Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3 AppliedGeography
3 AppliedGeography
The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
Applied Geography
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog
a b s t r a c t
Keywords:
Land use
Sustainability
Equity
Conicts
Switzerland
Romania
Land-use conicts are complex disputes that involve heterogeneous parties as well as environmental and
social impacts that are often difcult to resolve. The measures and denitions of success in land-use
conict resolution still need further research. We investigated four cases of land-use conicts in two
countries, Switzerland (CH) and Romania (RO): a connection between two ski areas (CH), a ski track in a
national park (RO), a residential project in a sensitive natural area (CH) and a residential project in an
area with poor urban facilities and planning (RO). We developed a framework to assess the cases, and
used it to address the following research questions: How successful is the resolution of land-use conicts
in these four cases? and Which factors contribute to success or failure?. The assessment was based on
criteria and subcriteria related to conict management and conict-solving conditions. To identify the
criteria and subcriteria that contributed most to successful resolution and to rank the cases we used the
Analytic Network Process. Our results showed that Switzerland was more successful in the resolution
process than Romania due to more emphasis on sustainability and equity. The low scores of the
Romanian cases resulted from the poor implementation of spatial plans and poor enforcement of
environmental regulations, little interest in environmental protection and a preference for quick economic returns, and little importance attached to public participation in the decision-making process. For
conict-resolution to be successful our ndings indicate that it is important to foster not only economic
aspects but also long-term ecological benets and to take into consideration peoples needs. This study
should help planners as it identies key elements for the successful resolution of land-use conicts to
achieve the best use of land.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
In most countries, current economic developments are correlated with increased land demands and impacts on the environment. This leads to growing conicts about how land is used (Goetz,
Shortle, & Bergstrom, 2005). Such land-use conicts are fueled by
political and economic interests (Campbell, Gichohi, Mwangi, &
Chege, 2000), competition for natural resources (Vihervaara,
Kumpula, Tanskanen, & Burkhard, 2010), the need for new developments and urbanization (Saint, Flavell, & Fox, 2009), and
shortcomings in planning practices (AESOP, 2012; Lecourt &
Baudelle, 2004). The cumulative effects of these forces often lead
to complex conict situations which require explicit strategies to
resolve them.
Recent research on land-use conicts (de Groot, 2006;
Henderson, 2005; Sze & Sovacool, 2013; von der Dunk, GrtRegamey, Dalang, & Hersperger, 2011) has revealed the
complexity of land use conicts and of the challenges for coping
with them. To ensure the best possible uses of land, especially
peoples expectations (Cotteleer & Peerlings, 2011) and peoples
attitudes towards their neighborhood (Cherubini & Nova, 2004)
should be considered.
Conict resolution is a complex process and many different
aspects need to be taken into account. A number of valuable
126
handbooks on environmental conict resolution have been developed the face of the relatively weak government regulation in the
US. These include The Consensus Building Handbook by Susskind and
colleagues (Susskind, McKearnan, & Thomas-Larmer, 1999), Environmental Disputes by Crowfoot and Wondolleck (1990) and Contested Lands by Mason (1992). Furthermore, case studies have
explored many specic issues for successful land-use conict resolution, e.g. computer-based workshops for conict resolution in
infrastructure development (Timmermans & Beroggi, 2000),
remote sensing and GIS as tools for communicating land-use needs
in northern Sweden (Sandstrm et al., 2003), supporting social
learning processes for adaptive co-management between conicting landscape managers (Leys, 2011), the use of public consultations for conict resolution regarding landlls (Owusu, OtengAbabio, & Afutu-Kotey, 2012), the contribution of policy regime
changes to conict resolution (Saarikoski, Raitio, & Barry, 2013), and
conict reframing (Asah, Bengston, Wendt, & Nelson, 2012).
For getting beyond conict, recent developments in planning
theory focus on the power of collaborative decision making. A
number of inuential books drive this development. Innes and
Booher (2010) outline a theory of collaborative rationality and
illustrate the actual dynamics of deliberation in order to demonstrate how collaborative reality really works. Healey (2006) proposes a new framework for planning which is rooted in the
institutional realities of today. Forester (2013) advocates facilitative
leadership to turn conict into consensus.
Successful resolution of land-use conicts is crucial in spatial
planning in the context of approving policies and plans as well as in
individual planning decisions. In the context of this paper, successful conict resolution is characterized by public participation in
the decision-making process, mutual acceptance of the decision
and absence of subsequent conicts on the same issue. In order to
contribute to the growing literature on procedural and institutional
characteristics of collaborative decision making, we investigated
what factors contribute to the successful resolutions of land-use
conicts by comparing cases of such conicts in two different
countries with similar heterogeneous geographic landscapes but
with very different economic, political and administrative and
histories of planning (Table 1a, b). The comparison should provide
useful insights for practitioners and planners to help them improve
the use of land and learn from the experiences other countries have
had in resolving common forms of land-use conict. The study
should also be a contribution to theory building in the eld of
conict resolution.
The two countries we selected for comparison are Switzerland
located in Western Europe and Romania, located in Central Europe.
While Switzerland is a federal state with fairly independent
administrative units and a well-developed economy, Romania has a
communist past and a currently emerging economy. Although
Switzerland is generally thought to have a good system of spatial
planning (ARE, 2008), this does not mean it has no land-use conicts that create tensions nor that such conicts are always successfully resolved. Compared with other European countries, Swiss
Table 1a
Switzerland and Romania compared in terms of surface area, population density and
rural areas.
Surface
in km2
Switzerland
Romania
41 285
238 391
Inhabitants per
km2 of the total
area (2010)
195.6
93.18
Table 1b
Switzerland and Romania compared in terms GDP growth, planning laws and
planning levels.
Growth in the
GDP per
inhabitant,
in % e 2010
Switzerland
Romania
3.1
1
Planning law
Planning system
levels
Federal e cantonal e
regional e communal
National e county e
local
127
Fig. 1. The framework with selected criteria and subcriteria for the evaluation of land-use conict resolution process (Beck, 2004; Orr et al., 2008; Sze & Sovacool, 2013).
study, we also collected relevant documents including: media releases and development plans, and visited the areas. We considered
visiting the case study areas as being essential to examine aspects
of landscape conditions and permanency of the agreement. Visiting
the site of the CH case study of ski infrastructure enabled us to
observe how advanced the project was in terms of construction.
Regarding the RO case study of ski infrastructure the eld visits
played a key role in having the opportunity to discuss with people
who were involved in the resolution process. By visiting the sites of
the cases related to the residential projects in both countries we
could observe how the nal agreement was implemented over
years. We found in the CH case study that the nal decision taken in
1983 (not to build the residential project and to convert the area
into agricultural zone) was still implemented today. In the RO case
study the site visit enabled us to determine that the rules agreed
upon in the nal compromise were not implemented.
Case selection
We screened potential cases for our study of land-use conicts,
focusing on conicts where a nal agreement had been reached.
The cases we selected involve conicts confronting many countries
today to do with: nature conservation (Vihervaara et al., 2010),
residential development (Pacione, 2013) or infrastructure for
tourism (Chrenka & Ira, 2011). For Switzerland, we chose: (1) the
construction of a connection between two ski areas where the
number of over-night stays had been decreasing, located in areas of
interest for landscape and wildlife conservation; and (2) a residential development in an ecologically valuable area. For Romania,
we selected: (1) the construction of a ski track in an area designated
as a full protection zone in a national park, and (2) the development
of a residential project in an area with poor urban facilities. The
cases related to ski infrastructure are located in mountains and
tourist areas of high ecological and landscape value. The two residential projects are located in peri-urban areas of low elevations
(less than 420 m in the case from Switzerland, respectively less
than 72 m in the case from Romania) and close to important economic centers.
Case analysis
To understand the cases better, we consulted with experts from
both countries and discussed the cases with the people who were
involved in the resolution process (Yin, 2003). For more in-depth
Case evaluation
128
129
Table 2
Unweighted supermatrix for the four case studies, ve criteria and ten subcriteria.
Case studies
Criteria
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.10
0.37
0.34
0.13
0.10
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.13
0.10
0.14
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.28
0.05
0.08
0.17
0.10
0.19
0.27
0.03
0.10
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.11
0.15
0.44
0.09
0.09
0.13
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.10
0.15
0.17
0.08
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.39
0.07
0.11
0.24
0.06
0.16
0.24
0.10
0.12
0.09
0.04
0.03
0.08
0.08
0.30
0.08
0.47
0.15
0.00
0.09
0.30
0.51
0.10
0.83
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.15
0.14
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.09
0.21
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.11
0.23
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.10
0.44
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.20
0.57
0.11
0.24
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.05
0.59
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.17
0.08
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.22
0.08
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.09
0.21
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.19
0.13
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.18
0.12
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.10
0.45
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.15
0.39
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.23
0.13
0.44
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Table 3
Ranking of projects in the super decision program
Subcriteria
connected ski resorts, was widely accepted in the Canton Graubnden and because the reclassication concerned only a small
part of the Urdern Tli. The Federal council then approved the
cantonal zoning plan with a proposed ski connection between
Arosa and Lenzerheide (on 19 September 2003). This provided the
basis for changing the zoning plans of the municipalities. A coordination process with all stakeholders started in 2007 to adjust the
cantonal structure planning and the land-use plans to include the
ski connection in an overall plan and to decide on compensatory
measures in order to achieve benets for nature and landscape (e.g.
reforestation, expansion of conservation zones). In 2008 after
Lenzerheides electorate rejected the project, it was temporarily
suspended. The following year the coordination process was
resumed with a revised proposal for the ski connection, and in 2011
the relevant cantonal departments as well as NGOs and municipalities involved in the coordination process were invited to
comment on revisions to the cantonal and regional structural plan.
From seven cantonal departments four had no comments (Departments of Energy and Transport; Non-motorized trafc; Economic Development and Tourism; as well as Agriculture and
Geoinformation). The others three departments (Departments of
Hunting and Fishing; Nature and Environment; and Forestry), the
NGOs ProNatura, Swiss Foundation for Landscape Conservation
and Swiss Alpine Club as well as the Tschiertschen-Praden municipality expressed their concerns over the legal status, management, and location of wildlife rest areas, and landscape protection
measures in the Farur Tal (Hartmann, Sauter, ARE-GR, & STW AG fr
Raumplanung, 2011). Subsequently, wildlife rest areas were
adjusted and two smaller landscape protection areas were delineated in the Farur Tal and in Sanaspans.
130
Conict characteristics
Date project Project status Main benets
proposed
in 2013
Conict type
Main controversy
Stakeholders
Implemented Revitalization
of a touristic area
Ongoing
Revitalization of a
touristic area
Rejected
Urban-friendly
development of
the community
Urban
development
conicts
1983
Landscape protection
and public access to the
lakeshore; keep the
landscape free from new
built-up expansion
Improvement of
Infrastructure Lack of urban facilities,
territorial cohesion development ecological interests and
agricultural value
conicts
a
After the fall of communism (1989), the project was stopped and the natural vegetation recovered. The ski track area was included in 2000 in the CNP which is a protected
area included in the Natura 2000 network and equivalent to the IUCN category II (Clius, Teleuca, David, & Morosau, 2012; Rozylowicz, Popescu, Patroescu, & Chisamera, 2011).
The area related to the project was classied as full protection area in 2003 where no building or exploitation of natural resources are permitted according to Romanian
legislation.
131
132
lead to noise and gas emissions from the boats, (5) change the
landscape and the uniqueness of the area, and (6) disturb one of the
last unbuilt parts of the lake. The nal agreement to convert part of
the area into an agricultural zone was considered sustainable
because it would preserve the landscape and guarantee public access to the lakeshore. However, this decision meant paying high
compensation to the landowners (more than 15 million Swiss
francs) for part of the area converting into an agricultural zone.
In terms of compatibility, the municipality designated the area as
residential area for single and two-family houses in the land-use
133
134
135
References
AESOP. (2012). Association of European Schools of Planning. http://www.aesopplanning.eu/blogs/en_GB/planning-conict Accessed 5.10.12.
Aragones-Beltran, P., Pastor-Ferrando, J., Garcia-Garcia, F., & Pascual-Agullo, A.
(2010). An analytic network process approach for siting a municipal solid waste
plant in the metropolitan area of Valencia (Spain). Journal of Environmental
Management, 91, 1071e1086.
ARE. (2008). Spatial planning and development in Switzerland. Observations and
suggestions from the international group of experts. Zurich: Institute for Spatial
and Landscape Devellopment, ETH.
Asah, S. T., Bengston, D. N., Wendt, K., & Nelson, K. C. (2012). Diagnostic reframing of
intractable environmental problems: case of a contested multiparty public
land-use conict. Journal of Environmental Management, 108, 108e119.
Atmaca, E., & Basar, H. B. (2012). Evaluation of power plants in Turkey using Analytic
Network Process (ANP). Energy, 44(1), 555e563.
Baba, C., Chereches, R., Mora, C., & Ticlau, T. (2009). Public participation in public
policy process e case study in seven counties from north-western region of
Romania. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 5e13.
Beck, J. A. C. (2004). Dening and evaluating success in environmental conict
resolution. In A. Dinar, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Braving the currents (pp. 16e54).
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Breuste, J., Qureshi, S., & Li, J. (2013). Applied urban ecology for sustainable urban
environment. Urban Ecosystems, 16(4), 675e680.
Campbell, D. J., Gichohi, H., Mwangi, A., & Chege, L. (2000). Land use conict in
Kajiado District, Kenya. Land Use Policy, 17(4), 337e348.
Cherubini, M., & Nova, N. (2004). To live or to master the city: The citizen dilemma
some reections on urban spaces fruition and on the possibility of change ones
attitude, 2. Imago Urbis.
Chrenka, B., & Ira, V. (2011). Transformation of tourist landscapes in mountain
areas: case studies from Slovakia. Human Geographies e Journal of Studies and
Research in Human Geography, 5(2), 13e20.
Clius, M., Teleuca, A., David, O., & Morosau, A. (2012). Trail accessibility as a tool for
sustainable management of protected areas: Case study Ceahlau National Park,
Romania. In Landscape, environment, european identity (Vol. 14) (pp. 267e278).
Bucharest: Procedia Environmental Sciences.
CNP Administration. (2013). Management plan of Ceahlau National Park. http://www.
ceahlaupark.ro/ Accessed 13.11.12.
Cotteleer, G., & Peerlings, J. (2011). Spatial planning procedures and property
prices: the role of expectations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(1e2),
77e86.
Crowfoot, J. E., & Wondolleck, J. M. (1990). Environmental disputes: Community
involvement in conict resolution. Washington DC: Island Press.
von der Dunk, A., Grt-Regamey, A., Dalang, T., & Hersperger, A. M. (2011). Dening
a typology of peri-urban land-use conicts ea case study from Switzerland.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 101(2), 149e156.
Eurostat. (2010). GDP per capita. European Commission. http://epp.eurostat.ec.
europa.eu/ Accessed 30.10.12.
Forester, J. (2013). Planning in the face of conict. Chicago: American Planning
Association.
Frei, B. (2004). Jona. Die Geschichte [Jona. The history]. Kaltbrunn: Erni Druck und
Media AG.
Gennaio, M. P. (2008). Political driving forces of urban change in the region agglomeration Obersee. PhD Thesis.
Gestaltungsplan Gbeldorf erlassen (The release of Gbeldorf Designplan).
(1983). Linth.
Giner-Santonja, G., Aragones-Beltran, P., & Nicls-Ferragut, J. (2012). The application
of the analytic network process to the assessment of best available techniques.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 25, 86e95.
Goetz, S., Shortle, J., & Bergstrom, J. (2005). Land use problems and conicts: Causes,
consequences and solutions. London: Routledge.
Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., & Cent, J. (2011). Expansion of nature conservation areas:
problems with Natura 2000 implementation in Poland? Environmental Management, 47, 11e27.
de Groot, R. (2006). Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use
conicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 75(3e4), 175e186.
Halleux, M. J., Marcinczak, S., & van der Krabben, E. (2012). The adaptive efciency
of land use planning measured by the control of urban sprawl. The cases of the
Netherlands, Belgium and Poland. Land Use Policy, 29, 887e898.
Hartmann, Sauter, ARE-GR, & STW AG fr Raumplanung. (2011). Kantonaler Richtplan Graubnden, Regionaler Richtplan Mittelbnden und Nordbnden, Skigebietsverbindung Arosa-Lenzerheide [The cantonal structure plan the Canton of
Grisons, the regional structure plan Mittelbnden/Nordbnden, Ski connection
136
Arosa-Lenzerheide]. Amt fr Raumentwicklung Graubnden (Swiss Federal Ofce for Spatial Development Grisons).
Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies (2nd
ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
Henderson, S. (2005). Managing land-use conict around urban centres: Australian
poultry farmer attitudes towards relocation. Applied Geography, 25, 97e119.
Hersperger, A. M., Gennaio Franscini, M. P., & Kbler, D. (2013). Actors, decisions and
policy changes in local urbanization. European Planning Studies, 1e19.
Ianos, I., Sirodoev, I., & Pascariu, G. (2012). Land-use conicts and environmental
policies in two post-socialist urban agglomerations: Bucharest and Chisinau.
Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 7(4), 125e136.
Innes, J., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity. London: Routledge.
INSSE. (2011). Romania e Statistical summary. http://www.insse.ro/ Accessed
30.1012.
Ioja, C. I., Nita, M. R., Vanau, G. O., Onose, D. A., & Gavrilidis, A. A. (2014). Using
multi-criteria analysis for the identication of spatial land-use conicts in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecological Indicators. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolind.2013.09.029. in press, Corrected Proof.
Ioja, C. I., Patroescu, M., Rozylowicz, L., Popescu, V. D., Verghelet, M., Zotta, M. I.,
et al. (2010). The efcacy of Romanias protected areas network in conserving
biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 143, 2468e2476.
Ist das Gbeldorf Jona ein Monster? (Is Gbeldorf Jona a monster?). (1982). Linth.
Kaliampakos, D., Mavrikos, A., & Menegaki, M. (2011). Construction industry and
archaeology: a land-use conict on the island of Andros, Greece. International
Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 25(2), 152e160.
Lam, K. C., & Woo, L. Y. (2009). Public perception of locally unwanted facilities in Hong
Kong: implications for conict resolution. Local Environment, 14(9), 851e869.
Lecourt, A., & Baudelle, G. (2004). Planning conicts and social proximity: a reassessment. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(3), 287e301.
Leys, A. J. (2011). Social learning: a knowledge and capacity building approach
for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes. Land Use Policy, 28,
574e584.
Mason, R. J. (1992). Contested lands: Conict and compromise in New Jerseys Pine
Barrens. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Nein zum Guberdri Projekt (No to Guberdri project). (1983). Linth.
Nita, M. R., Ioja, I. C., Rozylowicz, L., Onose, D. A., & Tudor, C. A. (2013). Land use
consequences of the evolution of cemeteries in the Bucharest Metropolitan
Area. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1e17.
Orr, P., Emerson, K., & Keyes, D. (2008). Environmental conict resolution practice
and performance: an evaluation framework. Conict Resolution Quarterly, 25(3),
283e301.
Owusu, G., Oteng-Ababio, M., & Afutu-Kotey, R. L. (2012). Conicts and governance
of landlls in a developing country city, Accra. Landscape and Urban Planning,
104, 105e113.
Pacione, M. (2013). Private prot, public interest and land use planningda conict
interpretation of residential development pressure in Glasgows ruraleurban
fringe. Land Use Policy, 32, 61e77.
Paoli, J. C. (2008). Typologie des conits sur lespace en fonction des institutions
regulatrices: essai sur un echantillon relate par la presse quotidienne regionale
en corse. In T. Kirat, & A. Torre (Eds.), Territoires de conits. Analyses des mutations de loccupation de lespace. LHarmattan.