Evolution of the nature of conflict and conflict management in urban planning: A systematic review

Urban planning has evolved significantly in response to changing socio-economic and political realities, particularly as cities enter the 21st century. The multiplicity of societal interests and conflicting preferences has made conflict an integral part of urban planning processes. Planners, now more than ever, must grapple with these conflicts, as they can significantly impact the success or failure of urban policies and initiatives.
Although the discussion surrounding conflict in urban planning has existed for decades, it gained momentum in the 1970s and became especially prevalent in the 1980s with the rise of participatory planning approaches. As participatory models developed, urban theorists began paying more attention to conflicts as an inherent part of urban governance. However, the literature surrounding conflict in urban planning remains fragmented, with differing theoretical and practical approaches. This study aims to bridge this gap by systematically classifying conflicts based on the dominant theoretical, philosophical, and contextual frameworks present in planning theory.
Theoretical Framework: Understanding and managing conflict in urban planning requires a systematic typology that reflects the nature of these disputes in different contexts. Conflict typologies in urban planning research generally fall into two major categories: managerial and theoretical. The managerial approach focuses on decision-making processes, conflict resolution techniques, impact assessments, and institutional analysis. This approach aligns with organizational and management studies and seeks to devise strategies for managing conflicts effectively.
In contrast, the theoretical approach seeks to understand the root causes of conflicts, emphasizing the philosophical and epistemological underpinnings of urban planning. Theoretical perspectives examine conflicts through lenses such as power dynamics, the role of planning theory, and the influence of political institutions. These two broad approaches—the managerial and the theoretical—are frequently applied within a third situational context, which examines specific urban conflicts tied to space, land use, urban development, regeneration projects, and large-scale initiatives.

This research employs a systematic review methodology to analyze the evolution of conflict and conflict management in urban planning. The data collection involved a meta-analysis and qualitative content analysis of 139 English-language articles found in the Scopus database. Following the content analysis, an in-depth review of 46 additional sources helped trace the historical development of conflict theories and practices in urban planning.
The meta-analysis allowed the study to categorize the diverse approaches to conflict in urban planning into three main paradigms: positivist, post-positivist, and critical. Each of these paradigms brings a unique perspective to conflict management. For example, the positivist paradigm seeks guided consensus, while the post-positivist paradigm looks to resolve conflicts through consensus based on discourse ethics. The critical paradigm, on the other hand, challenges consensus-building as a form of hegemony, arguing that conflicts are constantly reproduced within the structures of urban governance.

The systematic review revealed that conflicts in urban planning can be broadly classified into three key approaches: managerial, theoretical, and situational. These approaches intersect in different ways, depending on the specific context in which the conflict arises. For example, situational conflicts often arise in areas related to spatial patterns, land use, ownership disputes, and urban regeneration projects. Managerial conflicts are tied to the processes of decision-making, institutional design, and conflict resolution strategies. Theoretical conflicts explore deeper issues, such as the role of power in planning and the underlying philosophies that guide urban policy.
In terms of paradigmatic shifts, the evolution of conflict management in urban planning has seen a movement from positivist approaches, which aimed to engineer consensus, to post-positivist approaches that emphasized the ethics of discourse and negotiation. More recently, critical theorists have argued that consensus itself is a mechanism for maintaining power imbalances and that conflicts are never fully resolved but continually reproduced within urban planning processes. This shift reflects a broader political turn in the field of urban planning, where conflicts are understood not just as problems to be solved but as symptoms of deeper systemic issues.

The evolution of conflict in urban planning reflects broader ideological and political shifts in the discipline. While early approaches sought to manage conflict through structured consensus-building, more recent perspectives recognize the inherent power dynamics at play in urban governance. Planners today must move beyond traditional regulatory roles and contribute to rethinking urban policy and transforming the symbolic and physical dimensions of urban spaces. However, the effectiveness of planners' roles in conflict management largely depends on the structural contexts and political cultures of the institutions within which they operate. Understanding and addressing these conflicts requires a multifaceted approach that considers both managerial and theoretical perspectives.