significantly-increase-city-s-tourist-tax (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
129. Immofy Travelling & Costa Blanca Region, Rejection of the tourist tax in the Valencian community Available online: https://blog.immofy.eu/en/rejection-of-the-tourist-tax-in-the-valencian-community (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
130. Hotellagriffe.com INFORMATION ON CITY TAX REGULATION;
131. Commune di Firenze Imposta di Soggiorno - Tourist tax - 2025;
132. Minoja, M.; Romano, G. Managing intellectual capital for sustainability: Evidence from a Re-municipalized, publicly owned waste management firm. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123213, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123213.
133. Schaefer, A. Corp Soc Responsibility Env - 2004 - Schaefer - Corporate sustainability integrating environmental and social concerns. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2004, 11, 179–187.
134. Castellanos-Galindo, G. A.; Casella, E.; Mejía-Rentería, J. C.; Rovere, A. Habitat mapping of remote coasts: Evaluating the usefulness of lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles for conservation and monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 239, 108282, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108282.
135. Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 871–880, doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.10.001.
136. Caust, J.; Vecco, M. Is UNESCO World Heritage recognition a blessing or burden? Evidence from developing Asian countries. J. Cult. Herit. 2017, 27, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.culher.2017.02.004.
137. Galli, A.; Đurović, G.; Hanscom, L.; Knežević, J. Think globally, act locally: Implementing the sustainable development goals in Montenegro. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 84, 159–169, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.012.
138. Lak, A.; Gheitasi, M.; Timothy, D. J. Urban regeneration through heritage tourism: cultural policies and strategic management. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2020, 18, 386–403, doi:10.1080/14766825.2019.1668002.
139. Seyfi, S.; Hall, C. M.; Fagnoni, E. Managing World Heritage Site stakeholders: a grounded theory paradigm model approach. J. Herit. Tour. 2019, 14, 308–324, doi:10.1080/1743873X.2018.1527340.

 

 

Also a new Figure and its explanation was added in the Stakeholder chapter (Before Project management chapter)

 

Lines 189-193:

On Figure 1 we can see all the stakeholders involved in the processes of sustainable urban development and sustainable tourism. We can see how the NIMBY phenomenon affects decision-making processes and spatial interventions. We can also see when and where different variables or factors appear in the processes and how they are interconnected.

 

Figure 1: Flowchart of stakeholders and factors involved in the NIMBY phenomenon

 

All Figure numbers were corrected accordingly.

 

 

Also a new equation was added for better explanation of the Table 2.

 

Lines 538-545

In Table 2 there is a ratio calculated between the number of tourists and citizens in that city for an individual year (the number of tourists was divided by citizens, and the NIMBY expected factor NEF is calculated, see Eq. 1).

                                                                   (1)

 

Colored cells represent the initial year of resident disagreement with the mass tourists. If we exclude the cities of Dubrovnik and Venice (because here is all the city considered as a cultural heritage and not only point-by-point cultural sites) we can conclude that when the NEF ratio exceeds 3.63 the NIMBY phenomena to be expected.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a study of social impact assessment, which in much of the world is now combined with environmental impact assessment so the two can be seen as interrelated. The analysis is based on case studies which is appropriate but they come from so many perspectives that a path to a conclusion is vague. The authors are proponents of development and never seriously consider whether or not the proposed project should be made. It is a study of beginnings after the decision to build is made by proponents of a project.  Still given what the analysis conveys it is important for scholars in the area to consider. It would be better to qualify what it does not consider in terms of time and impacts. It might be worth considering whether or not tourism development and sustainable heritage can exist  together.  Might be useful to read the conclusion of Sustainable Heritage Tourism (2020) in this Sustainability Journal.

Author Response

Changes and comments of the re-submitted paper "From Resistance to Acceptance: The Role of NIMBY Phenomena in Sustainable Urban Development and Tourism"

 

Reviewer 4

 

1. The analysis is based on case studies which is appropriate, but they come from so many perspectives that a path to a conclusion is vague.

 

Author comment: This remark is partly addressed in the Introduction section. Also following text was added to the paper.

 

Before	Re-submitted paper
	Lines 90-105 The power of interest is closely related to the social consequences of planned interventions, as income is implicitly or explicitly redistributed with every decision on land use. In specific cases, contradictions arise based on which specific parties have interests in a particular space or interference in it, and how different and motivationally strong these interests are. The strength of interests is closely related to the social consequences of planned interventions, as income is implicitly or explicitly redistributed with every land use decision.
		The main purpose of land use changes is to create a permanent, equitable, and attractive living environment through investment. The owners of space undergoing land use change, together with investors, need to understand the mechanisms for prosperity and the benefits of collective progress before prioritizing individual interests. People who believe in social justice agree with the principle that cities (in the case of tourism) should be affordable and accessible to all [14, 15]. The questions that cannot be answered at this moment are: Who is the defector (NIMBY initiator) and who represents them? The investor and tourists or the residents? Do investors and tourists, and indirectly the government, represent a selfish individualist who wants to change or occupy space for more profit or personal satisfaction?

Author comment: A new paragraph that more clearly explains some conclusions has been added to the Discussion section. 

 

 

Before	Re-submitted paper
		Lines 886-918 Many experimental studies have shown that cooperation and the decision to participate are influenced by various factors, such as family tradition, age, culture, gender, education (39), religious affiliation (40), and the timing of the decision (41). These unforeseen factors can be defined as the ratio of time to investors' costs, benefits to stakeholders, uncertainties for both investors and stakeholders, and indirect benefits for all parties involved. The research described in this article has led to new insights, such as:
		1)                  Participants in spatial use projects can resist by extending the project preparation time (tp) beyond any reasonable measure, even when a benefit is expected for the public good (e.g., investment in the construction of green energy sources). 2)                  Participants can resist if their living space or habits are interfered with, even if the indirect benefits (IB) are positive (e.g., tourism). 3)                  There is a correlation between the number of tourists and the number of residents when the NIMBY phenomenon occurs. 4)                  Some cities where the NIMBY phenomenon has occurred do not have an established mechanism (e.g., tourist tax) to mitigate the negative consequences of tourism (e.g., Valencia) or the mechanism is insufficient (e.g., Dubrovnik). Due to the complexity of the topic, at least three scenarios may occur in the future: 1) We may avoid NIMBY phenomena entirely due to increasingly powerful centralist governments with capital and indifference to democracy, global warming, and sustainable spatial development, where the population will become victims of capital and global centralist leaders. 2)                  We may not avoid NIMBY phenomena entirely, as there will still be selfish individuals driven by profit. 3)                  NIMBY phenomena may disappear due to a higher level of awareness for proactive
	cooperation and sustainable use of all resources, including space and sustainable tourism. There is no clear path to determining which scenario will unfold. As Bertalanffy stated [24], it involves complex arrangements of units or components that constitute the sustainable aspect of space and tourism. By studying individual components (investments, cultural heritage, tourism, benefits, capital, global warming), it is also necessary to examine the relationships between these components to fully understand the systemic consideration of sustainability.

 

 

2. The authors are proponents of development and never seriously consider whether or not the proposed project should be made.

 

Author comment: The authors advocate for development because, through their practice, they have witnessed the consequences of the NIMBY phenomenon in the city of Maribor. The renovation of Slomšek square was halted due to the "rebellion" of participants and the selfish behavior of the architect, who did not propose a more acceptable solution for the proactive development of the park and square.

 

A historical example illustrates this point: when the Austro-Hungarian monarchy decided to build a railway through either the city of Ptuj or Lenart in Slovenia, the NIMBY phenomenon among the residents of Lenart led to the railway being constructed through Ptuj. Today, Ptuj is an administrative and educational center and the 8th largest city in Slovenia, while Lenart has lagged. However, the residents of Lenart learned from this mistake when it came to building a highway. Since then, industrial development has been ongoing, the population has grown, and city is more attractive for young families. 

 

 

 

3. It would be better to qualify what it does not consider in terms of time and impacts. It might be worth considering whether or not tourism development and sustainable heritage can exist together. Might be useful to read the conclusion of Sustainable Heritage Tourism (2020) in this Sustainability Journal.

 

 

Author comment: This remark is partly answered in your first remark. Also, the following text were added to the Results section. 

 

Before	Re-submitted paper
		Lines 755-764 But what is sustainability? Authors such as Minoa and Scheafer [121,122] have tried to
		answer this question. As already defined by Bertalanffy [24], the system is complex, it is more than the sum of its parts and it has important, interconnected components. The system is not reality, but the author's construction of a part of reality. For Bertalanffy, a system represents a "whole" or "units/unities" and is not a uniquely defined concept in terms of content. The type of system depends on the content chosen by the author and the chosen aspect [24]. A system is always more than the sum of its parts and cannot be understood by examining its individual components alone. It functions like an organism, with its own organization and integration into higher systems. The system possesses synergistic properties.

 

Other author remarks:

 

For better understanding of the paper quite a few new references were added.

 

 Added references:  

109. EUROSTAT, T. EUROSTAT. EC Eur.
110. citizens EUROSTAT EUROSTAT.
111. Tamma, P. Italy’s high-speed railway dilemma: POLITICO 2018.
112. Berger, P. MTA Awards $1.8 Billion Contract to Expand Long Island Rail Road. Wall Str. J. 2017.
113. Andrews, W. Sanrizuka: The Struggle to Stop Narita Airport. Throw Out Your Books 2014.
114. ZEU d.o.o., M. S. Primerjalna študija variantnih rešitev poteka daljnovoda 2 x 400 kV Cirkovce - Pince 2005.
115. Vahtarić, S. Lokalno partnerstvo Brežice v postopku iskanja lokacije za odlagališče NSRAO 2010.
116. Forgotten Lands, P. and T. Ghost Towns, Abandoned Places and Historic Sites Available online:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1UUfwmW5YntQiVznItYrXwHYn1D9e GkgU&hl=en_US&ll=34.92090202187946%2C-89.46123010138193&z=4 (accessed on Feb 8, 2024).

117. Christopher, M. Abandoned America: an autopsy of the American Dream.
118. Roblek, V.; Drpić, D.; Meško, M.; Milojica, V. Evolution of sustainable tourism concepts. 2021, 13, 1–21, doi:10.3390/su132212829.
119. Ordóñez-Martínez, D.; Seguí-Pons, J. M.; Ruiz-Pérez, M. Conceptual Framework and Prospective Analysis of EU Tourism Data Spaces. 2024, 16, doi:10.3390/su16010371.
120. Beton, K. Analiza vplivov turizma Available online: https://www.radolca.si/media/slo GREEN/ANALIZA vplivov turizma.pdf.
121. Ljubljana Turistična taksa v Ljubljani Available online: https://www.visitljubljana.com/sl/obiskovalci/informacije/turisticna-taksa-v-ljubljani/ (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
122. RH Dubrovačko-Neretvanska Županija Upravni odjel za poduzetništvo turizam i more Odluka o visini turističke pristojbe za 2024. godinu; 2022;
123. AREA ECONOMIA E FINANZA; RISCOSSIONE, S. T.-S. I. L. E. MPOSTA DI SOGGIORNO TARIFFE in vigore dal 01.07.2021 STRUTTURE CLASSIFICATE AI SENSI DELLA L.R.V. 11/2013; 2021;
124. Institut Municipal d’Hisenda de Barcelona Tourist Establishments Tax Available online:

https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/hisenda/en/procedures-payments/touristestablishments-tax?profile=1 (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).

125. Norwegian Holidays Tourist Fee Available online:

https://www.norwegianholidays.com/eu/tourist-fee (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).

126. Meininger Hotels MEININGER Hotel Zürich Greencity Available online: https://helpcenter.meininger-hotels.com/en/support/solutions/articles/79000144063-city-taxinformation-for-meininger-hotel-zürich-greencity (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
127. Trippz Tourist Tax Zurich 2025 Available online: https://trippz.com/touristtax/switzerland-zurich (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
128. expats_cz Prague 1 aims to significantly increase the city’s tourist tax Available online:

https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/prague-1-aims-to-significantly-increasecity-s-tourist-tax (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).

129. Immofy Travelling & Costa Blanca Region, Rejection of the tourist tax in the Valencian community Available online: https://blog.immofy.eu/en/rejection-of-the-tourist-taxin-the-valencian-community (accessed on Mar 12, 2025).
130. com INFORMATION ON CITY TAX REGULATION;
131. Commune di Firenze Imposta di Soggiorno - Tourist tax - 2025;
132. Minoja, M.; Romano, G. Managing intellectual capital for sustainability: Evidence from a Re-municipalized, publicly owned waste management firm. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123213, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123213.
133. Schaefer, A. Corp Soc Responsibility Env - 2004 - Schaefer - Corporate sustainability integrating environmental and social concerns. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2004, 11, 179–187.
134. Castellanos-Galindo, G. A.; Casella, E.; Mejía-Rentería, J. C.; Rovere, A. Habitat mapping of remote coasts: Evaluating the usefulness of lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles for conservation and monitoring. Conserv. 2019, 239, 108282, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108282.
135. Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development.

Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 871–880, doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.10.001.

136. Caust, J.; Vecco, M. Is UNESCO World Heritage recognition a blessing or burden? Evidence from developing Asian countries. Cult. Herit. 2017, 27, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.culher.2017.02.004.
137. Galli, A.; Đurović, G.; Hanscom, L.; Knežević, J. Think globally, act locally: Implementing the sustainable development goals in Montenegro. Sci. Policy 2018, 84, 159– 169, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.012.
138. Lak, A.; Gheitasi, M.; Timothy, D. J. Urban regeneration through heritage tourism:

cultural policies and strategic management. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2020, 18, 386–403, doi:10.1080/14766825.2019.1668002.

139. Seyfi, S.; Hall, C. M.; Fagnoni, E. Managing World Heritage Site stakeholders: a grounded theory paradigm model approach. Herit. Tour. 2019, 14, 308–324, doi:10.1080/1743873X.2018.1527340.

 

 

Also a new Figure and its explanation was added in the Stakeholder chapter (Before Project management chapter)

 

Lines 189-193:

On Figure 1 we can see all the stakeholders involved in the processes of sustainable urban development and sustainable tourism. We can see how the NIMBY phenomenon affects decision-making processes and spatial interventions. We can also see when and where different variables or factors appear in the processes and how they are interconnected.

Figure 4: Flowchart of stakeholders and factors involved in the NIMBY phenomenon 

All Figure numbers were corrected accordingly. 

 

Also a new equation was added for better explanation of the Table 2.

 

Lines 538-545

In Table 2 there is a ratio calculated between the number of tourists and citizens in that city for an individual year (the number of tourists was divided by citizens, and the NIMBY expected factor NEF is calculated, see Eq. 1). 

 

Colored cells represent the initial year of resident disagreement with the mass tourists. If we exclude the cities of Dubrovnik and Venice (because here is all the city considered as a cultural heritage and not only point-by-point cultural sites) we can conclude that when the NEF ratio exceeds 3.63 the NIMBY phenomena to be expected.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the time and effort the authors have put into responding to my comments. I am pleased to acknowledge that the majority of my concerns have been comprehensively addressed, and I believe that the paper is now suitable for publication in its current form.