IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cpprxx/v40y2025i2p347-368.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Are we in agreement?’ Process architecture considerations as a tool for navigating stakeholder perspectives in favor of consensus-building in land consolidation projects

Author

Listed:
  • N. A. Lindhout
  • T. van Dijk
  • G. van der Vaart

Abstract

This study examines the dynamics of collaborative rural planning through an in-depth single case study of participatory land consolidation. It argues that while complete consensus might be considered a utopia, effective collaboration among stakeholders requires a certain degree of alignment in perspectives. By analyzing how stakeholders’ perspectives evolve, this study investigates how this convergence occurs. Furthermore, it explores how planning professionals try to promote convergence, focusing on a project manager’s approach and insights from a focus group. The findings emphasize the complexity of achieving joint understanding for fostering cooperative decision-making. The paper proposes clear process parameters to stimulate this convergence.

Suggested Citation

  • N. A. Lindhout & T. van Dijk & G. van der Vaart, 2025. "‘Are we in agreement?’ Process architecture considerations as a tool for navigating stakeholder perspectives in favor of consensus-building in land consolidation projects," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 347-368, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:cpprxx:v:40:y:2025:i:2:p:347-368
    DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2024.2431767
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02697459.2024.2431767
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02697459.2024.2431767?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cpprxx:v:40:y:2025:i:2:p:347-368. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cppr20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.