Conflicts over land use and their resolution are one of the core challenges in reaching sustainable development today. The aim of this paper is to better understand the mechanisms that underlie conflict resolution. To do so we focus on the use and integration of different knowledge types for conflict resolution in three fields: natural resource management, transdisciplinary research and urban planning. We seek to understand what role different types of knowledge have in the different examples and contexts given. How is knowledge conceptualized and defined? How is it used and integrated to resolve conflicts? These questions are answered through a thematic review of the literature and a discussion of the different knowledge typologies from the respective research fields. We compare conflict resolution approaches and, as a synthesis, present an interdisciplinary knowledge typology for conflict resolution. We find that knowledge use centered approaches are seen as facilitating a common understanding of a problem and creating a necessary base for more productive collaboration across disciplines. However, it is often unclear what knowledge means in the studies analyzed. More attention to the role that different knowledge types have in conflict resolution is needed in order to shed more light on the possible shortcomings of the resolution processes. This might serve as a base to improve conflict resolution towards more lasting, long-term oriented and therefore more sustainable solutions. We conclude that the three literatures inform and enrich each other across disciplinary boundaries and can be used to develop more refined approaches to understanding knowledge use in conflict analysis and resolution.

No abstract

Strategic urban planning is promoted to effectively implement sustainability policies. This paper investigates the role of practitioners when conducting strategic urban planning in a Swedish development project: the RiverCity Gothenburg. A case study of the project shows how practitioners serve a crucial role as boundary-spanners when dealing with the organisational challenges arising during the planning process. The paper concludes that the responsibility put on practitioners risks diminishing the political legitimacy of the strategic planning process. Therefore, there is a need to reduce the gap between politicians and practitioners for addressing the political aspects of strategic goals.

No abstract

No abstract