Diversity, Segregation and Conflict

Planning and Conflict

  • Definition of Conflict: A struggle or clash between opposing forces; a state of opposition between ideas, interests, disagreement, or controversy.
  • Why Planning Attracts Conflict:
    • It is a regulating activity.
    • Seen to produce gains/losses for different groups.
    • There are more diverse groups to consider.
  • Types of Conflict:
    • Conflict over the problem/issue.
    • Conflict between personalities/agencies/stakeholders.
    • Conflict over processes.
    • Conflict over outcomes.
  • Manifestations of Conflict (HOW):
    • Arguments/disagreements over development.
    • Community protests – petitions, marches, rallies, etc.
    • Litigation/legal action.
    • In extremes - riot.
  • Manifestations of Conflict (WHY):
    • Disrespect toward another.
    • Fear of difference.
    • Fear of loss (community, property values, etc.).
    • LURUs – Locally Unwanted Land Use.
    • NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard).
    • BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone).
    • Differing values/perspectives (wide range of stakeholders).

Disadvantage and Conflict

  • Conflict can result in riots; planning decisions could be implicated.
  • Examples:
    • Australia: Redfern (2004), Cronulla (2005), Macquarie Fields (2005).
    • UK: Southall (1979), Oxford, Bristol, Brixton, Toxteth, Manchester (all in 1981), Handsworth (1985), Brixton and Bradford (both 1995), Wrexham (2003), Birmingham (2005).
    • Recent riots 2011 all over the UK highlighted socioeconomic divisions and police-community relations.
  • Addresses urban inequality and marginalization in Australian cities.

Segregation

  • Definition: The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, especially as a form of discrimination.
  • Examples:
    • Israel/Palestine (current).
    • Apartheid – South Africa (up to 1990s).
    • Belfast – Peace Walls (current).
    • Prohibited Area (Perth, up to 1954).
    • Gated communities (current).

Conflict – 4 Models of Planning

  • Partisan – pick a side (e.g., Jerusalem).
  • Neutral - don’t get involved (e.g., Belfast).
  • Equity – try to make fairer (e.g., Johannesburg).
  • Resolver

Israel - Segregation

  • Since 1967, the government has used planning to shape the sovereignty/ownership of the landscape, extend the Jewish city, and segregate against Palestine (Bollens, 2002).
  • Jerusalem poses many problems for planners.

1. A Partisan Approach - Jerusalem

  • A city of intimate enemies (Jews and Palestinians).
  • East Jerusalem – 70% Jewish, 30% Arab.
  • West Bank (surrounds Jerusalem) – 1.7 million Palestinians, 150,000 Jews.
  • Israel has promoted the growth of Jewish areas and restricted/taken over those of Palestinians.
  • The planners advantage Jewish interests (e.g., housing, schools, land) over Palestinians.
  • Palestinians consider it occupation/apartheid.
  • Survey of planners: "We are Jewish first- and planners second."

2. A Neutral Approach - Belfast

  • Over 400-year history of nationalist (Irish/British) and religious (Catholic/Protestant) conflict.
  • Since 1969, a violent city of sectarian (ethnic) warfare.
  • 57% Protestant ‘unionists’/‘royalists’ (falling), 43% Catholic ‘nationalists’/‘republicans’ (rising).
  • 1972 British “direct rule” meant unionist domination.
  • Inequitable distribution of jobs, housing, and social services.
  • Neutral ‘hands-off’ approach - “Sectarian issues don’t intrude into our considerations. We do land use planning, that’s it”.

3. Equity Planning– Johannesburg

  • 1948-1990s – Apartheid – White National Party imposed separate exclusionary development on 70% black majority population.
  • 1950s Group Areas Act zoned inner cities and affluent areas as white, and other areas ‘non-white’.
  • Planning’s emphasis on efficiency, order, and control were used for ethnic segregation and ordering.
  • 1994 ANC and Nelson Mandela – hope for change.
  • Current efforts of equity-based planning by community development planners using participatory approaches.

4. Resolver Strategy

  • Seeks to connect urban issues to root causes of urban polarization:
    • Imbalances of power.
    • Competitive ethnic group identities.
    • Disempowerment.
  • Planners challenge the impacts and authority of government policy and try to link technical and scientific knowledge to the process of changing the system.

Australia (brief history)

  • White Australia Policy 1901-1948.
  • Gradual expansion of migration to non-whites 1950s onwards.
  • 1967 Indigenous peoples recognized as people.
  • Perth Prohibited area – the Red Line (1927-1954).
  • 2003 -21012 Curfew Laws – youths excluded from Northbridge
    • After sunset children U12 not accompanied by a sober parent / guardian were excluded from Northbridge.
    • After 10pm all young people aged 13- 15 years are under the same provisions.

Common areas of conflict in planning

  • State/regional level conflict:
    • Urban expansion.
    • Development in environmentally sensitive areas.
    • Coastal development.
  • Local level conflict:
    • Urban consolidation/increased housing densities.
    • Change of land use.
    • Proposals for public housing.
    • Neighboring developments.
    • Skateboarding and youth spaces.
    • Heritage and Indigenous issues.

Conflicts in planning

  • (1) Personality & interactional – abrasive personalities, personality disorders, poor people skills, etc.
  • (2) Structural – embedded in society through power, status, class.
  • (3) Cultural & ideological – cultures, religions, values.

Conflict resolution

  • Bargaining and negotiation:

    • Occurs between competing interests.
    • Buying and selling preferences.
    • Traditional government decision-making processes involving negotiations between competing interests.
    • Individuals or groups seek to influence government agendas outside the voting system.
    • Stakeholder lobbying.

  • Based on fixed positions – what each party wants to achieve out of the negotiation.

  • Negotiation models of decision-making produce winners and losers.

  • Bargaining preferences are based on power relations.

  • Most powerful parties win.

  • Alternative dispute resolution (ADR):

    • Also known as mediation.
    • Aims to resolve a problem between parties.
    • Focuses on interests rather than positions.
    • Collaborative rather than confrontational.
    • Joint problem-solving.

  • Differs from conventional dispute resolution, where both parties try to advance their position to the detriment of the other party.

  • The aim is a better outcome for all parties than if conventional dispute processes were used.

  • Aims to create a mutually satisfactory agreement.

  • Solutions - “all-gain” rather than “win-lose”.

  • Outcome – “win-win”, not “win-lose” or “lose-win”.

Conflict resolution –Principles

  • 4 principles (from Lewicki et al. (2003) and Dale and Hahn (1994).:
    • Good communication
    • Inclusivity
    • Mutual respect
    • Focus on interest

Conflict resolution – 4 Principles

  • 1. Good Communication Informal presentations and dialogue are encouraged, the importance of listening is emphasized, and work is done to establish a free flow of accurate information.
  • 2. An Inclusive, Not an Exclusive Process Diverse viewpoints are shared and taught through discussion and other interactions such as field trips, presentations, and brainstorming.
  • 3. Mutual Respect for All There is a self-conscious approach to power relations, and the information brought by different participants is assumed valid until proven different.
  • 4. The Focus is on ‘Interest’, Not on ‘Position’ The resolution process works only when people explain and understand both what they want or their preferred solution (position) and the underlying concern or why they want it (interest).

Conflict Resolution – Getting to Yes

  • In Getting to Yes, Fisher and Ury outlined a procedure for negotiation that relies neither on the hard approach (trying to dominate) nor the soft approach (making concessions and compromises), but instead encourages focusing on issues, rather than personalities. Their method includes a four-step process:
    • Separate the people from the problem.
    • Focus on interests, not positions.
    • Invent options for mutual gains.
    • Insist on using objective criteria.

1. Separate the people from the problem.

  • People tend to tie their personalities with their positions. Separating the relationship from the substance can best be accomplished by understanding the perspectives of various interests, putting yourself in their shoes.
  • Attempts should be made to understand their relational concerns and address them directly outside of the process of addressing their planning-based problems.

2. Focus on interests, not positions.

  • Behind opposed positions can lie shared and compatible interests. It should be the planner's concern to deal with the real interests of various parties, rather than with the positions they take, which may misrepresent their true interests.

3. Invent options for mutual gains.

  • A necessary part of the process is to be innovative, searching for options that weren't apparent in initial negotiations and position statements. This can often be accomplished in a group process of brainstorming. Brainstorming accomplishes several things - it opens up the number of options; it involves more people in the search for common agreements; it encourages the finding of new solutions incorporating dovetailed interests.

4. Insist on using objective criteria

  • By using objective criteria, the focus is away from personalities and directed toward the facts of a situation. It also encourages not a battle of wills, but a shared look for fairness, efficiency and equity. Objective criteria should apply to all sides in a dispute or conflict, and offer a means for negotiation to all sides.

Conclusion

  • Planning is a profession in conflict.
  • A new way forward - participatory planning?
  • Pluralistic communities – resolving conflicts despite differences.
  • Community is made up of multiple, intersecting and disparate groups, sometimes in conflict.
  • Empathy, ‘seeing through the eyes of others’ – challenge your biases.