Landscape architects frequently deal with conflicting interests caused by a dramatic rise in diverse, special interest groups seeking an active voice in design decision-making. Projects may take years to complete as contending parties delay construction. Such projects are costly to firms, sometimes causing expensive litigation which may not resolve differences. Landscape architects are reticent to take on more aggressive roles in directing resolution. Both the community planning and landscape architecture professions are moving towards greater participation by affected parties with a real effort towards consensus-building.
Groups now view implementation as a necessary part of decision-making.
In this thesis, a negotiating strategy was examined to determine whether a more efficient process exists for resolving conflict in design projects. A generic model for dispute resolution, developed at Harvard University Law School, was applied to a typical design project by use of a matrix. The Susskind-Madigan model includes more defined negotiating stages than other available resolution techniques. A proposed development for executive-type condominiums ln Kansas City was selected for analysis. Efforts by the developer to alter area zoning regulations created a strong protest from the surrounding neighborhood.