Conflicts over Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs): Reasons and solutions for case studies in Izmir (Turkey)

Abstract

a b s t r a c tLand use planning affects many different and usually conflicting interests. While every land use planning decision has a potential of creating conflicts, Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs) are the most conflict facing subjects in urban land use planning processes. This paper aims to answer the question "what are the reasons and solutions for conflicts in the planning processes of LULUs". This paper is based on a research examining LULU cases inİzmir, Turkey including solid waste facilities, fisheries and quarries to find out the reasons and the solutions for LULU conflicts. The research findings suggest that the conflicts stem not only from negative effects of LULUs on environment and community but also from procedural deficiencies such as lack of knowledge and lack of trust. The findings also call for planning processes with more consideration of local level and public participation seeking for consensus. Meanwhile, the conclusions underline the limitations for the success of participatory processes in which conflicts are resolved with attempts including symbolic benefits rather than considering exact interests of local people.

Balancing legal, operations and community conflict: A tale of two SME’s

“…They seldom provide a reason as to why another group should accept the disadvantage in their stead or why another location is more favourable than the proposed one. In many instances people may be aware of the need for the new project but do not want it to take place near their homes (Kaya & Erol, 2016). The resulting mixture of public good and private bad is the basis of NIMBY conflicts which present in various forms, for example, as conflict between local interests and societal interests, between locally concentrated costs and dispersed of societal benefits, between material progress and protection of local communities or between economic growth and environmental protection (Lake, 1993;Frey, Oberhoizer-Gee, & Eichenberger, 1996).…”

“…The list of possible external effects is long but may include, increased density, pollution, traffic, odour, dust, vibration, health risks, property values decline and the inability to prevent future LULUs (Sandman, 1990;Kaya & Erol, 2016). Conflict resolution requires an understanding of the nature of these factors and their effects as perceived by the Balancing legal, operations and community conflict: A tale of two SME's protesters (Takahashi & Dear, 1997;Kaya & Erol, 2016). Perceived effects will be greater for hazards which are involuntary, uncontrollable, harmful, delayed, impacting on children and are man-made (Petts, 2014).…”

“…Perceived effects will be greater for hazards which are involuntary, uncontrollable, harmful, delayed, impacting on children and are man-made (Petts, 2014). The magnitude of the risks perceived by protesters are often different to the magnitude of the risks formally assessed on a scientific basis (Kasperson, Golding, & Tuler, 1992;Kaya & Erol, 2016). Studies of resource consent hearings, find protesting groups can be successful in challenging the scientific information about risks that are provided during the siting process by detailed questioning the data, methodology, and technical aspects of siting plans which provide evidence different to what they perceive as correct (Kearney & Smith, 1994).…”

“…The NIMBY literature provides some insights as to why some NIMBY responses are stronger than others even when the threats, from an outsider's view, might seem the same. Within a LULU conflict situation, there may be many individuals, with distinctly different characteristics and perspectives, their approaches to the problem and to each other may cause variance in approaches and to the resulting outcome (Kaya & Erol, 2016).…”

“…Trust is related to qualities such as honesty, openness and concern for others, people are less likely to oppose a LULU if they trust the attitudes, motives and honesty of the others involved (Schively, 2007). Distrust may be related to existing examples of untrustworthy behaviour such as failure to meet resource consent obligations (Kaya & Erol, 2016). Petts (1992) finds a lack of trust stems from three factors, first a lack of trust in private industry to consider safety and the environment as seriously as making a profit; secondly a lack of trust in regulatory systems to develop appropriate strategies for managing risks; and thirdly a lack of trust in those charged with monitoring the effects.…”