In Solving the Housing Crisis: Canada's Housing Plan, Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada calls the housing crisis “one of Canada’s greatest social and economic challenges.” 

Canadians appear to agree. 

In a recent representative survey of 1,500 Canadian adults, 89% believed that housing in Canada today is unaffordable for most Canadians and 60% called for the federal government to do more to address housing affordability. 

It sounds obvious, but to house more people, we need more homes—notably, more affordable ones. But we still see pushback to construction, especially of affordable houses, when it happens in our own neighborhoods. This means that, despite widespread acknowledgement of the housing crisis, neighbors still display NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) attitudes.

NIMBYism has different forms and intensities: from voicing opposition at public consultation meetings, to lodging formal objections with authorities, organizing groups to petition or protest, lobbying local politicians, or going to the media. This opposition can create costly delays for developers, and in some cases prevent housing projects from going ahead (or being started in the first place).¹

If Canada is anything like Australia, studies suggest that NIMBYism makes up only a small part of the picture, since most affordable housing developments go unopposed.1 But as much-needed development intensifies, and as more people are directly affected by these developments, addressing it is an increasingly pressing part of the solution. 

NIMBY is a pejorative term. It can be criticized for dismissing the potential legitimacy of locals’ concerns when it comes to affordable (or supportive) housing developments in their neighborhood. Maybe they’re concerned about the value of their property, their safety, the strain on important infrastructure like schools and transport, changes to their neighborhood’s character, or even the environmental impacts of less green space to provide cooling and drainage (not to mention wellbeing benefits).^1,3,7  Regardless of whether these concerns are founded or not, they exist, and the resulting delays can be enough to stop viable affordable housing projects in their tracks. 

Loss aversion can help us understand the power of NIMBY. We know that avoiding losses is a powerful motivator and that people will go further to avoid losses than they will to make equivalent gains. Even the potential for a loss is scary. The zero risk bias describes how we prefer absolute certainty, even though alternatives may actually leave us better off. While there are potential benefits to expanding our neighborhoods, such as the development of better amenities and services, the zero-risk bias means that we are unlikely to be willing to take the risk.  

Add to this that potential losses of property value are alarmingly direct, personal, and tangible, while the benefits of improved housing can seem uncertain, more long term, and perhaps distant for homeowners (particularly high-income residents who tend to present the biggest pushback).⁶

Even if we truly want a solution to the housing crisis, our cognitive tendencies can make it difficult for us to see the bigger picture. It’s particularly important to consider and adapt to these tendencies when trying to mitigate NIMBYism and build more supportive communities.

Let’s go back to the concerns residents have about affordable housing developments in their neighborhood (which are the basis of NIMBY attitudes). Many of these concerns have been studied, and while there can be variation in the results, by and large the research indicates that the anticipated negative impacts do not materialize, or even if they do, it’s at a much smaller scale than expected (and are drowned out by other more important factors).⁸

Take property values for example. The effects of affordable housing developments on surrounding property values are complex and context dependent. Some studies have shown that these developments can even increase neighboring property values in some cases. For example, in Minneapolis, developments by not-for-profit organizations led to value increases, while public housing and subsidized private developments had a slight negative impact.³ Taking a broader perspective, a meta-analysis of 17 studies found that while negative impacts can happen in some (not all) cases, they are generally small and tend to occur when there is poor design, quality or management of housing, clustering of developments, or development in already disadvantaged areas.⁸

As for safety concerns, the research finds little to suggest that these concerns are founded, especially in areas which do not already have high rates of crime.¹

This means that there is data available to counter fears about the impact of affordable housing developments. 

But to effectively address these fears, behavioral science tells us to be careful not to fall into the simple myth-busting trap for a couple of reasons. Firstly, confirmation bias shows us that people pay more attention to information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs—meaning that evidence against NIMBY-ism may be selectively interpreted, or fail to penetrate at all. 

And secondly, there is the matter of salience. Empirical research into NIMBYism in Australia found that negative perceptions of affordable housing often grew from personal experiences or those of acquaintances.¹ For most, these anecdotes are likely to be more memorable and emotive, and therefore more salient, than the results of an empirical study.  

So how can a behavioral science approach help us to address NIMBY?

Robust evaluation is a key cornerstone of behavioral science. Academic research (such as the studies mentioned above) has already been conducted into the impacts of affordable housing in some instances. However, just as each behavioral science intervention is not complete without an evaluation, monitoring and evaluating the impacts of developments must become a key part of project implementation. This has a few major benefits for housing developers.

• Monitoring is not a PR exercise. Its primary role is to teach us what works for reducing negative impacts on neighborhoods and successfully integrating affordable housing.
• Monitoring is, however, a good way for developers to signal their investment in the project’s success and the community at large.
• Monitoring and evaluation will give us data points. As more data points are captured on successful projects, we get success stories from a wider variety of communities. Stories and data from a recently built project in a neighboring community are much more likely to extinguish fears than data from an (albeit robust) study into a development in Minneapolis in 1996.
• Monitoring allows any arising issues to be identified and addressed promptly. Although NIMBYism is usually found in early stages and decreases after project completion, monitoring is important to avoid any negative reputational impacts that could imperil future projects.^1,9

The way that information is presented has been shown to impact our decisions and preferences across many domains. In a policy context, framing can be used to make some perspectives in a multi-faceted issue more salient and refocus recipients on particular considerations.⁵ This suggests that the way in which affordable housing developments are framed to potential future neighbors is worth considering.

Research on the impact of framing on NIMBY perspectives has, in fact, already begun. In 2015, Doberstein et al tested four distinct framing approaches with residents of Kalowna, BC and observed their willingness to accept densification in their community (i.e. the opposite of NIMBY). 

They found that willingness was highest when the framing focused on the public benefits of densification (e.g. reduced traffic congestion and a lower carbon footprint), as opposed to the private benefits (e.g. being closer to amenities and a wider range of transport options) or a control condition with no explicit framing.

Importantly, the authors stress that simply changing the words we use is not a solution to NIMBYism. However, it can introduce new perspectives that the recipient of the framing may not have previously considered. 

But still, we must share a word of caution. As always, context matters. Different communities are likely to have different baseline perspectives and values, which could interact differently with different framings. Therefore, taking a behavioral science approach by continuing to test and evaluate what works is the key to getting this right.

Remember the survey that found that the vast majority of Canadians believe that housing in Canada is unaffordable for most Canadians? Well, in that same survey, Canadians were asked about the factors they believed were contributing to the housing affordability issue, and 39% believed that builders and developers prioritizing profit over affordability was one of the top three factors. This highlights a lack of trust and confidence in developers and builders among the public.

So when behavioral science says that we are heavily influenced by who is delivering the message, data like this suggests we should listen.

Developers are unlikely to be seen as ‘trusted messengers’ of information that addresses NIMBY concerns, but a survey of affordable housing developers suggests that community leaders may be. Scally and Tighe surveyed developers in New York State, across private and not-for-profit sectors, and found that liaising with community leaders was reported as the most successful strategy for overcoming NIMBY (as compared to, for example, informal public information sessions or formal public hearings).

Identifying messengers to champion outreach and education efforts is a crucial step if we want the message to fall on receptive ears.

In addition, outreach can do more than react to new housing development plans. Broader awareness-raising is needed to proactively address NIMBY, which brings us to another powerful tool: social norms. 

NIMBYism is famous—it operates on media attention. People may therefore be surprised to learn that most affordable housing developments go ahead unopposed.¹ Developments that have happened without NIMBY objections, success stories and the perspectives of those who welcome such development into their communities are important to demonstrate the social norm of acceptance for affordable housing developments. 

While cognitive biases may seem far from the bricks and mortar of a construction site, the housing crisis is one of many complex and urgent issues which require attacking from multiple directions with multiple tools. NIMBYism is just one of the fronts where a behavioral science approach can help us better understand and break down barriers to progress. Organizations that integrate behavioral science will find an efficient and foresightful ally that not only sets up individual projects for success, but also positions them to make a broader impact.