applied geography

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

How successful is the resolution of land-use conflicts? A comparisonof cases from Switzerland and Romania

Constantina Alina Tudor a,1, Ioan Cristian Ioj�a a,*, Ileana Pǎtru-Stupariu b,Mihai R�azvan Nit�a a,1, Anna M. Hersperger c,2

aUniversity of Bucharest, Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, 1 Nicolae B�alcescu, 010041 Bucharest, RomaniabUniversity of Bucharest, Department of Regional Geography and Environment, Centre of Landscape-Territory-Information Systems 1 Nicolae B�alcescu,010041 Bucharest, Romaniac Swiss Federal Research Institute of Forest, Snow and Landscape (WSL), Land Landscape Dynamics, Zürcherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland

Keywords:Land useSustainabilityEquityConflictsSwitzerlandRomania

a b s t r a c t

Land-use conflicts are complex disputes that involve heterogeneous parties as well as environmental andsocial impacts that are often difficult to resolve. The measures and definitions of success in land-useconflict resolution still need further research. We investigated four cases of land-use conflicts in twocountries, Switzerland (CH) and Romania (RO): a connection between two ski areas (CH), a ski track in anational park (RO), a residential project in a sensitive natural area (CH) and a residential project in anarea with poor urban facilities and planning (RO). We developed a framework to assess the cases, andused it to address the following research questions: ‘How successful is the resolution of land-use conflictsin these four cases?’ and ‘Which factors contribute to success or failure?’. The assessment was based oncriteria and subcriteria related to conflict management and conflict-solving conditions. To identify thecriteria and subcriteria that contributed most to successful resolution and to rank the cases we used theAnalytic Network Process. Our results showed that Switzerland was more successful in the resolutionprocess than Romania due to more emphasis on sustainability and equity. The low scores of theRomanian cases resulted from the poor implementation of spatial plans and poor enforcement ofenvironmental regulations, little interest in environmental protection and a preference for quick eco-nomic returns, and little importance attached to public participation in the decision-making process. Forconflict-resolution to be successful our findings indicate that it is important to foster not only economicaspects but also long-term ecological benefits and to take into consideration people’s needs. This studyshould help planners as it identifies key elements for the successful resolution of land-use conflicts toachieve the best use of land.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

In most countries, current economic developments are corre-lated with increased land demands and impacts on the environ-ment. This leads to growing conflicts about how land is used (Goetz,Shortle, & Bergstrom, 2005). Such land-use conflicts are fueled bypolitical and economic interests (Campbell, Gichohi, Mwangi, &Chege, 2000), competition for natural resources (Vihervaara,

Kumpula, Tanskanen, & Burkhard, 2010), the need for new de-velopments and urbanization (Saint, Flavell, & Fox, 2009), andshortcomings in planning practices (AESOP, 2012; Lecourt &Baudelle, 2004). The cumulative effects of these forces often leadto complex conflict situations which require explicit strategies toresolve them.

Recent research on land-use conflicts (de Groot, 2006;Henderson, 2005; Sze & Sovacool, 2013; von der Dunk, Grêt-Regamey, Dalang, & Hersperger, 2011) has revealed thecomplexity of land use conflicts and of the challenges for copingwith them. To ensure the best possible uses of land, especiallypeople’s expectations (Cotteleer & Peerlings, 2011) and people’sattitudes towards their neighborhood (Cherubini & Nova, 2004)should be considered.

Conflict resolution is a complex process and many differentaspects need to be taken into account. A number of valuable

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ40 2103103872.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.A. Tudor), iojacristian@geo.

unibuc.ro, [email protected] (I.C. Ioj�a), [email protected] (I. Pǎtru-Stupariu), [email protected] (M.R. Nit�a), [email protected] (A.M. Hersperger).

1 Tel./fax: þ40 2103103872.2 Tel.: þ41 447392560.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/apgeog

0143-6228/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.12.008

Applied Geography 47 (2014) 125e136


handbooks on environmental conflict resolution have been devel-oped the face of the relatively weak government regulation in theUS. These include The Consensus Building Handbook by Susskind andcolleagues (Susskind, McKearnan, & Thomas-Larmer, 1999), Envi-ronmental Disputes by Crowfoot and Wondolleck (1990) and Con-tested Lands by Mason (1992). Furthermore, case studies haveexplored many specific issues for successful land-use conflict res-olution, e.g. computer-based workshops for conflict resolution ininfrastructure development (Timmermans & Beroggi, 2000),remote sensing and GIS as tools for communicating land-use needsin northern Sweden (Sandström et al., 2003), supporting sociallearning processes for adaptive co-management between conflict-ing landscape managers (Leys, 2011), the use of public consulta-tions for conflict resolution regarding landfills (Owusu, Oteng-Ababio, & Afutu-Kotey, 2012), the contribution of policy regimechanges to conflict resolution (Saarikoski, Raitio, & Barry, 2013), andconflict reframing (Asah, Bengston, Wendt, & Nelson, 2012).

For getting beyond conflict, recent developments in planningtheory focus on the power of collaborative decision making. Anumber of influential books drive this development. Innes andBooher (2010) outline a theory of collaborative rationality andillustrate the actual dynamics of deliberation in order to demon-strate how collaborative reality really works. Healey (2006) pro-poses a new framework for planning which is rooted in theinstitutional realities of today. Forester (2013) advocates facilitativeleadership to turn conflict into consensus.

Successful resolution of land-use conflicts is crucial in spatialplanning in the context of approving policies and plans as well as inindividual planning decisions. In the context of this paper, suc-cessful conflict resolution is characterized by public participation inthe decision-making process, mutual acceptance of the decisionand absence of subsequent conflicts on the same issue. In order tocontribute to the growing literature on procedural and institutionalcharacteristics of collaborative decision making, we investigatedwhat factors contribute to the successful resolutions of land-useconflicts by comparing cases of such conflicts in two differentcountries with similar heterogeneous geographic landscapes butwith very different economic, political and administrative andhistories of planning (Table 1a, b). The comparison should provideuseful insights for practitioners and planners to help them improvethe use of land and learn from the experiences other countries havehad in resolving common forms of land-use conflict. The studyshould also be a contribution to theory building in the field ofconflict resolution.

The two countries we selected for comparison are Switzerlandlocated in Western Europe and Romania, located in Central Europe.While Switzerland is a federal state with fairly independentadministrative units and awell-developed economy, Romania has acommunist past and a currently emerging economy. AlthoughSwitzerland is generally thought to have a good system of spatialplanning (ARE, 2008), this does not mean it has no land-use con-flicts that create tensions nor that such conflicts are always suc-cessfully resolved. Compared with other European countries, Swiss

spatial planning system generally functions well, which makes itinteresting to analyze to find out why the system is so successful.

In Romania, in contrast, the spatial planning system is not al-ways appropriate for complex issues under today’s socio-economicconditions (Ianos, Sirodoev, & Pascariu, 2012). It is therefore achallenge to implement a planning process successfully, anddeveloping appropriate plans and regulations involves a “long andbureaucratic process” (Petrisor, 2010). This has led to planners andlocal authorities becoming increasingly ‘kind’, and sometimesallowing land to be used without ensuring that the desired (orproposed) use is compatible with adjacent land use.

Framework for the analysis of land-use conflict resolution

We propose a framework to analyze land-use conflicts and thesuccess of the resolution process in the cases we studied, drawingon work of Beck (2004), Sze and Sovacool (2013) and Orr, Emerson,and Keyes (2008) (Fig. 1). The criterion consentaneity, which refersto an agreement among involved actors is at the top becausereaching a final agreement in the resolution process can be animportant indicator of success when the agreements are able to lastfor a long time and to promote more economic efficiency orecological protection of landscapes. In a hierarchy of criteria used tomeasure success in land-use conflicts resolution, reaching anagreement (unanimously or not) should be considered the firstcriterion (Beck, 2004), because it may bring beneficial implicationfor economy, society or environmental protection. We also appliedthe four criteria of Sze and Sovacool (2013): efficiency, equity,sustainability and compatibility, which can be used by practitionersto assess land-use conflicts. Efficiency refers to how the proposedproject through the use of land and natural resources contribute toeconomic benefits and social well-being. Equity refers to the degreeof equality in influence of actors in the decision-making process. Inthis criterion the informal and formal actions of actors either toexpress concerns about the conflicting situations or to build trustare assessed. Sustainability refers to the procedures used to addressresource preservation and the current and long-term impacts of theconflict situations on environmental and socio-cultural character-istics. Compatibility refers to how suitable the location of theproject is in regard to existing land-use regulations and howproperly the land is used according to its productivity potential. Thecriteria’s positions in the framework are the same in the evalua-tions of all four cases. We then selected as subcriteria aspectsrelated to the process and outcome quality and specified them interms of economic and environmental sustainability, economic andsocial efficiency as well as legal feasibility. These aspects are allessential for an efficient performance of the process. We also usedsubcriteria from the framework of Orr et al. (2008), which ispractice-based, general and flexible, and therefore adaptable to ourcases. It is especially useful for analyzing differences and similar-ities in processes of land-use conflict resolution that were

Table 1aSwitzerland and Romania compared in terms of surface area, population density andrural areas.

Surfacein km2

Inhabitants perkm2 of the totalarea (2010)

Rural areas e % of the total area

Switzerland 41 285 195.6 60% mountainous, 31% forest, 37%agricultural,

Romania 238 391 93.18 31% mountainous, 27% forest, 61%agricultural

Sources (Eurostat, 2010; INSSE, 2011; VLP-ASPAN, 2012).

Table 1bSwitzerland and Romania compared in terms GDP growth, planning laws andplanning levels.

Growth in theGDP perinhabitant,in % e 2010

Planning law Planning systemlevels

Switzerland 3.1 Federal law on spatialplanning adopted in1979 (Petitpierre, 2012)

Federal e cantonal eregional e communal

Romania �1 Law on spatial planningimplemented in 2001(Puscasu, 2009)

National e county e

local

Sources (Eurostat, 2010; INSSE, 2011; VLP-ASPAN, 2012).

C.A. Tudor et al. / Applied Geography 47 (2014) 125e136126


successful. We included the aspects related to actors’ involvementand collaboration and the stability of the final agreement. Theselected criteria and subcriteria provide a valuable basis fordeveloping a comprehensive model of the process of land-useconflict resolution, starting from the initial assessment of theproject to the post-evaluation of its performance and successfuloutcomes.

To decidewhich case is themost successful case according to thecriteria/subcriteria, we used the Analytic Network Process (ANP)because it is suitable for dealing with a multi-criteria decisionproblem. This method is frequently used to assess specific problemsaccording to different criteria to support the decision-makingprocess involved in picking the best locations for particular facil-ities (Aragones-Beltran, Pastor-Ferrando, Garcia-Garcia, & Pascual-Agullo, 2010), in selecting the best solution for energy provision(Atmaca & Basar, 2012) and in choosing the Best Available Tech-niques (BAT) for pollution control (Giner-Santonja, Aragones-Beltran, & Niclós-Ferragut, 2012).

Materials and methods

Case selection

We screened potential cases for our study of land-use conflicts,focusing on conflicts where a final agreement had been reached.The cases we selected involve conflicts confronting many countriestoday to do with: nature conservation (Vihervaara et al., 2010),residential development (Pacione, 2013) or infrastructure fortourism (Chrenka & Ira, 2011). For Switzerland, we chose: (1) theconstruction of a connection between two ski areas where thenumber of over-night stays had been decreasing, located in areas ofinterest for landscape and wildlife conservation; and (2) a resi-dential development in an ecologically valuable area. For Romania,we selected: (1) the construction of a ski track in an area designatedas a full protection zone in a national park, and (2) the developmentof a residential project in an area with poor urban facilities. Thecases related to ski infrastructure are located in mountains andtourist areas of high ecological and landscape value. The two resi-dential projects are located in peri-urban areas of low elevations(less than 420 m in the case from Switzerland, respectively lessthan 72 m in the case from Romania) and close to important eco-nomic centers.

Case analysis

To understand the cases better, we consulted with experts fromboth countries and discussed the cases with the people who wereinvolved in the resolution process (Yin, 2003). For more in-depth

study, we also collected relevant documents including: media re-leases and development plans, and visited the areas.We consideredvisiting the case study areas as being essential to examine aspectsof landscape conditions and permanency of the agreement. Visitingthe site of the CH case study of ski infrastructure enabled us toobserve how advanced the project was in terms of construction.Regarding the RO case study of ski infrastructure the field visitsplayed a key role in having the opportunity to discuss with peoplewhowere involved in the resolution process. By visiting the sites ofthe cases related to the residential projects in both countries wecould observe how the final agreement was implemented overyears. We found in the CH case study that the final decision taken in1983 (not to build the residential project and to convert the areainto agricultural zone) was still implemented today. In the RO casestudy the site visit enabled us to determine that the rules agreedupon in the final compromise were not implemented.

Case evaluation

Using the Analytic Network Process (ANP) developed by ThomasSaaty (Saaty, 2001) and Super Decisions software 2.2.3 (SuperDecision Software, 2012), we were able to determine the mostsuccessful conflict resolution process. We constructed a simplenetwork model in the ANP using the framework described in 1.1(Fig. 2) where the first level represents the main goal of the deci-sion, the following two levels the criteria and subcriteria used in theassessment, and the last level the four cases to be assessed on thebasis of criteria and subcriteria. We subjectively assessed whichcriteria and subcriteria were the most important according toSaaty’s 9-point scale for making such assessments. Our subjectiveassessments used to weight each element in the network werebased on observed patterns of potential choices revealed in thediscussions with persons involved in the conflict resolution pro-cess. The only case study where we could not have direct discus-sions with the relevant persons was the Swiss residential project,because of the date when conflict was ending (1984). In this caseour assessments were influenced by the information gained mostlyfrom the analysis of newspaper articles, the interviews made by aPhD student (Gennaio, 2008) and site visits. We considered thecriteria/subcriteria with the highest scores as showing the bestperformance in the conflict resolution process.

We used pairwise comparison to weight each element in thenetwork to find out which elements have more influence on otherelements of the network. The results of the pairwise comparisonswere then calculated as priority values. We selected the ‘con-sentaneity’ criterion as the element on which the four criteria(‘efficiency’, ’equity’, ’sustainability’, ’compatibility’) have aconsiderable influence, because reaching a final agreement

Fig. 1. The framework with selected criteria and subcriteria for the evaluation of land-use conflict resolution process (Beck, 2004; Orr et al., 2008; Sze & Sovacool, 2013).

C.A. Tudor et al. / Applied Geography 47 (2014) 125e136 127


depends on how these four criteria are approached in the conflictresolution process. The questions we addressed in the pairwisecomparisons were: (1) given a pair of criteria (e.g. ‘efficiency’ and‘equity’), how much more does a member of the pair (e.g. ‘effi-ciency’) influence the success of a conflict resolution process inrespect to the parent element (‘consentaneity’) than the othermember in the pair (e.g. ‘equity’)?; (2) which criterion/subcriterionwasmore prominent in each conflict resolution process?; (3) whichis the most successful case study with respect to each criterion andsubcriterion?; (4) which is themost important subcriterion for eachcriterion?; and (5) in which case study was each criterion andsubcriterion more prominent when the cases were compared?

After performing the pairwise comparisons for each situationderived from the questions, the Super Decision program calculatedthe unweighted supermatrix which includes all the resulting pri-ority eigenvectors (Table 2).

The Super Decisions program ranks the most successful casesaccording to all the previous comparisons and priority values(Table 3). The evaluation of the four cases is subjective and otherexperts may assess the criteria and subcriteria used in the frame-work differently.

Case 1: ski connection Arosa e Lenzerheide, Switzerland

The first case refers to the idea of connecting the two ski areas ofArosa and Lenzerheide (Fig. 3, Table 4).

In terms of consentaneity, the final decision was a compromisebetween Mountain Wilderness (a small non-governmental orga-nization for the protection of the Alps) and the project investor in2012. The investor did not want to take the conflict to Court, andpreferred to engage in discussion with the opponents and holdsmall meetings. This led to a final compromise where Mountain

Wilderness proposed a package of requirements for withdrawingtheir opposition to the project and ‘living’ with its construction(Table 5).

Concerning efficiency, the ski connection between these twoareas has economic benefits because for both municipalities, Arosaand Lenzerheide, ski tourism is themain economic activity. In recentyears the number of tourists staying overnight in Arosa has fallen by75% and in Lenzerheide by 28%. The project is intended to revitalizeski tourism in both areas and provide jobs. Arosa can accommodatemany guests but only has small ski slopes, while Lenzerheide hasfewer beds but large ski areas. The ski connection would allow themarketing of the two ski areas together and improve the attrac-tiveness of both regions. The two ski areas together form the largestski resort in Canton Graubünden and are among the top 10 inSwitzerland. Their reputations are enhanced with the new skiconnection, the area will be transformed into one of the mostfamous ski resorts in Switzerland and Europe. The economic ben-efits are expected to be high and jobs in tourism to increase.

Regarding equity, opposition to the project has been raised since2005, when the Social Democratic Party of Churwalden (Lenzer-heide’s neighboring municipality) collected signatures and sub-mitted a petition against the project. In 2008, 84% of the electoratein Arosa voted in favor of the realization of the ski connection, whilein Lenzerheide only 41% were in favor.

After the voting results, the investor company tried to convincevoters to support the ski connection. Their goal was to build trust byadopting four principles in communication: competence, modesty,popularity and honesty. They engaged in discussions with hoteliers,representatives of the municipalities and tourism, the senior citi-zens, and farmers.

At the second round of voting in 2011, the same percent ofArosa electorate voted in favor of new connection while in

Fig. 2. Relationships between the network elements.



Lenzerheide 58% voted in favor of it. This change in Lenzerheideresidents’ opinion is due to the fact that the investor companysucceeded in building up trust among the local inhabitants. Thecompany tried to gain support with an attractive publicitycampaign involving presentations about the proposed skiconnection, brochures, a well-designed homepage, flyers, meet-ings to which farmers’ wives were invited as well as small gifts: arose (‘A Rosa’) for the older people and a drinks coupon for theresidents of Lenzerheide at the restaurant on the Weisshorn-Arosa(central station).

In terms of sustainability, after the second vote in 2011 when theproject was accepted by both municipalities, an environmentalimpact assessment of the projectwas conducted. Nomajor potentialenvironmental problemswere revealed. The large support proposedtobeplaced in thefirst plan halfwaybetween the twopeaks (Hörnli-Urdenfürggli) was scrapped aftermuch discussion as it was thoughtto represent a threat for nature and landscape protection. Anotherdiscussion point was potential traffic congestion. To facilitate publicaccess to the ski connection area, public transport and additionalparking spaces had been proposed. The ski connection was consid-ered crucial for the sustainable development of tourism in CantonGraubünden because it involved minimal impacts on nature andlandscape andwas thought tohave great potential for improving theregional and national network of tourist infrastructure.

Regarding compatibility, the area was originally designated inthe cantonal structure plan as landscape protection area. In the2003 general revision of the plan, part of the area has beenreclassified as a recreation area with fewer restrictions on suchprojects. This change came about because by that time the needfor tourism-based economic development, and specifically for

connected ski resorts, was widely accepted in the Canton Grau-bünden and because the reclassification concerned only a smallpart of the Urdern Täli. The Federal council then approved thecantonal zoning plan with a proposed ski connection betweenArosa and Lenzerheide (on 19 September 2003). This provided thebasis for changing the zoning plans of the municipalities. A coor-dination process with all stakeholders started in 2007 to adjust thecantonal structure planning and the land-use plans to include theski connection in an overall plan and to decide on compensatorymeasures in order to achieve benefits for nature and landscape (e.g.reforestation, expansion of conservation zones). In 2008 afterLenzerheide’s electorate rejected the project, it was temporarilysuspended. The following year the coordination process wasresumedwith a revised proposal for the ski connection, and in 2011the relevant cantonal departments as well as NGO’s and munici-palities involved in the coordination process were invited tocomment on revisions to the cantonal and regional structural plan.From seven cantonal departments four had no comments (De-partments of Energy and Transport; Non-motorized traffic; Eco-nomic Development and Tourism; as well as Agriculture andGeoinformation). The others three departments (Departments ofHunting and Fishing; Nature and Environment; and Forestry), theNGO’s ProNatura, Swiss Foundation for Landscape Conservationand Swiss Alpine Club as well as the Tschiertschen-Praden mu-nicipality expressed their concerns over the legal status, manage-ment, and location of wildlife rest areas, and landscape protectionmeasures in the Farur Tal (Hartmann, Sauter, ARE-GR, & STWAG fürRaumplanung, 2011). Subsequently, wildlife rest areas wereadjusted and two smaller landscape protection areas were delin-eated in the Farur Tal and in Sanaspans.

Table 2Unweighted supermatrix for the four case studies, five criteria and ten subcriteria.

Case studies Criteria Subcriteria

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Case studies Ski infrastructure CH 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.38 0.64 0.50 0.26 0.57 0.26 0.50 0.34 0.64 0.62 0.61 0.36 0.28 0.23Ski infrastructure RO 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.05 0.17 0.22 0.09 0.19 0.18 0.10 0.15 0.13Residential project CH 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.14 0.21 0.23 0.44 0.24 0.59 0.08 0.08 0.21 0.13 0.12 0.45 0.39 0.44Residential project RO 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.33 0.07 0.16 0.21 0.08 0.10 0.26 0.36 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.18 0.20

Criteria Consentaneity 1 0.06 0.42 0.21 0.19 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 0.00Efficiency 2 0.10 0.28 0.11 0.39 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 0.00 0.00Equity 3 0.37 0.05 0.15 0.07 0.30 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 0.00Sustainability 4 0.34 0.08 0.44 0.11 0.51 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 0.00Compatibility 5 0.13 0.17 0.09 0.24 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

Subcriteria Adequate negotiations 1 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.83 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 0.00Final agreement 2 0.02 0.19 0.13 0.16 0.17 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 0.00Economic benefits 3 0.05 0.27 0.04 0.24 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Social benefits 4 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Appropriate stakeholders 5 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Effective communication 6 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Environmental economic sustainability 7 0.14 0.04 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Agreement is long-lasting 8 0.13 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Legal feasibility 9 0.14 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Compliance with land-use regulations 10 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

Table 3Ranking of projects in the super decision program



Fig. 3. Ski connection Arosa e Lenzerheide.

Table 4Main characteristics of the analyzed projects.

Projects characteristics Conflict characteristics

Owner Date projectproposed

Project statusin 2013

Main benefits Conflict type Main controversy Stakeholders

Ski connection Arosa e Lenzerheide projectThe private company of Lenzerheide

owned 40% by community1970s Implemented Revitalization

of a touristic areaInfrastructuredevelopmentconflicts

Nature conservationand traffic implicationsfor neighboringmunicipalities

Nature protection organizations(mainly Mountain Wilderness),the owner, Lenzerheide’sinhabitants, the private companyof Arosa (17% owned by thecommunity), and Arosamunicipality

Ski track project in Ceahlau National Park (CNP)Both public and private 1976 Ongoing Revitalization of a

touristic areaInfrastructuredevelopmentconflicts

Inadequately zoningof CNP; the proposal ofconverting theclassification of thearea, from a fullprotection area into asustainable developmentareaa

The Council of Neamt County;the members of the ScientificCouncil of the CNP, who have anadvisory role but whose approvalis needed for decisions affectingprotected areas of nationalinterest; local and countyauthorities, and a few farmers

Gübeldorf project in JonaPrivate owner 1983 Rejected “Urban-friendly”

development ofthe community

Urbandevelopmentconflicts

Landscape protectionand public access to thelakeshore; keep thelandscape free from newbuilt-up expansion

VSLZ (the organization for theprotection of Zürich’s lakelandscape), WWF, SANB (theorganization for natureconservati on in St Gallen-Appenzell), OSD (the Office forSpatial Development inCanton St. Gallen), SDP (socialdemocratic party), CDP(Christian democratic party,LP (liberal party), those livingnext to the project area.

Residential project La Vile on the periphery of BucharestPrivate owner 2009e2012 Postponed Improvement of

territorial cohesionInfrastructuredevelopmentconflicts

Lack of urban facilities,ecological interests andagricultural value

The Ilfov Directorate of NationalAdministration “Romanian Waters”,the Regional Agency forEnvironmental Protection,Pantelimon’s local authorities,the Council of Ilfov County, theTerritorial Inspectorate for Forestryand Hunting Bucharest-Ilfov, andseveral NGOs

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 protectedarea 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 classified as full protection area in 2003 where no building or exploitation of natural resources are permitted according to Romanianlegislation.



Case 2: ski track in Ceahlau National Park (CNP), Romania

The construction of a 1700 m long ski track was proposed in theCeahlau Mountains (Eastern Carpathians) (Fig. 4, Table 4).

Concerning consentaneity, the expected agreement, i.e. changingthe internal zoning of the CNP to include the ski track was reachedafter a tense process among stakeholders: the project supporters(the Council of Neamt County and local and county authorities) andthe project opponents (the members of the Scientific Council of theCNP) (see Table 4). A process of negotiation started to change theinternal zoning fromfull protection to sustainabledevelopment. Thefinal agreement foresaw the inclusion of the area affected by the skitrack in the sustainable development area. Thismeant an increase ofthe sustainable development area by 8.13 ha, representing 0.105% ofthe CNP’s total surface area (CNPAdministration, 2013). In 2013, themanagement plan was approved unanimously by the local andcounty communities and authorities and CNP’s Scientific Council.This decision may be changed at a later date at the request of theMinistry of Environment or European Commission because CNP’sSCI and SPA status means it is of European importance.

In relation to efficiency, the suitability of the ski track wasinvestigated in terms of slope aspect and stability, as well as itslocation near the Durau resort. When the ski track was originallyproposed, the Durau resort was a very attractive tourist area andthe ski track was regarded as a way to diversify leisure opportu-nities. Today the area has been semi-abandoned, with an agingpopulation. A positive outcome of the resolution process could havevarious economic benefits. The ski track project is expected to in-crease the number of tourists in winter, which is traditionally a lowseason for tourism, lead to the modernization of bad quality roadsand the reactivation of traditional livestock farming, which de-pends on good roads.

In terms of the process equity, the negotiations process wasdominated by the Council of Neamt County, which is the mainsource of funding for the CNP administration and local councils.CNP’s Scientific Council has always voted against changing thezoning of the park, claiming that the project threatens plant andanimal species worth protecting. Tensions in the negotiation pro-cess were primarily between the Scientific Council and the otherstakeholders. Changing the zoning of the park in favor of a ski trackhas attracted many petitions from the general public to the Na-tional Environmental Guard, and to the CNP administration, andcomplaints are frequent in the local newspapers. Almost no timewas allowed for involving the locals because people usually do notparticipate in these processes and they have no previous experi-ence or involvement in community planning.

Concerning sustainability, no parts of CNP’s management planrelate to the potential long-term benefits of the ski track. In the plana protection zone is located between the ski track and the CNP

boundary. The environmental impact assessment of the projectconcluded that the area was suitable for the ski track because it islocated on the external boundary of the CNP, in a spruce forest,which is quite a common habitat in both the CNP and nationwide.Legal measures were discussed, especially to prevent rapid buildingand it was specified that no new buildings without a directconnection with the ski infrastructure would be allowed in sus-tainable development areas. Making the Durau resort moreattractive would lead to more corporate profits, tax revenue andjobs in the area, as well as the reactivation of economic activities.Increasing numbers of tourists are already causing problems withwaste disposal, lighting fires, illegal camping, creating new pathsand disturbing wildlife. Solving these problems has become moreand more difficult.

Regarding compatibility, before the negotiation process, the skitrack projectwas not in compliancewith the legal zoning of the parkand was incompatible with the activities allowed in the full pro-tection area. After the agreement, the local development plans andforest plans were changed to include the ski track inside the mu-nicipality. Removing the corresponding ski track area fromthe forestareawas coordinatedwith CNP’smanagement plan. Currently, thereis no controversy over the local land-use regulations.

Case 3: Gübeldorf project in Jona, Switzerland

A housing project with boating facilities (Gübeldorf) was pro-posed to the Municipal Council of Jona, in Canton St. Gallen, on theborder with Canton Zürich (Fig. 5, Table 4). The plan was to bringwater from the lake to create attractive island houses (Frei, 2004).

In terms of consentaneity, a planning decisionwas taken in 1984in the form of a negotiated agreement to transform part of the areainto an agricultural zone and the other part into a zone with singlehouses, no water from the lake was diverted into the landscapebecause the infrastructure for such buildings already existed.

Concerning efficiency, the architects of the original Gübeldorfproject considered it a good investment because it was proposed ina designated building zone and was in concordance with the plansof the local authorities (Ist das “Gübeldorf” Jona ein Monster? (Is“Gübeldorf” Jona a monster?), 1982). They thought it fitted into thelandscape well because it was planned to introduce more waterinto the landscape. Another argument in favor of the project wasthat it did not disturb a quiet or natural place because the area wasnot isolated and 24 other houses were located nearby. The archi-tects promoted this project as the best for the area claiming thatanother project might not be so well balanced.

In terms of equity, the stakeholders who supported the projectwere open to direct discussions with the project’s opponents, andfinal decisions took into account their objections. These were aboutthe planned boating facilities in the project, which were presentedto the public; 12 objections were revised (Gestaltungsplan“Gübeldorf” erlassen (The release of “Gübeldorf” Designplan ), 1983)and Canton St. Gallen also rejected the building of a boat harbor.WWF objected that the project could harm the historical landscapeand the cultural heritage. These objections were accepted at thecantonal level and it was decided not to build the boat harbor (Neinzum “Guberdörfli” Projekt (No to “Guberdörfli” project), 1983). Otherobjections focused on nature and landscape protection. VSLZargued that the area is a sensitive beauty spot in natural equilib-rium and that only 16% of the shore of Lake Zürich was still unbuilt.Implementing the project would further decrease this percentage.

Another reason for rejecting the project was to prevent toomany building permits being issued at the same time by the mu-nicipality, which could lead to disorganized development. The CDPagreed with VSLZ although initially it had been in favor of theproject. The OSD also rejected the project and together with VSLZ

Table 5Conditions proposed by mountain wilderness to withdraw their opposition to theproject.

Environmental protection� Expand the conservation zone and preserve new areas of surrounding land,

with the exception of the cable car corridor� More protection of wild animalsInitial structure of the project� Construct no new ski slopes and additional infrastructures in the valley bel-

low the proposed ski connection, but only a direct connection by air betweenthe two ski areas

� Not build other adjacent connections except for the Motta-Urdenfürggli-Hörnli connection (Fig. 3)

Transportation� Improve public transport in the area� Create transport infrastructure facilities, e.g. parking



proposed converting the area into an agricultural zone. Theneighboring canton (Canton Zürich) objected to the project becauseit owns a similar area next to the project area in an agricultural andprotected zone. The cantonal authorities feared that if the projectwent ahead in Canton St. Gallen, it would create a precedent forbuilding something similar in Canton Zürich (Gennaio, 2008).

Regarding sustainability, several nature protection organizationsconsidered the Gübeldorf project harmful for the landscape andenvironment because it could: (1) change the groundwater level,(2) damage neighboring buildings, (3) destroy the lakeshore, (4)

lead to noise and gas emissions from the boats, (5) change thelandscape and the uniqueness of the area, and (6) disturb one of thelast unbuilt parts of the lake. The final agreement to convert part ofthe area into an agricultural zone was considered sustainablebecause it would preserve the landscape and guarantee public ac-cess to the lakeshore. However, this decision meant paying highcompensation to the landowners (more than 15 million Swissfrancs) for part of the area converting into an agricultural zone.

In terms of compatibility, themunicipality designated the area asresidential area for single and two-family houses in the land-use

Fig. 4. Internal zoning of CNP and ski track location.Source http://www.geoportal-mediu.ro/geoportalceahlau/.



plan of 1968 (Frei, 2004). At that time environmental issues were ofconcern to the public. The public approved the plan without majorobjections. Only in 1970 VSLZ and ODS proposed converting thearea into an agricultural and protected area. The Municipal Councildid not take this proposal into account when revising the land-useplans and nothing was changed, so that the Gübeldorf projectremained compatible with the land-use plan. After it was agreed toconvert part of the area into an agricultural zone and the other intoa zone for single houses, the land-use plan of the Jona municipalitywere changed accordingly. In the agricultural zone no constructionis allowed, apart from agricultural buildings, and the other part is aresidential area.

Case 4: “La Vile” residential project on the periphery of Bucharest,Romania

A residential project was proposed in Pantelimon city on theoutskirts of Bucharest (Fig. 6, Table 4). The area had poor facilities,with bad quality transport infrastructure, no water supply orsewage system, frequent power cuts and a high level of insecurityas buildings were so far apart.

Concerning the consentaneity, a process of negotiations had star-ted between the project investor, the interested institutions and anenvironmental impact assessor to reach an agreement. These nego-tiations lasted two years and the final agreement consisted of acompromise in which the stakeholders originally opposed to theproject agreed to accept it on condition the project investor signed adocumentpromising topay forwaterandsewage facilities in thearea.

In terms of efficiency, the residential project was proposed forthis location because the landwas vacant and easily accessible fromBucharest city (about 5 min by car). Moreover, the prices were low

compared to other areas equally close to Bucharest. The projectaimed to organize a well planned residential development in anarea consisting of widely scattered urban settlements. The benefitsof this project included: more territorial cohesion, solutions tosanitation and other housing problems, and newly connectedinfrastructure for the municipality. These benefits have led to moststakeholders accepting the project.

Regarding equity, the stakeholders did collaborate, but discus-sions were sometimes difficult. Meetings were organized at theRegional Agency for Environmental Protection and the Council ofIlfov County. Among the participants, only the NGOs requestedsome restrictions to the construction in relation to the forestproximity. They were concerned that the project would haveharmful impact on the forest. The discharge of wastewater into theforest and the disposal of waste from the existing houses alreadycontributed to trees dying. Most of the local residents were notinterested in the proposed project because they had been con-structing their own houses in the same area and had learned tocope with poor facilities. In terms of sustainability, the project tookinto account environmental protection by carrying out an envi-ronmental impact assessment. This considered measures to protectwater, air and soil quality as well as to control noise. The assess-ment concluded that the project would not have a significantenvironmental impact and would not use large amounts of naturalresources during construction and operation.

Concerning compatibility, the project conforms with the ZoningMaster Plan (ZMP) approved by the Local Council of Ilfov County in2005, which specifies that the area is not agricultural land. The newapproved uses are for residential and holiday houses, and leisureand commercial services, which are compatible with the develop-ment promoted by the Pantelimon municipality.

Fig. 5. Location of Gübeldorf.



Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was to find how successfully the four casesof land-use conflicts could be resolved and which factors contrib-uted to the success or failure. The planning, institutional, politicaland economic systems in the two countries differed greatly, as didthe familiarity of the Swiss and Romanians with public action. Themain causes of the conflicts, however, were similar, namely, eco-nomic interests versus environmental protection. We evaluated thefour cases according to the framework described in Section 1.1 andfound that in all four conflicts the final agreement could not beeasily reached, and its stability and success depended on how allthe selected criteria and subcriteria were handled. The idea of theski infrastructure project in Switzerland started to be discussed inthe 1970s but implementing it was a long process. It took theinvestor company three years of direct talks with opponents and asecond round of voting to achieve a narrow (58%) majority consent.The conflict resolution process focused on enhancing collaborationamong stakeholders as well as on environmental and economicsustainability. The project’s economic and social efficiency was alsoseriously considered. The final compromise was reached aftereffective communication between the interested parties and theproject is implemented on the basis of a long-lasting agreement.

The idea of the ski infrastructure project in Romania has startedin 1970s but the negotiation and approval process is ongoing. Eventhough the final decision was approved unanimously (by the localand county authorities and the members of the Scientific Council ofthe CNP) the project still need to be approved by the Ministry ofEnvironment. The project would have economic benefits for theDurau touristic area but would create a precedent for other buildingprojects in this attractive area. This weakens its sustainability. Ne-gotiations with stakeholders took place without first building uptrust and without involvement of the local public. The finalagreement made the project compatible with the planning regu-lations and laws, but did not resolve issues about its location in aNATURA 2000 site (Ioja et al., 2010). The European Commissionmay still intervene to block the project to prevent damage to

protected natural habitats. The project may become a potential“failed” experience because of: (1) the interests in having shortly amanagement plan with the CNP zoning. The Council of NeamtCounty won in 2010 a project related to biodiversity conservation.One of the requests was to accomplish the management plan ofCNP until September 2013 otherwise the Council should return thefinancing. This management plan had to be unanimously approved;(2) the unequal influence of the stakeholders in the negotiationprocess where the Council of Neamt County dominated the pro-cess; and (3) the longstanding process without advancing toprogress.

The final agreement at Gübeldorf, the residential project inSwitzerland, involved high costs (more than 15 million Swissfrancs) due to compensation that had to be paid to landowners forconverting their land into an agricultural zone. The owners werecompensated with 31 e CHF/m2 which was quite high for agri-cultural land. These costs were, however, justified by the addedbenefit of protecting the lakeshore for future generations. Theproject showed how both nature protection and urbanization couldbe sustainably and efficiently combined to ensure quality of life andprotect the urban environment (Breuste, Qureshi, & Li, 2013).

In the case of the La Vile residential project in the peri-urbandistricts of Bucharest, the negotiation process failed altogether toconvince some local residents to give up their amenity-deficientself-housing projects and participate in the proposed project. Thecompromise reached was probably unstable, with success for thecompletion of the project being unlikely. The project will have to berevised because the proposed period for construction was delayed.The economic situation has dramatically changed and in themeantime it is likely that, before the investor can start the project,the Pantelimon municipality will construct the facilities (water,sewage and so on) necessary for housing in the area. The case of theLa Vile residential project can be an example of “failure” because itdid not lead to progress: (1) it did not bring new infrastructure forthe municipality; (2) it did not favor collective collaborations, thelocal residents did not participate in the resolution process; and (3)it did not favor efficient management of resources as the existing

Fig. 6. Location of the residential project.



corruption was capable of bending the planning to support theconversion of an agricultural land of real good quality to unpro-ductive to allow such a project.

The analysis with the software used for the Analytic NetworkProcess model resulted in a hierarchy of the most successful casesand the most important factors driving this success. The Swissprojects performed better because of the focus on the equity andsustainability criteria and on the environmental and economic sus-tainability and long-lasting agreement subcriteria. These criteria andsubcriteria should be given higher priority in land-use disputes asthey are important in resolving such conflicts in a positive wayleading to better use of land (Paoli, 2008).

With the Romanian projects the resolution process was lesssuccessful because of the lack of public involvement as it is still newfor people to participate in the decision-making process (Baba,Chereches, Mora, & Ticlau, 2009). Thus trust could not be built upbetween the stakeholders after the final agreement for political andhistorical reasons (Stringer, Scrieciu, & Reed, 2009). Moreover,planning issues are still unresolved in Romania as it is a country intransition (Nita, Ioja, Rozylowicz, Onose, & Tudor, 2013) and thefocus in such projects tends to be more on economic benefits thanenvironmental sustainability. Environmental “issue” still receiveslittle attention among the wider public. In Switzerland, publicparticipation and land use were already being widely discussed inthe 1980s and 1990s (Hersperger, Gennaio Franscini, & Kübler,2013), whereas in Romania issues to do with spatial planning andland-use regulations are more difficult to resolve (Ioja, Nita, Vanau,Onose, & Gavrilidis, 2014; Rusu et al., 2011; Tudor, Ioja, Hersperger,& Patru-Stupariu, 2013).

The two cases in Romania show how the conditions that maylead to land-use conflicts are still widespread in many countriestoday. These include poor implementation of land-use and envi-ronmental regulations (Halleux, Marcinczak, & van der Krabben,2012), weak support for conservation (Grodzinska-Jurczak & Cent,2011), insufficient participation of citizens in decision-makingprocesses (Owusu et al., 2012), low trust in government author-ities (Lam & Woo, 2009) as well as the dominance of economicinterests (Kaliampakos, Mavrikos, & Menegaki, 2011; Tan,Beckmann, van den Berg, & Qu, 2009).

Using the Super Decisions software for the ANP model toidentify the most successful cases of resolving land-use conflictshas proved very useful. Specifically, criteria and subcriteria takeninto consideration in pairwise comparisons can be better evaluatedby controlling any inconsistencies. Inconsistencies can then becorrected by reassigning the evaluations in the pairwise compari-sons and improving the results.

Of course, our results are subjective and influenced by ourexperience in the field. The ANP method, used weights and prior-itizes the elements of the framework described in Section 1.1 andtheir relationships, according to subjective judgments. To improvethis, further research should use more direct data obtained throughsurveys and deep interviews with key stakeholders.

Our proposed framework and the ANP can potentially be used toassess other types of conflicts involving environmental consider-ations. They help to identify any inefficiency in resolving the con-flicts and not only successful cases. Applying our framework to thetwo different systems in Switzerland and Romania helped toidentify both problems and successful approaches in land-useconflict resolution and thus to suggest ways of improving suchresolution processes in the future.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from the Romanian Na-tional Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS e UEFISCDI, project

number PN-II-RU-TE-2011-3-0285 and the Scientific ExchangeProgramme NMS-CH, Project number 11.186eSciex-N-4. The au-thors are sincerely grateful to all participants in this study, to SilviaDingwall for the English corrections and to two anonymous re-viewers for their comments and suggestions on an earlier draft ofthis paper.

References

AESOP. (2012). Association of European Schools of Planning. http://www.aesop-planning.eu/blogs/en_GB/planning-conflict 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 wasteplant in the metropolitan area of Valencia (Spain). Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 91, 1071e1086.

ARE. (2008). Spatial planning and development in Switzerland. Observations andsuggestions from the international group of experts. Zurich: Institute for Spatialand Landscape Devellopment, ETH.

Asah, S. T., Bengston, D. N., Wendt, K., & Nelson, K. C. (2012). Diagnostic reframing ofintractable environmental problems: case of a contested multiparty publicland-use conflict. Journal of Environmental Management, 108, 108e119.

Atmaca, E., & Basar, H. B. (2012). Evaluation of power plants in Turkey using AnalyticNetwork Process (ANP). Energy, 44(1), 555e563.

Baba, C., Chereches, R., Mora, C., & Ticlau, T. (2009). Public participation in publicpolicy process e case study in seven counties from north-western region ofRomania. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 5e13.

Beck, J. A. C. (2004). Defining and evaluating success in environmental conflictresolution. 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 urbanenvironment. Urban Ecosystems, 16(4), 675e680.

Campbell, D. J., Gichohi, H., Mwangi, A., & Chege, L. (2000). Land use conflict inKajiado District, Kenya. Land Use Policy, 17(4), 337e348.

Cherubini, M., & Nova, N. (2004). To live or to master the city: The citizen dilemmasome reflections on urban spaces fruition and on the possibility of change one’sattitude, 2. Imago Urbis.

Chrenka, B., & Ira, V. (2011). Transformation of tourist landscapes in mountainareas: case studies from Slovakia. Human Geographies e Journal of Studies andResearch in Human Geography, 5(2), 13e20.

Clius, M., Teleuca, A., David, O., & Morosau, A. (2012). Trail accessibility as a tool forsustainable management of protected areas: Case study Ceahlau National Park,Romania. In Landscape, environment, european identity (Vol. 14) (pp. 267e278).Bucharest: Procedia Environmental Sciences.

CNPAdministration. (2013).Management plan of Ceahlau National Park. http://www.ceahlaupark.ro/ Accessed 13.11.12.

Cotteleer, G., & Peerlings, J. (2011). Spatial planning procedures and propertyprices: the role of expectations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(1e2),77e86.

Crowfoot, J. E., & Wondolleck, J. M. (1990). Environmental disputes: Communityinvolvement in conflict resolution. Washington DC: Island Press.

von der Dunk, A., Grêt-Regamey, A., Dalang, T., & Hersperger, A. M. (2011). Defininga typology of peri-urban land-use conflicts 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 conflict. Chicago: American PlanningAssociation.

Frei, B. (2004). Jona. Die Geschichte [Jona. The history]. Kaltbrunn: Erni Druck undMedia AG.

Gennaio, M. P. (2008). Political driving forces of urban change in the region agglom-eration Obersee. PhD Thesis.

Gestaltungsplan “Gübeldorf” erlassen (The release of “Gübeldorf” Designplan).(1983). Linth.

Giner-Santonja, G., Aragones-Beltran, P., & Niclós-Ferragut, J. (2012). The applicationof 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 conflicts: 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 Man-agement, 47, 11e27.

de Groot, R. (2006). Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land useconflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 75(3e4), 175e186.

Halleux, M. J., Marcinczak, S., & van der Krabben, E. (2012). The adaptive efficiencyof land use planning measured by the control of urban sprawl. The cases of theNetherlands, Belgium and Poland. Land Use Policy, 29, 887e898.

Hartmann, Sauter, ARE-GR, & STW AG für Raumplanung. (2011). Kantonaler Richt-plan Graubünden, Regionaler Richtplan Mittelbünden und Nordbünden, Skige-bietsverbindung Arosa-Lenzerheide [The cantonal structure plan the Canton ofGrisons, the regional structure plan Mittelbünden/Nordbünden, Ski connection



Arosa-Lenzerheide]. Amt für Raumentwicklung Graubünden (Swiss Federal Of-fice for Spatial Development Grisons).

Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies (2nded.). New York: Palgrave Macmillian.

Henderson, S. (2005). Managing land-use conflict around urban centres: Australianpoultry farmer attitudes towards relocation. Applied Geography, 25, 97e119.

Hersperger, A. M., Gennaio Franscini, M. P., & Kübler, D. (2013). Actors, decisions andpolicy changes in local urbanization. European Planning Studies, 1e19.

Ianos, I., Sirodoev, I., & Pascariu, G. (2012). Land-use conflicts and environmentalpolicies 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 identification of spatial land-use conflicts in theBucharest 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 efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conservingbiodiversity. Biological Conservation, 143, 2468e2476.

Ist das “Gübeldorf” Jona einMonster? (Is “Gübeldorf” Jona amonster?). (1982). Linth.Kaliampakos, D., Mavrikos, A., & Menegaki, M. (2011). Construction industry and

archaeology: a land-use conflict on the island of Andros, Greece. InternationalJournal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 25(2), 152e160.

Lam, K. C., &Woo, L. Y. (2009). Public perception of locally unwanted facilities inHongKong: implications for conflict resolution. Local Environment, 14(9), 851e869.

Lecourt, A., & Baudelle, G. (2004). Planning conflicts and social proximity: a reas-sessment. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(3), 287e301.

Leys, A. J. (2011). Social learning: a knowledge and capacity building approachfor adaptive co-management of contested landscapes. Land Use Policy, 28,574e584.

Mason, R. J. (1992). Contested lands: Conflict and compromise in New Jersey’s PineBarrens. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Nein zum “Guberdörfli” Projekt (No to “Guberdörfli” 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 MetropolitanArea. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1e17.

Orr, P., Emerson, K., & Keyes, D. (2008). Environmental conflict resolution practiceand performance: an evaluation framework. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25(3),283e301.

Owusu, G., Oteng-Ababio, M., & Afutu-Kotey, R. L. (2012). Conflicts and governanceof landfills in a developing country city, Accra. Landscape and Urban Planning,104, 105e113.

Pacione, M. (2013). Private profit, public interest and land use planningda conflictinterpretation of residential development pressure in Glasgow’s ruraleurbanfringe. Land Use Policy, 32, 61e77.

Paoli, J. C. (2008). Typologie des conflits sur l’espace en fonction des institutionsregulatrices: essai sur un echantillon relate par la presse quotidienne regionaleen corse. In T. Kirat, & A. Torre (Eds.), Territoires de conflits. Analyses des muta-tions de l’occupation de l’espace. L’Harmattan.

Petitpierre, A. (2012). Environmental law in Switzerland (2nd ed.). Netherlands:Kluwer Law International.

Petrisor, A. I. (2010). The theory and practice of urban and spatial planning inRomania: education, laws, actors, procedures, documents, plans, and spatialorganization. A multiscale analysis. Serbian Architectural Journal, 2(2), 139e154.

Puscasu, V. (2009). Common, parallel and convergent evolutions for spatial plan-ning in Romania and Moldavia. Romanian Review on Political Geography, 1(1),46e57.

Rozylowicz, L., Popescu, V. D., Patroescu, M., & Chisamera, G. (2011). The potential oflarge carnivores as conservation surrogates in the Romanian Carpathians.Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 561e579.

Rusu, M., Florian, V., Tudor, M., Chitea, M., Chitea, L., & Rosu, E. (2011). Land relateddisputes and conflicts in Romania. Agricultural Economics and Rural Develop-ment, 8(1), 127e145.

Saarikoski, H., Raitio, K., & Barry, J. (2013). Understanding ‘successful’ conflict res-olution: policy regime changes and new interactive arenas in the Great BearRainforest. Land Use Policy, 32, 271e280.

Saaty, T. (2001). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic networkprocess: the organization and prioritization of complexity. Pittsburgh: RWSPublications.

Saint, P. M., Flavell, R. J., & Fox, P. F. (2009). NIMBY wars. The politics of land use.Hingham, Massachusetts: Saint University Press.

Sandström, P., Pahlén, T. G., Edenius, L., Tømmervik, H., Hagner, O., Hemberg, L.,et al. (2003). Conflict resolution by participatory management: remote sensingand GIS as tools for communicating land-use needs for Reindeer Herding inNorthern Sweden. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 32(8), 557e567.

Stringer, L. C., Scrieciu, S. S., & Reed, M. S. (2009). Biodiversity, land degradation,and climate change: participatory planning in Romania. Applied Geography,29, 77e90.

Super Decision Software. (2012). Creative Decisions Foundation. http://www.superdecisions.com/.

Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). The consensus buildinghandbook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sze, M. N. M., & Sovacool, B. K. (2013). Of fast lanes, flora, and foreign workers:managing land use conflicts in Singapore. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 167e176.

Tan, R., Beckmann, V., van den Berg, L., & Qu, F. (2009). Governing farmland con-version: comparing China with the Netherlands and Germany. Land Use Policy,26, 961e974.

Timmermans, J. S., & Beroggi, G. E. G. (2000). Conflict resolution in sustainableinfrastructure management. Safety Science, 35, 175e192.

Tudor, C. A., Ioja, I. C., Hersperger, A. M., & Patru-Stupariu, I. (2013). Is the residentialland use incompatible with cemeteries location? Assessing the attitudes ofurban residents. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 8(2),153e162.

Vihervaara, P., Kumpula, T., Tanskanen, A., & Burkhard, B. (2010). Ecosystem ser-vicesea tool for sustainable management of humaneenvironment systems.Case study Finnish Forest Lapland. Ecological Complexity, 7, 410e420.

VLP-ASPAN. (2012). Swiss Association for Spatial Planning. http://www.vlp-aspan.ch/de Accessed 30.10.12.

Yin, R. K. (2003) (2nd ed.). Applications of case study research (Vol. 34). SagePublications.


applied geography

Documents

cases of land

resolution of land

successful resolution

cases authors

comparisonof cases

switzerland ch

environmental research

land landscape dynamics