Coexisting when living next door: The agreements neighbors make in mediation

• Published date: 01 March 2021
• Author: Lin Adrian,Solfrid Mykland Fjell
• Date: 01 March 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21297

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Coexisting when living next door: The

agreements neighbors make in mediation

Lin Adrian

1

| Solfrid Mykland Fjell

2

1

University of Copenhagen, Faculty of

Law, Copenhagen S, Denmark

2

Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies of

Law, Nord- og Midhordland jordskifterett

Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Correspondence

Lin Adrian, University of Copenhagen,

Faculty of Law, Karen Blixens Plads

16, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark.

Email: lin.adrian@jur.ku.dk

Abstract

How do neighbors reconcile their differences in medi-

ated agreements? Based on a content analysis of agree-

ments from a mediation project in housing

associations, our study outlines the characteristics of

mediated agreements in conflicts between neighbors in

rented apartments. This study demonstrates how

neighbors pursue neutral coexistence by taking steps to

regulate their future behavior and communication and

to manage future conflicts. We suggest that the agree-

ments can be labeled interaction agreements and that

these are conceptually different from other types of

agreements. Our analysis also points to the inherent

risk of mediation contributing to an individualization

of structural and collective problems.

1|INTRODUCTION

Every day, neighbors around the globe try to resolve conflicts through mediation. We know that

mediation in this setting has high rates of resolution and overall satisfaction (Charkoudian &

Billick, 2015; Simmonds, 2001), as does mediation in other settings (Wall & Dunne, 2012). How-

ever, we know very little about the content and characteristics of agreements in neighbor dis-

putes. As relations between neighbors are ongoing, it is interesting to explore if and how the

agreements are used as a tool for managing their relationship. What issues do they address, and

what is left out? Do they explicitly promote relationships? Do they solve conflict on an individ-

ual or a structural level? Are they formal or informal? In this article, we answer these and other

questions through a content analysis of agreements reached in a mediation project for neigh-

bors in nonprofit, rented accommodations in Denmark. The written agreements provide us with

rich data and give a rare view into the otherwise hidden details of this type of mediated out-

comes. Our research questions are: (a) What characterizes agreements reached during media-

tion of neighbor disputes? and (b) How can agreements in this setting be conceptually labeled?

Received: 1 October 2019 Revised: 29 January 2021 Accepted: 2 February 2021

DOI: 10.1002/crq.21297

Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 2021;38:157–174. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crq © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC 157

The overall purpose of this study is to contribute both to mediation theory and to the develop-

ment of mediation practice, specifically related to the different aspects of developing and

crafting mediated agreements.

2|LITERATURE REVIEW

Neighbors fight over multiple issues (Cheshire & Buglar, 2016; Michaux, Groenen, &

Uzieblo, 2017; Scott & Parkey, 1998; Stokoe & Hepburn, 2005). Their disputes are situated in a

setting of norms and often arise from breaching boundaries and unwanted exposure to others'

intimate lives (Merry & Silbey, 1984; Stokoe, 2006). Solving neighbor conflict through media-

tion and other forms of alternative dispute resolution provides society with a means of applying

conflict resolution to disputes that often would not be resolved in the traditional legal system as

it seems, to many, unfit for minor offenses and due to high transactions cost (DeDino, 2002).

Although often minor when seen from a bystander's perspective, disputes between neighbors

inflict human and social cost. Several studies show how neighbor conflicts can develop into a

daily nuisance for those involved and cause reduced cohesion in local communities

(Christensen, 2006; Ja

skiewicz & Wiwatowska, 2018).

In general, mediation seems to be a useful intervention for neighbors in conflict

(Hedeen, 2004; Peper & Spierings, 1999). Ufkes, Giebels, Otten, and van der Zee (2012) find that

even stand-alone intake sessions with neighbors can be beneficial. Reports on community medi-

ation, which most often include neighbor disputes, find high rates of resolution, high rates of

participant-reported sense of fairness, and general satisfaction with the process and outcome

(Charkoudian & Billick, 2015; Hedeen, 2004). This corresponds with findings from the media-

tion field at large (Lawrence, Nugent, & Scarfone, 2007; Wall & Dunne, 2012).

Commentators often herald the positive effect of mediation on the party relationship. How-

ever, empirical data supporting this assertion is limited, and results from studies that include the

relationship aspect have mixed results. For example, Golann (2002) found relationship improve-

ment in less than 20% of the civil cases he studied; Adrian and Mykland (2018) found improve-

ment in about 10% of cases in court-connected mediation; and in a study of malpractice

mediation, Relis (2009) found relationship repair in a minority of the cases. In community media-

tion, Pincock (2013) found that the process rarely had positive lasting effects on the parties' rela-

tionships. Charkoudian, Eisenberg, and Walter (2017), on the other hand, report that participants

in small claims mediation are more likely to report improved relationships in the long run than

those who went to trial, which some studies on family mediation report as well (Kelly, 2004).

Tallodi (2019) has recently conducted a comprehensive literature review on mediation's effect on

the relationship between parties in peer, community, family, civil, and workplace mediation,

which demonstrates how studies to date are inconclusiveand that further research is needed.

Structural issues have also been found to play a role when it comes to conflict between

neighbors. Structural conditions shaped by architecture, local facilities, urban policies, and resi-

dent capacities can create great tension. In Koch's (2018) fieldwork, she found that housing

associations did not always listen to tenants and could easily have ameliorated nuisances by

thickening walls, for example, but chose not to. As a result, Koch (2018) argues that individuals

become responsible for structural and redistributable issues. Likewise, Neves (2009) argues that

the practice of how to solve conflicts in neighborhoods is often limited to dialog between those

directly involved, leaving out societal and structural elements, but that mediation holds the

potential for more profound change. This resonates with community mediation advocates and

158 ADRIAN AND FJELL