Advertisement

Infrastructural Projects and Land Use Conflicts in Developing and Developed Countries: A Study Based on Comparative Review of Literature and Different Case Studies

  • Muazzam SabirEmail author
  • André Torre
Chapter
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Developmental projects like dams have consequences both positive and negative. The conflicts in these kinds of projects emerge with view of conflicts among land use types and conflicts among stakeholders. The article presents the comparative review of different studies related to land use conflicts due to infrastructural projects especially dams, in developing and developed countries. It is based on secondary source of information including previously published literature and national and regional dailies. It goes into the social, economic and environmental impacts of infrastructural projects mainly dams. It then discusses the two case studies one from developing country “Bhasha dam project, Pakistan,” and other from developed country “Sivens dam project, France,” and highlights the different issues and conflicts among different actors. Further, it analyzes the individual and common issues of these case studies in light of above-mentioned literature with a comparative point of view. Lack of participation of all stakeholders is a significant source of conflicts in both cases on ecological issues in case of Sivens dam project and on socioeconomic issues in case of Diamer Bhasha dam project.

Keywords

Infrastructural projects Conflicts Socioeconomic impacts Environmental impacts Developing and developed countries 

References

  1. Admasu, G. T. (2015). Urban land use dynamics, the nexus between land use pattern and its challenges: The case of Hawassacity, Southern Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 45, 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali, Z., & Nasir, A. (2010). Land Administration System in Pakistan: Current situation and stakeholders’ perception. In FIG Congress 2010, Facing the Challenges: Building the Capacity Sydney, Australia, 11–16 April. Retrieved from http://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2010/papers/fs03f/fs03f_ali_nasir_3901.pdf.
  3. Anaafo, D. (2015). Land reforms and land rights change: A case study of land stressed groups in the Nkoranza South Municipality, Ghana. Land Use Policy, 42, 538–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Awakul, P., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2002). The effect of attitudinal differences on interface conflict on large construction projects: The case of the Pak Mun Dam project. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(4), 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Awasthi, M. K. (2014). Socioeconomic determinants of farmland value in India. Land Use Policy, 39, 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broekhof, S. M. H., Beunen, R., Marwijk, R. V., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2014). “Let’s try to get the best out of it” understanding land transactions during land use change. Land Use Policy, 41, 561–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, H. P., Tullos, D., Tilt, B., Magee, D., & Wolf, A. T. (2009). Modeling the costs and benefits of dam construction from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, S303–S311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchholz, T., Rametsteiner, E., Volk, T., & Luzadis, V. (2009). Multi criteria analysis for bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy, 37, 484–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bui, H. M. T., Schreinemachers, P., & Berger, T. (2013). Hydropower development in Vietnam: Involuntary resettlement and factors enabling rehabilitation. Land Use Policy., 31, 536–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carr, G., Blöschl, G., & Loucks, D. P. (2012). Evaluating participation in water resource management: A review. Water Resources Research, 48, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny?. London: Zeb Books.Google Scholar
  12. Dams and Development. (2000). The report of the world commission on dams. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/dams/WCD/report/WCD_DAMS%20report.pdf.
  13. Darly, S., & Torre, A. (2013). Conflicts over farmland uses and the dynamics of “agri-urban” localities in the Greater Paris Region: An empirical analysis based on daily regional press and field interviews. Land Use Policy, 33, 90–99.Google Scholar
  14. Deininger, K., & Castagnini, R. (2006). Incidence and impact of land conflict in Uganda. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60, 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diduck, P. A., Pratap, D., Sinclair, J. A., & Deane, S. (2013). Perceptions of impacts, public participation and learning in the planning, assessment and mitigation of two hydroelectric projects in Uttarakhand, India. Land Use Policy, 33, 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drazkiewicz, A., Challies, E., & Newig, J. (2015). Public participation and local environmental planning: Testing factors influencing decision quality and implementation in four case studies from Germany. Land Use Policy, 46, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flood, U. L. (1997). Sardar Sarovar dam: A case study of development-induced environmental displacement. Refuge, 16(3), 12–17.Google Scholar
  18. GOP. (2014). DiamerBhasha Dam Project. Pakistan: Water and Power Development Authority.Google Scholar
  19. Henderson, Steven R. (2005). Managing land use conflict around urban centers: Australian poultry farmer attitudes towards relocation. Applied Geography, 25, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoogester, J., Boelens, R., & Baud, M. (2016). Territorial Pluralism: Water uses’ multi-scalar struggles against state ordering in Ecuador’s highlands. Water International, 41(1), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huber, S., & Horbaty, R. (2010). Social acceptance of wind energy. In International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Task 28 Technical Report State of the Art-Report. IEA, Switzerland, 91 p.Google Scholar
  22. Huber, S., & Horbaty, R. (2013). Social acceptance of wind energy projects. In International Energy Agency (IEA) Recommended Practice Report 14. IEA, Switzerland, 39 p., http://www.socialacceptance.ch/images/RP14SocialAcceptanceFINAL.pdf.
  23. Huber, A., & Joshi, D. (2015). Hydropower, anti-politics, and the opening of new political spaces in the Eastern Himalayas. World Development, 76, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hui, M. C. E., Bao, J. H., & Zhang, L. X. (2013). The policy and praxis of compensation for land expropriations in China: An appraisal from the perspective of social exclusion. Land Use Policy., 32, 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5, 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaya, A. I., & Erol, K. N. (2016). Conflicts over Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs): Reasons and solutions for case studies in Izmir (Turkey). Land Use Policy, 58, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kenyon, W., Hill, G., & Shannon, P. (2008). Scoping the role of agriculture in sustainable flood management. Land Use Policy, 25, 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li, W. (2015). Failure by design—National mandates and agent control of local land use in China. Land Use Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li, H., Huang, X., Kwan, M. P., Bao, H. X. H., & Jefferson, S. (2015). Changes in farmers’ welfare from land requisition in the process of rapid urbanization. Land Use Policy, 42, 635–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lombard, M. (2016). Land conflict in peri-urban areas: Exploring the effects of land reform on informal settlement in Mexico. Urban Studies, 53(13), 2700–2720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lombard, M., & Rakodi, C. (2016). Urban land conflict in the Global South: Towards an analytical framework. Urban Studies, 53(13), 2683–2699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Magsi, H. (2012). Development projects and land use conflicts in Pakistan rural settings, an analysis. International Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Magsi, H., & Torre, A. (2012). Social network legitimacy and property right loopholes: Evidence from an infrastructural water project in Pakistan. Journal of Infrastructure Development, 4(2), 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Magsi, H., & Torre, A. (2013). Approaches to understand land use conflicts in the developing countries. The Macrotheme Review, 2(1), 119–136.Google Scholar
  35. Magsi, H., & Torre, A. (2014). Proximity analysis of inefficient practices and socio-spatial negligence: Evidence, evaluations and recommendations drawn from the construction of Chotiari reservoir in Pakistan. Land Use Policy, 36, 567–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Magsi, H., & Torre, A. (2015). Land use conflicts and human development nexus: Proximity analysis. In A. K. Giri (Ed.), New Horizons of Human Development. Delhi: Studera Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mahato, B. K., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2011). Conflict dynamics in dam construction project: A case study. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 1(2), 176–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mann, C., & Jeanneaux, P. (2009). Two approaches for understanding land use conflicts to improve rural planning and management. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 4(1), 118–141.Google Scholar
  39. Marx, C. (2016). Extending the analysis of urban land conflict: An example from Johannesburg. Urban Studies, 53(13), 2779–2795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mc-Carthy, J. D., Mc-Phail, C., & Smith, J. (1996). Images of protest: Dimensions of selection bias in media coverage of Washington demonstrations, 1982-1991. American Sociological Review, 39, 101–112.Google Scholar
  41. McMichael, G. (2016). Land conflict and informal Settlements in Juba, South Sudan. Urban Studies, 53(13), 2721–2737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murdoch, J., & Abram, S. (1998). Defining the limits of community governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moran, T. (2004). The environmental and socio-economic impacts of hydroelectric dams in Turkish Kurdistan. Retrieved from http://rudar.ruc.dk/bitstream/1800/403/1/The_Environmental_and.pdf.
  44. Nilsson, K., & Nielsen, T. S. (2008). In Plurel (Ed.), Peri-urban land use relationships strategies and sustainability tools for urban rural linkages. Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  45. Obidzinski, K., Takahashi, I., Dermawan, A., Komarudin, H., & Andrianto, A. (2013). Can large scale land acquisition for agro-development in Indonesia be managed sustainably? Land Use Policy, 30, 952–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oppio, A., Corsi, S., Mattia, S., & Tosini, A. (2015). Exploring the relationship among local conflicts and territorial vulnerability: The case study of Lombardy Region. Land Use Policy, 43, 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Owen, L., Howard, W., & Waldron, M. (2000). Conflicts over farming practices in Canada: the role of interactive conflict resolution approaches. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 475–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Kohistan District at Glance. http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files//tables/District%20at%20a%20glance%20Kohistan.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  49. Pelletier, P. (2015). Sivens: The removal of the French territory by means of planning and development. https://www.jssj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Sivens-Pelletier_EN.pdf.
  50. Patel, K. (2016). Sowing the seeds of conflict? Low income housing delivery, community participation and inclusive citizenship in South Africa. Urban Studies, 53(13), 2738–2757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Posthumus, H., Hewett, C. J. M., Morris, J., & Quinn, P. F. (2008). Agricultural land use and flood risk management: Engaging with stakeholders in North Yorkshire. Agricultural Water Management, 95, 787–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Qian, Z. (2015). Land acquisition compensation in post-reform China: Evolution, structure and challenges in Hangzhou. Land Use Policy, 46, 250–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: Aliterature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417–2431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rigon, A. (2016). Collective or individual titles? Conflict over tenure regularization in a Kenyan informal settlement. Urban Studies, 53(13), 2758–2778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roth, A., Gerbaud, V., Boix, M., & Montastruc, L. (2017). Holistic framework for land settlement development project sustainability assessment: Comparison of El Hierro Island hydro wind project and Sivens dam project..  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rouillard, J. J., Heal, K. V., Reeves, A. D., & Ball, T. (2012). The impact of institutions on flood policy learning. Water Policy, 14, 232–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rouillard, J. J., Reeves, A. D., Heal, K. V., & Ball, T. (2014). The role of public participation in encouraging changes in rural land use to reduce flood risk. Land Use Policy, 38, 637–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sabir, M., Torre, A., & Magsi, H. (2017). Land-use conflicts and socio-economic impacts of infrastructure projects: The case of Diamer Bhasha Dam in Pakistan. Area Development and Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2016.1271723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schelling, T. (1960). The strategy of conflict. MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Scudder, T. (2005). The future of large dams: Dealing with social, environmental, institutional and political costs. Land Degradation and Development, 19(4), 466–467.Google Scholar
  61. Singh, P. (2012). The Diamer Bhasha Dam in Gilgit Baltistan: India’s concerns. Strategic Analysis, 36(4), 597–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Slee, B., Brown, I., Donnelly, D., Gordon, J. I., Matthews, K., & Towers, W. (2014). The ‘squeezed middle’: Identifying and addressing conflicting demands on intermediate quality farmland in Scotland. Land Use Policy, 41, 206–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spray, C., Ball, T., & Rouillard, J. (2010). Bridging the water law, policy, science interface: Flood risk management in Scotland. Water Law, 20, 165–174.Google Scholar
  64. Sun, Q. (2013). Partial social cost benefit analysis of Three Gorges Dam: Impact assessment update and a greenhouse gas externality component study. Retrieved from http://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/42660/Sun-Qian-MA-ECOM-Dec-2013.pdf?sequence=1.
  65. Swain, A., & Chee, A. M. (2004). Political structure and ‘Dam’ conflicts: Comparing cases in Southeast Asia. Retrieved from: http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/Library/Publications_and_reports/Proceedings_Water_Politics/proceedings_waterpol_pp.95-114.pdf.
  66. Tilt, B., Braun, Y., & He, D. (2009). Social impacts of large dam projects: A comparison of international case studies and implications for best practice. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, S249–S257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Torre, A., Melot, R., Magsi, H., Bossuet, L., Cadoret, A., Caron, A., et al. (2014). Identifying and measuring land-use and proximity conflicts: Methods and identification. Springer Plus, 3, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Truffer, B., Bratrich, C., Markard, Peter, J. A., Wüest, A., & Wehrli, B. (2003). Green hydropower: The contribution of aquatic science research to the promotion of sustainable electricity. Aquatic Sciences, 65(2), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Assche, K., Beunen, R., & Duineveld, M. (2014). Evolutionary governance theory: An introduction. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vignon, N. P., & Lecomte, H. B. S. (2004). Land, violent conflict and development. OECD Development Centre, Working Paper No. 233. https://www.oecd.org/dev/29740608.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  71. WCD. (2000). The report of the world commission on dams. Dams and Development. http://www.unep.org/dams/WCD/report/WCD_DAMS%20report.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  72. Wilby, R. L., Beven, K. J., & Reynard, N. S. (2008). Climate change and fluvial flood risk in the UK: More of the same? Hydrological Processes, 22, 2511–2523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Williams, A., & Porter, S. (2006). Comparison of hydropower options for developing countries with regard to the environmental, social and economic aspects. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Renewable Energy for Developing Countries-2006. http://www.udc.edu/docs/cere/Williams_Porter.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  74. Zérah, M. H. (2007). Conflict between green space preservation and housing needs: The case of Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai. Cities, 24(2), 122–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zhu, J., & Simarmata, A. H. (2015). Formal land rights versus informal land rights: Governance for sustainable urbanization in the Jakarta metropolitan region, Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 43, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Main Articles from National and Regional Dailies

  1. Dawn. (2008). Diamer-Bhasha dam: Risks and controversies. Accessed on 28 July, 2017. http://www.dawn.com/news/330268/diamer-bhasha-dam-risks-and-controversies.
  2. Dawn. (2006, April 27). All reservoirs will be built: Musharraf: Diamer-Bhasha dam project launched. http://www.dawn.com/news/189653/all-reservoirs-will-be-built-musharraf-diamer-bhasha-dam-project-launched. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  3. GB Tribune. (2010, February 19). Police opened fire at Bhasha Dam protesters, 3 killed, 4 injured. http://gbtribune.blogspot.fr/2010/02/police-opened-fire-at-bhasha-dam.html. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  4. Mir, S. (2012, June 14). Diamer-Bhasha Dam compensation: Affected people threaten to bulldoze dam’s structures. The Express Tribune. http://tribune.com.pk/story/393243/diamer-bhasha-dam-compensation-affected-people-threaten-to-bulldoze-dams-structures/. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  5. PAMIRTIMES. (2015, October 22). Diamer-Bhasha Dam affectees protest in Chilas—Video report. http://pamirtimes.net/2015/10/22/diamer-bhasha-dam-affectees-protest-in-chilas-video-report/. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  6. RFI. (27 October 2014). Man dies in French anti-dam protest. http://en.rfi.fr/visiting-france/20141027-Man-dies-in-French-anti-dam-protest. Accessed 12 August 2017.
  7. The Guardian. (31 October 2014). France halts Sivens dam construction after protester’s death. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/france-halts-sivens-dam-protester-death. Accessed 12 August 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR SAD-APT INRA AgroParisTech, University Paris SaclayParisFrance

Personalised recommendations