Tam, C M and Tong, T K L (2011) Conflict analysis study for public engagement programme in infrastructure planning. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 1(1), pp. 45-60. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose: Stakeholder management in the form of public engagement in urban planning and infrastructure project impact assessments have become increasingly prevailing. However, the exercise may involve some complex socio-economic considerations and critical conflict analysis/resolution scenarios. Without a scientific approach, it is difficult to distil a resolution from the chaotic public opinions, especially in those highly controversial issues. This paper proposes the use of conflict analysis to screen out the resolution in a scientific manner. Design/methodology/approach: This study uses a case of harbor-front design in Hong Kong to illustrate how the analysis was carried out to accomplish the objectives. Findings: The example has illustrated that the conflict analysis has helped resolve a set of major issues in the Hong Kong harbor-front redevelopment. Originality/value: The introduction of a structured conflict analysis framework for the government to systematically deal with the conflicting viewpoints from different parties (such as general public and other stakeholders) has been demonstrated, which can be used to map systematically the different viewpoints collected in the public engagement exercise. The results are more convincing and more likely to be acceptable by all the stakeholders.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | conflict management; Hong Kong; infrastructure management; public policy; stakeholder management |
| Index terms: | programme, public engagement, exercise, infrastructure management, conflict management, Hong Kong, infrastructure project, urban planning, stakeholder management, resolution, redevelopment, public policy, impact assessment, infrastructure planning, methodology |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, conflict resolution, project controls, infrastructure engineering, Geography, research methods, strategic project management, participation process, public policy, urban planning, value management, health behaviours and lifestyles |
| Topics: | Governance, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Time Control, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here