The traditional narrative when it comes to NIMBYs is that these are individuals acting out of self-interest. Quintessentially, these are people who own their home and do not want development "in their backyard" out of fear that it might negatively impact the value of their property and/or have a negative impact on their local community.

But in reality, anti-development sentiment is likely more nuanced than this. In a recent working paper called "The Symbolic Politics of Housing," researchers at UC, Berkeley and UC, Davis show that anti-development sentiment is not always just about self-interest; rather, it can be predicted by how people feel about certain "salient symbols."

This is based on something called "symbolic politics theory" and it works like this: We all have positive and negative associations with certain "symbols." Often these are developed early in life. And so how we might feel about a development or a particular land use policy, depends on the symbols attached to it and whether we like them.

Here's an example.

Consider two identical apartment developments happening in your neighborhood. The first is being developed by faceless "Wall Street investors" and the second is being developed by a nice local entrepreneur who also happens to be of the exact same ethno-cultural group as you.

If you don't like people on Wall Street and you don't want them profiting from the development, the research suggests that you are more likely to oppose the first development, even though it's the same as the second one, and maybe even if it runs counter, in some way, to your own self-interest. You just don't like the symbol attached to it.

This is also why people who live in cities tend to be more pro-development on average. It reinforces symbols that they already like; ones associated with cities, density, and urban living. This is fascinating, but it also complicates matters. Because it means that strong opinions are not just being formed based on measurable impacts. It's also a question of symbols and feelings.

We have spoken a lot about pedestrian fatalities over the years (here, here, and here are a few posts), and, if there is a general rule of thumb, it is that pedestrians are safer in dense urban environments where there are a lot of other people walking around.

But another important factor might be average vehicle size. Here is a recent study by Justin Tyndall that combined US pedestrian crash data with car sizes to come up with the effect of front-end vehicle height on pedestrian death probability. This is an important metric because larger/higher front-ends are more likely to fatally hit someone in their chest and/or head.

What was ultimately found was that a 10 cm increase in front-end height -- which is really not a lot -- causes a 22% increase in pedestrian fatality risk! Meaning that something as simple as reducing front-end heights could reduce pedestrian fatalities. By his estimation, a 1.25 m height cap would reduce US pedestrian deaths by about 509 people each year.

This is pretty interesting, especially considering that average car sizes seem to keep going up.

Here's an interesting paper from WFH Research that looks at, "the evolution of working from home." Not surprisingly, remote work tends to vary by industry, with tech being the most likely to work from home and with hospitality & food services the least likely.

By extension, WFH prevalence also appears to correlate with population density. This largely has to do with the kinds of jobs that center themselves in big and dense cities. This is interesting because one conventional way to think about cities is that they are places where businesses and people cluster to accumulate wealth. That clustering is still happening, but work is evolving.

And that is always the case.

Overall, the authors conclude that about 40% of US employees are now working at least one day a week at home, and that just over 11% are fully remote. They also argue that fully remote work lowers average productivity by about 10-20%, but that hybrid work is closer to flat. Interestingly enough, opinions on productivity differ whether you ask employees or managers.

If you'd like to read the full paper, click here.

Figures: WFH Research