Urban Planning as a Strategy to Implement Social Sustainability Policy Goals? The Case of Temporary Housing for Immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden

: Planning is one of the envisioned strategies for reaching policy goals of urban social sustainability. However, the practical realization of this vision faces a number of challenges not least due to conﬂicts of interests and goals that arise in the planning process. There also seems to be a lack of understanding of the relationship between formal planning and social sustainability goals that are often normative and visionary. In order to bridge this knowledge gap, this paper investigates how urban social sustainability can be implemented in urban planning in the context of conﬂicts of interests and goals. In particular, we explore two questions: (i) whether and how planning procedures are interconnected with local policy goals for social sustainability; (ii) whether and how conﬂict affects the implementation of these goals through planning. The paper presents a qualitative case study of planning of temporary housing for immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden, where a conﬂict of interests developed in conjunction with the planning. The local social sustainability goals are operationalized through the speciﬁc sub-goals of accessible and more equal living conditions, distribution of and equal access to housing for all groups in the community, and reduced social and ethnic segregation and discrimination in regard to housing. We identify shortcomings in the integration of local urban social sustainability goals into planning procedures and ﬁnd that conﬂicts of interests as well as conﬂicts of priorities within and between the policy goals complicate their integration into formal planning procedures. More attention needs to be given to improved operationalization of the questions of priority and conﬂict resolution, both in planning and in urban social sustainability policy, if planning is to be considered a viable strategy for implementation of social sustainability goals.


Introduction
Planning is one of the envisioned strategies for reaching policy goals of urban social sustainability [1]. However, the practical realization of this vision faces a number of challenges. Policy implementation is rarely easy, straightforward or linear [2][3][4]. This seems especially true when it comes to the implementation of social sustainability goals in the context of planning, as there seems to be a lack of understanding of the relationship between planning and social sustainability goals that are often normative and visionary. This is not least in terms of practical implementation of urban social sustainability goals and programs on a local community/city level [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. The concept of urban social sustainability is a tricky one. It is quite diffuse, with multiple existing definitions, interpretations and characteristics in theory, policy and practice [19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. This makes the operationalization and implementation of social sustainability rather complicated. In policy, the notions of social equity, equality (social justice) and social cohesion are among the most widely used and deeply rooted components that describe urban social sustainability on international, regional and local levels [1,19,20,[26][27][28][29].
Another dimension that complicates the implementation of social sustainability goals in planning is conflicts of interests and goals that arise in the planning process [30][31][32][33][34][35]. The problem of balancing different sustainability goals is a well-recognized one [36] (p. 109), especially in debates on environmental sustainability (e.g., Marcuse [36], Sustainability is not enough). Indeed, one of the challenges is that social sustainability goals have to be implemented and integrated with other (sometimes competing) sustainability goals and be adapted to the specific local contexts, conditions and, importantly, diverse interests of multiple stakeholders [17,[37][38][39][40][41].
The topic of urban social sustainability has received attention in the literature (e.g., [15][16][17]30,42,43]. The notion of urban social sustainability is discussed from different disciplinary perspectives and with emphasis on different components of social sustainability that constitute the notion in each specific study. For instance, analyses focus on segregation, housing, safety/security, trust, justice and participation, to name a few (e.g., [15,17,40,42,[44][45][46]).
Urban social sustainability has also been in focus in recent studies from the Nordic countries. They too offer a variety of perspectives and key problems related to the realization of social sustainability in cities, for example, trust (e.g., [44]), housing (e.g., [16,47]), segregation (e.g., [15]); urban form, architecture and urban design (physical space) and its role in framing social sustainability (e.g., [48], focusing on the transformative role of urban architecture for social sustainability in Oslo). In some of them, the existence of conflicts or tensions between the different actors is acknowledged, but they rarely provide any detailed examination of the conflict's role in the implementation of the ideals of urban social sustainability into practice. One of the few exceptions is the recent study by Andersen and Skrede [30], where they problematize the realization of social sustainability visions of urban policymakers and the interests of other powerful actors (such as urban developers) in the municipality of Oslo, Norway. Andersen and Skrede explicitly recognize conflicting interests/conflicting goals of the social sustainability ideals and the profit-driven interests and argue that implementation of sustainability ideas from theory (urban policy) to practice is a big challenge that so far remains unsolved. Their study highlights a very relevant problematic and a knowledge gap that is also in focus in this paper: how or to what extent social sustainability can be implemented in urban planning/development. In particular, this paper aims to contribute to the debate that concerns the link between ideals/normative and political visions in urban policy and their practical operationalization.
Even though Andersen and Skrede [30] do not explicitly focus on conflict analysis, they emphasized the centrality of conflict of interests and goals between different powerful actors. This paper adds a conflict dimension to the analysis of the aforementioned link between urban social sustainability policy and its operationalization through planning with the aim to shed light on whether and how conflict affects the implementation of urban social sustainability policy goals through planning. This is done through the analysis of the case of planning for temporary housing for immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden.
In order to bridge the knowledge gap regarding the relationship between planning and social sustainability goals, this paper aims to better understand planning as a tool for the implementation of local urban social sustainability goals in the context of conflicts of interests and goals. In order to fulfill this aim, we investigate two questions: (i) Whether and how planning procedures are interconnected with local policy goals for social sustainability; (ii) Whether and how conflict (including its anticipation, prevention and resolution) affects the implementation of urban social sustainability policy goals through planning.
These questions are studied in the case of planning of temporary housing for immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden, during the period when the country was experiencing the largest wave of migration in its history (2015-2016). As the study performs a critical analysis of local urban sustainability policy and its operationalization, it is of importance that we understand and analyze social sustainability through the signifiers and components that are present in the local policy. These include the notions of equity, equality (diminished segregation) and social cohesion (through trust and collaboration) [49] (p. 22) (see Section 3, conceptual base).
The empirical case of planning of temporary housing for immigrants is connected to the local social sustainability policy goals through the specific sub-goals of accessible and more equal living conditions, distribution of and equal access to housing for all groups in the community (especially those that are marginalized and excluded) and reduced social and ethnic segregation and discrimination in regard to housing [49][50][51]. A conflict of interests developed between the local residents and the municipality, which was triggered by a proposed change in land use. This conflict played a significant role in the planning process.
In order to answer the research questions, we first present a conflict of interests that developed in two city districts in Gothenburg, Sweden, in conjunction with the planning of temporary housing for immigrants. We analyze how this conflict was dealt with within the frames of formal planning procedures, what role the policy goals of social sustainability played in the planning processes and in conflict resolution, and what implications this had for the implementation through the planning of social sustainability goals as formulated in the local program "Equal Gothenburg" (Jämlikt Göteborg) [49,51]. Based on this analysis, we identify shortcomings in the integration of the local social sustainability policy goals into planning procedures in the context of conflict. We further find that there are internal conflicts of priorities between different social groups' interests both within and between the policy goals themselves. We find that these internal goal conflicts impede the resolution of conflicts in planning and complicate the use of planning as a tool for the implementation of social sustainability goals in general.
In the concluding discussion, we critically reflect on (the identified shortcomings in) the relationship between the formal planning procedures and the local policy for urban social sustainability in the context of the conflict and suggest that policy for urban social sustainability needs to better acknowledge and address internal conflicts of interests between and within goals to enable better integration into formal planning procedures. In particular, more attention needs to be given to improved operationalization of the questions of priority (such as what social groups' interests should be prioritized) and conflict resolution both in planning and in social sustainability policy if planning is to be considered a viable strategy for implementation of social sustainability goals.

Materials and Methods
The relationship between planning and local policy for urban social sustainability is studied in the context of a conflict of interests that developed in conjunction with planning for temporary housing for immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden. The conflict initially arose between the municipality and the local residents, with the residents opposing the proposed construction of temporary housing for immigrants in their neighborhoods. The conflict developed in two districts of the city: Askim-Frölunda-Högsbo (henceforth, AFH, Location 1) and Västra Göteborg (henceforth, VG, Location 2).
These two locations/districts were selected for analysis for the following reasons: (i) five specific sites out of the twelve originally designated for temporary housing by the Property Management Administration were located there, and, more importantly, (ii) the majority of complaints about and resistance to the planned land use change came from the AFH and VG districts where the conflict became manifest [52]. The clear articulation of citizens' concerns indicated formal conflict escalation in these particular locations.
Three of the proposed construction sites were located in AFH, and two were located in VG [53]. The planning process for temporary housing had different outcomes in each of the locations. After a long process of planning and conflict management, the only site that remained a candidate for housing construction was located in AFH (Since the spring of 2018, 57 temporary flats are in place in AFH and accommodate about 140 people). In VG, the development plans for all of the proposed housing sites were canceled for various reasons, and the conflict was formally resolved. It is noteworthy that in other city districts, which were outside of the scope of this paper, the plans were also cancelled.
The analysis is based on: a qualitative analysis of six semi-structured interviews with key municipal informants involved in the proposal and planning of the temporary housing sites, qualitative content analysis of the documents, local policy for urban social sustainability, media texts and videos [54][55][56]. Persons interviewed included representatives from the city planning administration, politicians and the construction company representatives. Due to the sensitivity of the conflict and the relatively small number of civil servants involved in this case, the exact occupations of the informants will not be revealed to protect their anonymity.
The documents analyzed included local policy documents regarding social sustainability, detailed plans, written comments and appeals from the residents, municipal documents, minutes of meetings and reports. We also analyzed recorded video materials from two information meetings with the residents in the two districts and one video-documented press conference given by representatives from the City of Gothenburg and the director of the Property Management Administration in 2016. The media texts included articles from local and national newspapers (Göteborgs Posten, Göteborg Direkt, Svenska Dagbladet) and were primarily used to better understand the context where the conflict developed. A broad range of documents analyzed in this study provided information on the municipality's and the residents' expressed interests, values, goals and approaches to conflict resolution.
The document collection was delimited to the period between 28 January 2016 and 25 October 2016. The interviews were conducted between 2017 and 2018. The starting date was the day when the municipal Property Management Administration presented twelve possible sites for temporary housing in different districts in Gothenburg, which was the starting point for conflict development and escalation. The end date was more difficult to set because the conflict in the district of AFH was never formally resolved [57]. Because no new information regarding the conflict development/resolution was found in formal written sources after October 2016, and the most relevant data for our analysis was concentrated in formal written sources through the first half of 2016 when the conflict was most intense, October 2016 delimits the written data collection even for AFH.

Urban Social Sustainability
The concept of (urban) social sustainability is known as a complex and "wicked" problem [14,33,[58][59][60]. The concept is quite diffuse, with multiple existing definitions, interpretations and characteristics in theory, policy and practice [19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. In planning literature, the notion of urban social sustainability is easier defined through the components that condition its fulfillment. This is in line with the understanding of social sustainability as "an empty signifier" ( [17], cited in [5] (p. 110)) that pulls together a number of concepts that encompass social sustainability narrative, its goals and strategies. For example, the notions of social equity, social cohesion, social capital and quality of life [17] (p. 395, p. 397).
In policy, the notions of social equity, equality (social justice) and social cohesion are among the most widely used and deeply rooted components that describe urban social sustainability on international, regional and local levels [1,19,20,[26][27][28][29]. They are sometimes operationalized through the notions of inclusiveness, equal rights and access to the resources, basic services and opportunities that cities can offer [1] (p. 4 [61]. According to international policy, equal access to safe and affordable housing is one of the essential preconditions for achieving equality and social justice [1,27], which makes the goal of (accessible and affordable) housing one of the cornerstones of urban social sustainability.
Given the aim of this study to perform a critical analysis of urban social sustainability policy, it is important to distinguish between different understandings of concepts of urban social sustainability and its components by scholars and by urban policy-makers [15] (p. 796). Andersson [15] points out an important distinction in understating of the concept of "segregation" by scholars and by policymakers in Sweden (normative versus reality and practice-oriented, "tangible"). It is therefore central for our study that we treat and understand the signifiers of social sustainability in the same way as the local policymakers do. That is, when referring to and analyzing the implementation of urban social sustainability goals, we adopt concepts and components that constitute a particular policy program in a studied case of Gothenburg. In the local policy program analyzed here, urban social sustainability is defined in terms of equity, equality (through diminished segregation) and social cohesion constituted by the notion of trust as a precondition for collaboration [49] (p. 22). These components are further specified through the sub-goals of anti-discriminatory housing planning; equal access and distribution of housing for all residents of the municipality; equality of living conditions; reducing housing segregation for groups with different socio-economic, cultural and ethnic backgrounds and integrating them into local communities (to facilitate social cohesion); and facilitation of the creation of shared identity and feeling of belonging. These goals are meant to be achieved through cooperation, collaboration and public participation based on trust as a necessary precondition, among others [49]. Performing the analysis of the empirical material, we looked for manifestations, practical realization and operationalization of the three main components of equity, equality and social cohesion together with the specific sub-goals that specify them in the local policy.

Conflicts in Planning
Conflict is a natural part of urban planning [33,62,63]. It is also a term that highlights diverging interests or disagreements among actors. Planning conflicts are characterized by high levels of complexity with multiple actors with different interests, values and goals, and where actors may be associated with a variety of political and administrative contexts and levels. In the context of urban planning, conflicts occur when a planned change in land use infringes upon the interests and values of different stakeholders to such a degree that they cannot accept the change without some sort of negotiation [32]. Here, conflict is broadly understood as a situation where stakeholders have incompatible interests in relation to certain geographically defined land-use units or resources [64]. These definitions guide the analysis of the empirical material and help identify conflicts relevant to the study's aim.
To facilitate the analysis in this paper we further distinguish between conflicts of interests and conflicts of goals. The former term refers to the conflict between the local residents and the municipality and concerns changes in land use; the latter refers to the conflicts between and within different goals for social sustainability as formulated in the local policy.

Conflict Resolution
Formal planning procedures include conflict resolution as one of their tasks. The resolution procedures aim to generate shared perceptions, objectives or understanding among the stakeholders and to inform negotiations and decision-making [32,[65][66][67][68]. Here, we understand conflict resolution as a dynamic and iterative process where different actors initiate attempts to solve the conflict formally and informally in search of "better" management solutions [32]. In the analysis, this definition guided the identification of conflict resolution attempts in the empirical material.
To resolve conflicts, both formal and informal approaches can be applied; these may be participatory, negotiation-based, policy-and law-based, or a combination of these. Formal public participation or public consultation is one of the approaches to conflict resolution that are built into planning procedures. In the conflict analyzed here, public consultations together with so-called public information meetings (which sometimes were referred to as "dialogues" by the informants and in the documents) were among the most visible resolution processes applied within the planning. Other approaches, such as negotiation, were also used, but internally between the city's different departments, politicians and the construction companies.

Local Policy Context
The municipality of the City of Gothenburg, the second-largest city in Sweden with half a million inhabitants, has formulated a program (after several earlier versions for "Equal Gothenburg" [49,51], in which the main goal for urban development is to make the whole city socially sustainable. The program was updated and approved by the City Council in 2017; see [49]: the City of Gothenburg program for an Equal City 2018-2026 (we studied the older documents that constitute the basis for the recently approved program for 2018-2026, social equality reports (jämlikhetsrapporter) from [49,51]. The definitions of the central concepts we refer to here did not differ to a significant enough extent to affect the analysis in this study. The aforementioned documents were in use at the time the processes analyzed in this paper took place; see www.goteborg.se/jamlikt (accessed on 31 July 2018)). This aspiration is formulated in the policy document through the notions of equity, equality and social cohesion, with the latter being described as a feeling of belonging and shared identity [49] (p. 22).
In the local policy, social cohesion is also seen as important for creating trust between the different groups and thus is referred to as one of the preconditions for facilitating collaboration. The notions of equity and equality are expressed through the sub-goals toward which the municipality wants to work: (a) ensuring equal living conditions and more equal distribution of and access to housing for all groups in the community (especially those that are discriminated, excluded and marginalized); (b) reducing social and ethnic segregation, specifically in regard to housing segregation, which is seen as an important precondition for the integration of people with different cultural and social-economic backgrounds; (c) ensuring that different groups of people are not discriminated [49] (p. 25, p.28), [51] (p. 147), [69,70]. Cooperation and collaboration between different organizations, the public and other actors [49], and public participation are presented as the main strategies to guide the efforts to fulfill these goals.
Overall, social sustainability in the city is set to be achieved by working towards equity, equality and social cohesion and creating preconditions for better access to and distribution of city resources (housing, recreation/physical environment, public services), promoting integration and counteracting social segregation (housing segregation) through strategies of cooperation, collaboration and public participation [49] (p. 189), [51] (p. 135, p. 172).

Local Conditions in Gothenburg During the Migration Crisis of 2015-2016
In Gothenburg, the relationship between formal planning, conflict resolution and the practical implementation of local social sustainability goals was put to the test when a wave of migration hit Sweden in 2015. In that year, the country received in total 162,877 asylum seekers, twice as many as the year before [71]. In 2016 and 2017 the municipality of Gothenburg (with ca. 560,000 people, SCB, 2018) was assigned to receive and provide housing for 880 and 1400 immigrants, respectively (2280 immigrants in total), whose asylum applications had been approved and who had received permanent residence permits in Sweden. The fact that Gothenburg has long been struggling with a severe housing shortage [50,72] added to the complexity of the situation. In addition to the urgent need to make a large number of apartments available to accommodate immigrants in a short time, several conflicts of interests, which are often part of municipal planning processes, arose in connection with the municipal plans to build temporary housing for the newcomers.
On 31 August 2015, the municipal Property Management Committee commissioned the municipal Property Management Administration to propose several sites for building temporary housing for immigrants. Temporary housing is subject to a short-term building permit that is valid for ten to fifteen years. For various reasons, it usually takes less time to get a permit to build temporary than permanent housing(after the expiration date, the temporary permit must either be extended, through a new application process, or be canceled. The latter requires that the constructions be removed from the site). Six months later, in January 2016, the director of the Property Management Administration presented twelve designated sites in six different city districts.
The main argument for the construction of temporary housing was that it would be a faster way to provide accommodation for the people in need than building permanent housing.
"Temporary housing is never a better solution; it is most likely a more expensive solution, considering the lifespan of the buildings. Hence, it is neither a cheap solution nor a better solution. It is only a quicker solution [73]".
Based on the municipality's social sustainability goal to counteract social and ethnic segregation in the city (according to the "Equal City" program), the municipality proposed locating temporary housing in city districts where the percentage of immigrant residents was quite low.
However, these plans came into conflict with the interests of local residents in the proposed neighborhoods. In October 2016, after nine months of managing the conflict and running additional parallel planning investigations of the proposed sites, the municipality finally declared eleven of the twelve sites as no longer under consideration for the planned temporary housing project. Only one site remained [74].

Two Locations and Characteristics of the Conflict
The two city districts of AFH and VG were the planned hosts for five of the twelve sites designated for the construction of temporary housing (three and two sites respectively). Both districts have a relatively small proportion of immigrants among their residents. Between January 2015 and February 2016, they received almost equal numbers of immigrants: 275 and 277 people respectively. These numbers are quite low compared to, for example, the district of Angered, which received 1247 people during the same period (Angered district is outside the scope of our analysis because there were no articulated conflicts or protests about the reception and accommodation of immigrants) [75][76][77]. However, the most articulated conflict developed in AFH and VG, and not in the district with a larger number of assigned immigrants.
The conflict of interests that emerged in AFH and VG is characterized by clearly defined temporal boundaries. It began in January 2016, when the Property Management Administration presented the planned locations for temporary housing. In VG, the conflict formally lasted until March 2016, when the Property Management Administration informed the residents of the district that the previously proposed sites were no longer under consideration for temporary housing construction [53]. In contrast, in the city district of AFH, the conflict was not formally resolved. Nevertheless, in March 2016, two of the three sites originally designated for AFH were removed from the temporary housing planning in the official statement from the Property Management Administration [53]. Finally, only one site remained in AFH (Askimsviken), further development of which was approved by the Property Management Committee a few months later.
The primary active stakeholders in the conflict were local residents living in close proximity to the proposed housing sites and the municipality of Gothenburg, including representatives from the municipality's City Management Office, Property Management Administration, City Planning Authority, and Administration for Allocation of Social Welfare, the construction company, and local politicians.
After the municipal plans to build temporary housing at these locations were made public, a number of written comments and petitions with multiple signatures were submitted to the municipality. For example, the local residents in VG and AFH expressed their concerns about the valuable nature (interests in nature protection) and recreation values in the designated sites. They claimed that these values would be damaged or destroyed in the construction process.Perceived risks to individual and community safety in the presence of the newly arrived immigrants with different cultural backgrounds and lived experiences were another major concern expressed by the local residents in written comments as well as orally during the information meetings organized by the municipality and the District Boards. The local residents were concerned that it would be less safe to live in the area with the temporary housing in close proximity and its prospective inhabitants in place and that crime would increase. For example, several persons wrote that "the proposal has provoked both fear and anxiety" (Written comments Jan-Feb 2016).
Many people were concerned about the potential "different attitude towards women" that the immigrants might have, and some were worried about their daughters' safety. One person wrote: "you have to be able to move about freely without being afraid of being molested or raped" (Written comments Jan-Feb 2016) [78,79].

Conflict Resolution
Because the conflict developed within the area of urban planning, the municipality was the main party responsible for addressing and resolving it. Formal procedures within planning include functions for formal conflict resolution, e.g., through open consultations with the public [80]. As is typical of conflicts that develop within planning, the municipality in this case had combined roles: in addition to being responsible for resolving the conflict, it was acting as one of the primary stakeholders in the conflict and as a main decision-maker. The municipality was responsible for following the nationally imposed demand to provide accommodation for the assigned numbers of immigrants. In addition to this, formally, the municipality had to plan the construction of temporary housing along the lines of the local policy goals for urban social sustainability. This complex context, together with the urgent need to provide housing for a large number of people in a short time, affected how the conflict of interests was managed.
Due to the immense urgency of the immigrant housing/accommodation shortage, the municipality invited the public in the relevant city districts to take part in open information meetings much earlier than usual in the planning process, before the sites had been thoroughly investigated. During these meetings, the municipal representatives presented their plans and opened the floor for questions and reactions from the public [78,79]. Informing the residents so early in the planning process was considered by the municipality as a possible way to anticipate conflicts, promote a shared understanding of the urgency of the situation, stimulate acceptance and generate trust in the municipality's decisions.
In fact, during the information meetings, the Director of Welfare and Education at the City Management Office stated that this process was an example of how the municipality, for perhaps the first time, reached out at such an early stage of the planning process and informed the public about their plans and how they intended to proceed. During the information meetings, the public was explicitly encouraged to ask questions and share their knowledge and opinions about the proposed sites. The municipality emphasized the importance of dialogue for anticipating and preventing conflicts [78,79].
Similarly, district municipal representatives in VG encouraged people to ask questions of all kinds, as a way to anticipate, prevent and resolve possible conflicts: "Feel comfortable asking the questions you need [to ask], because we might be able to sort some things out that feel odd" [79].
However, the atmosphere at the meetings was heated and suspicious. Statements like "you are trying to fool us" and "you are lying to us" were shouted out from the crowd of residents. Some interviewees attribute this to the (in their opinion) "wrong" format of the meetings: "presentation of information as opposed to questions from the public." They further expressed that the format of the meetings exacerbated the tensions and divided the participants into groups confronting each other, thus hindering dialogue.
Apart from the unusually early open information meetings, the local residents also had a more conventional opportunity to send in their written comments to the municipal planning office and formally articulate their positions. In addition, the formal legal means of conflict resolution was also used; some citizens organized themselves into interest groups and hired professional lawyers to represent their interests in the planning process, which involved lodging appeals against the proposed plans. The residents actively used all opportunities to express their concerns, formulate their interests and make sure their positions reached the municipal planning office.
The way in which the knowledge and opinions of the public were used was largely questioned by the residents. There was an expressed mistrust among the public regarding the municipality's plans and a feeling of being excluded from the process. For example, a number of written comments and petitions were sent to the municipality, in which the local residents raised the question of whether the municipality was considering the collected opinions at all. Suspicions were also expressed that the decisions about the location of the sites had already been made before the public was consulted. The function of the information meetings, which were perceived by some as arenas for dialogue, was also questioned.
Interestingly, the conflict around four of the five proposed sites in AFH and VG was formally resolved through a more detailed investigation of the sites' suitability. The investigation was made after the open information meetings with the public. As a result, four of the five designated sites were declared by the Property Management Administration to be unsuitable for the project. The reasons given as motivating the decisions included valuable habitat (Högen in VG and Amundön in AFH), suspected instability of the ground (Hinsholmen in VG) and poor accessibility of public transport and other public services (Skintebo in AFH) [53].

Planning and Its Relation to Urban Social Sustainability Policy Goals
In the local policy, urban social sustainability is defined in terms of the notions of equity, equality and social coherence. These components are further specified through the sub-goals of anti-discriminatory housing planning; equal access and distribution of housing for all residents of the municipality; equality of living conditions; reducing housing segregation for groups with different socio-economic, cultural and ethnic backgrounds and integrating them into local communities (to facilitate social cohesion); and facilitation of the creation of shared identity and feeling of belonging. These goals are meant to be achieved through cooperation, collaboration and public participation based on trust as a necessary precondition, among others [39].
On a general level, the planning of temporary housing seems to some extent to be driven and motivated by the social sustainability goals formulated in the local policy program [49]. For example, accessibility and access (to transport, recreation and public services), a component that constitutes an equality/equity goal, was present in the planning authority's justifications of several of the proposed site locations. At the same time, in one of the locations, the clash of interests developed around precisely the issue of accessibility of recreation, whereas for another social group-the local residents-the sub-goal was initially meant to apply to the prospective immigrants. This may be seen as an important indicator of the existence of internal conflicts within the social sustainability goals. Such internal policy goal conflicts evoke questions regarding the ability of policy to anticipate conflicts between the interests of different groups and how different groups' interests should be prioritized in such cases.
Equality of living conditions and access to housing, together with the goals of social inclusion and reducing housing segregation, all central means of generating social cohesion [50], were among the stated goals and driving forces for the municipality's decisions on site selection for the proposed temporary housing. In particular, these goals motivated the decision to distribute the proposed sites to those city districts where the numbers of immigrants were currently low.
In addition to there being a conflict of interests between different social groups (prospective immigrants vs. local residents) within the policy goals, conflicts were also evident between different goals of social sustainability in this case. In particular, the goals of social inclusion, access to housing and social service came into conflict with another component of urban social sustainability: perceived individual and community safety, as expressed by the local residents (written comments Jan-Feb 2016) [78,79]. Individual and community safety are essential to urban social sustainability and-together with social inclusion and accessibility of social services and housing-constitute the notion of equity [10,13,20].
The conflicts within the goals of trust and social cohesion further revealed a deeper divide regarding priorities between the interests of different social groups. Indeed, strategies of collaboration and participation as a way to achieve these goals of urban social sustainability are found in formal procedures for municipal planning: open consultations with the public in the planning process and open information meetings with the local residents. According to the local policy, such strategies are expected to facilitate trust, which is interconnected with components of shared identity and a sense of belonging, and forms the social cohesion component of social sustainability [49].
The local residents took part in participatory activities with the intention to influence decisions that affect their local community. In this respect, instances of social cohesion can be identified among the members of this group. However, this reveals another conflict within the goal of social cohesion: the local residents, who opposed the municipality's plans to build the temporary housing, contra (preconditions for) social cohesion between the local residents and the prospective immigrants as a long-term goal to strive towards.

Conflicts in Planning
Conflict penetrates this planning case on different levels and takes different shapes. Conflicts of interests between the local residents and the municipality, and conflicts of goals and priorities within and between the social sustainability policy goals, were identified (as discussed in Section 6.1). Prevention and resolution of the conflict of interests in the presented case went entirely through the conventional formal planning channels, where information and consultation with the public are standard procedures.
At the same time, the formal way of resolving the conflict raises questions about the efficiency of the municipality's efforts to resolve it. It seems that the appropriateness of the sites could have already been discovered in a preliminary investigation, and that in some locations the conflict could have been prevented. Furthermore, announcing the proposed sites in advance of the proper investigation led to a decrease in the public's trust in municipal procedures and decisions.
The municipality made an effort to create additional opportunities for public involvement in order to anticipate conflicts, increase acceptance and facilitate trust through open public information meetings early in the planning process. Reflecting on the role played by participatory processes in the conflict resolution within the planning, we find that these processes contributed to conflict resolution by influencing the subsequent formal resolution processes. Indeed, the municipality was pressed to make a more thorough technical investigation of the proposed sites, which led to the removal of the majority of the originally proposed sites from the plans. In contrast, regarding trust, the analysis shows that trust in the municipal decision-making and planning was undermined in these processes, rather than built up. The local residents felt powerless and believed that the important planning decisions had already been made in advance and that their opinions were not taken into account.
We further found that public information meetings as a municipal strategy to anticipate conflicts and create dialogue with the residents hardly reached their goals. Instead, it seems to have contributed to conflict development. In contrast, the conventional formal methods of conflict resolution through formal planning procedures and legal appeals seem to have influenced the decision-making outcomes the most and resulted in resolution of the conflict in four of the five sites by taking into consideration some of the public's concerns (such as nature protection and conservation, valuable habitat).
The local policy goals for urban social sustainability in Gothenburg were originally among the main factors that motivated the municipality to choose the sites for temporary housing. However, the social sustainability goals did not play any significant role in how conflict resolution processes within the planning were shaped or how the interests and goals of the municipality were represented in arguments and discussions during the course of the conflict development. The conflict resolution procedures did not explicitly involve discussion of social sustainability components, nor were social sustainability goals given any clear priority in the decision-making processes regarding the prospective development of the suggested sites.
Hence, the components of equity, equality and social cohesion were present in the rhetoric of the municipality in the initial stages of the planning proposal but became invisible (faded) in the arguments and discussions as soon as the conflict of interests between the local citizens and the municipality blossomed up. The conflict was primarily resolved within the scope of formal planning procedures without engaging with the questions of priority of social sustainability goals for different social groups.

Discussion
This study investigated the relationship between planning and local policy for urban social sustainability in the context of conflicts of interests and goals.
We found that the goals of social sustainability were originally present early on in the planning process and were used to justify the proposed sites for the temporary housing as well as their distribution among the city districts. Remarkably, these goals were not engaged with later in the planning procedures, when the municipality had to deal with the conflict with local residents. We find that the social sustainability goals were not meaningfully incorporated into formal resolution processes, nor were they given any pronounced priority. Moreover, the goals seem to have disappeared altogether from the discourse during the conflict resolution. Specifically, the social sustainability goals that were supposed to serve the interests of the prospective immigrants (equal access to housing, reducing segregation), were not present in the arguments during the resolution processes. Instead, the discussion revolved around more technical arguments (e.g., distance to the services, infrastructure, ground quality, etc.). Even though the conflict was formally resolved for the majority of sites (intentionally or unintentionally) in favor of the local residents who opposed the construction of temporary housing, the social sustainability goals that catered to the interests of the prospective immigrants, originally present in the municipality's rhetoric, were not achieved at the majority of sites, as the construction plans were canceled in all locations but one. In other words, the goals had a clear guiding role in planning before the conflict arose but were not actively engaged with or incorporated into planning at the stage of conflict resolution. Planning procedures during conflict resolution seemed largely decoupled from the social sustainability rhetoric and goals.
This study further shows that planning and local policy goals of social sustainability are interconnected on a deeper level. Conflicts between and within policy goals affect planning in several ways, e.g., by slowing down the decision making and other formal bureaucratic processes. Most importantly, though, conflicts of goals contribute to or even trigger conflict development in practical planning implementation.
This study has identified goal conflicts both within one goal, when different social groups' interests come to clash (e.g., social cohesion for local residents vs. social cohesion for prospective immigrants), and between different goals (e.g., equal access to housing for immigrants vs. a feeling of security for the local residents). In particular, these goal conflicts affected the resolution of conflicts of interests within planning. This is not only because the social sustainability goals were poorly (if at all) incorporated into the resolution procedures within planning or were not given explicit priority in the arguments used by the municipality, but importantly also because of the frictions between and within the goals themselves. As such, it was unclear what social group's interests should be prioritized and why. It was also unclear how planning should prioritize the different goals of social sustainability in the event of conflicts.
Operationalization of some social sustainability goals by the municipality also evoked questions regarding their prospective effectiveness. For example, the goals of social in-clusion and reducing of housing segregation (central components for generating social cohesion) were used to motivate the distribution of the proposed housing sites among the city districts characterized by rather homogenous socioeconomic conditions and low numbers of immigrants. This motivation seems rather weak in light of the studies of housing, immigrants and trust of such scholars as Wollenbaek et al. [44] on challenges to community trust in ethnically diverse neighborhoods in Sweden or Bråmå [46,81] on out-migration of the middle class from Swedish cities due to e.g., ethnic and cultural mix and socioeconomic segregation that fuels mistrust. In light of the findings that these studies present, it is unclear whether social cohesion is to be expected in this attempt of desegregation, where housing for immigrants was planned in rather socioeconomically and ethnically homogenous locations.
Similar friction is identified in regard to municipal operationalization of social cohesion through housing desegregation and facilitation of trust through collaboration and participation. This was done against the backdrop of safety/security concerns expressed by local residents. This finding is interesting to position in relation to findings by Wollebaek et al. [44], who explored three different forms of social trust in 33 Swedish municipalities in a study based on quantitative data and found that "contextual factors, such as income inequality, and to an even greater extent immigrant-related diversity, are strongly and negatively related to community trust" (p. 336). They argue that community trust is a spatially bounded form of trust; it is directly connected to the people's willingness to engage in communal problem-solving in neighborhoods and municipalities and strongly related to cooperative behavior (ibid p. 323). In particular, they found that "persons who do not trust their neighbors simply do not participate in communal projects" and that local cooperation is "vulnerable to individual experience of unfairness, discrimination, crime or dysfunctional institutions" (ibid. p. 337). In our case, this risk seems applicable for both prospective immigrants and local residents. Similar findings that also highlight the connection between trust, safety/security and unrest in (ethnically) segregated neighborhoods are shown in a study by Malmberg et al. [45], where they studied segregation and urban unrest in Sweden. Similarly, Andersson [15] analyzed Swedish urban policy to break segregation in large immigrant housing estates in Sweden and argues that area-based urban policy that aimed to "break segregation" turned out ineffective. He bases this argument on the socioeconomic factors that contribute to segregation by race and ethnicity, partly related to poor integration of immigrants in the labour market and little choice in the housing market (ibid. p. 794). Taken together, the negative reaction of the local residents and the evidence from the literature suggests that it is unlikely that the planning decision to "desegregate" would immediately live up to expectation and form social cohesion.
When implementing social sustainability goals in planning, questions of priority seem closely interconnected with the strategies and practices of conflict resolution. They may motivate the choice of arguments, goals, aims and approaches to conflict resolution. When clarity is lacking about the priority status of the social sustainability goals for planning in general and for different social groups in particular (social sustainability for whom?), it becomes difficult to incorporate them into the formal planning procedures and, consequently, to use them to steer the conflict resolution process towards a more socially sustainable outcome. These difficulties mirror internal conflicts in the goals themselves, which in turn hampers the use of planning as a tool for the implementation of social sustainability.

Conclusions
The planning processes in the case of temporary housing for immigrants in Gothenburg were initially well connected to and justified by the social sustainability policy goals. However, the goals were present only in the initial stages of the planning proposal formulation and were not actively incorporated into the discussions, arguments and resolution strategies when the process became complicated because of the conflict of interests.
The implementation of social sustainability goals in planning was further hampered because of the lack of (i) clear priorities (between and within the goals) and (ii) the dis-connection of conflict resolution processes from the goals. Conflicts between and within the social sustainability goals became visible despite the lack of clarity on questions of priority. In particular, the principles of equity, equality and social cohesion that define and constitute the notion of social sustainability (as formulated in local policy) are supposed to apply to all members of and groups in society. However, this study finds that there were conflicts of interests between different social groups under the same social sustainability goals (e.g., social cohesion, the right of access to nature and recreation, the right to feel safe, the right to social participation and to engage with decisions affecting the community) that made it difficult to incorporate and implement these goals in planning, and that can be a source of planning conflict.
The study's focus on social sustainability implementation in the context of planning and conflict brought forward specific barriers that might account for the disconnect between the policy and its operationalization in practice. However, these findings should not be seen as being exhaustive. Other reasons that were not targeted in our study design may be behind the observed disconnect. For example, such reasons might include procedural and institutional barriers, behavioral and cultural barriers (see, e.g., [82] for a study of sustainability policy implementation in urban planning). Similar hinders are reported in studies that investigate barriers for sustainability policy implementation in different areas, e.g., sustainable transportation (e.g., [83,84]), natural resource management and planning [85,86], conservation (e.g., [87]) and climate change (e.g., [88]).
In the case of temporary housing in Gothenburg, we find that local policy in its current form is not fit to deal with internal conflicts between and within the social sustainability goals and issues of priorities, especially when it comes to their practical implementation. The components of equity, equality and social cohesion, as formulated in the local policy, do not seem specific enough and require further refinement to account for the complexity and dynamics of social sustainability for different social groups. Operationalization of these (insufficiently refined and prioritized) goals in planning procedures, especially in the context of conflicts, remains difficult. This seems partly to be due to the broadness of the definitions of the core components constituting the notion of urban social sustainability and the scope for interpretation built into their formulations and partly to the insufficient (or rather nonexistent) consideration of conflicts between and within goals (e.g., social sustainability for different social groups) that inevitably arise in policy implementation. These issues seem to remain a blind spot for local policy.
To conclude, a general recommendation for policy would be to better specify and operationalize the broad goals of social sustainability-equity, equality and social cohesionpaying specific attention to the context and procedures of planning and consideration (and better anticipation) of conflicts within and between the goals in a more pronounced and explicit way. The latter could be achieved, for example, through better reflection over the distribution of responsibilities and clearer guidelines on how to deal with questions of priorities if the goals are to be implemented through planning.
If planning is to become an adequate tool for the implementation of social sustainability goals (as envisioned by the UN [1]), more effort should be made to better connect planning procedures and policy goals through, e.g., more clarity in questions of priority and consideration and resolution of conflicts.