What Is NIMBY
What 'Not In My Backyard' means, and four types of concern that arise in welfare conversions of closed schools (this article's framing)
School buildings where residents' opinions were never sought
49.6%
3,580 of 7,211 buildings at existing closed schools (MEXT FY2024 survey)
Deliberations by representatives of four districts in Nishiwaga
10+ meetings
They decided to use the closed school for community welfare (MEXT casebook, case 3)
Local residents on Miharu's selection committee
2 residents
Interviewing the applicant directly eased residents' and the operator's anxieties (MEXT casebook, case 7)
NIMBY, an acronym for "Not In My Backyard", refers to the attitude and behaviour of residents who accept that a facility is needed in society, yet oppose its placement near where they live. In welfare conversions of closed schools it appears, for example, as "I understand that a disability facility is needed in our community, but please not near my home," or "A nursing home will make things noisy around here."
Four Types of Concern in Abandoned School Conversions
This article groups the concerns that tend to arise when a closed school is converted into a welfare facility into four types.
| Type | What the concern is | What to explain at meetings |
|---|---|---|
| Facility-type stigma | Anxiety arising from misconceptions about disability and mental illness | Who the users are, how they are supported |
| Quality-of-life concerns | Pick-up vehicles coming and going, noise, people coming and going | Number and timing of pick-up vehicles, opening hours |
| Community image concerns | Worry that land values or the neighbourhood's image will change | Plans for the parts open to the community |
| Process distrust | A sense of being told after the decision, or that no one wants to hear residents' views | The stages of deliberation, and what residents' views can still change |
The fourth type is aimed at the process rather than the facility, so explaining the facility alone does not answer it. Decide at the very start of planning at which stage residents will be told.
Why NIMBY Arises in School Conversions
The order in which information arrives, attachment to the school, and insufficient understanding of disability, read through MEXT's survey, its casebook and the Cabinet Office Q&A
We look at the reasons for opposition and anxiety in welfare conversions of closed schools under three headings.
The Order in Which Information Arrives
If residents learn of the plan only after talks between the municipality and the operator are well advanced, they tend to feel that "it was decided without us knowing."
Of the 7,211 school buildings at existing closed schools, 3,580 (49.6%) report that no resident opinion survey was conducted. This figure is not limited to schools whose use is undecided; it includes buildings already put to use.
Attachment to the School
The former Shimada Elementary School in Nagaoka, Niigata, whose white building on high ground and the view from it were loved as a symbol of the area, was reconsidered after its closure because residents asked for the school building to be preserved. At the former Hama Junior High School in Uruma, Okinawa, several operators put forward various proposals, but many were abandoned because they did not win the understanding of residents attached to the school.
After a school closes, the building remains a place of memories for local people. Alongside explaining the new use, set up an occasion to talk about how the former school site will be treated.
Insufficient Understanding of Disability
The Cabinet Office Q&A says that opposition movements over the siting of disability support facilities, group homes and care homes may in part stem from insufficient understanding of persons with disabilities, and names awareness-raising for residents by the administration as a response.
When planning a disability facility, psychiatric day care or dementia group home, prepare materials that show what the facility does and who uses it before the meeting.
Community Meeting Design
The premise that residents' consent is not made a condition, and techniques by purpose (surveys, information sessions, workshops, open houses)
Hold community meetings to hear residents' concerns and reflect them in the plan.
Do Not Make Residents' Consent a Condition for Disability-Related Facilities
The supplementary resolutions of the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors on the bill call for the national and local governments to thoroughly ensure that the consent of neighbouring residents is not sought when disability-related facilities, including group homes and care homes, are approved, and to actively carry out awareness-raising to gain residents' understanding. The Cabinet Office Q&A likewise considers it appropriate not to take special measures that are not required for approving other facilities, such as seeking residents' consent when approving disability support facilities.
What the resolutions and the Q&A cover is the approval of facilities. When deciding the use of a closed school or choosing its operator, do not add local consent as a condition only when the use is a disability welfare facility. Then gain understanding by explaining what the facility does and how the process will run.
Technique Selection by Purpose
| Technique | Purpose | When to use |
|---|---|---|
| Survey (mail / web) | Gauging resident preferences and identifying concerns | Early stage, before planning begins |
| Information session | Communicating the plan and answering questions | Once the plan outline has been established |
| Participatory workshop | Sharing problems, generating ideas, setting priorities | During planning (multiple sessions) |
| Open house | Small-group consultations and facility tours | Before construction and after completion |
| Progress update meetings | Reporting on developments and sustaining trust | Ongoing, from construction through post-opening |
Combine them to suit the stage of the plan. Surveys and workshops can serve as occasions to hear residents' views.
Five Principles for Community Meeting Design
① Start early
Rather than telling residents about a plan once it is decided, bring them in before the plan takes shape. In Nishiwaga, district representatives began deliberating when the town announced its policy to close the school (see below).
② Say what has not been decided
Tell residents about the uncertain parts of the plan, and say plainly what has not yet been decided. Hearing "we'll explain everything once it's all decided" tends to make residents think something is being hidden.
③ Treat concerns as material for the plan
Treat objections and concerns not as positions to argue down but as information for improving the plan. In Miharu, a selection committee that included two local residents interviewed the applicant directly, which built mutual understanding between residents and the operator and eased anxieties (see below).
④ Engage diverse stakeholders
Bring in not only immediate neighbours but also former PTA members, neighbourhood associations, merchants' associations, social welfare councils and local disability organizations.
⑤ Keep talking after opening
Do not stop at a single meeting. Keep holding update meetings and taking part in local events during construction and after opening.
Five-Step Consensus-Building Process
Five stages this article sets out, from early disclosure to dialogue after opening
This article sets out consensus-building for welfare conversions of closed schools in the following five stages. They are this article's framing, not a public standard.
Early Disclosure (Before Planning Begins)
Tell local residents, former school families and local welfare stakeholders early that deliberations about the school's future are beginning. Use neighbourhood association circulars, local newsletters and resident surveys.
Problem Sharing (During Planning)
Share the area's challenges with residents (an ageing population, the state of welfare services, maintenance costs for vacant facilities and so on), and discuss how to use the closed school in light of those challenges.
Presenting Options (During Planning)
Rather than presenting a single predetermined use, lay out several options and create a forum where residents can compare and discuss them.
Participatory Design (Late Planning Stage)
Once the use is broadly settled, decide with residents how the parts open to the community will be used and the rules for running them.
Sustained Dialogue (Construction Through Post-Opening)
Hold update meetings regularly during construction and after opening, and keep up events where users and local people meet.
Four Approaches from the MEXT Casebook
In Nishiwaga, Miharu, Nagaoka and Uruma, when residents came in and how opposition and anxiety were answered
From MEXT's casebook, we take four cases that record when residents came in and how opposition and anxiety were answered. Three are welfare uses and one is a community hub.
Nishiwaga Town, Iwate: Resident Representatives Set Up an NPO (Small-Scale Multifunctional Care Home)
When the town announced its policy to close Etchuhata Elementary School, residents grew keen to make use of the school. Because the area was ageing and many residents were anxious about the future, more than ten rounds of deliberation by representatives of the four administrative districts of the former school area decided to use the building for community welfare. Before the closure, in February 2011, community representatives set up an NPO as the operator, which began operating in June 2012. The NPO put effort into training, got through the start-up period, and cleared its cumulative deficit a little over eight years after opening.
The town already had relatively many welfare facilities for older people for its population, and high long-term care insurance premiums were an issue, so other providers objected that a new care business would push premiums up further. The operator won understanding by holding many briefings on projected numbers of older people and other topics.
Opposition arose even with residents as the operators. Here it came from other providers, and it was answered with repeated briefings on how the town's older population was expected to change.
Miharu Town, Fukushima: Two Residents Took Part in Choosing the Operator (Welfare Farming Facility)
When the school closed in August 2013, the town discussed the use of the site with the district and invited applications from October that year; the company ECO applied, aiming to use it for a business that would improve welfare. A candidate selection committee that included two residents chosen by the community reviewed the application and interviewed the applicant directly, which built mutual understanding between residents and the operator and eased anxieties. The project's public benefit and its contribution to the area, such as local hiring, were valued and won support, and the use was decided. The town encouraged residents to take part in discussions from the operator selection stage and took care to provide ample opportunities for discussion.
The facility employs persons with disabilities and others in hydroponic leafy vegetable growing, and is run by ECO's subsidiary Fukushima Asunaro-kai. Residents did not just hear from an operator already chosen; they sat where the operator was chosen.
Nagaoka City, Niigata: A University Coordinated the Deliberations (Disability Employment Support Facility)
The former Shimada Elementary School closed at the end of March 2009. The city considered how to use it in response to residents who wanted the school building preserved, and decided to use it for welfare. Because school consolidation and the reuse that followed were an important issue for the whole area, the city asked a university in the city to coordinate, held 12 meetings in each of four study groups of residents and education stakeholders, and gathered views through a questionnaire to residents and its website, carrying the study from school consolidation through to reuse. The operator was chosen through a simplified proposal competition, and residents and graduates have sent many messages of delight that the long-loved school is being used again.
The facility is a disability employment support facility with a restaurant and a bakery, run by the social welfare corporation Nagaoka Sanko Rojin Fukushikai. The forum for deliberation was open from the stage when school consolidation was being discussed.
Uruma City, Okinawa: Many Proposals Were Abandoned for Lack of Residents' Understanding (Community Hub)
In considering how to use the former Hama Junior High School, several operators put forward various proposals, but many were abandoned because they did not win the understanding of residents attached to the school. In October 2017 the Hama neighbourhood association began managing the ground floor of the school building as designated manager, and in June 2019 a trial event of about two weeks tested the building as a community hub with co-working space, confirming a certain effect from participant numbers and other measures. After repeated briefings for residents, in August 2021 a joint venture including the Hama neighbourhood association formed a consortium to manage and run the building as a community complex.
This is not a welfare case. We include it as an example that, where attachment to a school is strong, proposals can stall whatever the use. Uruma tried out the use with a short trial event and then held repeated briefings.
Comparing the Four Cases
| Dimension | Nishiwaga | Miharu | Nagaoka | Uruma |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use | Small-scale multifunctional care home | Welfare farming facility | Disability employment support facility | Community hub |
| Where residents took part | More than ten deliberations by representatives of four districts | Candidate selection committee including two residents | Four study groups (12 meetings each), questionnaire, website | Briefings for residents; joint venture including the neighbourhood association |
| Voices raised | Other providers objected over insurance premiums | Anxieties between residents and the operator (eased through direct interviews) | Requests to preserve the school building | Many proposals did not win understanding because of attachment to the school |
| Operator | NPO set up by community representatives | Fukushima Asunaro-kai (a subsidiary of ECO) | Nagaoka Sanko Rojin Fukushikai (social welfare corporation) | Joint venture including the Hama neighbourhood association |
Practical Takeaways
Explain the Facility in Concrete Terms
At community meetings, explain the following in concrete terms:
- Who uses the facility (what conditions or situations the users face)
- A typical day's schedule (what happens at what time)
- Staffing levels (how many staff are present at any time)
- Security and safety management systems
- Number and timing of pick-up vehicles
Offering a visit to an existing facility of the same kind lets people see everyday life there that is hard to convey through explanation alone.
Keep Parts the Community Uses
In Nishiwaga, the schoolyard is not part of what is leased to the NPO; it is used for community sports days and Bon dances and serves as a gathering place for residents. The Uruma facility took over the role of a local shop that closed in 2019, and local people take part in cleaning the facility and running the shop.
Build reasons for local people to drop in every day into the facility plan.
Split Who Explains Before and After the Call for Operators
In Kunisaki, Oita, where a maker of non-destructive testing equipment moved in, the city held several resident briefings hosted by the city office before calling for operators, listening to residents' feelings and explaining the city's policy. After the call, the company also held its own briefings, explaining the company, its business at the closed school and the construction to come.
Before the call, the municipality explains its policy and listens to residents; once the operator is chosen, the operator explains what it will do. The same split works for welfare facilities.
Related Articles
47 Former School Reuse Cases
Counts by use and the full list of the casebook's 47 cases, renovation costs and subsidies in three cases, and three patterns of consensus-building.
Abandoned School Use Change and the Building Standards Act
Renovation obligations and whether building confirmation is needed when converting to a welfare facility
Abandoned School Mixed-Use Development
Combining welfare, education and a café in one closed school
For Building Standards Act procedures for abandoned school conversions, see "Abandoned School Use Change and the Building Standards Act." For guidance on mixed-use models for abandoned schools, see "Abandoned School Mixed-Use Development — The Best Pattern Combining Welfare, Education, and Café."
What to do next
When developing a school reuse plan and renovation budget, check the following matters.
| # | What to check or consider | Responsible team or contact |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Find operators interested in using the building. Ask about their intended uses and requirements, and use the responses to develop the reuse plan | Market sounding and local operators |
| 2 | Check the seismic assessment and asbestos survey results. If surveys have not been conducted, determine their scope and how to commission them | Facilities team |
| 3 | Estimate renovation costs from the survey results and compare them with demolition costs | Design office |
| 4 | Check the property disposal procedures. For subsidized school buildings, check MEXT approval or reporting requirements against the intended use and disposal restriction period | Board of education and MEXT |
| 5 | Explain the proposed reuse to alumni and community groups and hear their views before announcing the use | Alumni and neighbourhood associations |
Check operator interest and requirements before finalizing the use, and take prospective demand into account when developing the reuse plan.
References
FY2024 Survey on the Utilization of Closed School Facilities (as of 1 May 2024) — Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2025)
Casebook on Repurposing Closed Schools (Minna no Haiko Project) — Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2023)
Minna no Haiko (Everyone's Closed School) Project — Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2025)
Supplementary Resolutions of the House of Representatives and House of Councillors Cabinet Committees on the Bill for the Act for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities — Cabinet Office (2026)
Q&A on the Act for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (for Local Governments) — Cabinet Office (2026)
