The article presents the results of a study examining urban spatial conflicts and their resolution strategies in Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Irkutsk, Ulan-Ude and Kaluga (all – Russian Federation), based on expert interviews and media analysis conducted over the past 15 years. The study identifies the most common interaction models between city authorities, developers, and local activists regarding controversial territorial development projects. Key factors contributing to the success of urban activists are determined, including the formation of protest groups within existing community; mentorship in protest strategies; the escalation of local protests to a citywide scale; collaboration with political structures; the emphasis on the non-political nature of urban conflicts, positive history of protests, and the development of a strong activist identity. The findings indicate that the interaction models between urban activists and government officials are significantly influenced by major ‘constituent’ conflicts that result in victories for the protesters. Contrary to the belief that Russian cities lack effective tools for resolving urban conflicts, the study reveals that, in response to rising civic activism, city managers and developers are adapting their approaches to interact with local residents, often striving to prevent conflicts or reach compromises. The article identifies key strategies for conflict prevention, including the establishment of new advisory committees and various platforms that facilitate dialogue between local authorities and activists. It also outlines the main methods of conflict resolution categorized as autonomous-municipal, political-technological, and corporate – many of which have proven effective. In addition to that, the study uncovers a number of significant challenges that hinder the effective resolution of urban conflicts, noting that new management practices often stem from individual initiatives, typically in response to conflicts that escalate to the federal level. This experience rarely transcends individual municipalities, and tends to lack robust institutional support. Consequently, in numerous cities, government representatives often lack the competencies necessary to respond effectively to urban initiatives. Furthermore, local authorities happen to lack the resources to find compromise solutions. Complicating matters, it is often federal entities who initiate controversial projects, leaving local authorities to manage disputes with protesters. Finally, even when attempts at dialogue and compromise are made, they do not always guarantee resolution, since local activists’ positions may still remain uncompromising, and while the interests of residents who could potentially benefit from the disputed projects may not be adequately represented. The key recommendation of this study is to systematically document and expand the experience of resolving urban conflicts, thereby enhancing the competencies of city managers in those municipalities that have yet to encounter such conflicts.
Keywords: urban conflicts; social movements; urban policy; protests; civil society; urban studies