1 Introduction

Rampant and uncontrolled urbanization has deteriorated and destructed the urban heritage by threatening the identity and local culture of communities and the sense of places in the cities (UNESCO 2016). However, the cities worldwide are facing the issues such as population growth, rampant urbanization, excessive building density, standardized and monotonous modern expansions, a loss of public spaces and facilities, improper infrastructure, social isolation, urban poverty, unsustainable use of resources and climate change, to name a few. The conservation of heritage, culture and creativity in cities can help maintain and showcase their unique character, while increasing their international visibility and placing them within a global continuum (Mergos and Patsavos 2017; UNESCO 2016). Intense globalization and increasing demand for modernization have directly affected the local identity and visual integrity of the cities shaped by their distinctive culture and historical development. Moreover, culture-led regeneration strategies are useful in heritage building and engaging with local citizens to reinforce local culture and sense of pride and local identity in the community (UNESCO 2016). Urban areas are of incredible significance for the insurance of human welfare and wellbeing, the advancement of social innovativeness and cultural diversity as well as the protection and economical use of substantial and elusive cultural heritage. This makes urban conservation pivotal to protect heritage during the urban development process (Bandarin and van Oers 2012, 2014; Rogers 2017; UNESCO 2016).

Historical sites speak for effervescent part of a nation’s identity, regional diversity, and history. These are social, cultural and economic carters of a vibrant and sustainable milieu. The outstanding cultural heritage piquantly silhouettes the urban landscape and configures the mainstay for a poised and polycentric community edifice. Heritage is a hauler that transmits the bequest of tangible artefacts and intangible personae inherited from the bygone generations, conserved in the present, and bestowed for the benefit of generations to come (El Menchawy et al. 2011; Levine et al. 2005). The heritage sites can be a notable attraction for the tourists (Levine et al. 2005; Lowenthal 2005; Porter and Salazar 2005; Su et al. 2018) and can be an important source of economic activity and job creation. But, the socio-political, legal and economic forces, in pursuit of economic development and growth through progressive construction, cultivation, and expansion (Al-Houdalieh and Sauders 2009; Rogers 2017) has put the archaeological monuments, historical buildings, and landscapes on risk. A nation’s history represented in the cultural and historically built environment could be an asset for development and sustainability (Njoh 2000; Phillips and Stein 2013). But the historical landscape preservation in pursuing the economic development becomes challenging as communities could lose their unique character embedded in their heritage. Moreover, the intimidating influences of unplanned development, unremitting productivity, extensive innovation, and reckless technical progressions have farcically distorted the environment magnifying the scale of obliteration of historical buildings (Lowenthal 2005). In addition to this, rampant increase in population and urbanization have worsened the conditions, especially in larger cities, causing an increase in transport vehicles, traffic congestion, traffic jams, and increased commuting times.

This calls for comprehensive and appropriate urban planning to provide the metropolitans rapid and integrated mass-transit systems for their sustainable urban mobility (Mohan 2008). Urban mass-transit planning becomes more challenging in the city when heritage sites are concentrated in the areas with the highest population density (Al-Houdalieh and Sauders 2009) as has been the case in Lahore—the second largest metropolitan of Pakistan. The archaeological and cultural heritage of Lahore constitutes a unique component of their factual and existential quality (Leonard 1986) rooted from the Mughal era makes the protection and conservation to be factored into the decision making regarding urban restructure and development planning. Otherwise, significant cultural heritage would be on the verge of devastation thereby leading to loss of archaeological and cultural heritage resulting in permanent erase of historical reminiscences and severing conventional links with the past for the generations to come (Al-Houdalieh and Sauders 2009; Meskell 2002). The archaeological concerns need to be integrated into urban development to minimize unavoidable impacts of urban sprawl on historical and cultural heritage. Moreover, given the urban development planning very challenging and complex process, the urban planners, archaeological and heritage professional have to confront a particular troublesome dilemma posed by unabated and unregulated development in the cities with a deep and enriched history. A conflict may appear between development and heritage protection. The different players and stakeholders in development and conservation process may have conflicting positions. Consequently, this conflicting situation may result in loss of historic fabric, negative impact on community, and devastating impact on social values. Moreover, it may hamper the development process. In addition to this, prolonged heritage conservation and development conflicts may contradict the vision of culture as an indispensable component of sustainable development and heritage as powerful contributor to socio-economic development (Rogers 2017).

This puts the urban planners on cross-roads and creates a trade-off between the modernization and development contradicted to achieve social, cultural and historical landscape protection and preservation. However, intense and unchecked urban development without considering the archaeological and cultural heritage protection and preservation could lead to urbicide (Coward 2006). When it comes to the development of mass-transit facilities in historically rich megacities like Lahore, it becomes indispensable for the government to engage the urban planners, archaeologists, architects, and civil engineers in selecting the route, vertical alignments and design of the mass-transit metro lines. A comprehensive consultation and proper scientific-based study could avoid the damaging impacts of the project on cultural and archaeological heritage. The project is prone to serious conflict resulting in unwanted and unfavourable outcomes in the shapes of strikes, lawsuits, increased costs and delays (Yousefi et al. 2010a) if the government maintains the façade of inclusion in the planning process.

The present study is focused on conflict analysis and conflict management regarding the mass-transit system to be constructed in the historical cities by examining the orange line metro project, being constructed in Lahore, as a case study. The project attracted criticism from the beginning as it would affect about 26 historical buildings and sites in the city (Javed 2016; LMA 2016; The News 2016). This analysis unfolds how the government could avoid the metro-heritage conflict if it considered the other possible options of transit systems to be built on the orange line. The choice of mode of the transit system and its vertical alignment has been the source of concern for the archaeologists and the public of the metropolitan as it would damage the historical monuments on its route passing through the 200 feet protected radius around these monuments violating the protection and conservation laws. The study examines how the attitude of the focal decision maker (DM)—the government led to metro-heritage conflict as the attitude of the DM(s) significantly affects the outcomes of the conflict (Ali et al. 2018a, b; Inohara et al. 2007; Xu et al. 2017a, 2018a, b). For this analysis, the authors use attitude based on options approach in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) (Fang et al. 1993; Fraser and Hipel 1984; Xu et al. 2018a). The ranking of the states based on the attitude of the DM(s) in Inohara et al. (2007) becomes a cumbersome process if the number of states is larger. The present conflict analysis uses attitude based on options (Xu et al. 2017a, b) to rank the feasible states in the GMCR. The GMCR approach allows the modelling of the conflict in a systematic pattern with a very little information, and it provides a suitable strategy to obtain the reasonable and suitable equilibrium solution(s) (Fang et al. 1993; Fraser and Hipel 1984; Xu et al. 2018a, 2019). The present paper suggests an appropriate strategy for the urban planning conflicts especially considering the heritage issues by providing a profound and deeper insight into the evolution, emergence and possible solution(s) of the conflict.

2 Metro-heritage conflict in Lahore: background

Lahore is a historical city enriched with marvellous architectural and urbanistic heritage coupled with blooming and thriving cultural life (Leonard 1986). The second largest metropolitan of Pakistan is referred to as the “Paris of the East” and “Mughal city of gardens” in reference to splendid pieces of historical architecture and gardens. In addition to this, it is also the hub of economic activity contributing to 13.2% to national GDP being ranked 122nd largest in the world for GDP (WPR 2018). The provincial capital is the second largest city in Pakistan with the population of more than 10 million. The rampant increase in urbanization coupled with unplanned and unsustainable development has changed the cityscape and environment. The city has changed from the city of gardens to “city of concrete” (Abubakar 2016). The green areas, in the city, have continuously been paved to make roads and buildings. Lowest priority has been given to urban green belts in the city. The situation has become worse with the construction of flyovers, underpasses, and broadening of roads. The construction of elevated rapid bus also has a negative impact on the cultural and natural environment of the city.

The government planned to develop a mass-transit system to reduce the number of motor vehicles on the road, reduce traffic congestion, traffic jams and lessen commuting times. The feasibility study was carried out by the government. The initial study proposed a Rapid Mass-Transit System (RMTS) based on four lines (GoPP 2016). In the first phase of this project, the government completed a rapid busy transit system on green line. In the second phase, a feasibility study by SYSTRA (2007) suggested a metro train line to be built on orange line in the RMTS plan divided into three sections with the middle section of 7 km to be constructed underground, while the rest of the metro line was suggested to be constructed as elevated viaduct. The government updated the original feasibility study (NESPAK 2015) in 2014.

The suggested orange line of the RMTS would pass through the area where most of the cultural and archaeological buildings and sites are located. Moreover, it would be passing through almost the heart of the city and densely populated areas. The vertical alignment and design of the metro line would not have a devastating effect on the heritage if the original plan was executed (LMA 2016). But, changes in the original design and vertical alignment of the metro line would adversely affect the view and structure of 26 historical monuments and sites. The government could also consider some other alternative and feasible options of building Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system as was developed on the green line. The suggested mass-transit line would be built within the 200 feet distance of most of the cultural and archaeological sites located on its route. The government should have chosen an alternative option such as BRT. The choice of a suitable option for mass-transit could have saved the heritage of the city.

Moreover, the construction of metro involves higher cost and it is inflexible as changes in its design are not possible due to technical reasons. Furthermore, the vibrations generated by the metro train would also damage the structure and edifice of heritage buildings. Higher construction and operation costs make the construction of metro strange especially in a developing country like Pakistan. The construction of the bus transit system is relatively cheaper and technically flexible (UN-DESA 2011) to changes as it can be modified easily especially if it could damage the heritage. But the government chose the metro train to be constructed on the orange line per updated feasibility by NESPAK (2015). This led to a metro-heritage conflict. The evolution and transition of the conflict is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Metro-heritage conflict

Full size image

The public, archaeologists and other heritage campaigners showed their concern as the metro train would have a devastating impact on 26 historical and archaeological buildings and sites (listed in Table 12 of “Appendix” section) (Boone 2016; Dawn 2016; LMA 2016; Zahid 2015). Out of these 26 historical buildings and sites 11 buildings and sites would be adversely affected by the metro project (Fig. 2) (Dawn 2016; LMA 2016; The Express Tribune 2016). These monuments and sites include Shalamar Gardens, Budhu ka Awa, Chauburji, the tomb of Zeb-un-Nisa, the tomb of Baba Mauj Daria, Shah Chiragh Building, Supreme Court Registry Branch, General Post Office (GPO) Building, Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church, Aiwan-e-Auqaf, and Lakshmi Building (Dawn 2016). Shalamar Gardens has been inscribed the UNESCO World Heritage List since 1981. However, UNESCO has already included it in the list of World Heritage at risk for several years (UNESCO 2018). The OLMT project would adversely affect and worsen the condition of the Shalamar Gardens. In addition to this, all these historical buildings and sites are protected by the Antiquities Action 1975 and Punjab Special Premises Prevention Ordinance (PSPPO) 1985. The heritage campaigners and civil rights organization are not against the government or the development project initiated by the government but they raised voice for the protection of the heritage buildings and sites of the city (Hasnain 2015).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Orange line metro train and the heritage (Dawn 2016)

Full size image

The international, national and provincial protection and preservation laws forbid any kind of construction within 200 ft radius of the cultural and archaeological sites. The public and heritage campaigners (P&HC) appealed the government to modify the design and vertical alignment at least within the 200 ft protected area around these sites but government showing negative attitude stick with the plan and started construction on the metro line. The P&HC used their constitutional and legal right and opted the lawsuit. The Lahore High Court (LHC) suspended the construction of civil works on the project within the protected area around the heritage sites and directed the government to modify the metro line especially around the heritage sites. Negative attitude of the government resulted in serious conflict and is causing delays and an increase in the cost of the project. Still, the case is in the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP). The government could avoid the conflict if it would have shown the positive attitude and a right option was chosen so that the valuable and splendid heritage of the city could be saved from damage. The government could assign some archaeologists, architects and civil engineers to redesign the metro line (Javed 2016).

3 Attitude-based conflict analysis based on options under the GMCR

The GMCR is a prime approach to conflict analysis that is applicable in a wide range of areas to resolve real-life conflicts. It is based on the classical game theory (Von Neumann and Morgenstern 1944) but needs very little information as compared with the game theory models (Fang et al. 1993; Xu et al. 2017a, b, 2018a). Recently, it is a widely used conflict analysis approach in areas of brownfield remediation (Ali et al. 2017), environmental issues (Hipel et al. 1997), construction disputes (Yousefi et al. 2010b), strategic conflicts (Ali et al. 2018b; Inohara et al. 2007), regional infrastructure disputes (Ahmed et al. 2018), and energy-environment policy conflicts (Ali et al. 2018a), to name a few. The detailed introduction of the methodology is presented in the following subsections.

3.1 The graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR)

Given, N decision makers (DMs), |N| ≥2, the set of the focal decision making situation S, |S| ≥2, the GMCR (Fang et al. 1993; Hipel et al. 1997; Xu et al. 2018a) is a 4-tuple [N, S, (Ai)iϵN, \(\left( {{ \succcurlyeq }_{i} } \right)_{i \in N} ]\) for conflict resolution. Here, i ϵ N, (S, Ai) is DM i’s graph with set of all vertices S and arcs, \(A_{i} \subseteq S \times S\), respectively. (S, Ai) is assumed to be a directed graph with no multiple arcs, that is, \(x \in S\), \(\left( {x, y} \right) \notin A_{i}\) and there at most one arc between two vertices. Furthermore, for \(x,y \in S\), \(\left( {x,y} \right) \in A_{i}\) means DM i could shift from state x to state y implying that the DM i, for \(i \in N\) and \(x \in S\), has the reachable list from state x denoted by \(R_{i} \left( x \right) = \{ y \in S|\left( {x,y} \right) \in A_{i} \}\). \({ \succcurlyeq }_{i}\) indicates the DM i’s \((i \in N)\) preference on S. The state x is preferred or equally preferred to state y for DM i,\(x, y \in S\), denoted by \(x\,{ \succcurlyeq }_{i}\, y\). However, \(\succ_{i}\) is symmetric if \(x \succ_{i} y\) when \(y \succ_{i} x\) is not true. The preference ~ is reflexive. The preference \(( \succ , \sim )\), for all \(x, y \in S\), is complete.

3.2 Attitude-based option statements

Owing to the fact that the attitude of DM towards herself and for other DM(s) in a conflict affects the possible equilibria outcomes (Inohara et al. 2007; Inohara and Hipel 2009) present metro-heritage conflict has been analysed using attitude base-on-options (Xu et al. 2017, b) in the GMCR approach. The DM i may have a positive, negative or neutral attitude towards DM j in conflict with \(i, j \in N\) DMs. The attitude of DM i is \(e_{ij} = \left( {e_{ij} } \right)_{j \in N}\) to DM j, where \(e_{ij} \in \left\{ { + , 0, - } \right\}\) for \(i \in N\) (Inohara and Hipel 2009). In N-DMs conflict, each DM has some options. The option statement and preference(s) of DM i, respectively, may be symbolized as li (i  = 1, 2, …, n) and pi (i  = 1, 2, …, n). As per DM i’s attitude towards DM j, there would be three attitude-based option statements. Having the negative attitude of DM i towards DM j (eij = −), the options statement of DM i would be Pi (eij = −) = − Pj. If the DM i has positive attitude towards DM j (eij = +), her option statement would be Pi (eij = +) =  Pj. The neutral attitude of DM i towards her opponent (eij =  0) would accrue to option statement Pi (eij = 0) =  I (Xu et al. 2017b).

3.3 Attitude-based preference

Given the attitude-based option statement, the attitude-based preference of the DM i (Tij) can be accomplished. For \(i \in N\) and \(x, y \in S\), \(T_{ij}\) is \(y \in T_{ij} \left( x \right)\) if \(y \succ_{i} x\). The total attitude preference of DM i for \(i \in N\) and \(x, y \in S\) would be \(y \in T_{i}^{ + } \left( x \right)\) if \(y \in T_{ij} \left( x \right)\) for all \(j \in N\). Moreover, the set of less preferred or equally preferred states at total attitude for DM i\((i \in N)\) would be \(y \in T_{i}^{ - = } \left( x \right)\), for all \(x, y \in S\), if \(y \notin T_{i}^{ + } \left( x \right)\). By definition \(T_{i}^{ - = } \left( x \right)\) is the supplementary set of \(T_{i}^{ + } \left( x \right)\). The conflict analysis proceeds further to identify the reachable list(s) and unilateral improvement list(s) for the DMs in the conflict after having feasible states in the conflict. The attitude-based unilateral improvement list for DM i would be \(y \in T_{i}^{*} \left( x \right)\) for \(i \in N\) and \(x, y \in S\) if \(y \in R_{i} \left( x \right)\) and \(y \in T_{i}^{ + } \left( x \right)\) (Xu et al. 2017b).

3.4 Attitude-based (relational) stability definitions used in the GMCR

Since the DMs long for the preferred position(s) in a conflict (Hipel et al. 2007) so next step, in the conflict analysis, is stability analysis after distinguishing the option statements of the DMs. Given the GMCR model [N, S, (Ai)iϵN, \(\left( {{ \succcurlyeq }_{i} } \right)_{i \in N} ]\), stability definitions Nash stability (Nash 1950, 1951) general metarationality (GMR) (Howard 1971), symmetric metarationality (SMR) (Howard 1971) and sequential stability (SEQ) (Fraser and Hipel 1979, 1984) are most commonly used stability concepts to find out possible solution(s) of the conflict. The stability definitions are as under:

Definition 1

Relational Nash Stability (RNASH); For \(i, j \in N\) and \(x, y \in S\), a state is RNASH for DM i, \(x \in S_{i}^{\text{RNASH}}\), if \(T_{i}^{*} = \phi\) (Xu et al. 2017b). It implies that if there is no unilateral improvement from state x for DM i, then this state is RNASH for DM i.

Definition 2

Relational General Metrationality (RGMR); For \(i, j \in N\) and \(x, y \in S\), a state is RGMR for DM i, \(x \in S_{i}^{\text{RGMR}}\), if for all \(y \in T_{i}^{*} \left( x \right)\), and \(R_{j} \left( y \right) \cap T_{i}^{ - = } \ne \phi\) (Xu et al. 2017b). If there is no unilateral improvement from the state x for the DM i, at an attitude, if the opponent DM j could countermove from the state y whether it is beneficial for herself or not.

Definition 3

Relational Symmetric Metrationality (RSMR); A state x is RSMR for DM i, \(x \in S_{i}^{\text{RSMR}}\), with \(y \in T_{i}^{*} \left( x \right)\) there exist \(z \in R_{j} \left( y \right) \cap T_{i}^{ - = } \left( x \right)\) and \(s \in T_{i}^{ - = } \left( x \right)\) for all \(s \in R_{i} \left( z \right)\) (Xu et al. 2017b). It implies that if DM i cannot escape from the sanction(s) on his unilateral improvement move from x by her opponent then DM i would stay at initial state x. This would make state x RSMR.

Definition 4

Relational Sequential Stability (RSEQ); The state x would be RSEQ for DM i, \(x \in S_{i}^{\text{RSEQ}} ,\) if for all \(y \in T_{i}^{*} \left( x \right)\), there exist \(T_{j}^{*} \left( y \right) \cap T_{i}^{ - = } \left( x \right) \ne \phi\) (Xu et al. 2017b). Here, the RSEQ is same as RGMR except that DM i takes into account her own benefit at time of sanction by the opponent DM.

A state is stable for a DM if it is not beneficial for her to move from that state under a certain stability concept. Moreover, a state that is stable for all the DMs in a conflict is confirmed as equilibrium state under a certain stability definition(s) (Fang et al. 1993; Xu et al. 2018a).

4 Decision analysis of the metro-heritage conflict based on attitude preferences

4.1 Decision makers in the conflict

The provincial government planned to construct the orange line metro under the LRMT project in the provincial capital. The government had the option to construct the orange line metro per original plane recommended in SYSTRA (2007). But it was decided to construct it with the redesigned alignment proposed in PC-I in NESPAK (2015). But the later revised design has been believed to adversely affect the historical heritage located on the suggested route of the metro line (LMA 2016). The project attracted criticism from its start as it was going to change the heritage-scape of the city for good. Heritage experts, archaeologists, civil society activists, and citizens of the city appealed the government to reconsider the project. It became an organized campaign named “Lahore Bachao Tehreek (Save Lahore Movement)”. The movement was not against the government rather it was against the metro project that was believed to put the heritage and cultural identity of the city on verge of devastation (Hasnain 2015).

Heritage campaigners also wrote a letter to the UNESCO to draw its attention to the consequence of the metro project in the historical city. The representative/Director of UNESCO in Pakistan wrote letters to the Chief Secretary Punjab, and the Director of the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO, in a letter to the Ambassador of Pakistan to UNESCO, also expressed their concerns regarding state of conservation of Shalamar Gardens due to urban development project in Lahore (LMA 2015; UNESCO 2015).Footnote 1 However, UNESCO is not the direct decision maker in the metro-heritage conflict. The government decided to construct the metro line with the elevated alignment, the public of the metropolitan and heritage campaigners has the option to the appeal the government to reconsider the design and options to construct the mass-transit line endangering the historical cityscape. The heritage campaigners opt the litigation to stop the construction of the project. So, in this way, the public and heritage campaigners become important stakeholders and decision makers in the metro-heritage conflict. The options available to the DMs are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 The option of DMs at first level of the conflict
Full size table

If the plan was to solve the problem of traffic congestion in the metropolitan, the government has other practical and possible options to construct the BRT system. Being a developing country characterized by limited financial resources to finance the development of a mass-transit project, busway is a suitable choice. A small initial expenditure is required to construct busways even though the operational cost is a little higher. In contrast, metro line projects require inordinate initial outlays and have substantial operational cost as well (Fox 2000). The best supporting argument for the busways is that it is acceptable politically. However, the development of the metro has some challenges, costs, and risks associated with it. Corridor size, city income, city management need to be considered. Moreover, metro requires robust and autonomous management system to make its proper functioning. The development of the BRT system is a very suitable choice as it has the capacity of peak passenger flows of passengers per hour per direction which generally regarded as “metro-level” capacity with suitable and proper planning and with moderate cost (UN-DESA 2011). So, it would be the more suitable choice for the Punjab government to construct the BRT system.

Moreover, even if the Government chose to construct BRT with elevated alignment it was easy and technically more feasible and appropriate to change the design of alignment within the 200 ft radius of the historical buildings on the route. The Government has already constructed completed the elevated BRT on 27-km Green line from Gajju Mata to Shahdra in the phase-I of the LRMT (GoPP 2016).

4.2 Feasible states, reachable list and option statements of the conflict

After having two decision makers; GPP and P&HC with 5 and 2 decision makers, respectively, mathematically there are 27 = 128 possible states in the conflict. Most of the states are infeasible because the options are mutually exclusive (See Fig. 3). Furthermore, the states NNNNN—are also infeasible as there is no reason for appeal and/or litigation if the government has no plan to develop a mass-transit system. However, the authors rest with the 14 feasible and viable states (Table 2) named as S1, S2, …, S14.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Mutually exclusive options

Full size image
Table 2 Feasible states
Full size table

The option statements of each DM are summarized in Table 3. The negative sign with the option(s) shows that the option is not favorable to respective DM. The preference of the DMs for the options available to them yield to option statements in Table 4. As the current government, has been pursuing the policy of “concrete” development, the second phase of the metro line has been chosen to be built elevated. So, option 1 is the most preferable for the GPP. But the government does not want the public, archaeologists and heritage campaigners to appeal and/or any legal action against the project. In contrast, the public and heritage campaigners are not against the development of the mass-transit system in the city but not at the cost of the historical and cultural heritage of the city. The P&HC prefers the BRT system rather than elevated orange line metro affecting the view and/or structure of the historical building on its route (Table 4).

Table 3 Option statements
Full size table
Table 4 Attitude option statements with negative attitude based on options
Full size table

4.3 Stability analysis based on negative attitude

4.3.1 Case-I: attitude-based option statements, attitude preference and total attitude preference (negative attitude)

The present analysis models the metro-heritage conflict in two ways; (1) negative attitude of the GPP towards P&HC, (2) positive attitude of GPP towards P&HC. In the case-I, it is assumed that GPP has a positive attitude for herself (\(e_{\text{GPP,GPP}} = +\)) but negative attitude for P&HC (\(e_{{{\text{GPP,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}} = -\)) given the attitude of P&HC, \(e_{{{\text{P}}\& {\text{HC,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}} = +\). Attitude-based option statements are given in Table 4.

Table 5 recapitulates the attitude preference(s) of the DMs on the attitude-based option statements in Table 4. Since the GPP has the attitude \(e_{\text{GPP,GPP}} = +\) and \(e_{{{\text{GPP,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}} = -\) given attitude of P&HC, \(e_{{{\text{GPP,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}} = +\), so the attitude preference of the DM GPP (\(T_{{{\text{GPP,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}}\)) is inverse of the \(T_{{{\text{P}}\& {\text{HCC,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}}\) as \(P_{\text{GPP}} \left( {e_{{{\text{GPP,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}} = - } \right) = - P_{{{\text{P}}\& {\text{HC}}}}\). When it comes to DM P&HC, she has been supposed to have neutral attitude for GPP (\(e_{{{\text{P}}\& {\text{HC,GPP}}}} = 0\)) and positive for herself (\(e_{{{\text{P}}\& {\text{HC,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}} = +\)). So, the \(T_{{{\text{P}}\& {\text{HC,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}}\) would be same as \(S4 > S3 > S8 > S7 > S2 > S1 > S6 > S5 > S14 > S13 > S12 > S11 > S10 > S9.\)

Table 5 Attitude preference with negative attitude based on options
Full size table

Based on the attitude preference of the DMs in Table 5, total attitude preferences can be obtained. Decision maker having a negative attitude towards her opponent in a certain conflict has the aggressive attitude for other DM in the conflict. Table 6 contains the total attitude preference(s) of the DMs in the case-I of this conflict.

Table 6 Total attitude preference with negative attitude based on options
Full size table

4.3.2 Stability of attitude analysis (negative attitude)

Having the set of DMs {GPP, P&HC}, the set of feasible states {S1, S2, …, S14}, and total attitude preference of the DMs (TGPP and TP&HC), the conflict analysis leads to stability analysis. Results are displayed in Table 7. In Table 7, “*” and “♠” show the stability of the state and equilibria, respectively, under respective stability concept(s). The state S12 is concluded to be the equilibrium of the conflict while considering the aggressive attitude of the DM GPP towards DM P&HC. The State S12 (YNNNNYY) satisfies all the stability definitions. This implies that if showing the aggressive preference P&HC, DM GPP chooses to construct the metro line elevated it would damage the historical-cultural landscape of the city. The public and heritage campaigners would appeal to the provincial and federal government, and international organizations to stop the government to proceed further until the appropriate measures are taken to save the historic fabric of the metropolitan. However, if the government continues the project, the public and heritage campaigners have the right to pursue a legal petition against the project under the provincial, national and international protection and conservation laws.

Table 7 Stability of attitude-based analysis (negative attitude)
Full size table

4.4 Case-II: stability analysis based on positive attitude

4.4.1 Attitude option statement, attitude preference and total attitude preference (positive attitude)

After having the state S12 as an equilibrium of the metro-heritage conflict when DM GPP has a positive attitude for herself but a negative attitude towards DM P&HC, the researchers proceeded further to consider the change in the attitude of the DM GPP negative to positive for P&HC. The researchers proceed further to analyse the conflict with a positive attitude of DM GPP towards other DM as the change in attitude could have a significant impact on the outcomes and could possibly provide multiple feasible equilibria of the conflict. Table 8 exhibits the attitude preference of the DMs with attitude \(e_{\text{GPP,GPP}} = + ,\)\(e_{{{\text{GPP,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}} = + , e_{{{\text{P}}\& {\text{HC,GPP}}}} = 0\), and \(e_{{{\text{P}}\& {\text{HC,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}} = +\).

Table 8 Attitude option statements at first level (positive attitude)
Full size table

The attitude preference of the DM(s) changes with the change in the attitude. The attitude preference of the DMs after changing the attitude of the DM GPP towards P&HC from negative to positive based on attitude option statements in Table 8 are summarized in Table 9. Given the attitude \(e_{\text{GPP,GPP}} = + , e_{{{\text{GPP,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}} = +\), the attitude preference of DM GPP (TGPP, P&HC) becomes \(P_{{{\text{GPP, P}}\& {\text{HC}}}} \left( {e_{{{\text{GPP, P}}\& {\text{HC}}}} = + } \right) = P_{{{\text{P}}\& {\text{HC,P}}\& {\text{HC}}}}\). Since there is no change supposed in the DM P&HC’s attitude so her total attitude preference is unchanged.

Table 9 Attitude preference with positive attitude based on options
Full size table

The change in any DM’s attitude changes the total attitude preference and thereby changes the total attitude preference of the DM(s) changing attitude. Now the DM GPP is supposed to have devoting preference. The total attitude preference of the DM GPP having devoting preference towards DM P&HC is detailed in Table 10.

Table 10 Total attitude preference with positive attitude based on options
Full size table

4.4.2 Stability of attitude analysis with positive attitude based on options

Case-II, in the present analysis, considers the change in the attitude of the DM GPP towards DM P&HC and assesses its impact on the stability of the states and practical and reasonable equilibria state(s). The change of DM GPP’s attitude from negative to positive provides with multiple reasonable and practical strategies as solutions to the metro-heritage conflict. The results of relational stability are results given in Table 11 which reveal S2, S4, S6, S8, S12, and S14 equilibria of the conflict. These states are stable for both DMs under all stability solution concepts considered in the present analyses. The S2 (NNNNYYN) implies the strategy for the government to develop a BRT system along the orange line in Lahore. In the meantime, the public and heritage campaigners would appeal to the government to ensure the protection and conservation of the protected historical buildings. The strategy S4 (NNNYNYN) could be one of the choices to be developed in the city as BRT system is a very suitable choice having the capacity of peak passenger flows of passengers per hour per direction which generally regarded as “metro-level” capacity with suitable and proper planning and with moderate cost (UN-DESA 2011). So, it would be a more suitable choice for the Punjab government to construct BRT system as it has been constructed and functioning in other cities in the world such built in Guangzhou, China (UN-DESA 2011), Curitiba and Porto Alegre (Brazil), and Quito (Ecuador) (Fox 2000), to name a few.

Table 11 Stability of attitude analysis with positive attitude based on options
Full size table

The S6 (NNYNNYN) is another strategy to revise the orange line metro alignment within the 200 ft radius of the historical monuments and the heritage campaigners demand the protection and conservation of the historical monuments. The government had another alternative suitable strategy S8 (NYNNNYN) to develop a mass-transit system along the orange line to construct the metro train line but with the vertical alignment suggested in the original plan of the project. The equilibrium state S12 (YNNNNYY) is the same equilibrium as it was in the Case-I of the conflict while the government was considered to have an aggressive preference towards heritage campaigners. The state S14 (YNYNNYN) means if the government chose to construct metro line elevated, she should reconsider its design with minor changes within the 200 ft radius of the historical monuments in the city. At the same time, the public and heritage campaigners would appeal the government to ensure indispensable measures to protect and conserve the heritage properties in the city.

5 Conclusion and discussion

Heritage conservation and protection during the development process is a very challenging task. In historical cities, conflicts arise if the built heritage is overlooked in the implementation of urban development projects. Some historical structure may be of outstanding universal value in world heritage. This status is not a minor issue in heritage management and should not be neglected in any considerations to decision making. Similarly, the choice of mode of mass-transit system in historical cities, route selection and alignment become pivotal if the cities with historical buildings and sites. The behaviour of focal decision makers just as the government whether national, provincial or local during the urban development project is of fundamental importance. The negative attitude driven behaviour of the focal decision maker may be conflicting with existing protection and conservation laws. In turn, this contradiction between the development objectives and heritage conservation may intensify the conflict hampering the development process. This happened in the historical city Lahore, when the government started construction of the orange line metro project. The present study focused on the resolution of the OLMT conflict using attitude-based strategy.

Attitude-based analysis of the metro-heritage conflict divulges that positive attitude of the government could have elucidated multiple plausible alternatives to avoid the conflict. The present study shows that the negative attitude of the government during the planning process of the metro lead to a serious conflict. However, if the government showed a positive attitude towards cultural and historical heritage, it could open the avenues of multiple reasonable options to build mass-transit system on orange line without any conflict and increase in cost and delays. The most important prerequisite for any development project is its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). But when it comes to the development in historical cities, the EIA may not fulfil the prerequisites. In this case, Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) (ICOMOS 2011; UNESCO 2016) can be a helpful tool to provide understand the potential effects of human actions on the cultural and heritage environment (Rogers 2017). As the HUL approach (UNESCO 2016) stresses the need for the impact or vulnerability assessment of the project on the heritage, the government needed to ensure the HIA of the metro project. Moreover, community engagement in the planning process could be fruitful in the sustainable planning and development. This implies that collaborative and bottom-up approach to urban planning would be suitable for the timely and efficient implementation of urban development projects.

If the objective of the government was to develop a mass-transit system to deal with the emerging problem of traffic congestion, avoiding traffic jams, lessening the commute times and somehow eliminate the pollutants, the solution could have been resolved by developing a BRT system with appropriate alignment. This objective could be achieved with low cost and without affecting the heritage in the metropolitan. A BRT system with elevated alignment, as developed on the green line in Lahore, was also a doable and viable option. Such changes in the alignment, within allowable safe limits of 200 feet from the historical monument, is technically feasible even if the elevated BRT design would have opted. Moreover, the impacts of vibrations would have been less than that would have been generated by a metro train. However, the government chose to construct a metro line with the elevated alignment. The heritage issue could have been avoided if the government had shown a positive attitude towards the historical cityscape by modifying the alignment and design of the metro train line (minor revision) within the prescribed guidelines of protected area around the historical monuments.

Moreover, the urban planning process needed cooperation and collaboration between the different departments of the government. Planning and development, transport, environment, archaeology, Lahore Development Authority and other relevant departments of the government need to be autonomous in their functioning. In this way, their decisions and actions may not be affected by political motives of the government and ruling party. However, there is a dire need of capacity building and strengthening of these departments to cope with the complex challenges not only in the present but also for the future. Furthermore, a pragmatic and appropriate policy is required for the protection of cultural and archaeological heritage. The archaeological concerns need to be considered and need to be integrated not only into general urban structuring and development but also in individual construction projects to minimize the inescapable impacts of urbanization on buildings and sites of cultural and historical importance at international, national and local levels.

The present study focused on the analysis of metro-heritage sustainability conflict considering the attitude of individual decision makers. The results of this study may not be limited to metro-heritage conflicts as attitude of decision maker(s) may be of critical importance in any decision making process. However, in real-world conflicts, the decision makers may interact in coalitions. The conflict analysis considering the attitude of the DMs in coalitions can be insightful to understand the decision making behaviour. In real-life conflicts, the power asymmetry of decision makers may also affect the course of a conflict. Power asymmetry of the DMs can also affect the attitudes and preferences of the DMs. Power-asymmetric conflict analysis may be another area of research that may provide more deeper insight into the decision making behaviour especially in the sustainable development process.