Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art & Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/urbs.2024.139655.4961
Abstract
Highlights:
- Understanding urban conflicts often relies on typologies specific to the context, a focus that has drawn considerable attention since the 1980s, especially in urban studies.
- The classification of conflicts in urban planning is based on factors such as causal forces, spatial patterns, conflict intensity, scale, sources, topics, and planning theory typology.
- Urban planners' approaches to conflict and its management are heavily influenced by the structural, political, and organizational cultures of their institutional environments.
Introduction: Urban planning has evolved significantly in response to changing socio-economic and political realities, particularly as cities enter the 21st century. The multiplicity of societal interests and conflicting preferences has made conflict an integral part of urban planning processes. Planners, now more than ever, must grapple with these conflicts, as they can significantly impact the success or failure of urban policies and initiatives.
Although the discussion surrounding conflict in urban planning has existed for decades, it gained momentum in the 1970s and became especially prevalent in the 1980s with the rise of participatory planning approaches. As participatory models developed, urban theorists began paying more attention to conflicts as an inherent part of urban governance. However, the literature surrounding conflict in urban planning remains fragmented, with differing theoretical and practical approaches. This study aims to bridge this gap by systematically classifying conflicts based on the dominant theoretical, philosophical, and contextual frameworks present in planning theory.
Theoretical Framework: Understanding and managing conflict in urban planning requires a systematic typology that reflects the nature of these disputes in different contexts. Conflict typologies in urban planning research generally fall into two major categories: managerial and theoretical. The managerial approach focuses on decision-making processes, conflict resolution techniques, impact assessments, and institutional analysis. This approach aligns with organizational and management studies and seeks to devise strategies for managing conflicts effectively.
In contrast, the theoretical approach seeks to understand the root causes of conflicts, emphasizing the philosophical and epistemological underpinnings of urban planning. Theoretical perspectives examine conflicts through lenses such as power dynamics, the role of planning theory, and the influence of political institutions. These two broad approaches—the managerial and the theoretical—are frequently applied within a third situational context, which examines specific urban conflicts tied to space, land use, urban development, regeneration projects, and large-scale initiatives.
Methodology: This research employs a systematic review methodology to analyze the evolution of conflict and conflict management in urban planning. The data collection involved a meta-analysis and qualitative content analysis of 139 English-language articles found in the Scopus database. Following the content analysis, an in-depth review of 46 additional sources helped trace the historical development of conflict theories and practices in urban planning.
The meta-analysis allowed the study to categorize the diverse approaches to conflict in urban planning into three main paradigms: positivist, post-positivist, and critical. Each of these paradigms brings a unique perspective to conflict management. For example, the positivist paradigm seeks guided consensus, while the post-positivist paradigm looks to resolve conflicts through consensus based on discourse ethics. The critical paradigm, on the other hand, challenges consensus-building as a form of hegemony, arguing that conflicts are constantly reproduced within the structures of urban governance.
Results and Discussion: The systematic review revealed that conflicts in urban planning can be broadly classified into three key approaches: managerial, theoretical, and situational. These approaches intersect in different ways, depending on the specific context in which the conflict arises. For example, situational conflicts often arise in areas related to spatial patterns, land use, ownership disputes, and urban regeneration projects. Managerial conflicts are tied to the processes of decision-making, institutional design, and conflict resolution strategies. Theoretical conflicts explore deeper issues, such as the role of power in planning and the underlying philosophies that guide urban policy.
In terms of paradigmatic shifts, the evolution of conflict management in urban planning has seen a movement from positivist approaches, which aimed to engineer consensus, to post-positivist approaches that emphasized the ethics of discourse and negotiation. More recently, critical theorists have argued that consensus itself is a mechanism for maintaining power imbalances and that conflicts are never fully resolved but continually reproduced within urban planning processes. This shift reflects a broader political turn in the field of urban planning, where conflicts are understood not just as problems to be solved but as symptoms of deeper systemic issues.
Conclusion: The evolution of conflict in urban planning reflects broader ideological and political shifts in the discipline. While early approaches sought to manage conflict through structured consensus-building, more recent perspectives recognize the inherent power dynamics at play in urban governance. Planners today must move beyond traditional regulatory roles and contribute to rethinking urban policy and transforming the symbolic and physical dimensions of urban spaces. However, the effectiveness of planners' roles in conflict management largely depends on the structural contexts and political cultures of the institutions within which they operate. Understanding and addressing these conflicts requires a multifaceted approach that considers both managerial and theoretical perspectives.
Keywords
Main Subjects
Abbaszadeh, M. (2012). Validity and reliability in qualitative researches. Applied Sociology, 23(1), 19-34. [In Persian]
Adam, A. G. (2020). Understanding competing and conflicting interests for peri-urban land in Ethiopia’s era of urbanization. Environment and Urbanization, 32(1), 55-68.
Albertus, M., Brambor, T., & Ceneviva, R. (2018). Land inequality and rural unrest: Theory and evidence from Brazil. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(3), 557-596.
Alfasi, N. (2009). Planning and the public interest: An editorial introduction. Geography Research Forum,
Allison, G. T., & Zelikow, P. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (Vol. 327). Little, Brown Boston.
Allmendinger, P. (2002). Planning theory.
Ann, T., Wu, Y., Shen, J., Zhang, X., Shen, L., & Shan, L. (2015). The key causes of urban-rural conflict in China. Habitat International, 49, 65-73.
Aprioku, I. M. (1998). Local planning and public participation: the case of waterfront redevelopment in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Planning Perspectives, 13(1), 69-88.
Asar, S., Jalalpour, S., Rahmani, M., & Rezaeian, M. (2016). PRISMA; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, 15(1). [In Persian]
Attia, S., & Ibrahim, A. A. A. M. (2018). Accessible and inclusive public space: The regeneration of waterfront in informal areas. Urban Research & Practice, 11(4), 314-337.
Barnett, C., & Bridge, G. (2013). Geographies of radical democracy: Agonistic pragmatism and the formation of affected interests. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(4), 1022-1040.
Barrow, C. J. (2010). How is environmental conflict addressed by SIA? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 293-301.
Barry, M., Dewar, D., Whittal, J., & Muzondo, I. (2007). Land conflicts in informal settlements: wallacedene in Cape Town, South Africa. Urban forum,
Bassett, K., Griffiths, R., & Smith, I. (2002). Testing governance: partnerships, planning and conflict in waterfront regeneration. Urban Studies, 39(10), 1757-1775.
Beauregard, R. A. (2020). Advanced introduction to planning theory. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Berg, R. C., Page, S., & Øgård-Repål, A. (2021). The effectiveness of peer-support for people living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 16(6), e0252623.
Biesenthal, C., Clegg, S., Mahalingam, A., & Sankaran, S. (2018). Applying institutional theories to managing megaprojects. International journal of project management, 36(1), 43-54.
Bollens, S. A. (2004). Urban planning and intergroup conflict: Confronting a fractured public interest. In Dialogues in urban and regional planning (pp. 225-262). Routledge.
Bond, S. (2011). Negotiating a ‘democratic ethos’ moving beyond the agonistic–communicative divide. Planning Theory, 10(2), 161-186.
Bravo-Rodriguez, B., & Rivas-Navarro, J. L. (2017). Suburban corridors for an ecological matrix in Granada: the territorial cohesion of La Vega Sur. Bitácora Urbano Territorial, 27(2), 45-56.
Brenner, N., Marcuse, P., & Mayer, M. (2009). Cities for people, not for profit. City, 13(2-3), 176-184.
Bruton, M. J. (1980). Public participation, local planning and conflicts of interest. Policy & Politics, 8(4), 423-442.
Burton, J. W. (1987). Resolving deep-rooted conflict: A handbook. (No Title).
Calderon, C. (2020). Unearthing the political: differences, conflicts and power in participatory urban design. Journal of urban design, 25(1), 50-64.
Calderon, C., & Butler, A. (2019). Politicising the landscape: a theoretical contribution towards the development of participation in landscape planning. Landscape Research.
Campbell, D. J., Gichohi, H., Mwangi, A., & Chege, L. (2000). Land use conflict in Kajiado district, Kenya. Land use policy, 17(4), 337-348.
Caner, G., & Bölen, F. (2016). Urban planning approaches in divided cities. A| Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 13(1), 139-156.
Canitez, F., Alpkokin, P., & Black, J. A. (2019). Agency costs in public transport systems: Net-cost contracting between the transport authority and private operators-impact on passengers. Cities, 86, 154-166.
Chitonge, H., & Mfune, O. (2015). The urban land question in Africa: The case of urban land conflicts in the City of Lusaka, 100 years after its founding. Habitat International, 48, 209-218.
Chu, Z., Bian, C., & Yang, J. (2021). Joint prevention and control mechanism for air pollution regulations in China: A policy simulation approach with evolutionary game. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91, 106668.
Cohen, J. (1998). Democracy and liberty. Deliberative democracy, 1, 185-231.
Collins, M. (2010). Conflict and contact: The ‘humane’city, agonistic politics, and the phenomenological body. Environment and planning D: Society and Space, 28(5), 913-930.
Combrink, A. (2010). Cognitive development in planning theory North-West University].
Dadashpoor, H., & Ahani, S. (2019). Land tenure-related conflicts in peri-urban areas: A review. Land use policy, 85, 218-229.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. Yale University Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=LRG7ngEACAAJ
Davidoff, P. (2020). “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning”: Journal of the American Institute of Planners (1965). In The City Reader (pp. 480-491). Routledge.
de Paula, P. V., Marques, R. C., & Gonçalves, J. M. (2023). Public–private partnerships in urban regeneration projects: a review. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 149(1), 04022056. https://doi.org/10.1061/JUPDDM.UPENG-4144
Dear, M. (1977). Spatial externalities and locational conflict. London Papers in Regional Science, 7, 152-167.
Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American planning association, 58(3), 288-300.
Deininger, K., & Castagnini, R. (2006). Incidence and impact of land conflict in Uganda. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60(3), 321-345.
Delforce, R. J., Sinden, J., & Young, M. (1986). Policy preferences and social economic values to resolve pastoralism-tourism conflicts. Landscape planning, 12(4), 387-401.
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review.
Devine, P. (1991). Economy, state and civil society. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(2), 205-216.
Dikeç, M. (2005). Space, politics, and the political. Environment and planning D: Society and Space, 23(2), 171-188.
Druckman, D., & Mitchell, C. (1995). Flexibility in Negotiation and Mediation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 542(1), 10-23.
Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge University Press.
Dryzek, J. S., & Hendriks, C. M. (2012). Fostering deliberation in the forum and beyond. The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice, 31-57.
Dupont, V. (2007). Conflicting stakes and governance in the peripheries of large Indian metropolises–An introduction. Cities, 24(2), 89-94.
Edwards, P., & Kleinschmit, D. (2013). Towards a European forest policy—conflicting courses. Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 87-93.
Eng, T. S. (1996). Character and identity in Singapore new towns: planner and resident perspectives. Habitat International, 20(2), 279-294.
Eraydin, A., & Frey, K. (2018). Politics and conflict in governance and planning: theory and practice. Routledge.
Ercan, M. A. (2011). Challenges and conflicts in achieving sustainable communities in historic neighbourhoods of Istanbul. Habitat International, 35(2), 295-306.
Escher, A. (1991). Planning of an environmental-impact statement: a scientific and political dilemma. International journal of project management, 9(4), 200-206.
Etzioni, A. (1968). Societal guidance: A key to macro-sociology. Acta sociologica, 11(4), 197-206.
Etzioni, A. (1973). Mixed Scanning. A „Third “Approach to Decision-Making. A reader in planning theory, 5, 217-229.
Fainstein, S. S. (2014). The just city. International journal of urban Sciences, 18(1), 1-18.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. HeinOnline.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. University of Chicago press.
Flyvbjerg, B., & Richardson, T. (2004). Planning and Foucault: in search of the dark side of planning theory. Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
Forester, J. (1987). Planning in the face of conflict: Negotiation and mediation strategies in local land use regulation. Journal of the American planning association, 53(3), 303-314.
Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences: Dramas of mediating public disputes. Oxford University Press.
Friedmann, J. (1973). RETRACKING AMERICA; A THEORY OF TRANSACTIVE PLANNING.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton University Press.
Fuller, C. (2010). Crisis and institutional change in urban governance. Environment and Planning A, 42(5), 1121-1137.
Galtung, J., & Kuur-Sörensen, M. (2007). Bourdieu, Foucault, Habermas: Western Conflict Theory and Practice. Versonnex, France: Transcend Research Institute. https://www. scribd. com/document/73385026/Bourdieu-Foucault-Habermas Accessed January, 9, 2018.
García-Frapolli, E., Ayala-Orozco, B., Oliva, M., & Smith, R. J. (2018). Different approaches towards the understanding of socio-environmental conflicts in protected areas. Sustainability, 10(7), 2240.
Gilmour, B., Huffman, T., Terauds, A., & Jefferson, C. (1996). Incentive problems in Canada's land markets: Emphasis on Ontario. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 9, 16-41.
Godtman Kling, K., Dahlberg, A., & Wall-Reinius, S. (2019). Negotiating improved multifunctional landscape use: Trails as facilitators for collaboration among stakeholders. Sustainability, 11(13), 3511.
Gohari, S., & Larssæther, S. (2019). Sustainable energy planning as a co-creative governance challenge. Lessons from the Zero Village Bergen.
Goluža, M. (2020). Planning major transport infrastructure: Benefits and limitations of the participatory decision-making processes. Participatory Research and Planning in Practice, 185-205.
Gray, B., Coleman, P. T., & Putnam, L. L. (2007). Intractable conflict: new perspectives on the causes and conditions for change-Introduction. 50(11), 1415-1429.
Gresch, P., & Smith, B. (1985). Managing spatial conflict: the planning system in Switzerland. Progress in Planning, 23, 155-251.
Grochowska, A., & Małecka, M. (2020). Potential Conflicts in the Land-Use Planning Process: A Case Study of the Rural Commune of Oleśnica (Poland). Quaestiones Geographicae, 39(2), 129-137.
Gualini, E. (2015). Planning and conflict. Taylor & Francis.
Gualini, E., & Bianchi, I. (2015). Space, politics and conflicts: A review of contemporary debates in urban research and planning theory. Planning and Conflict, 37-55.
Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis (Vol. 519). Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. MIT press.
Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics.
Harvey, D. (2010). Social justice and the city (Vol. 1). University of Georgia press.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. UBC Press.
Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning A, 30(9), 1531-1546.
Healey, P. (1999). Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. Journal of planning education and research, 19(2), 111-121.
Healey, P., Cars, G., & Madanipour, A. (2002). Urban governance, institutional capacity and social milieux. Urban and Regional Planning and Development Series.
Hillier, J. (2003). Agon'izing over consensus: Why habermasian ideals cannot beReal'. Planning Theory, 2(1), 37-59.
Ho, P. (2014). The ‘credibility thesis’ and its application to property rights:(In) secure land tenure, conflict and social welfare in China. Land use policy, 40, 13-27.
Hoch, C. (1988). Conflict at large: A national survey of planners and political conflict.
Hohn, U., & Neuer, B. (2006). New urban governance: Institutional change and consequences for urban development. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 291-298.
Hong, K., Zou, Y., Zhang, Y., & Duan, K. (2020). The weapon of the weak: An analysis of RDEU game in the conflict of farmland expropriation under the influence of emotion. Sustainability, 12(8), 3367.
Hossain, S. R., & Fuller, S. (2021). Understanding conflict in transport mega-projects: social impacts and power dynamics in the WestConnex project, Sydney. Australian Geographer, 52(3), 293-313.
Hubo, C., & Krott, M. (2013). Conflict camouflaging in public administration—a case study in nature conservation policy in Lower Saxony. Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 63-70.
Hudson, B. M., Wachs, M., & Schofer, J. L. (1974). Local impact evaluation in the design of large-scale urban systems. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 40(4), 255-265.
Hui, E. C., & Bao, H. (2013). The logic behind conflicts in land acquisitions in contemporary China: A framework based upon game theory. Land use policy, 30(1), 373-380.
Humphreys, J., & Walmsley, D. (1991). Locational conflict in metropolitan areas: Melbourne and Sydney, 1989. Australian Geographical Studies, 29(2), 313-328.
Innes, J., Gruber, J., Neuman, M., & Thompson, J. (1994). Coordinating growth management through consensus-building: Incentives and the generation of social, intellectual and political capital.
Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of planning education and research, 14(3), 183-189.
Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. American Planning Association, 62(4), 460-472.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999a). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American planning association, 65(4), 412-423.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999b). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American planning association, 65(1), 9-26.
Izakovičová, Z., Miklós, L., & Miklósová, V. (2018). Integrative assessment of land use conflicts. Sustainability, 10(9), 3270.
Janelle, D. G. (1977). Structural dimensions in the geography of locational conflicts. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 21(4), 311-328.
Janelle, D. G., & Millward, H. A. (1976). Locational conflict patterns and urban ecological structure. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 67(2), 102-113.
Jia, G., Yang, F., Wang, G., Hong, B., & You, R. (2011). A study of mega project from a perspective of social conflict theory. International journal of project management, 29(7), 817-827.
Jiricka-Pürrer, A., & Wachter, T. (2019). Coping with climate change related conflicts–The first framework to identify and tackle these emerging topics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 79, 106308.
kheyroddin, R. k., Gholamreza, & Dalaei Milan, E. (2016). Balancing between property right and public interests in urban regeneration measures (from interests conflict to legal balance )). Researches in Islamic Architecture, 13(4), 21-41. [In Persian]
Krebs, T. B., & Pelissero, J. P. (2010). Urban managers and public policy: Do institutional arrangements influence decisions to initiate policy? Urban Affairs Review, 45(3), 391-411.
Krukowska, J., Aksztejn, W., Lackowska, M., & Mikuła, Ł. (2022). The multiple faces of recentralization: A typology of central-local interactions. Journal of Urban Affairs.
Kühn, M. (2021). Agonistic planning theory revisited: The planner’s role in dealing with conflict. Planning Theory, 20(2), 143-156.
Lecourt, A., & Baudelle, G. (2004). Planning conflicts and social proximity: a reassessment. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(3), 287-301.
Lee, C., Won, J. W., Jang, W., Jung, W., Han, S. H., & Kwak, Y. H. (2017). Social conflict management framework for project viability: Case studies from Korean megaprojects. International journal of project management, 35(8), 1683-1696.
Legacy, C., Metzger, J., Steele, W., & Gualini, E. (2019). Beyond the post-political: Exploring the relational and situated dynamics of consensus and conflict in planning. Planning Theory, 18(3), 273-281.
Lewis, D. A. (2014). Identifying and avoiding conflicts between historic preservation and the development of renewable energy. NYU Envtl. LJ, 22, 274.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4), W-65-W-94.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of" Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.
Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The intelligence of democracy: Decision making through mutual adjustment. (No Title).
Liu, G., Wei, L., Gu, J., Zhou, T., & Liu, Y. (2020). Benefit distribution in urban renewal from the perspectives of efficiency and fairness: A game theoretical model and the government's role in China. Cities, 96, 102422.
Lombard, M. (2012). Land tenure and urban conflict. A review of the literature. Global urban research center working paper(8).
Lombard, M. (2016). Land conflict in peri-urban areas: Exploring the effects of land reform on informal settlement in Mexico. Urban Studies, 53(13), 2700-2720.
Lombard, M., & Rakodi, C. (2016). Urban land conflict in the Global South: Towards an analytical framework. Urban Studies, 53(13), 2683-2699.
Loukopoulos, P., & Scholz, R. W. (2004). Sustainable future urban mobility: using ‘area development negotiations’ for scenario assessment and participatory strategic planning. Environment and Planning A, 36(12), 2203-2226.
Lu, Z., Xu, M., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Analyzing Stakeholder Relationships for Construction Land Reduction Projects in Shanghai, China. Land, 11(12), 2170.
Ma, Z. (2007). Competing or accommodating? An empirical test of Chinese conflict management styles. Contemporary Management Research, 3(1), 3-3.
Ma, Z., Liang, D., Erkus, A., & Tabak, A. (2012). The impact of group-oriented values on choice of conflict management styles and outcomes: an empirical study in Turkey. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(18), 3776-3793.
Maczka, K., Matczak, P., Jeran, A., Chmielewski, P. J., & Baker, S. (2021). Conflicts in ecosystem services management: Analysis of stakeholder participation in natura 2000 in Poland. Environmental Science & Policy, 117, 16-24.
Magsi, H., & Torre, A. (2013). Approaches to understand land use conflicts in the developing countries. The Macrotheme Review, 2(1), 119-136.
Mai, Y., Wu, J., Zhang, Q., Liang, Q., Ma, Y., & Liu, Z. (2022). Confront or comply? Managing social risks in China’s urban renewal projects. Sustainability, 14(19), 12553.
Malboosbaf, R., & Azizi, F. (2010). What is systematic review and how we should write it? Research in Medicine, 34(3), 203-207. [In Persian]
Mann, C., & Jeanneaux, P. (2009). Two approaches for understanding land-use conflict to improve rural planning and management. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 4(1).
Mäntysalo, R., Saglie, I.-L., & Cars, G. (2011). Between input legitimacy and output efficiency: Defensive routines and agonistic reflectivity in Nordic land-use planning. European Planning Studies, 19(12), 2109-2126.
Marcuse, P. (2011). The three historic currents of city planning. The new Blackwell companion to the city, 643-655.
Marcuse, P., Connolly, J., Novy, J., Olivo, I., Potter, C., & Steil, J. (2009). Searching for the just city: debates in urban theory and practice. Routledge.
Margerum, R. D. (2002). Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal of planning education and research, 21(3), 237-253.
Marttunen, M., & Hämäläinen, R. P. (2008). The decision analysis interview approach in the collaborative management of a large regulated water course. Environmental management, 42, 1026-1042.
Marx, C. (2016). Extending the analysis of urban land conflict: An example from Johannesburg. Urban Studies, 53(13), 2779-2795.
Mayer, M. (2013). First world urban activism: Beyond austerity urbanism and creative city politics. City, 17(1), 5-19.
Mayo, J. M. (1984). Conflicts in roles and values for urban planners. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 67-79.
Mela, A. (2014). Urban public space between fragmentation, control and conflict. City, Territory and Architecture, 1, 1-7.
Melo, M. A., & Baiocchi, G. (2006). Deliberative democracy and local governance: towards a new agenda. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(3), 587-600.
Mgiba, F. M. (2020). Possible Mediating Roles of Conflict of Interests and Compromised Principals' Interests between the Ideology of Agents and the outcomes to their Principals: an Empirical Study. African Journal of Business & Economic Research, 15(2).
Minnery, J. R. (1983). Conflict and conflict management in urban planning (The Application of General Theories to Urban Planning in the Queensland Local Government Context) University of Queensland].
Minnery, J. R. (1985). Urban planners and role conflicts. Urban Policy and Research, 3(1), 25-30.
Mitchell, D., Attoh, K., & Staeheli, L. (2015). Whose city? What politics? Contentious and non-contentious spaces on Colorado’s Front Range. Urban Studies, 52(14), 2633-2648.
Moslem, S., Ghorbanzadeh, O., Blaschke, T., & Duleba, S. (2019). Analysing stakeholder consensus for a sustainable transport development decision by the fuzzy AHP and interval AHP. Sustainability, 11(12), 3271.
Motaghi, T., Rafieian, M., & Saremi, H. (2021). A Theoretical Model for Conflict Management-Driven Urban Contemporization in Urban Historic Areas; Case Study: Historic City of Rey. Naqshejahan - Basic studies and New Technologies of Architecture and Planning, 11(2), 120-136. [In Persian]
Mouat, C., Legacy, C., & March, A. (2013). The problem is the solution: Testing agonistic theory's potential to recast intractable planning disputes. Urban Policy and Research, 31(2), 150-166.
Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social research, 745-758.
Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. Routledge.
Nagel, M., & Satoh, K. (2019). Protesting iconic megaprojects. A discourse network analysis of the evolution of the conflict over Stuttgart 21. Urban Studies, 56(8), 1681-1700.
Narain, V. (2009). Growing city, shrinking hinterland: land acquisition, transition and conflict in peri-urban Gurgaon, India. Environment and Urbanization, 21(2), 501-512.
Nelischer, K. (2024). Evaluating Collaborative Public–Private Partnerships: The Case of Toronto’s Smart City. Journal of the American planning association, 90(2), 261-273. https://doi.org/1080/01944363.2023.2195389
Niemelä, J., Young, J., Alard, D., Askasibar, M., Henle, K., Johnson, R., Kurttila, M., Larsson, T.-B., Matouch, S., & Nowicki, P. (2005). Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(6), 877-890.
Niksokhan, M. H., Kerachian, R., & Amin, P. (2009). A stochastic conflict resolution model for trading pollutant discharge permits in river systems. Environmental Monitoring and assessment, 154, 219-232.
Nwachukwu, C. V., Udeaja, C., Chileshe, N., & Okere, C. E. (2017). The critical success factors for stakeholder management in the restoration of built heritage assets in the UK. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 35(4), 304-331.
Offe, C. (2018). Contradictions of the welfare state. Routledge.
Ogas-Mendez, A. F., & Isoda, Y. (2022). Obstacles to urban redevelopment in squatter settlements: The role of the informal housing market. Land use policy, 123, 106402.
Omer, S., & Jabeen, S. (2016). Exploring Karl Marx Conflict Theory in Education: Are Pakistani Private Schools Maintaining Status Quo? Bulletin of Education and Research, 38(2), 195-202.
Pacione, M. (2013). Private profit, public interest and land use planning—A conflict interpretation of residential development pressure in Glasgow's rural–urban fringe. Land use policy, 32, 61-77.
Paemelaere, E. A., Mejía, A., Quintero, S., Hallett, M., Li, F., Wilson, A., Barnabas, H., Albert, A., Li, R., & Baird, L. (2023). The road towards wildlife friendlier infrastructure: Mitigation planning through landscape-level priority settings and species connectivity frameworks. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 99, 107010. https://doi.org/1016/j.eiar.2022.107010
Pearson, A. (2004). Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation, 2(2), 45-64.
Peltonen, L., & Sairinen, R. (2010). Integrating impact assessment and conflict management in urban planning: Experiences from Finland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 328-337.
Perloff, H. S. (1980). Planning the post-industrial city. (No Title).
Pløger, J. (2004). Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory, 3(1), 71-92.
Pløger, J. (2021). Conflict, consent, dissensus: The unfinished as challenge to politics and planning. Environment and Planning C: Politics and space, 39(6), 1294-1309.
Prenzel, P. V., & Vanclay, F. (2014). How social impact assessment can contribute to conflict management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 45, 30-37.
Priscoli, J. B. (1989). Public involvement, conflict management: means to EQ and social objectives. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 115(1), 31-42.
Pugliano, G., Benassai, G., & Benassai, E. (2018). Integrating urban and port planning policies in a sustainable perspective: the case study of Naples historic harbour area. Planning Perspectives.
Purcell, M. (2009). Resisting neoliberalization: Communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning Theory, 8(2), 140-165.
Puustinen, T., Krigsholm, P., & Falkenbach, H. (2022). Land policy conflict profiles for different densification types: A literature-based approach. Land use policy, 123, 106405.
Raum, S., Rawlings-Sanaei, F., & Potter, C. (2021). A web content-based method of stakeholder analysis: The case of forestry in the context of natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 300, 113733.
Roskamm, N. (2015). On the other side of “agonism”:“The enemy,” the “outside,” and the role of antagonism. Planning Theory, 14(4), 384-403.
Routledge, P. (2010). Introduction: cities, justice and conflict. 47(6), 1165-1177.
Runhaar, H. (2009). Putting SEA in context: A discourse perspective on how SEA contributes to decision-making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(3), 200-209.
Sager, T. (2016). Activist planning: a response to the woes of neo-liberalism? European Planning Studies, 24(7), 1262-1280.
Salkin, P. E. (2010). No Protectable Property Interest in Making Land Use Decisions and Other Ethics in Land Use Issues 2009-2010. Law., 42, 649.
Schelling, T. C. (1958). The strategy of conflict. Prospectus for a reorientation of game theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(3), 203-264.
Sevilla-Buitrago, A. (2013). Debating contemporary urban conflicts: A survey of selected scholars. Cities, 31, 454-468.
Silver, H., Scott, A., & Kazepov, Y. (2010). Participation in urban contention and deliberation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), 453-477.
Slater, D., & Arugay, A. A. (2018). Polarizing figures: Executive power and institutional conflict in Asian democracies. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 92-106.
Smith, N. R. (2021). Planning powers as property rights in contemporary China. Journal of planning education and research, 41(3), 259-269.
Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T., Krütli, P., & Scholz, R. W. (2008). Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: a transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss prealpine region. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21, 409-422.
Stepanova, O., Polk, M., & Saldert, H. (2020). Understanding mechanisms of conflict resolution beyond collaboration: an interdisciplinary typology of knowledge types and their integration in practice. Sustainability Science, 15, 263-279.
Stepanova, O., & Romanov, M. (2021). Urban planning as a strategy to implement social sustainability policy goals? The case of temporary housing for immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden. Sustainability, 13(4), 1720.
Stepanova, O., & Saldert, H. (2022). Knowledge use analysis as a way to understand planning conflicts. Two cases from Gothenburg, Sweden. Cities, 124, 103606.
Suprapti, A., Sardjono, A. B., Indriastjario, I., & Pandelaki, E. E. (2019). The spatial concepts of cultural heritage village toward a tourism development; A case study of Kadilangu Demak Indonesia. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 43(1), 36-46.
Susskind, L., & Ozawa, C. (1984). Mediated negotiation in the public sector: The planner as mediator. Journal of planning education and research, 4(1), 5-15.
Thakore, D. (2013). Conflict and conflict management. Iosr Journal Of Business And Management (Iosr-Jbm), 8(6), 07-16.
Treffers, S. R., & Lippert, R. K. (2022). Rhetoric and reality of “turnover”: Condominium developer influence in Ontario and New York. Journal of Urban Affairs, 1-16.
Tugwell, R. G. (1940). Implementing the general interest. Public Administration Review, 1(1), 32-49.
Tugwell, R. G. (1948). The study of planning as a scientific endeavor. Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters.
Tunefalk, M., & Legnér, M. (2019). Decision-making on a national home improvement programme in Sweden and its effects on the built environment, 1984–1993. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 10(2), 106-121.
Urbinati, N. (2010). Unpolitical democracy. Political theory, 38(1), 65-92.
Usman, A., Romle, A. R., & Bashir, A. (2015). Institutional weakness and conflict management in Nigeria: the need for collaborative governance approach. International Journal of Administration and Governance, 1(11S), 1-7.
Verloo, N., & Davis, D. (2021). Learning from conflict. Built Environment, 47(1), 5-12.
Vij, S., Narain, V., Karpouzoglou, T., & Mishra, P. (2018). From the core to the periphery: Conflicts and cooperation over land and water in periurban Gurgaon, India. Land use policy, 76, 382-390.
Vinten, G. (2001). Shareholder versus stakeholder–is there a governance dilemma? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 9(1), 36-47.
Von Der Dunk, A., Grêt-Regamey, A., Dalang, T., & Hersperger, A. M. (2011). Defining a typology of peri-urban land-use conflicts–A case study from Switzerland. Landscape and urban planning, 101(2), 149-156.
Wall Jr, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of management, 21(3), 515-558.
Wanner, A., & Pröbstl-Haider, U. (2019). Barriers to stakeholder involvement in sustainable rural tourism development—Experiences from Southeast Europe. Sustainability, 11(12), 3372.
Waterman, R. E., Misdorp, R., & Mol, A. (1998). Interactions between water and land in The Netherlands. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 4, 115-126.
Weber, M. (2009). The theory of social and economic organization. Simon and Schuster.
Xia, X., & Xiang, P. (2023). Dynamic network analysis of stakeholder-associated social risks of megaprojects: a case study in China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(10), 4541-4568. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2022-0161
Yang, H., Song, W., & Moon, J. (2019). Mega-events and conflict: the case of the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 20(5), 552-571.
Yu, J.-H., & Lee, S.-K. (2012). A conflict-risk assessment model for urban regeneration projects using Fuzzy-FMEA. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 16, 1093-1103.
Yusran, Y., Sahide, M. A. K., Supratman, S., Sabar, A., Krott, M., & Giessen, L. (2017). The empirical visibility of land use conflicts: From latent to manifest conflict through law enforcement in a national park in Indonesia. Land use policy, 62, 302-315.
)