Public Resistance to New Houses of Worship

• In Event: Poster Session: Urban Politics & International Order, Environmental Issues, and IPE
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Urban Politics

Abstract

Irshad community decided to establish a new mosque with a learning center in the suburbs of Chicago for approximately 25 families. The members found a house that served as a daycare and already had a special use permit and the infrastructure to support a small mosque. The special use permit was not transferable, but it signaled that obtaining a new permit would not be a problem. In addition, the property was large, it already had classrooms and a parking lot, and its entrance and exit were on a busy road that could handle a slight increase in traffic. Yet, when the neighbors learned about the project, they immediately started complaining about increased traffic, parking issues, and other nuisances caused by the facility, such as noise and light (CAIR-Chicago, 2013). Such complaints are common reactions to new mosques and public facilities in general. However, is the resistance motivated by nuisance? Or is it caused by something else, such as bias? Are Muslim communities in a unique position, facing more opposition than other religious communities? This paper examines the reasons for supporting new houses of worship to answer these questions.
Not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) literature suggests that people resist any public facility near their residences that causes nuisance and poses health and environmental risks. The level of a nuisance then determines the resistance level (Esaiasson, 2014). Furthermore, people resist public facilities that bring minority groups into the neighborhood and threaten the neighborhood's identity (Davidson & Howe, 2013; Ben-Moshe, 2020; Maney & Abraham, 2008-09). However, scholars have not systematically tested these explanations or tested them on houses of worship. Most of the NIMBY literature focuses on the siting of facilities that pose risks to health or the environment or bring undesirable populations such as drug users, the homeless, or immigrants into the town. Not much research has been done on resistance to facilities used by many residents or facilities not posing risks, such as houses of worship. Houses of worship are permitted uses in residential areas, are susceptible to causing a nuisance, and are suitable for testing biases against religious groups.
I systematically tested the explanations from the literature by using a conjoint survey experiment. Conjoint experiments allow for simultaneous testing of multiple factors and show which factors affect respondents' decisions the most (Bansak, Hainmueller, Hopkins, & Yamamoto, 2018). I used a paired conjoint design, in which respondents evaluated ten pairs of applications for new houses of worship and supported or rejected each. Each application included information on the level of nuisance (size, location, new construction), the religion of the community, the outsider or insider status of the community, and the reaction of neighbors and local officials.
The experiment data from 1953 respondents shows that people are biased against minority houses of worship and more likely to resist new mosques than other houses of worship, irrespective of other attributes. Furthermore, respondents' partisanship affects the resistance level, as Republicans are much less accepting of minority houses of worship than Democrats. This is an important finding because as immigration diversifies the United States, multiple new places of worship are built yearly, many belonging to religious minorities. Federal and state constitutions protect property owners' rights and guarantee residents' involvement in the zoning relief application process. However, this research suggests that residents are motivated by bias, which is not constitutionally protected. This research thus has important public policy implications and could lead to more equitable decision-making in the zoning process.

Author

• Eliska Schnabel, Albion College