IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v99y2020ics0264837720307122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Role-playing in public engagement for housing for vulnerable populations: An experiment exploring its possibilities and limitations

Author

Listed:
  • Doberstein, Carey

Abstract

Public consultation and engagement on housing development and neighbourhood change can be so controversial and at times alarmist such that NIMBY (“Not in my back yard”) and even the more extreme BANANA (“Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone”) attitudes often prevail. Public engagement as currently conceived and practiced by most governments is faced with high expectations but low satisfaction among many involved. This article reports the findings from a group-based role-playing experiment in Canada involving local residents discussing and evaluating a hypothetical proposal for a new housing development for currently homeless individuals. The results find that those who were randomly assigned a role to play with attitudes different from their own were more likely to report higher satisfaction with the group discussion and recommendation than those who were not assigned a role different from their own identity and attitudes. The study finds no relationship between role-playing and the self-reported sense of one’s influence on the process or how much they learned about the issues. The findings point to new frontiers of public engagement that involve playful role-playing or other “games” as a means to create space for mutual understanding and tolerance for decisions among citizens in these fraught debates.

Suggested Citation

  • Doberstein, Carey, 2020. "Role-playing in public engagement for housing for vulnerable populations: An experiment exploring its possibilities and limitations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837720307122
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837720307122
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carey Doberstein & Alison Smith, 2019. "Citizen support for spending to reduce homelessness in Canada’s largest urban centres," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(7), pages 1140-1162, August.
    2. William L. Swann & Shelley McMullen & Dan Graeve & Serena Kim, 2019. "Community Resistance and Discretionary Strategies in Planning Sustainable Development: The Case of Colorado Cities," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(4), pages 98-110.
    3. Whittemore, Andrew H. & BenDor, Todd K., 2019. "Opposition to housing development in a suburban US County: Characteristics, origins, and consequences," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. Corianne Payton Scally & J. Rosie Tighe, 2015. "Democracy in Action?: NIMBY as Impediment to Equitable Affordable Housing Siting," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 749-769, July.
    5. Carey Doberstein & Alison Smith, 2019. "When political values and perceptions of deservingness collide: Evaluating public support for homelessness investments in Canada," International Journal of Social Welfare, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 282-292, July.
    6. Paul G. Lewis & Mark Baldassare, 2010. "The Complexity of Public Attitudes Toward Compact Development," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(2), pages 219-237, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. William L. Swann & Shelley McMullen & Dan Graeve & Serena Kim, 2019. "Community Resistance and Discretionary Strategies in Planning Sustainable Development: The Case of Colorado Cities," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(4), pages 98-110.
    2. Mace, Alan & Holman, Nancy & Paccoud, Antoine & Sundaresan, Jayaraj, 2015. "Coordinating density; working through conviction, suspicion and pragmatism," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 56768, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Cécile Hérivaux & Philippe Le Coent, 2021. "Introducing Nature into Cities or Preserving Existing Peri-Urban Ecosystems? Analysis of Preferences in a Rapidly Urbanizing Catchment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-34, January.
    4. Yin, Yanhong & Aikawa, Kohei & Mizokami, Shoshi, 2016. "Effect of housing relocation subsidy policy on energy consumption: A simulation case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 291-302.
    5. Kuan-Ju Chen & Chien-Wen Peng & Mei-Hsing Lee, 2021. "Determinants of the Public's Attitude Towards Social Housing Construction Under High Home Ownership Rate," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 24(1), pages 87-112.
    6. Bernard Nzau & Claudia Trillo, 2019. "Harnessing the Real Estate Market for Equitable Affordable Housing Provision through Land Value Capture: Insights from San Francisco City, California," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-21, July.
    7. Mirosława Witkowska-Dabrowska & Natalia Świdyńska & Agnieszka Napiórkowska-Baryła, 2021. "Attitudes of Communities in Rural Areas towards the Development of Wind Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-24, December.
    8. Huang, Yu & Parker, Dawn & Minaker, Leia, 2021. "Identifying latent demand for transit-oriented development neighbourhoods: Evidence from a mid-sized urban area in Canada," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. Evans, Krista, 2019. "Exploring the relationship between visual preferences for tiny and small houses and land use policy in the southeastern United States," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 209-218.
    10. Katrina Raynor & Tony Matthews & Severine Mayere, 2017. "Shaping urban consolidation debates: Social representations in Brisbane newspaper media," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(6), pages 1519-1536, May.
    11. Zhongming Lu & Frank Southworth & John Crittenden & Ellen Dunhum-Jones, 2015. "Market potential for smart growth neighbourhoods in the USA: A latent class analysis on heterogeneous preference and choice," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 52(16), pages 3001-3017, December.
    12. Christian A. Nygaard & George Galster & Stephen Glackin, 2024. "The Size and Spatial Extent of Neighborhood Price Impacts of Infill Development: Scale Matters?," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 277-306, August.
    13. Daniel Hummel, 2020. "The effects of population and housing density in urban areas on income in the United States," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 35(1), pages 27-47, February.
    14. Robert W. Lake, 2022. "Yimbyism Then And Now," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 331-335, March.
    15. Tomás Cox & Ricardo Hurtubia, 2022. "Compact development and preferences for social mixing in location choices: Results from revealed preferences in Santiago, Chile," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 246-269, January.
    16. Barbara B. Brown & Wyatt A. Jensen & Doug Tharp, 2019. "Residents’ expectations for new rail stops: optimistic neighborhood perceptions relate to subsequent transit ridership," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 125-146, February.
    17. Armin Jeddi Yeganeh & Andrew Patton McCoy & Steve Hankey, 2019. "Green Affordable Housing: Cost-Benefit Analysis for Zoning Incentives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-24, November.
    18. Acolin, Arthur & Colburn, Gregg & Walter, Rebecca J., 2022. "How do single-family homeowners value residential and commercial density? It depends," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    19. Whittemore, Andrew H. & BenDor, Todd K., 2019. "Opposition to housing development in a suburban US County: Characteristics, origins, and consequences," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    20. Felix Haifeng Liao & Steven Farber & Reid Ewing, 2015. "Compact development and preference heterogeneity in residential location choice behaviour: A latent class analysis," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 52(2), pages 314-337, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837720307122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

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

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