land Article Tension, Conflict, and Negotiability of Land for Infrastructure Retrofit Practices in Informal Settlements Mahsa Mesgar * , Diego Ramirez-Lovering and Mohamed El-Sioufi   Citation: Mesgar, M.; Ramirez-Lovering, D.; El-Sioufi, M. Tension, Conflict, and Negotiability of Land for Infrastructure Retrofit Practices in Informal Settlements. Land 2021, 10, 1311. https:// doi.org/10.3390/land10121311 Academic Editor: Frank Vanclay Received: 29 October 2021 Accepted: 22 November 2021 Published: 28 November 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- iations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Monash Art Design and Architecture, Department of Architecture, Monash University, Melbourne 3145, Australia; diego.ramirez@monash.edu (D.R.-L.); Mohamed.El-Sioufi@monash.edu (M.E.-S.) * Correspondence: mahsa.mesgar@monash.edu Abstract: Tension and conflict are endemic to any upgrading initiative (including basic infrastructure provision) requiring private land contributions, whether in the form of voluntary donations or compensated land acquisitions. In informal urban contexts, practitioners must first identify well- suited land for public infrastructure, both spatially and with careful consideration for safeguarding claimed rights and preventing conflicts. At the same time, they need to defuse existing tensions over land ownership and land use rights while negotiating for the potential use of a unit of land for infrastructure. Even in the case of employing participatory methods, land negotiations are never tension-free. Despite the extensive literature on linkages between urban poverty, inefficient land management systems, and land disputes, in both rural and urban settings, land negotiations for community-scale infrastructure retrofit projects (e.g., neighbourhood roads, water and sanitation infrastructure) are yet to be fully explored. Drawing on a case study of a live green infrastructure retrofit project in six informal settlements in Makassar, Indonesia, we establish links to exchange theory, collective action, and negotiation theory to build a reliable analytical framework for under- standing and explaining the land negotiations in small-scale infrastructure retrofit practices. We aim to describe and assess the fundamental conditions for land negotiations in an informal urban context and conclude the paper by summarising several key strategies developed and used in the case study area to forge land agreements. Keywords: informal settlements; land negotiation; informal land rights; infrastructure retrofit; green infrastructure; land conflict; WASH 1. Introduction The interactions between different rights-holders and those with interests in land can lead to unintended consequences in land negotiation processes. Scholars have discussed land conflict and negotiation challenges in various terms, including the correlational– causal analysis of land conflicts [1–5], the impact analysis of conflict situations on urban development [6–9], and providing preventative or responsive measures to address land conflicts [10–13]. Despite the extensive literature on linkages between inefficient land management systems, urban poverty, and land disputes in both rural and urban settings, land negotiations for community-scale infrastructure projects (e.g., neighbourhood roads, water and sanitation infrastructure) receive relatively little attention. Furthermore, the tensions and conflicts in land rights that emerge during land negotiations for community- level basic infrastructure provision are yet to be fully explored. Tension and conflict in land negotiations within micro-scale upgrading projects are sensitive topics that are often not raised directly in the literature for various reasons. Ethical considerations and the need to protect households’ sensitive data (e.g., land ownership data) are among the main challenges in exploring and explaining land negotiations [14]. Moreover, publicly available project reports are often explicitly designed to protect the rep- utation of the upgrading initiatives, government agencies, and impacted communities [15]. Similarly, the effectiveness of land negotiation strategies and pre-defined conflict resolution Land 2021, 10, 1311. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121311 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land