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

Abstract

The role of NIMBY (“Not in My Backyard”) phenomena in sustainable urban development and tourism was analyzed, with a focus on stakeholder dynamics and implications for spatial planning. Based on an analysis of worldwide case studies, the main barriers and opportunities presented by these phenomena were identified, including the impact of project preparation time (t_p) and benefit realization time (t_b). A mixed methods approach was used, combining qualitative analysis of case studies with quantitative evaluation of project timelines. The results show that effective stakeholder engagement significantly reduces t_p, while maximizing t_b increases long-term benefits for communities and the environment. This research emphasizes the systemic interdependence of urban planning, environmental sustainability, tourism, and cultural heritage preservation, offering actionable insights for policymakers and developers. The conclusions emphasize the importance of participatory approaches to ensure equitable and sustainable urban transformation.

1. Introduction

Sustainable urban development and tourism present fundamental challenges for contemporary societies, as conflicts often arise between economic interests, environmental goals, and the needs of local communities. One of the central issues in planning and implementing sustainable development projects is the lack of coordination among stakeholders, which leads to conflicts, delays, and, at times, project failure. This dynamic is particularly evident in the context of the NIMBY phenomena, which reflect diverse public reactions to changes in land use [1,2]. While the NIMBY phenomenon often represents local opposition to infrastructure and development projects, YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard) emphasizes support for initiatives that promise broader social and economic benefits [3].

The NIMBY/YIMBY principles manifest in various contexts beyond physical spatial interventions. In healthcare, they are evident in opposition to vaccination, as seen in France during the COVID-19 pandemic, where distrust in government and pharmaceutical industries fueled vaccine hesitancy [4]. Similarly, protests against pandemic restrictions in the Netherlands, perceived as infringements on personal freedoms, highlight the societal tension between collective health measures and individual rights [5]. In the economic sphere, these principles appear in resistance to labor migration, as documented in the United Kingdom post-Brexit, where fears of job displacement intensified opposition to immigration [6]. Educational contexts also reveal these dynamics, such as the resistance to introducing LGBT content in Polish schools due to cultural and religious concerns [7]. In energy transitions, local opposition to Tesla’s factory in Brandenburg, Germany, due to environmental concerns, illustrates the complexity of balancing renewable energy goals with local ecological impacts [8]. Meanwhile, the “Yellow Vest” movement in France highlights public resistance to fuel taxes perceived as disproportionately burdening lower-income populations [9]. Cultural events, such as the Olympic Games, often provoke resistance due to forced displacements and uneven distribution of benefits, reflecting broader socio-economic inequalities [10]. Similarly, technological advancements, like facial recognition, have faced criticism over privacy concerns and potential misuse [11]. These examples demonstrate that the NIMBY principles extend beyond physical interventions and are deeply tied to social, economic, and cultural dynamics. However, this study focuses specifically on spatial interventions and tourism-related conflicts, as these areas remain critical yet underexplored in the existing research.

The core problem associated with the NIMBY phenomenon is frequently linked to perceived threats to local residents’ interests, such as concerns about increased noise, pollution, and destruction of natural resources or cultural heritage [12,13]. Conversely, YIMBY movements highlight advantages such as improved housing accessibility, job creation, and the promotion of renewable energy projects. However, these efforts are often overshadowed by strong local opposition [14,15].

Sustainable tourism, closely tied to urban development, introduces additional pressures. Increased tourist flows often overload local infrastructure, inflate property prices, and erode the authenticity of historic city centers [16,17]. Examples such as mass tourism in Dubrovnik, Venice, and Barcelona demonstrate how imbalances between tourist and resident interests can lead to enduring social and environmental conflicts [18,19]. The social effects of tourism-driven gentrification are closely tied to its economic impacts, such as rising housing prices and the increased attractiveness of urban areas. While these changes often foster urban revitalization in tourist cities [20,21], they can simultaneously create tensions within local communities, particularly when gentrification displaces long-term residents or erodes cultural authenticity.

Despite extensive research on NIMBYism in infrastructure and energy projects, gaps remain regarding its implications in tourism-driven urban transformations. The current literature lacks a comprehensive analysis of 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 (t_p) and benefit realization time (t_b). The 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]. Another significant issue is the irreversible loss of agricultural land and natural resources caused by urbanization. Land-use changes that convert agricultural or forest areas into urban zones have long-term impacts on environmental balance, often irreparable [21]. Furthermore, conflicts of interest among different social groups reflect deeper societal stratifications, complicating the achievement of compromises [26]. 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 as follows: Who are NIMBY initiators and who represents them? The investors 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?

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. Stakeholders

The stakeholder group can be mainly divided into two groups: the group of NIMBY phenomena or the group of YIMBY phenomena. The NIMBY phenomenon [1,2] is strong and vivid. It is a negative reaction to opposition from residents who oppose a new development because it is in their neighborhood [27]. In some cases, NIMBY arises because residents believe the development involves controversial or potentially dangerous technology, often with the connotation that such developments are needed in the community but should be installed farther away [12,13,28,29,30,31].

In project management, all stakeholders are divided into three categories [22]:

(1)

Regulators: national, local, and international authorities that issue permits and control the individual construction processes.

(2)

Stakeholders, which represent interested groups, citizens, etc.: These can be organized groups or groups of citizens who are affected by the construction project during the construction or operation process or at the end of the project; in some cases, such public groups can increase the influence on the progress of the project or even achieve a halt to the project.

(3)

Project managers: They lead the project and are involved in the implementation of the project; project managers vary from phase to phase, depending on the specialization of each phase of the project.

Through the commitment of the project stakeholders, different interests are identified, and activities are defined to achieve the sustainable goal, such as a sustainable irrigation system [32], the water and waste sector, or sustainable public services [29].

According to Thompsom [33], the stakeholders involved in a project can be decisive for the success of the project and the career of the project leader. They are also crucial for a future political election. The key to the development and success of the project is to understand the stakeholder response. Stakeholders may develop a strategy to oppose the project’s solutions and make demands to achieve the planned goals—by stopping the project or changing the solutions. The project manager should try to develop a negotiation strategy and answer the following questions before engaging with stakeholders [33]:

• What is their financial or emotional stake in the outcome of project manager work? Is it positive or negative?
• How will the project manager motivate most stakeholders to support the project?
• What information do the stakeholders want to receive about the project?
• How can a project manager communicate between project sponsors and stakeholders best?
• What is the current opinion of stakeholders about project manager work and the professionalism of the project developers? Is it based on good information?
• What and who influences stakeholders’ opinions in general, and what influences their opinions of the project developers?
• If it is likely that the stakeholders will accept the project, what is the key point of the project that will lead to a positive outcome?
• If it is likely that the project will not be accepted by the stakeholders, what strategy can be used to reassure the opposing stakeholders? Is it possible to find a person who can influence the stakeholders and convince them of the usefulness of the project?

A very good way for project developers to answer these questions is to talk directly to the stakeholders; people are usually open to their views, and open communication is often the first step to building a successful relationship between project stakeholders and project developers. Finally, when analyzing stakeholders, a dynamic and iterative mapping process can be employed, where each color on the map represents the position of various stakeholder groups—supporters (green), opponents (red), and neutral parties (orange) [33]. This approach is not a static exercise but a living process conducted directly in the field. By actively engaging with stakeholders, this mapping helps to identify not only their positions but also their motivations, concerns, and levels of openness to dialogue. Through this process, a deeper understanding is gained of who the stakeholders are, how they perceive the project, and what their priorities might be. It becomes evident which stakeholders are more inclined toward collaboration and supportive of the project, and which ones require more extensive negotiation or reassurance. This stakeholder mapping further allows project managers and planners to tailor their strategies, focusing efforts on fostering relationships with those who show a willingness to engage constructively. Simultaneously, it highlights opportunities to open lines of communication with opponents or neutral parties who could be persuaded to see the project’s broader benefits. Such an adaptive and participatory process is crucial for building trust, reducing resistance, and ultimately ensuring the project’s success within a sustainable framework.

The basic idea of collaboration between investors, government, stakeholders, and planners comes from evolutionary games. Social physicists have researched when and how individuals are willing to cooperate. With the help of game theory, they investigate whether the laws that apply in physics also apply to social phenomena [34]. Besides Hobbes, who gave the basic definition of cooperation with strong authority and strict government [35], Axelrod postulated that cooperation (bilateral) can start and remain stable even in a predominantly non-cooperative environment if the future is relatively more important than the present [36]. Nowadays, countries and other local communities no longer have authoritarian authorities, so cooperation is extremely important for success. Many experimental studies have shown that cooperation depends on many factors, such as family tradition, age, culture, gender, education [37], religious affiliation [38], and the timing of the decision [39], and that a better-informed public is more likely to participate [40].

In 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.

Several versions of NIMBY are known. NIMN (»Not in My Neighborhood«) [41], refers to legislative actions or private agreements made for the sole purpose of maintaining racial identity within a neighborhood or residential area [42]. NIABY (“Not In Anyone’s Backyard”) refers to opposition to certain developments that are considered inappropriate anywhere in the world, such as nuclear power plants [43]. NAMBI (“Not Against My Business or Industry”) is an acronym used for political actions that might threaten a business or industry. These businesses complain about actions or policies that serve only their interests, rather than the interests of all similar businesses that might also suffer the consequences of those policies. The term BANANA (“Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything”-or “Anyone”) is particularly popular in the United Kingdom and is often used to criticize the ongoing opposition to urban development by certain interest groups [44]. PIBBY is an acronym for “Place in Blacks’ Backyard” [45]. This principle states that socially, racially, and economically privileged people resist development in their own backyards; if the property in question must be built, it should be built in such a way that the perceived harms disproportionately affect poor and socially disadvantaged people. Robert D. Bullard [46] believes that these phenomena lead to environmental racism because poor people may not want to hire a lawyer to object to harmful development or because they may have more immediate problems. SOBBY (“Some Other Bugger’s Back Yard”) or YBNH (Yes, but not here) [47] refers to a mindset that considers a project desirable and perhaps even necessary but only if it is completed elsewhere [47]. All these terms are often used to dismiss the groups as selfish or poorly informed, but these groups are very important for urban planning and the progress of projects in the countries. Arguments in favor of development are often cited as more jobs, tax revenue, high development costs, safety, and environmental benefits. Proponents of development can accuse local citizens of selfishness, elitism, follower mentality, racism, rejection of diversity, and false or unrealistic expectations of urban development.

The opposite of NIMBY and its variants is the YIMBY phenomenon. Unlike the NIMBY phenomenon, YIMBY is a pro-development movement [3]. Typically, the YIMBY movement supports the development of new housing in cities where rental costs have risen to unaffordable levels. It can also support public interest projects, such as the installation of clean energy sources (e.g., wind turbines). Together, these trends reveal the complexity of balancing economic revitalization, social equity, and sustainable spatial development. Addressing these challenges requires integrating long-term planning frameworks that prioritize environmental stewardship, community well-being, and adaptive reuse of neglected spaces.

For most countries, the preservation and regular maintenance of facilities is a national interest [16,48]. Rypkema cites globalization as the most important economic aspect of heritage conservation [16]. Globalization, whether economic or cultural, can mean such rapid change that it can cause political, economic, social, and psychological disruption. The reuse of historic buildings can be a cornerstone for a country, providing people and societies with a sense of stability and continuity and serving as a countermeasure to the disruption that economic globalization is accelerating. When restoring buildings, it is not necessary to limit the strategy of restoring historic buildings to a specific area. Cities are scattered throughout the country, and development strategies based on the preservation and restoration of historic heritage can also be spatially dispersed. Due to the local dispersion of historic buildings, there is no fear of centralization, and there is a unique opportunity to preserve and create jobs even in times of crisis, providing some stability to the local economy. The preservation of historic buildings can be performed as part of projects of all sizes, from the renovation of individual buildings to large regional renovation projects. Work on small projects can begin while large projects are still being decided. Investments in renovation have a long-term and indirect economic impact [49]. It is known that for the same investment in a new building or a renovation, the latter creates more jobs.

3. Materials and Methods

This paper aims to investigate the role of the NIMBY 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, this 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 as follows:

(1)

To analyze the impact of the NIMBY phenomenon on project preparation time (t_p) and benefit realization time (t_b) 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.

This study started by carrying out literature reviews, newspaper sources, and multidisciplinary journal papers. All sources were selected with the intention of finding the correlation between NIMBY, project phases, maintenance, cultural heritage, and tourism exploitation. 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.

This article employs various research methods contributing to a comprehensive analysis of the NIMBY phenomena. The inductive method was used to formulate general conclusions based on the analysis of individual cases, while the deductive method verified theoretical assumptions through these analyses. Analysis and synthesis were applied to examine the key characteristics of individual projects and to integrate these findings into a broader context of spatial planning. The methods of abstraction and concretization facilitated the transition from general concepts, such as parameters (t_p, t_b, IB), to their practical application in specific projects. The classification method was employed to categorize projects with NIMBY occurrences into distinct groups, supported by a descriptive approach to illustrating the phenomena and specific cases. The comparative method was used to analyze different projects to reveal similarities and differences in the impacts of NIMBY. The statistical method supported the analysis of quantitative data, such as the temporal components of projects and their benefits and positive and negative factors of tourists, while the compilation method was evident in integrating information from various sources. These methods are integrated into a multidisciplinary framework, enabling a holistic examination of the addressed issues.

4. Project Phases and NIMBY Phenomena

4.1. Project Phases

According to the authors [22,50,51,52], a building project includes construction, craft, and installation work. Most construction projects can be viewed as five phases, although there are sometimes four. These phases are as follows:

• The conceptual phase;
• The planning (and development) or preliminary design phase;
• The detail design phase;
• The construction phase;
• Start-up and turnover.

The planning phase resolves dilemmas with participants. People can oppose new construction or new regulations, especially if their forest or agricultural land is planned to be taken away. In the phase when the issues with the stakeholders are resolved, the implementation phase is relatively fast and fluid. There, other problems arise, such as labor shortages, errors in project documentation, implementation, material supply, and logistics.

The operating lifetime of an individual facility or arrangement depends on the initially planned implementation, including materials and details. According to the authors [53,54,55], the design life of buildings is seen in

Table 1. Life span for different types of buildings.

Construction Material	Life Span (Years)
Historical structures	500–1000
Steel structures	100–150
Steel bridges	120
Concrete structures and buildings	100
Other commercial or private buildings	60–80
Brick masonry	100
Glass	50
Marble/granite	75
Ceramic tiles	75
Plaster	40
GI pipes	30

. From Table 1, we find data collected by various authors about the life span of materials or objects.

According to the Chinese researcher [56], in China, the lifespan of buildings is shorter; for example, for brick–concrete buildings in urban areas, the lifespan is no more than 40 years, for highways 50 years, and for railways approximately 100 years.

Maintenance is an important period of a building’s lifetime. Some authors mention five reasons for building maintenance [57], others even ten reasons [58]. Maintaining a building is not always the most glamorous job, but it is essential to the longevity and property value. Without proper maintenance, a building can quickly fall into disrepair, leading to several problems for the people who use it and the businesses that operate in it. With maintenance services, the life expectancy of assets increases and keeps everything working at its best. The great world treasures structures such as the Eiffel Tower, Leaning Tower of Pisa, Golden Gate Bridge, Piccadilly, and others are well and often visited; therefore, they are well maintained. Reducing the maintenance process causes the possibility of lowering the facility value on the market due to deterioration.

When a building is over 60 years old, it can be classified as a historical building, and if it is important for national identity, it can be entered into the list of national cultural heritage. Therefore, for cultural heritage, the time of operation is longer, even permanent. Cultural heritage buildings bring benefit, namely, they generate indirect profits [16] through tourist tours.

In Europe, the turnover associated with heritage commercialization in 2001 was ten times the turnover of the multinational company BMW or twice (183 billion USD) the amount spent by major American companies on research and development [48]. Investment in the preservation and commercialization of cultural heritage directly employs about 306,000 people in Europe and about 40,000 craftspeople in France alone [59]. It is estimated that cultural heritage indirectly employs about 7.8 million people, which corresponds to more than 8 million jobs. As Rypkema proved, each direct job related to cultural heritage creates more than 26 indirect jobs (26.7 to be exact, in the automotive industry this factor is only 6.3) [16].

The restoration of cultural heritage sites creates many more jobs than the construction of buildings or highways. A study shows [60] that for every GBP 10,000 invested in heritage restoration, a further GBP 48,000 is added in private and public investment [61].

However, building maintenance is important for several reasons:

• It helps to ensure the safety of occupants and visitors;
• Building maintenance can help extend the life of a building;
• The value of the property is maintained or even increased.

Many buildings and structures indeed surpass their expected design life, thanks to various factors. Rehabilitation, repair, and strengthening techniques play a crucial role, but the quality of materials and products used is equally important. Moreover, selecting an experienced contractor is vital, as their expertise can significantly impact the longevity and safety of the structure. In fact, the contractor’s skill and experience can sometimes be even more critical than the materials themselves [53].

While projects not protected as cultural heritage are often repurposed, buildings designated as cultural heritage remain permanent. They exemplify good maintenance and consistent use, such as the Pantheon in Rome, churches, and palaces, or exist as archaeological ruins like those in Naples and Circus Maximus.

Conversely, abandoned or neglected areas highlight a lack of investor commitment to long-term environmental and urban sustainability [62]. This issue underscores a broader challenge in spatial planning, where land-use changes typically convert agricultural or forested areas into urban zones but rarely the reverse [12].

4.2. NIMBY Examples on the Field of Land Use Changes

The motivation for this research came from NIMBY movement examples around the world. Forty-seven reports were analyzed, and the consequences resulting from the change in land use were examined.

The NIMBY phenomena are strong and present. They involve many new facilities, such as homeless shelters [63], fracking [64], abortion clinics [65], nuclear waste storage facilities [66], weapons of mass destruction storage facilities [67], etc., and even green technologies such as a wind farm.

The most famous NIMBY project in London blocked the construction of 45,000 homes. Homeowners seemed interested in the architecture but wanted to prevent any development in their neighborhood [68].

In 2013, some residents of Lunenburg County, Canada, opposed the construction of wind farms because they felt the turbines did not belong in the rural environment of Nova Scotia [69]. In March 2013, the Chester, Nova Scotia, City Council voted 6–1 in favor of building wind turbines despite some local opposition [69]. A minority of residents in St. Lucie County, Florida, have vehemently opposed the construction of wind turbines in the county [70].

In March 2013, some residents of the Canadian community of Blockhouse spoke out against the construction and development of a recycling facility, which was described by one business owner as a “dumping ground”, even though the facility could create 75 jobs in the community [71].

In the United Kingdom, in the affluent English village of Ashtead, Surrey, near London, residents resisted a GBP 1.7 million investment to convert a large house into a guesthouse for relatives of soldiers wounded in Afghanistan or Iraq [72]. Residents opposed the project, fearing an increase in traffic, noise, and the threat of terrorism. Articles appeared in local newspapers titled “NIMBY Neighbors’ War with Wounded Soldiers’ Families” and “No Heroes in my Backyard”.

When it was shown that no room for the influx of young professionals and technicians in San Francisco, developers were trying to build a larger number of apartments. NIMBYism has prevented the proliferation of high-rise buildings in San Francisco by highlighting the disruptive effect of the buildings’ shadows and the dramatic changes to the waterfront skyline [73]. Opponents argue that new construction will increase the supply of luxury housing without creating affordable housing. However, due to the housing shortage, average rents in San Francisco are rising, attracting a wealthier population, and pushing middle- and lower-income families out of the city [74].

In 1959, a developer in Deerfield, USA, started a project whose main goal was to build houses for African Americans. When Deerfield authorities learned of the project’s intentions, they issued an injunction and halted construction. A heated debate began over racial integration, property values, and the good faith of residents, community leaders, and developers. Soon, a new idea to build a park surfaced. Citizens organized a referendum, and the result was the end of the housing development. Only two model homes were completed, which were sold to community members. The property laid fallow for many years before it was developed into what is now Mitchell Pool and Park and Jaycee Park. The first black family did not move to Deerfield until much later, after other minorities, including Jews, Asians, Greeks, and others, had moved to Deerfield [75].

In transportation infrastructure, there are examples, such as NIMBYs in Camden, that were successful in their campaign to prevent the HS1–HS2 link railroad in 2014 [76]. A consultation process to build a new third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow Airport began in 2007 and was approved in 2009 [77]. In May 2010, the project was halted by the Cameron government because it was controversial [78]. In Italy, citizen opposition to the Turin–Lyon high-speed rail line is also known as the NIMBY movement [79]. In Japan, a runway was built despite strong local protests [80]. National, state, and local environmentalists, historic preservationists, and longtime residents of South Pasadena, California, USA, have successfully (over 60 years) opposed the completion of the highly controversial State Route 710 through the cities of Los Angeles (El Sereno), South Pasadena, and Pasadena [81]. In California, USA, some residents (mainly farmers) in Hanford and surrounding areas are resisting the construction of a high-speed rail line near farmland, fearing environmental and economic problems [82]. In the 1980s, anticipated population growth led to increased traffic in Palm Beach County. The Palm Beach County Expressway Authority developed a series of east/west freeways that brought people from the suburbs of Palm Beach County to downtown West Palm Beach. Many residents in areas such as Westgate and Lake Belvedere Estates strongly opposed this plan because it would destroy their neighborhoods. Eventually, the plan was revised, and SR-80 Boulevard was converted to an expressway, eliminating traffic signals and bypassing other local streets [83].

In the London Borough of Merton, there were not enough school places for local children. Almost all local schools were expanded. In Hong Kong, a correctional school for young drug addicts opened in 1998. When the school announced in 2009 that it planned to move its campus to a vacant school building, Mui Wo residents objected [84]. The NIMBY group “Save Our Rec” opposed the expansion of Dundonald School on the site of a nearby park pavilion [85].

China has seen many famous “nail house” [86] cases, including a property in Guangzhou completely enclosed by an expressway built around it. Another example is a half-demolished apartment building standing isolated in the middle of a newly built road, where owners waged a four-year battle with the local government over compensation [87].

In Long Island, New York, several Long Island Railroad (LIRR) electrification and expansion projects have been significantly delayed due to protests by residents living near the rail line [88,89]. The main reasons for the protests against the construction of a third track from the villages of Floral Park, New Hyde Park, and Garden City were that the construction and associated increase in train traffic would affect the quality of life in local neighborhoods [90,91]. The third track project was suspended indefinitely in 2008 [92]. In 2016, new funding for the project was included in an infrastructure improvement plan that included measures to mitigate residents’ concerns [93].

In the case of Orange County, California, the roles of cooperator and renegade have been reversed. Affluent residents of southern Orange County opposed the conversion of the decommissioned El Toro Naval Base into a commercial airport [94]. Residents pointed out the dangers of take-offs and landings and raised questions about air quality. The defeat of the “cooperators” led to the creation of a large Orange County Great Park. Whether this solution will bring long-term global benefits is difficult to judge at this time. Interestingly, the park includes agricultural land where visitors can feel the original landscape and agricultural atmosphere (“Orange Country Great Park”), which is the first use of the same land.

In Slovenia, some civil initiatives and interest groups have also halted the implementation of various projects due to the NIMBY syndrome. Let us highlight only the following examples:

(1)

Between 2000 and 2012, several environmental organizations, including Greenpeace Slovenia [95] and Ecologists Without Borders [96], opposed the construction of Unit 6 at the Šoštanj Thermal Power Plant due to environmental concerns and the high costs associated with the project.

(2)

From 2009 to 2018, the project Second track faced strong resistance from residents and environmentalists [97] who raised concerns about its impact on the natural environment, particularly the karst landscape. The issue became a subject of referendums and legal disputes.

(3)

The project for a low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste repository in Vrbina, near nuclear plant Krško, encountered opposition from the local community from its inception in 2004 [98,99]. Residents expressed fears about potential environmental and health impacts.

(4)

During the 1990s, plans to expand the airport in Postojna were halted due to protests from residents concerned about the destruction of the natural environment, particularly the sensitive karst terrain.

(5)

In 2017, residents opposed the proposal to establish a memorial park at the Former Refugee Reception Center in Jelšane, arguing that the area could be better utilized for other purposes.

4.3. NIMBY Examples in the Field of Tourism

Making a substantial contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employment in many nations, tourism has solidified its position as a key driver of economic development and a strategic pillar for generating superior financial returns [100].

Cultural Heritage Tourism (CHT) has become an important part of the tourism industry. In Austria, cultural tourism is one of the most important and profitable economic sectors alongside leisure and sports tourism. It is part of the national interest and the best advertisement for the country [101]. In the United States, heritage preservation is defined as part of sustainable development [49]. The preservation of cultural heritage ensures environmental, cultural, and economic sustainability. Heritage is not limited to the short term, and the five key economic impacts relate to the following:

• Jobs and household income;
• Revitalization of city centers;
• Tourism in heritage sites;
• Real estate value;
• Small business incubators.

The project to renovate buildings in medieval city centers is described by Rypkema as part of an economic strategy, as it contributes to several priorities [16]:

• Import substitution—the aim is to produce locally.
• Compatibility with modernization—use of modern methods, development, and modernization.
• Diversity of target areas—urban centers or rural villages.
• Not just zero return—all cities have historic buildings.
• Spatial development—distribution of projects across the country.
• Projects of different sizes—larger and smaller.
• Non-cyclicality—provides some stability for the local economy.
• Gradual change—continuity that is not dependent on the current political situation.
• Product diversity—different and unique projects.

Historic sites bring economic benefits as tourism increases in the areas where they are located [17]. The results show that visitors to historic sites stay longer, visit twice as many places, and spend two and a half times as much money as other visitors. The money is spent in bookstores, dry cleaners, with cab drivers, in grocery stores, on public transportation, and even at hairdressers. Cities can live by “selling” walls [17], from the “sale” of the city center [102]. It is interesting to note, for example, that in France, 40,000 people are employed in the maintenance and repair of historic buildings and that in 2005 in England, 6500 workers were needed on the construction sites of historic buildings [17].

Therefore, there are several advantages of mass tourism of cultural heritage:

• Mass tourism can contribute to the revitalization of city centers.
• Cultural heritage generates economic benefits through increased tourism [17], as visitors to historical sites tend to stay longer, visit more locations, and spend more money on the local economy.
• Restoration works and the promotion of cultural heritage directly employ thousands of people across Europe and indirectly create even more jobs [49].
• Preservation of cultural heritage ensures environmental, cultural, and economic sustainability, aligning with the principles of sustainable development.

But whether the timing of positive earnings is always positive is another question. Of course, every country wants GDP from tourism to increase every year, but the problems with negative environmental impacts also increase, such as the following:

An excessive number of tourists put pressure on local infrastructure, such as waste systems, drinking water, and sewage systems.

Complaints from residents due to mass tourism affecting their quality of life, including city overcrowding, higher housing prices, and disruptions to everyday life.

Mass tourism raises the question of whether it still aligns with sustainable development, as it causes harmful environmental impacts and disrupts the balance between its benefits and negative effects.

There are a lot of cities worldwide where NIMBY phenomena arise due to mass tourism. Cities like Ljubljana [19], Dubrovnik [103], Venice, Barcelona [18,104], Oslo, Zurich, Prague, Koln, Valencia, Split [105], Rome and Florence, and many others are already facing people’s resistance to mass tourism.

According to the EUROSTAT [106,107], the number of tourists in the year 2022 was higher than citizens in most tourist cities or countries in the EU. Figure 2 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 were used.

In

Table 2. Factors between the number of tourists and city residents for the last 10 years and the years of first NIMBY indices.

Faktorji
Year	Ljubljana	Dubrovnik	Venice	Barcelona	Oslo	Zurich	Prague	Valencia	Rome	Florence
2013	4.75	29.27	11.15	5.19	3.57	4.25	3.92	3.13	3.31	5.79
2014	4.75	30.95	11.20	5.25	3.71	4.50	4.00	3.38	3.47	6.05
2015	5.08	35.71	11.67	5.56	3.86	4.75	4.15	3.63	3.63	6.32
2016	5.42	38.10	12.11	5.69	4.14	5.00	4.31	3.75	3.79	6.58
2017	5.76	40.48	12.99	5.75	4.43	5.25	4.46	4.00	4.11	7.11
2018	5.76	42.86	13.83	5.94	4.71	5.50	4.62	4.25	4.42	7.37
2019	6.10	45.24	15.02	6.06	5.00	5.75	4.77	4.38	4.73	7.63
2020	3.05	9.76	6.54	2.81	1.86	2.25	2.31	1.88	1.50	3.16
2021	3.73	19.51	8.08	3.75	2.57	3.00	2.69	2.50	2.60	3.95
2022	4.41	26.83	12.69	5.63	3.14	3.75	4.08	3.63	12.11	6.05
2023	4.75	31.71	13.08	5.94	3.57	4.50	4.23	3.75	12.24	6.32
average	4.87	31.86	11.67	5.23	3.69	4.41	3.96	3.48	5.08	6.03

Colored cells represent the initial year of resident disagreement with the mass tourists.

, 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 Equation (1)).

$$NEF={\displaystyle \frac{number of tourists}{number of citizens}}$$

(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 cities 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 are to be expected.

4.4. Parameters in NIMBY Phenomena

As we focus on NIMBY phenomena related to buildings, whether new constructions or existing ones, we highlight several key parameters that need to be addressed to avoid similar situations and promote sustainable tourism. NIMBY phenomena occur in construction projects, whether due to new constructions or existing culturally protected buildings. The difference between them lies in the investment required. While new constructions demand significant initial capital, cultural heritage requires only maintenance, as the initial investment is “inherited” and thus saved. Throughout the entire project, which encompasses various phases, time factors such as t_p, t_i, t_b, and factors of return on investment or cost, such as PB and M, come into play, as shown in

Table 3. Project phases with factors [22,49,57,58].

Project Phases with Time Factors	Construction of a Building	Historic Building (Reconstruction, Revitalization)	Cultural Heritage (Conversion or Renovation)
Concept phase	tp	tp
Planning (and development) or preliminary design phase	tp	tp
Detailed design phase	tp	tp
Construction phase	ti	ti
Commissioning (start-up)	tb, PB	tb, IB (PB)
Maintenance and turnover	M	IB	tb, M, IB, −IB

.

The factor explanation:

• t_p (preparation time): the time required to prepare the project. This phase includes various factors such as the investor’s capital, the professional qualifications of the project developers, stakeholders, government personnel, city or state agencies, and the NIMBY phenomenon.
• t_i (construction time): the time required to construct the project. This phase usually proceeds quickly and easily, as all prior dilemmas have been resolved.
• t_b (benefit time): the time during which the project provides benefits. This phase is closely connected with the building’s lifespan, the durability of some building materials, and the condition of the building. It also depends on sustainable design and investment in the building’s maintenance (MM).
• PB (project benefit): the benefits that the project provides over time. This can include financial benefits, improvements in quality of life, environmental benefits, etc.
• IB (indirect benefit): the benefits that cultural heritage brings. This can include an increase in property value, job creation, etc.
• M (maintenance): the maintenance of the building. This includes all activities necessary to keep the building in good condition, such as repairs, renovations, cleaning, and other maintenance activities.
• −IB (negative economic cost): the negative financial impact of an individual tourist, including costs for waste management, water consumption, carbon emissions, noise reduction, and environmental restoration.

During the development of a new construction project, t_p, t_i, and t_b represent the time interval of the project’s existence from the earliest phase to the project’s end. The time spent preparing the project (t_p) depends on numerous factors: the investor’s capital, the professional qualifications of the project developers, stakeholders, government personnel, and city or state agencies [26], including the NIMBY phenomenon. The construction time t_i proceeds relatively quickly and easily, as all prior dilemmas are resolved. The benefit time (t_b) is closely connected with the building’s lifespan and the durability of some building materials and conditions and, of course, depends on the sustainable design and investment in the building’s maintenance (M). Many facilities with proper maintenance last longer than indicated in Table 1, especially in Europe. According to the real estate register of the Geodetic Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, 20% of the buildings were built between 1846 and 1949 and are still in good condition. The information in Table 1 is not limited to buildings considered cultural heritage. Therefore, t_b can be unlimited or extend beyond the lifespan of the building materials.

Table 4. Some NIMBY phenomena by country with preparation time and event.

Country	Year	tp (Years)	Event
Belgium [25]	1984–1994	10	Unsuccessful application of the technocratic approach; this led to the abandonment of the process. Between 1998 and 2006, the investor entered partnerships and decided on the location of the landfill without compensating residents. The citizens worked out a comprehensive project.
United Kingdom [25]	1976–1997	21	The technical conditions for finding a landfill were used unsuccessfully. The population rejected the landfill three times. After 1997, the government adopted a new approach that allowed citizens to participate in the search for a new landfill.
Italy [108]	1991–2019	28	Italian high-speed rail between Turin and Lyon
USA [89,109]	2005–2017	12	Third track on main line from Floral Park Station to Hicksville Station
Japan [110]	1960–1980	20	Narita International Airport
USA [81]	1958–2018	60	The 710 Freeway Corridor

and Figure 3 summarize the data from the NIMBY cases described in Section 4.2 on the projects and their progress over time (t_p) due to stakeholder resistance.

Based on the analysis of land use change projects in Slovenia [23,95,96,111,112], experiences with the preparation of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste management projects in the Republic of Slovenia [25,97,98,99], and all other cases including NIMBY phenomena, it can be concluded that the t_p parameter depends on the level of communication between the government, investors, and stakeholders. From NIMBY cases, we can conclude that preparation time (t_p) is a factor that implemented on worse or better spatial finale decisions. Above all, it can drag out the project to the longest period.

Project benefit (PB) is associated with new construction and changes in land use. Investors, including the state, often strive for the continuous growth of PB driven by capital greed, without considering sustainable development. This leads to encroachments on agricultural land, nature conservation areas, water protection zones, and forests. The question is, is it possible to achieve both? Sustainable models, such as the Orange Country Green Park example in Section 4.2, or various types of land use, including the sustainable agricultural development model in Fazhou, China, which was awarded as a sustainable development city in 2023 [113], show that it is possible. In this context, the relationship between different stakeholders has changed.

Project benefit (PB) and maintenance cost (M) are measured as a percentage of the initial investment. According to Dow Jones Brookfield Global Infrastructures, the annual return on investment in new construction (PB) is 10.22%, while in Slovenia, it ranges between 5 and 15%. The investment in maintenance (M) (from the start of operation) varies, being 2–3% for 10–20 years, 3–4% for 20–30 years, and more than 4% for 30–50 years. When the total maintenance (M) exceeds the investment (I) and return (PB), the building is demolished and replaced with a new one. However, it has been found that there are many abandoned buildings worldwide. In the United States, there are significantly more abandoned buildings and places than in Europe or any other country in the world [114,115]. Therefore, there is no need for the degradation of natural lands but rather for the replacement of new developments on existing degraded lands.

While project benefits (PB) are calculated for new construction projects, they are not applicable to buildings of cultural heritage or medieval city centers. There is no initial project investment, as these buildings are “inherited” from predecessors. This involves indirect benefit (IB), which is linked to the maintenance of the building stock (M) and the revenue from tourist visits. Indirect benefits are best demonstrated by investments in a medieval city [16]. In Europe, the turnover related to the marketing of cultural heritage amounted to ten times the turnover of BMW multinational in 2001.

As shown in Table 4, the NIMBY phenomenon can occur during the revitalization or reconstruction of a building (changing its purpose) or the (re)development of an urban area. An example of this was in Maribor, Slovenia, in 1995, where a new market arrangement near the church threatened to destroy a small park, an oasis in the city center [23,26]. The market remains unchanged to this day. In the case of managing cultural heritage buildings, the NIMBY phenomenon typically does not occur. Therefore, we operate with Tb, which represents the time of indirect benefit caused by tourist arrivals and overnight stays.

IB from tourists

There is a trend towards promoting the indirect benefits of tourists. This underlines the development of the concept of sustainable tourism and the change in the concept of tourism [116]. GDP income from tourism is too important for most European countries. The countries with a tourism GDP of more than 10% are Croatia (26%), Greece (19%), Portugal (16%), Spain (14%), Malta (13%), Cyprus (12%), Italy (10%), Austria (10%), and the United Kingdom (10%) [116] or [117].

Recognizing that 1 EUR invested in the maintenance (M) of cultural heritage over time (t_m, t_b) can generate 7 EUR in tourist revenue [16], every city aims to attract as many tourists as possible. However, tourism also brings negative impacts such as increased water consumption and waste production, increased traffic pollution, noise, additional construction that can cause soil erosion, and significant changes to the landscape. The expansion of tourism also affects the biological purity of the sea, water supply, urbanization, and changes in the ethnic composition of the population [118].

Individual cities are facing the challenge of mitigating the negative impacts of the NIMBY phenomenon. Therefore, the time of benefit (t_b) is not infinite, and 1 EUR of the investment may not yield 7 EUR of revenue, as it is reduced by the costs of mitigating negative environmental impacts. It is estimated that the economic cost (−IB) of an individual tourist is as follows:

• Pollution: The average tourist generates approximately 1 kg of waste per day. Waste management costs can vary, but they can be around 0.50 EUR per kg.
• Water consumption: A tourist consumes approximately 300 L of water per day. Water costs are approximately 2 EUR per 1000 L, which means about 0.60 EUR per day.
• Carbon footprint: The average tourist contributes approximately 0.5 kg of CO₂ per kilometer traveled. The cost to offset CO₂ emissions is approximately 0.02 EUR per kg of CO₂, which means about 0.01 EUR per kilometer.
• Noise: Noise reduction costs can vary, but they can be around 0.10 EUR per tourist day.
• Erosion and environmental degradation: The costs of restoring natural landmarks and protecting the environment can be around 1 EUR per tourist day.

The total sum (−IB) is therefore 2.2 EUR per tourist per day. Cities and countries have introduced tourist taxes (TT) to mitigate these negative impacts. These taxes vary depending on the country, city, or season (summer/winter):

The tourist tax serves several purposes:

• Infrastructure Financing: Funds are used to maintain and improve city infrastructure, such as roads, public transport, and utilities.
• Environmental Protection: Part of the funds can be allocated to environmental protection projects, such as cleaning beaches, parks, and other natural landmarks.
• Cultural Heritage Support: The tax helps finance the maintenance and restoration of historical and cultural landmarks popular with tourists.
• Tourism Management: Funds can be used to manage tourist flows and reduce the negative impacts of mass tourism.
• Local Development: Part of the funds can be allocated to support local communities and improve residents’ quality of life.

In this case, the tourist tax for an individual city should be at least 2.2 EUR per day.

The average tourist tax in Europe can vary significantly depending on the destination. Generally, it ranges from approximately EUR 0 to EUR 10 per person per night. In some cities, like Amsterdam, it can be as high as 12.5% of the accommodation cost.

In

Table 5. The amount of tourist tax in considered cities.

City	Tourist Tax
Ljubljana [119]	3.13 (2.5 TT + 25% × 2.5 TT = promotion tax)
Dubrovnik [120]	2 EUR
Venice [121]	1.5–5 EUR
Barcelona [122]	3.25 EUR
Oslo [123]	under consideration
Zurich [113,124]	2.5 CHF
Prague [125]	0.82–1.97 EUR
Valencia [126]	under consideration
Rome [127]	4–10 EUR
Florence [128]	3.5–8 EUR
Munchen [113]	0 EUR

, there is a tourist tax for considered cities. As we can see, the tax varies a lot from EUR 0 in Munchen, Valencia, and Oslo up to EUR 10 in Rome (under certain conditions). The amount of the tourist tax is not necessarily proportional to tourist pressure or infrastructure maintenance costs but is often dependent on local policies and economic strategies.

5. Results

Factors such as t_p, t_b, and IB are influenced by numerous causal factors and can, due to NIMBY phenomena, transform any project from a deterministic system into a non-deterministic one. Unlike deterministic systems, non-deterministic systems operate based on principles defined by humans. These principles do not dictate how a system behaves but rather how it should behave [24]. The relationship among the parameters t_p, t_b, and IB is more significant than we might think. While t_p represents uncertainty for the investor, t_b signifies reliability for all stakeholders, as it brings a benefit (IB) that is not always positive in terms of sustainable land use.

These factors are present in many projects. When investors, the government, and the local community collaborate with stakeholders, t_p is minimized. The time of benefit (t_b) and IB depend on residents being informed about the project’s maintenance and responsibilities during the planning stage (t_p). The greater awareness of the project’s impact on the overall system, the longer the period of benefit and the greater the benefit for everyone. These formulas represent the relationships and calculations for project benefits and maintenance investments with and without the NIMBY phenomenon over time.

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 4a 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 4b, 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.

This clearly highlights the need for early and effective communication between investors, government authorities, and residents to prevent unnecessary delays and maximize the long-term benefits of the project.

Using Dubrovnik as an example, we can calculated the contribution of a tourist to mitigate the consequences they have caused. We can take the number of tourists as a 10-year average (1,300,000) and tourist tax (EUR 2) in Dubrovnik, getting the amount of tax collected per year if they were staying only one night:

1,300,000 × 2 EUR = 2,600,000 EUR

Now, the new tourist/citizens ratio can be calculated as

2,600,000 EUR/2.2 EUR (increased tax for the cost of negative impacts) = 1,181,818 tourists/41,000 citizens = 28.81. The factor drops from 31.86 (average; see Table 2) to 28.81. Of course, the tax can be increased even more to additionally decrease the ratio.

To avoid NIMBY, we can apply different scenarios:

• Tourist tax covers at least the costs of the negative impact of tourists on the city, for example, at least 2.5 EUR per day.
• Tourist tax is higher in the high season, moderate in the mid-season, and lower in the low season.
• Tourist tax is higher in higher-rated hotels and lower in lower-rated categories.
• This causes a reduction in tourist pressure in the main seasons and a redistribution over a longer period, as well as a shift from tourist cities to other destinations in the region.

But what is sustainability? Authors such as Minoa and Scheafer [129,130] 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.

A holistic framework recognizes the interdependence between sustainability, resilience, economic and social justice, and the evolution of economic thought in the context of tourism; therefore, it is necessary to start to understand that sustainability and resilience in tourism are intertwined and complementary concepts, coexisting and mutually reinforcing [117].

Perhaps the solution lies in sustainable tourism. But what is sustainable tourism? Different authors [131,132] have questioned whether sustainable tourism is developed through a participatory process by incorporating sustainability to reduce negative environmental impacts while promoting and preserving local and traditional values. Several studies have examined the desired sustainability of ecotourism by considering three stakeholder groups: resource management, tourism, and the local community [133,134,135,136].

To achieve these balances, it is essential to have access to data from different sources. Databases integrated into a system for sustainable spatial management and tourism can provide solutions to the challenges of sustainability in the tourism industry. By linking these databases, we can prevent the overuse of natural resources, reduce pressure on territories and local communities, balance imbalances in economic growth in regions or cities, and mitigate natural and human risks and hazards. In addition, this approach can increase interest in previously unpopular destinations and promote development in abandoned or degraded areas. Thematic tourism, such as cultural tourism focusing on specific themes (e.g., galleries, libraries, heritage) like festival and exhibition tourism (at specific times in specific cities), can also be promoted. Overcrowding only occurs during these events so that normal life can resume at other times.

However, despite these economic advantages, tourism can also have negative effects, threatening the sustainability of tourist destinations by potentially overburdening local infrastructure, causing environmental degradation, and impacting local communities [117].

Employment and tourist arrivals are accompanied by indirect benefits (IB), which are positive, but for various reasons, NIMBY also occurs in the field of tourism.

6. Discussion

This study highlights the complexities surrounding NIMBY phenomena in sustainable urban development and tourism. The findings indicate that NIMBY opposition is often driven by environmental, social, economic, and cultural concerns, which include fears of habitat destruction, increased pollution, overburdened infrastructure, loss of local identity, and reduced property values. In contrast, YIMBY movements advocate for development projects that promise economic growth, improved infrastructure, and enhanced urban revitalization.

A critical factor influencing project feasibility is the project preparation time (t_p), which varies significantly depending on stakeholder engagement, governmental policies, and public perception. Case studies reveal that extended t_p can lead to project stagnation, whereas effective communication and participatory planning can mitigate delays and foster smoother implementation. Additionally, insufficient stakeholder engagement prolongs preparatory phases, resulting in increased costs and diminishing community trust. Thus, projects that prioritize community involvement from the outset tend to be more sustainable and socially accepted.

Comparable investments in new land use and cultural heritage are both understandable and important because every new element (railroad, road, electricity, and housing) requires maintenance. If maintenance is not performed regularly, collapse can occur (e.g., the Morandi Bridge in Genoa collapsed after 50 years), leading to neglect of the area. Residents constantly witness the gradual deterioration of the built environment.

The role of cultural heritage in land use decisions also emerges as a key issue. While cultural sites generate economic benefits through tourism and job creation, they may also provoke resistance due to fears of commercialization, overcrowding, and loss of authenticity. The challenge lies in balancing the preservation of heritage with sustainable tourism development that benefits both local communities and visitors. Successful projects integrate adaptive reuse strategies, ensuring that historical sites maintain their cultural significance while also serving contemporary urban needs.

Another key finding is the influence of socio-economic factors on public opposition or support for projects. Residents in economically disadvantaged areas may support new developments due to job creation and improved infrastructure, whereas wealthier communities often resist change that threatens existing property values or disrupts local character. This divergence underscores the importance of customized planning approaches that account for local economic and social contexts.

In terms of project longevity, benefit realization time (t_b) is crucial for evaluating sustainability. Long-term benefits, including economic prosperity, social inclusion, and environmental conservation, often outweigh initial concerns if projects are well integrated into the community. However, projects that neglect stakeholder concerns and environmental considerations face a high risk of long-term discontent and potential failure. Moreover, projects with unclear long-term maintenance strategies are prone to degradation, undermining their initial value. Properly designed projects incorporate sustainable maintenance frameworks that ensure continued benefits over time.

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 (t_p) 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 infrastructure projects, such as renewable energy developments, often stems 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 [1,2] and concludes that urban planning must integrate environmental, social, and economic considerations to achieve long-term resilience. We find that benefit realization time (t_b) 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 [16,49] 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 [103,104,105].

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 (t_p, t_b, 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.

This study also emphasizes systemic interdependence in urban development. Infrastructure projects impact not only physical space but also social and environmental dynamics. The complexity of these relationships necessitates a multidimensional planning approach that considers future growth, environmental constraints, and social equity. Governmental policies play a significant role in shaping the success of urban transformations, as regulatory frameworks determine the extent to which sustainability is embedded into development processes.

Overall, this study underscores the necessity of a holistic, participatory approach to urban planning and development. Integrating environmental sustainability, cultural preservation, and economic incentives within a systemic framework is vital for addressing NIMBY opposition while maximizing the benefits of YIMBY-driven initiatives. Cities that successfully manage these dynamics can achieve a balance between economic development, social cohesion, and environmental stewardship, setting a precedent for future urban sustainability models.

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 [37], religious affiliation [38], and the timing of the decision [39]. 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 the following:

(1)

Participants in spatial use projects can resist by extending the project preparation time (t_p) 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 the 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, and global warming), it is also necessary to examine the relationships between these components to fully understand the systemic consideration of sustainability.

7. Conclusions

Urban development and tourism expansion must navigate the intricate dynamics of public perception, environmental impact, and long-term sustainability. This research confirms that NIMBY resistance is a natural response to projects perceived as disruptive, while YIMBY support arises when developments align with economic and social benefits. However, successful urban planning requires more than just resolving opposition; it must proactively create frameworks that ensure long-term sustainability and community engagement.

Key conclusions from this study include the following:

• Stakeholder Engagement is Essential: Projects with high levels of public participation tend to have shorter preparation times and smoother implementation. Governments and investors must prioritize transparent dialogue and integrate community feedback throughout all project phases.
• Sustainability Requires Long-Term Vision: Sustainable projects must prioritize long-term benefits (t_b) over short-term economic gains, ensuring environmental preservation and cultural integrity. The most effective projects employ strategies that accommodate future growth and adaptive reuse of space.
• Heritage Sites Demand Special Consideration: While historic sites boost tourism and economic growth, their commercialization must be carefully managed to avoid negative societal impacts. Conservation strategies must be balanced with the need for modernization to keep these sites relevant and well-maintained.
• Adaptive Planning Enhances Project Success: Flexible planning frameworks that incorporate community input and evolving stakeholder needs lead to more resilient urban development. Cities must adopt policies that allow for periodic review and adaptation to changing environmental and social conditions.
• Strategic Communication Reduces Opposition: Clear, transparent communication and proactive conflict resolution can shift public perception from resistance to acceptance. Misinformation and lack of awareness often contribute to opposition; therefore, educational campaigns and stakeholder forums should be implemented to build trust.

Moreover, this study highlights that opposition to projects is often linked to concerns over equity and the fair distribution of benefits. NIMBY resistance is particularly strong when local communities perceive that they will bear the negative consequences of development without receiving proportional benefits. Addressing this requires equitable urban planning, ensuring that all stakeholders benefit from spatial transformations.

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 (t_p), and benefit realization time (t_b).

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 (t_p), 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.