Managing Environmental Conflict

CHAPTER FIFTY-FIVE

Managing Environmental Conﬂ ict

Joshua Fisher

irtually all communities in the world experience occasional tensions

over ecological issues like land use, environmental quality, water

allocation, waste disposal, and natural resource management, among

others (Dukes, 2004). In these conﬂ icts, environmental factors play a sig-

niﬁ cant role as either direct causes of conﬂ ict or as primary drivers of it.

Environmental conﬂ icts come in many forms, from interest-based competi-

tion over scarce or valuable natural resources, to value-based conﬂ icts over

incompatible perceptions of place, space, and our relationship with the natu-

ral world. These conﬂ icts can also be needs based, such as conﬂ icts involving

the environmental drivers of health, security, and identity.

Despite the variety of issues that environmental conﬂ icts encompass,

they share certain common characteristics that present signiﬁ cant chal-

lenges to conﬂ ict resolution and require dynamic strategies for conﬂ ict

management. Among these characteristics are social and ecological com-

plexity, scientiﬁ c uncertainty, and complicated legal and procedural frame-

works for environmental decision making (Copple, 2011). In response to

the challenges of managing this complexity, a body of theory and practice

called environmental conﬂ ict resolution (ECR) has gained momentum over

the past two decades as it seeks to ﬁ nd avenues and create tools to manage

private, public, and international disputes. ECR techniques and the body

of literature that underpins them offer important lessons for practitioners

seeking to intervene in environmental conﬂ icts.

This chapter explores the characteristics of environmental conﬂ icts, dis-

cussing the challenges that they hold for conﬂ ict resolution. That discussion is

followed by a review of trends in environmental conﬂ ict resolution research.

Particular emphasis is placed on discussing methods and tools for overcom-

ing the challenges that environmental conﬂ icts pose, metrics capable of eval-

uating success in environmental conﬂ ict resolution, and the skills and tools

that practitioners need to intervene effectively in environmental conﬂ icts.

The ﬁ nal section discusses implications for practice consisting of six recom-

mendations for practitioners tasked with managing environmental conﬂ icts.

THE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

CHARACTERISTICS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT

A distinction should be made at the outset between environmental con-

ﬂ icts and conﬂ icts with environmental drivers . The former are conﬂ icts in

which environmental issues or the impacts of environmental factors serve

as direct causes or primary sources of conﬂ ict. For example, tensions sur-

rounding the construction of dams and highways in the Brazilian Amazon

have many drivers, including indigenous rights, economic development,

and regional and global political factors. However, these drivers all center

on land use choices and their implications on various interested parties. It

is this centering on or revolving around an environmental issue (or set of

issues) that makes these environmental conﬂ icts.

In contrast, conﬂ icts where environmental factors contribute to larger

conﬂ ict dynamics but are not themselves the primary issues in the conﬂ ict

are considered conﬂ icts with environmental drivers. For instance, the role

of diamonds in funding armed insurgency in several African states has

been documented extensively (Olsson, 2007). However calling civil unrest

in Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia, or the Democratic Republic of Congo

environmental conﬂ icts would be a gross mischaracterization. Rather,

a lootable resource in those cases served as an indirect conﬂ ict driver by

incentivizing and funding insurgency in wider conﬂ icts over governance

and political power. Thus, for the purposes here, discussion of environmen-

tal conﬂ icts refers to conﬂ icts where the primary sources or drivers of con-

ﬂ ict are divergence of values, preferences, or desirable outcomes resulting

from some environmental factor or resource (Balint, Stewart, Desai, and

Walters, 2011), and not larger conﬂ icts where environmental factors are

indirect drivers of conﬂ ict processes and behaviors.

At their core, environmental conﬂ icts are incompatibilities in the inter-

ests, needs, positions, or objectives of various social actors concerning envi-

ronmental issues (Redpath et al., 2012). These conﬂ icts can emerge between

competing users of a particular resource or parcel of land, between groups

that seek to use a resource and groups that seek to preserve the resource,

between decision makers and resource users, and between decision mak-

ers across a range of coinciding jurisdictions (Elias, 2008; Nie, 2003). In

addition, environmental conﬂ icts can be driven by the effects that changes

in environmental quality, resource availability, or environmental access

have on speciﬁ c individuals, groups, or communities. For example, changes

in rainfall in either micro- or macroclimatic scales may alter water avail-

ability and food production systems, requiring the renegotiation of social

structures and relationships in the affected areas (Scheffran, Brzoska,

Brauch, Link, and Schilling, 2012; Hsiang, Meng, and Cane, 2011).

MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT

The deﬁ nition of environmental conﬂ ict that I have offered provides an

umbrella under which a wide variety of conﬂ ict processes, patterns, and

behaviors resides. The potential spectrum of conﬂ ict processes ranges

from latent value differences, to policy debates, to large-scale violent con-

frontations. As in most other types of conﬂ ict, environmental conﬂ icts are

dynamic, undergoing ebbs and ﬂ ows in intensity and cycling through peri-

ods of escalation, deescalation, stalemate, and paciﬁ cation. This dynamism,

coupled with a wide array of potential environmental issues at play, makes

the notion of environmental conﬂ icts seem amorphous at best. However,

these conﬂ icts typically share a number of common characteristics that

help to unify them into a coherent class of problems.

The following sections discuss the common characteristics of environ-

mental conﬂ ict and the methods that have been developed to manage the

inherent social and ecological complexity that they involve. Just as in other

categories of conﬂ ict, every environmental conﬂ ict has a unique set of

stakeholders, issues, and drivers, and there will thus be varying degrees of

complexity in the following characteristics. Despite that individual nuance,

these conﬂ icts are uniﬁ ed around the themes discussed below.

Ecological Complexity

As Wittmer, Rauschmayer, and Klauer observe, “A central feature of envi-

ronmental conﬂ icts is the complexity of the ecological system which is the

natural base of conﬂ icts” (2006, p. 1). This natural base and the constituent

pieces that comprise it do not exist in isolation but are integral components

of ecosystems at the micro, landscape, and global scales. The individual

pieces are woven together in a web of trophic relationships—the ﬂ ow of

energy and matter through a system—that deﬁ nes ecosystem functions.

When part of that web is altered, those changes ripple through the trophic

structure of the system in complicated ways that produce cascading impacts

across interconnected elements and subsystems. Thus, changes to a single

system component, whether naturally occurring or human caused, will

have both predictable and unpredictable effects on the wider system. Each

of those effects will in turn produce a new set of impacts that ripple across

interconnected system components. This cascade of impacts and effects

makes it incredibly diﬃ cult to understand, let alone predict, the systemic

impact of a single event, action, or change. Ecosystems are thus dynamic

biophysical environments that are constantly adjusting to ﬂ uctuations

across a network of interconnected and interdependent constituent parts.

Humans are not separate from these systems; they are directly and inex-

orably tied to them. The trophic relationships and constant ﬂ uctuations and

adaptations across a system produce the natural goods and ecosystem ser-

THE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

vices that sustain and fulﬁ ll human life (Constanza, d ’Arge, deGroot, et al.,

1997; Daily, 1997). In addition, individuals and groups form components and

subsystems of the larger social-ecological system (Gallopin, 2006), contributing

to ecosystem structure and functioning in unique and dynamic ways. Human

action in and interaction with other components in the system have the same

sort of cascading effect across the ecosystem as other biological and geophysi-

cal changes. Humans and social groups, as part of the system, are affected

by changes in environmental factors and must respond and adapt to new

dynamics by renegotiating social relationships in and with the natural world.

This environmental and social complexity can present signiﬁ cant chal-

lenges for resolving environmental conﬂ icts when they arise. Due to the

dynamic and adaptive nature of social-ecological systems, any management

action taken to address the drivers of conﬂ ict or more sustainably govern

a resource will instantiate other changes across the system, with the poten-

tial for creating, renewing, or escalating tension among affected actors.

The dispersion of impacts across a system can also create new conﬂ icts or

ignite previously latent conﬂ icts. For instance, establishing a national park

or conservation area often results in changes to permissible land uses inside

the protected area boundary. This can displace previous land users such as

subsistence-based agricultural households and shift the spatial concentration

of agriculture onto adjacent nonprotected land parcels. That shift can then

alter environmental factors like soil quality and resource availability (water,

space) with important implications for other stakeholders in those areas.

A ﬁ nal challenge rising from this ecological complexity is the fact that eco-

logical processes and social processes operate on different spatial and tem-

poral scales such that there may be lags between the implementation of a

management decision and the ecological or environmental impact of that

decision. Those lags can fuel perceptions among marginalized groups that

their needs are not being considered in potential resource management

strategies. Such lags can lead to delayed environmental impacts that can

fuel grievances well after management decisions have been implemented.

Continuing with the example of a newly established protected area, this

could mean that human use inside the area may be restricted in order to

allow the ecosystem to recover from previous overuse. This would have the

long-term effect of improving ecosystem functioning and ecosystem service

delivery. However, in the short term, it may be perceived as unfairly restrict-

ing access to the resources necessary for subsistence livelihoods and arti-

sanal production or as giving preference to one group of users over another

(e.g., deference to future generations at the expense of current users).

Social Complexity

This discussion hints at another distinguishing characteristic of envi-

ronmental conﬂ icts. In addition to ecological complexity, these conﬂ icts

MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT

typically involve a great deal of social complexity (Wittmer et al., 2006;

Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994). For a given resource, landscape, or environ-

mental process, a number of different social actors will have some claim

to it or will be affected by it. These actors could include the consumers of a

resource, the consumers of goods and services that the environmental pro-

cesses provide, the owner of the land where the resource is found, the gov-

ernmental or traditional authorities that manage the landscape, as well as

future generations that might depend on the resources.

Collectively the groups and individuals affected by or have claims to an

environmental issue are referred to as stakeholders. A stakeholder might

alternatively be conceptualized as anyone who can inﬂ uence or is affected

by a system or subsystem (Freeman, 1984). In fact, a rich literature has

developed around deﬁ ning, identifying, and productively engaging stake-

holders in environmental management and conﬂ ict resolution (Reed, 2008).

Stakeholders within a system are connected in complicated multinodal

social networks inside dynamic social systems. The relationships among

them are affected by direct interaction, indirect inﬂ uences, and complex

nonlinear internal and external feedback mechanisms (Coleman, Bui-

Wrzosinska, Vallacher, and Nowak, 2006). These relationships, particularly

those revolving around natural resources, ecosystem services, and other

environmental factors, are constantly being negotiated and renegotiated

in response to changes in the wider social-ecological system. At times this

process of negotiation is passive or informal, with actors and groups indi-

vidually adjusting to new dynamics by modifying their behaviors and men-

tal frameworks. At other times, this negotiation is more actively manifest

through formal transactions and intentional interactions. Whether active

or passive, this process of adjustment, interaction, and negotiation can

result in incompatible needs, goals, values, and positions around environ-

mental factors, which can drive conﬂ ict processes.

The range of stakeholders in a given conﬂ ict will likely extend beyond the

primary parties engaged in active conﬂ ict. Indeed, given the ecological com-

plexity and the impact that a single change can have across an entire system,

the potential range of stakeholders in an environmental conﬂ ict may be quite

large. To be effective and sustainable, efforts to resolve an environmental

conﬂ ict should include all affected stakeholders and consider the interests,

needs, values, and desired end goals of each (Haydon and Kuang, 2011).

However, this presents several challenges for conﬂ ict resolution efforts.

First, there are logistical issues in effectively designing and managing

conﬂ ict resolution processes that can accommodate large sets of stake-

holders. Bunker (2006) discusses these and advances some suggestions for

working with large groups of stakeholders. Next, the costs of conﬂ ict reso-

lution increase with the inclusion of more and more stakeholders, partic-

ularly in terms of time involved in reaching agreements and the ﬁ nancial

THE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

resources required to accommodate additional stakeholders. There will

also be power asymmetries across different stakeholders in terms of their

ability to effect change in the system, the impact they have on the process,

their access to information and ability to leverage that information effec-

tively, and the costs of participating in the resolution process (Christie,

2008). Those costs might include ﬁ nancial burdens, opportunity costs, and

the risk of losing legitimacy in their social groups and organizations for

compromising issues and positions.

Finally, some stakeholders might be unwilling to engage in conﬂ ict res-

olution processes due to legal, administrative, economic, or cultural con-

straints. In some cases, a speciﬁ c stakeholder ’s actions may drive conﬂ ict

processes, but their actions may be technically legal, and modifying their

behavior may result in signiﬁ cant ﬁ nancial costs. For example, a company

might be responsible for polluting a waterway through the legally permitted

discharge of industrial waste. Such a situation could result in conﬂ icts with

downstream users who fear health risks associated with that contamina-

tion. In such instances, the affected communities may be willing to engage

in a resolution process. The company may not, however, as it holds permits

to discharge waste and therefore has no incentive to alter its behavior.

In other instances, stakeholders may face administrative barriers to engag-

ing in conﬂ ict resolution processes. This is often the case for government

agency representatives and natural resource managers. Cultural factors may

prevent some groups from being willing to engage in conﬂ ict resolution or

constrain their participation in such processes (Tam, 2006). Stakeholder posi-

tions and constraints therefore may add to the social complexity of an envi-

ronmental conﬂ ict and produce barriers to conﬂ ict resolution.

Scientiﬁ c Uncertainty

Balint et al. (2011) discuss the evolution of the scientiﬁ c understanding

of ecosystems and socioecological systems away from the previously held

view that these systems are closed, deterministic, self-regulating systems to

the current paradigm that view these as open systems affected by stochas-

tic processes and internal and external inﬂ uences. They note that given the

complexity of social and ecological processes and the dynamic interaction

among them, “ecosystems are characterized by high degrees of scientiﬁ c

uncertainty—in their basic ecology and biology, in their economic param-

eters . .. the effects of management actions, and ... whether it is possible to

achieve management objectives” (p. 16). Wittmer et al. (2006) echo this and

suggest that efforts to resolve environmental conﬂ icts must cope with this

uncertainty and develop processes that can manage it. However, this uncer-

tainty presents signiﬁ cant challenges for conﬂ ict resolution, as witnessed

MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT

by contemporary scientiﬁ c debates over the causes of climate change and

its impacts. Attempts to resolve conﬂ icts over climate change remain mired

in arguments over data, models, and projections. Rather than serving to

inform resolution strategies, science in the climate conﬂ ict has served an

adversarial role and presented a barrier to resolving the climate debate

(Ozawa, 2006). For instance, there remain technical disagreements over the

causal pathways through which human action affects climate cycles and

conditions, as well as what effective mitigation strategies and policies might

be. Thus, rather than focusing on ways to prevent, mitigate, or reverse cli-

mate change, the various stakeholders in the debate are stuck debating

aspects of the scientiﬁ c complexity underlying climatic processes.

The climate debate is not the only place where scientiﬁ c uncertainty

contributes to conﬂ ict processes. Instead, many environmental conﬂ icts

escalate due to the adversarial use of scientiﬁ c data. There is a common

misperception that what is needed to resolve environmental conﬂ icts is

perfect information or better data. The notion is that better science will

lead to a clearer understanding of the problems at hand and the most eﬃ -

cient and effective solutions. However, many scholars have demonstrated

that science itself is not value neutral (Carolan, 2008), but rather that the

way in which scientiﬁ c analysis is structured and conducted—from the

questions that are explored to the funding structures for research—is itself

a social construct (Sarewitz, 2004). As such, scientiﬁ c processes, ﬁ ndings,

and legacies are subject to and shaped by social biases.

This is not to discredit the scientiﬁ c process or the value of science in

environmental decision making. Rather, the point is to understand the lim-

its of science and identify appropriate roles for science in informing con-

ﬂ ict resolution processes. Ozawa (2006) emphasizes this fact, noting that

disagreements in intractable conﬂ icts are ideological or political rather

than factual. This is similar to Balint et al. ’s (2011) conceptualization of con-

ﬂ ict as conﬂ icting values, perceptions, and desired end goals.

What is needed to resolve these conﬂ icts, then, is not better data or per-

fect knowledge, but frameworks capable of identifying the underlying value

and interest differences and eliciting mutually agreeable solutions to those

differences. Under such frameworks, science and knowledge can be used as

tools to inform decision making, correct asymmetries in knowledge power,

and create sustainable answers to environmental challenges (Christie, 2008).

Legal and Procedural Frameworks

In addition to scientiﬁ c uncertainty and socioecological complexity, envi-

ronmental conﬂ icts occur in complicated policy and administrative

spaces. In most environmental conﬂ ict, unlike some other forms of conﬂ ict

THE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

(e.g., interpersonal, communal), a government agency is charged with

oversight, management, implementation, or mitigation of the elements of

the natural world that contribute to conﬂ ict processes. Typically these con-

ﬂ icts cut across multiple jurisdictions at multiple administrative levels and

involve at least some component of public disputes, including health, race,

justice, development, and governance (Dukes, 2004). For instance, gover-

nance of public lands in the western United States typically involves over-

lapping jurisdictions at the municipal, county, state, and federal levels, with

multiple intersecting bureaus and departments at each.

Borrowing from ecological metaphors, O ’Leary and Bingham (2003) cate-

gorize this legal and procedural complexity according to the scale at which

environmental conﬂ icts interact with policy and procedure. Upstream

conﬂ icts involve macroscale issues over policy or laws that stipulate how

a given environmental issue will be addressed. Midstream conﬂ icts occur

at the bureaucratic-administrative scale involving issues regarding how a

speciﬁ c issue or resource is administered. Downstream conﬂ icts involve

issues over site-speciﬁ c conﬂ icts or issue-speciﬁ c enforcement. Considering

the social and ecological complexity, scientiﬁ c uncertainty, and spatial

and temporal scales that these conﬂ icts include, a single conﬂ ict may be

expressed in each of these three policy scales.

This legal and procedural complexity presents challenges to conﬂ ict reso-

lution by constraining the range of potential solutions for a speciﬁ c issue, as

well as the types of methods and forums available for pursuing resolution.

Because in most instances of conﬂ ict, a government agency administers or

manages the environmental issues or drivers in question, the parties in con-

ﬂ ict and affected stakeholders may have very little power to affect decision

making in the conﬂ ict. Furthermore, the range of alternative management

actions available may be constrained by each involved agency ’s legal con-

straints and procedural and administrative frameworks. In addition, there

may be legal and procedural constraints on the form and method with

which governmental representatives engage each other and the public sur-

rounding the environmental issues in conﬂ ict. There may be limited legal

or institutional latitude for involving affected stakeholders in the decision-

making process. Thus, any attempt to intervene in or manage an environ-

mental conﬂ ict must work within these institutional and legal constraints.

Challenges for Conﬂ ict Resolution

Each manifestation of environmental conﬂ ict will have different degrees

of complexity in each of the characteristics described. Some conﬂ icts may

appear relatively straightforward, and indeed may be readily negotiated,

mediated, adjudicated, or mitigated. However, each incidence of conﬂ ict

MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT

on or surrounding a speciﬁ c environmental issue is part of a larger history

of policy, decision making and environmental management, social action,

and ecological interaction that contribute to produce the current conﬂ ict

dynamics. Thus, a given conﬂ ict needs to be understood in terms of both its

current dynamics, as well as its history and its spatial and temporal scales.

In the same vein, efforts to resolve a current manifestation of conﬂ ict need

to be considered in terms of the impact that those decisions will have on

the wider system dynamics at multiple temporal and spatial scales.

Because of the interconnected nature of social and ecological systems, an

environmental conﬂ ict is diﬃ cult to resolve ﬁ nally and fully. This is due in

part to the fact that any action affects the larger system dynamics in unpre-

dictable and unforeseeable ways. Thus, it may be better to conceptualize

interventions that seek to productively manage conﬂ icts rather than seek-

ing to resolve them (O ’Leary, Amsler, and Kopell, n.d.).

TRENDS IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT

RESOLUTION RESEARCH

Given the complexity of social-ecological systems, it is clear that man-

aging many contemporary natural resource and environmental issues

requires collaboration among all affected stakeholders. This is particu-

larly true when considering that no single stakeholder individually, or sub-

group of affected stakeholders collectively, has the knowledge, authority,

resources, and capabilities to manage such issues by themselves (Weber

and Khademian, 2008). Environmental conﬂ ict resolution (ECR) grew out of

the ﬁ eld of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in response to this need for

inclusion and collaboration. Whereas traditional mechanisms for resolving

disputes are either adversarial (e.g., litigation and arbitration) or exclusive

(e.g., legislation, or top-down administrative decision making), ECR meth-

ods use collaborative processes for problem solving to reach mutually sat-

isfactory agreements to conﬂ ict or contentious issues (O ’Leary et al., n.d.).

Initially consisting largely of environmental mediation, the breadth

of methods in ECR now covers a wide range of collaborative tools and

processes, including facilitated negotiation, joint fact ﬁ nding, conﬂ ict

assessment, policy dialogues, early neutral evaluation, collaborative plan-

ning, and community-based natural resource management (O ’Leary and

Bingham, 2003). Underlying the development of collaborative tools and

processes for resolving and managing environmental conﬂ icts, an expan-

sive body of theory has emerged that explores questions such as these:

What types of interventions work best in given situations or types of con-

ﬂ icts, and what sorts of forums do they work in? How is success deﬁ ned

THE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

in ECR processes, and how is it measured? What are the skills required for

practitioners to manage environmental conﬂ icts effectively? The following

sections provide a brief overview of current trends in ECR research, with

the goal of identifying lessons for practitioners.

Addressing Environmental Conﬂ icts

through Collaborative Processes

Since the 1970s, there has been an increase and proliferation in the use of

collaborative processes to address environmental conﬂ icts (Singletary et

al., 2008; Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000; Bingham, 1986). This has occurred

in both the developed and industrialized nations as well as in developing

contexts (Cousins, 1996), and ECR processes have been applied across an

incredibly diverse range of issues, from single-issue decisions such as log-

ging versus community rights in one village (Yasmi and Shanz, 2010) to

managing global commons (Ostrom, 1990). The proliferation of these pro-

cesses has grown out of the limitations of other approaches for addressing

environmental conﬂ ict. Traditional legislative processes, for instance, are

generally not able to consider site-speciﬁ c issues or incorporate individual

stakeholder concerns into policymaking. Scientiﬁ cally sound solutions are

rarely politically acceptable, even when the facts are clear and solutions

are readily devised. Furthermore, not all stakeholders possess adequate

ﬁ nancial means to effectively lobby their position to elected representatives.

Litigation faces many of the same challenges. While litigation does (or

can) represent individual stakeholder interests, the range of issues that can

be addressed through litigation is constrained by legal precedence, issues

of standing, and other procedural limitations (Christie, 2008). Furthermore,

the adversarial nature of litigation creates win-lose outcomes and thus

presents signiﬁ cant risks for stakeholders to engage in this sort of process.

In contrast, collaborative processes based on joint fact ﬁ nding, problem

solving, and shared responsibility in decision making can offer several

advantages to the traditional zero-sum approaches (Susskind, Levy, and

Thomas-Larmer, 2000). Among the promises of the ECR methods advanced

in the literature are that they are faster and less costly than litigation; they

can build social capital, which in turn serves as a foundation for future

conﬂ ict resolution; they address the real issues in a conﬂ ict rather than just

stated positions or issues with legal standing; they are more ﬂ exible and

more inclusive than traditional methods; and they have a greater likelihood

of reaching positive-sum—and thus more stable and mutually acceptable—

agreements (O ’Leary and Bingham, 2003; Campbell and Floyd, 1996).

As Dukes (2004) notes, there is a tendency in the literature surrounding ECR

to view these processes and their more traditional counterparts as mutually

MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT

exclusive means of addressing environmental conﬂ icts. However, environ-

mental conﬂ icts occur on a wide range of temporal and spatial scales, and any

manifestation of conﬂ ict at a given time and place is part of a longer history of

processes to manage, litigate, legislate, and mitigate the sources and drivers of

a particular conﬂ ict. Environmental conﬂ icts are also played out in a variety

of forums and processes (Dukes, 2004; Buckle and Thomas-Buckle, 1986).

Daniels (2009) highlights this interplay by describing the synthesis of

arbitration and mediation into a hybrid ECR method to address conﬂ icts

over land use between motorized and nonmotorized resource users in the

western United States. In that case study, a long history of conﬂ ict between

user groups had resulted in gridlock over land use. Because of the intrac-

tability of the conﬂ ict and the threat of litigation, the affected stakehold-

ers agreed to a mediated solution with a ﬁ nal arbitrated settlement to be

made by the government agency responsible for administering the land in

question. Despite common agreement among the stakeholders to accept the

solution, once a decision was made, the conﬂ ict again erupted and resulted

in renewed litigation. Thus, the hybrid ECR process was just one part of a

complex system of legal, legislative, and administrative processes.

Measuring Success in ECR Processes

Although they are only part of a larger and more complicated system of

rule making and management, it is important to explore whether, in what

ways, and how well ECR processes deliver on the promises of success

described. A number of different metrics for success have been advanced.

Susskind and Ozawa (1983), for instance, ﬁ rst deﬁ ned successful ECR as

including the following elements (Pearson d ’Estree and Colby, 2003):

• The negotiated agreement is acceptable to the stakeholders.

• The results are perceived as fair.

• The results maximize joint gains.

• The process used to reach the agreement minimizes transaction costs.

• The process improves relationships among stakeholders.

While other theorists have been critical of objective criteria such as

these for being incomplete (Buckle and Thomas-Buckle, 1986; Pearson

d ’Estree and Colby, 2003), several important elements of success stand out.

First, success in ECR processes can be measured according to whether an

agreement or a settlement is reached, participant satisfaction with the pro -

cess (Susskind, McKearnen, and Thomas-Larmer, 1999), the cost of the

process (Bingham, 1986), and the outcomes in social capital and enhancement

of conﬂ ict resolution skills (Buckle and Thomas-Buckle, 1986). Additional

THE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

criteria could include whether a settlement was implemented, how fully it

was implemented, and how durable it was.

A substantial body of research has emerged that explores those fac-

tors in practice. Much of this literature focuses on individual case stud-

ies and presents deep understanding of speciﬁ c contexts of ECR processes

to explore whether and why each instance was successful (Heikkila and

Shlager, 2012). While case studies present valuable lessons extrapolated

from the nuanced understanding of individual processes, there is also

utility in large-number studies with more generalizable lessons regard-

ing which factors determine whether an ECR will be successful and which

characteristics drive success across cases (Emerson, Orr, Keyes, and

McKnight, 2009). Dukes (2004) provides the most comprehensive (albeit

dated) discussion of the large-number studies in the ECR literature and syn-

thesizes them to discuss implications for practice.

Emerson et al. (2009) build on this to provide perhaps the clearest and

most thorough empirical exploration of the factors that affect three metrics

of success: whether an agreement is reached through an ECR process, the

quality of the agreement, and the impact of the process on relationships

among stakeholders. They ﬁ nd that the effective engagement of participants

in the process is a key factor to success. Likewise, according to their ﬁ ndings,

the involvement of appropriate parties, the skills and practices of ECR medi-

ators and facilitators, and the incorporation of high-quality and relevant

information and data in the intervention all affect success in ECR processes.

Pearson d ’Estree and Colby (2003) attempt to bridge the case study and

large-number methods of research by ﬁ rst explicitly deﬁ ning success in

environmental conﬂ ict resolution according to standardized criteria that

can be employed in comparative case analysis and then demonstrating

the application of those criteria to eight disparate cases of water conﬂ ict in

the western United States. Through that application, they are able to reﬁ ne

their criteria and analytical techniques into a coherent methodology for

comparative case analysis. Their ﬁ nal set contains seven measurable crite-

ria for success, each consisting of a set of ﬂ exible subcomponents that can

be tailored to individual contexts or potentially used in large-number stud-

ies. Adapted from Pearson d ’Estree and Colby (2003), the macrocriteria are

• Outcome reached: This criterion is focused on the short term and may

be necessary for success by giving stakeholders a common goal to

work toward or a focus for collaboration. However, it may not be suf-

ﬁ cient for success.

• Process quality: This criterion measures stakeholders ’ perceptions of

and satisfaction with the process. It involves elements of justice, fair-

ness, inclusiveness, and costs.

MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT

• Outcome quality: In addition to reaching an agreement, the quality of

the agreement itself is an important factor in the success of the inter-

vention. This criterion includes things like cost-effective implementa-

tion, cultural and legal feasibility, scientiﬁ c and technical soundness,

and environmental sustainability.

• Relationship of parties to outcomes: In addition to stakeholders ’ per-

ceptions of the ECR process, their perceptions of the outcome itself are

important criteria for success. This category of factors includes issues

of whether the stakeholders feel ownership of the outcome, whether

it is fair and representative, and whether they feel it is ﬂ exible, stable,

and durable.

• Relationship between parties: This criterion asks whether the process

successfully improved relationships among stakeholders. It includes

short-term issues such as working relationships throughout the ECR

process, as well as longer-term issues of continued postsettlement

relationship quality. This criterion includes issues of cognitive and

affective shift, reduction in hostility or grievance, and other transfor-

mative shifts.

• Social capital: The ﬁ nal criterion examines the impact of the ECR pro-

cess on the larger system. This criterion asks whether the ECR process

resulted in macrochanges such as enhanced citizen capacity to draw

on collective resources, increased capacity for environmental decision

making and collaboration, and social system transformation.

In their discussion of each of these criteria, Pearson d ’Estree and Colby

discuss the inherent trade-offs in working toward successful environmental

conﬂ ict resolution—for instance, “increasing stability of an outcome may

reduce ﬂ exibility .. . [and] environmental and cultural sustainability may be

at odds” (2003, p. 47). Because of these trade-offs, it may not be possible to

determine success based only on high rankings in all criteria. Rather, stake-

holders and process managers must make explicit value choices in what

they are seeking by engaging in the ECR process. They must also be realis-

tic about the legal, historical, cultural, and environmental constraints of the

situation and design a process that can work within the current context.

Skills for Effective Intervention

Conspicuously absent in Pearson d ’Estree and Colby ’s evaluation framework

are metrics evaluating the effectiveness of the ECR convener, mediator, or

facilitator (hereafter process managers ), presumably because their frame-

work is designed to enable ex post facto cross-case comparison of the out-

puts and social and cross-stakeholder effects of ECR processes. However, as

THE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

seen in Emerson et al. ’s (2009) large-number study, the skills of the process

manager are fundamental determinants of success in ECR interventions. We

are therefore left to infer that success as measured by Pearson d ’Estree and

Colby is facilitated in part through the inclusion of a skilled and effective

process manager. The question remains, however, of what skills and compe-

tencies enable a process manager to facilitate a process toward success.

Citing Dukes (2004), Emerson et al. (2009) note, “The value of the third

party neutral in conﬂ ict resolution processes has been virtually axiom-

atic in the literature” (p. 38). Indeed a substantial literature has developed

around facilitator and coordinator skills in ECR and the importance of

these in determining the success of processes. In a review of this literature,

Leach (2006, p. 46) reports that “the presence of an effective facilitator/

coordinator is one of the most frequently cited keys to success.” But what

exactly does “effectiveness” here entail?

There is a tendency to focus discussion of process manager skills directly

on the negotiation or mediation process itself. For instance, studies exam-

ine effective methods of convening mediation (Susskind and Cruikshank,

2006), their ability to reduce or manage conﬂ ict toward consensus (O ’Leary

and Raines, 2002; Susskind, 1994), or their ﬂ exibility and ability to facilitate

fair and constructive dialogue. Singletary et al. (2008) conduct a study of

agricultural extension workers engaged in ECR and rank thirty-ﬁ ve skills

on their importance for effective ECR process management.

However, despite the deep knowledge and theory regarding the skills

that make facilitators and mediators effective, facilitating stakeholder dia-

logue is just one part of the ECR process. As Heikkila and Schlager (2012)

note, much is known about the mediation process itself, but much less is

known about the ECR process generally. A review of contemporary litera-

ture suggests that the front-end or preintervention analysis and coordina-

tion skills of a process manager are fundamental to designing an effective

ECR intervention.

For instance, determining whether the situation is ripe for ECR, and not

some other form of dispute resolution, is a prerequisite to ECR processes

often cited in the literature (Emerson et al., 2009; Susskind et al., 1999;

Carpenter and Kennedy, 1988). In an article discussing the effective rep-

resentation of clients in ECR, Bingham, Esterman, and Riti (2009) ﬁ nd that

assisting clients in assessing this ripeness is a fundamental skill that attor-

neys should develop and that conducting such an assessment should pre-

clude any decision to engage in mediation, arbitration, or negotiation. This

should ideally be done through formal conﬂ ict analysis (Coleman, 2006).

Building on this, the inclusion of the right stakeholders is imperative

to success in ECR processes. There is a tension between including a broad

range of affected and interested stakeholders and effective engagement of

MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT

informed and committed stakeholders in ECR processes. As Emerson et al.

(2009) discuss, “striking the right balance here is a case-speciﬁ c judgment

call that affects . . . subsequent process design decisions . . . [as well as] the

perceived internal and external legitimacy of the group” (p. 37). Here, the

mastery of conﬂ ict analysis skills can assist process managers in making

those judgment calls on which people to include and when to include them.

In addition to these early design and analysis skills, process managers in

ECR must have a clear technical grasp on the issues in question or be able to

identify and engage relevant experts to include as advisors to the process. As

discussed earlier, environmental conﬂ icts entail questions of ecological pro-

cesses and scientiﬁ c uncertainty. Christie (2008) discusses the mechanisms

through which knowledge of facts in an environmental conﬂ ict is a signif-

icant source of power for stakeholders. According to his discussion, stake-

holders possess different levels of ability to collect, process, analyze, and

mobilize information in pursuit of their interests. This creates power asym-

metries among stakeholders regarding knowledge power. In order to engage

in effective resolution processes, these asymmetries need to be addressed.

There will inevitably be questions regarding what information is accu-

rate and relevant to the issues at hand. The process manager must thus

devise a strategy for obtaining, vetting, and making that information

equally available to stakeholders in the process. This can be achieved

through methods like joint fact ﬁ nding, wherein stakeholders identify and

agree on relevant information as well as identify knowledge gaps that need

to be ﬁ lled. In the review of literature on successful ECR processes, Leach

(2006) ﬁ nds numerous studies and cases reporting that the inclusion of

high-quality, trusted information is paramount to successful ECR.

In sum, an effective process manager (or team of managers) needs to

develop competency in more than just facilitation and mediation. Effective

process management includes just and fair process design, effective stake-

holder identiﬁ cation and engagement, procedural skills in ECR techniques,

and technical competence in the subject matter and knowledge of institu-

tional, legal, and administrative constraints.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In light of the discussion, the question remains as to who speciﬁ cally initi-

ates, coordinates, or employs ECR processes to manage environmental

conﬂ icts. There is no single answer to that question, as each instance of

environmental conﬂ ict is unique. At times, a natural resource manager

may ﬁ nd herself or himself embroiled in a conﬂ ict between competing

stakeholder interests and recognize the opportunity to use ECR techniques

THE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

to move beyond the impasse. At other times, environmental planners in

governmental or private sectors may employ these techniques. Campbell

and Floyd (1996) argue that planners may in fact be perfectly positioned

to convene and coordinate ECR processes due to their methodological and

analytical training in anticipating issues and assessing alternatives to

accommodate a range of competing interests. In contrast, Bingham et al.

(2009) demonstrate the attorney ’s role as an ECR practitioner, and Singletary

et al. (2008) discuss similar roles taken on by agricultural extension work-

ers. In still other instances, conservation managers and programming staff

may employ ECR methods in their work (Redpath et al., 2012).

Despite the wide range of professions and professionals who may be

involved in coordinating or employing ECR processes, there are several les-

sons that practitioners of these methods should take from the discussion here.

Understand the Conﬂ ict in Terms of the Larger

Social-Ecological System

Given the complexity of social actors, environmental processes, and eco-

logical relationships in modern socioecological systems, it is inevitable that

at times incompatible goals, values, interests, and needs among a diverse

range of stakeholders will escalate into conﬂ ict. Practitioners who ﬁ nd

themselves charged with intervening in these conﬂ icts need to understand

them in terms of the larger systems and the nonlinear processes of cause,

inﬂ uence, and effect within these systems across multiple spatial and tem-

poral scales. Without an appreciation of that complexity, it is likely that

important stakeholders will be omitted from ECR processes. In a similar

way, an oversimpliﬁ ed view of the conﬂ ict and its drivers will lead to the

design of a process that addresses short-term behaviors and issues, missing

the more fundamental drivers of conﬂ ict and opening avenues for future

escalation of tensions.

Design a Process That Works within Existing Legal,

Procedural, Technical, and Cultural Boundaries

For practitioners engaging in efforts to manage or resolve environmental

conﬂ icts, it is important to bear in mind that current resolution processes

are part of a legacy of management decisions, legislative processes, legal

decisions, and individual choices that gave rise to the current situation

and, as part of that legacy, will inﬂ uence future iterations of action, interac-

tion, conﬂ ict, and negotiation among stakeholders. Process managers must

be realistic about the legal, administrative, procedural, technical, and cul-

tural frameworks that constrain the range of management options for the

environmental factor in question, as well as the range of solution options

MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT

for affected stakeholders. Processes designed outside of those frameworks

risk designing solution strategies that are not implementable. Furthermore,

engaging stakeholders in processes that do not ﬁ t their organizational, cul-

tural, legal, and economic constraints risks exacerbating gridlock and esca-

lating tension and intractability.

Identify Clear and Explicit Objectives

Because of the social and ecological complexity involved in environmental

conﬂ icts and the legal, procedural, cultural, and administrative constraints

under which they occur, no process can be a panacea capable of fully and

ﬁ nally resolving the sources and drivers of conﬂ ict. Practitioners thus need

to be realistic in terms of what a process can accomplish within existing

constraints and deﬁ ne success according to achievable and measurable

process outcomes. Process managers should clearly communicate with

stakeholders what is reasonable to expect from participating in the process,

what each stakeholder ’s responsibility is in the process, and what success

will mean or produce.

Engage All Relevant Stakeholders and Understand Their

Role, Power, Needs, and Interests in the System

Including the right stakeholders in ECR processes is imperative for success.

There is not, however, a universal standard of right in the case of envi-

ronmental conﬂ ict. Anyone with an interest or stake in the issue at hand

could be included in discussions surrounding that issue. However, some

key stakeholders may not be willing to engage, particularly if there are

large power asymmetries among them. Furthermore, there may be latent

or potential stakeholders who have not previously played a role in the con-

ﬂ ict itself but are affected by it. Thus, some sort of conﬂ ict and stakeholder

analysis is needed in the preliminary stages of an ECR intervention in order

to fully understand the range of stakeholders involved and their power and

positions in the situation.

Manage Scientiﬁ c Information and Uncertainty to

Correct Asymmetries around Knowledge Power

Most, perhaps all, environmental conﬂ icts involve technical questions regard-

ing ecological, biological, and physical processes. There is often disagreement

among stakeholders regarding the facts and scientiﬁ c understanding of those

processes. Even when the processes themselves are relatively well under-

stood, there is often disagreement over what to do to address environmen-

tal problems. Thus, practitioners need to design processes that can manage

THE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

scientiﬁ c information, identify knowledge gaps, and structure processes for

ﬁ lling or working around those gaps.

In addition, stakeholders will possess different levels of ability to collect,

process, analyze, and mobilize information. Process managers thus need

to devise strategies to balance these asymmetries in knowledge power in

order to create fair, transparent, and just processes.

Identify Opportunities for Peace Building

This discussion has focused on environmental conﬂ ict, challenges to reso-

lution, and guidance for effectively managing ECR processes. When deal-

ing with environmental problems and natural resource issues, it is easy to

focus solely on conﬂ icts and tensions. However, as Kramer (2008) adeptly

recognizes, “There are several pathways along which environmental

cooperation could contribute to peace. Working together on solving prob-

lems can help replace distrust, uncertainty, and suspicion with . . . a tra-

dition of cooperation” (p. 10). Jarraud and Lordos (2012) echo this, stating

that common environmental issues can be leveraged to build cooperation.

Environmental issues may provide a bridge between parties with seem-

ingly irreconcilable differences.

Thus, the discussion ends here with a call for conﬂ ict resolution prac-

titioners and natural resource managers to identify and capitalize on

opportunities to build peaceful, productive relationships among compet-

ing stakeholders and parties in conﬂ ict by ﬁ nding points of cooperation on,

and pursuing sustainable solutions to, environmental issues. These points of

collaboration can build trust and working relationships among stakehold-

ers and create a foundation on which future productive interaction can be

built. Such a foundation can also serve as a cross-cutting social structure

that can reinforce social ties across stakeholder groups when incompatibili-

ties in interests, needs, and objectives arise. Finally, cooperation and collab-

oration around environmental management and ecological considerations

can demonstrate mutual concern among distinct social groups that might

potentially bridge ideological, cultural, and identity-based divides.

References

Balint, P. J., Stewart, R. E., Desai, A., & Walters, L. C. (2011). Wicked environmental

problems . Washington DC: Island Press.

Bingham, G. (1986). Resolving environmental disputes: A decade of experience .

Washington DC: Conservation Foundation.

Bingham, G., Esterman, P., and Riti, C. (2009). Effective representation of clients in

environmental dispute resolution. Pace Environmental Law Review, 27 (1), 60–101.

MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT

Buckle, L., & Thomas-Buckle, S. (1986). Placing environmental mediation in context:

Lessons from “failed” mediations. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 6 (1),

55–60.

Bunker, B. B. (2006). Managing conﬂ ict through large-group methods. In M. Deutsch,

P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conﬂ ict resolution: Theory

and practice (chapter 38 in this handbook). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, M. C., & Floyd, D. W. (1996). Thinking critically about environmental

mediation. Journal of Planning Literature, 10 , 235–247.

Carolan, M. S. (2008). The bright- and blind-spots of science: Why objective knowl-

edge is not enough to resolve environmental conﬂ icts. Critical Sociology, 34 (5),

725–740.

Carpenter, S., & Kennedy, W. (1988). Managing public disputes . San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Christie, E. (2008). Finding solutions for environmental conﬂ icts: Power and negotia-

tion . Cheltenham UK: Edward Elger.

Coleman, P. T. (2006). Intractable conﬂ ict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C.

Marcus, The handbook of conﬂ ict resolution: Theory and practice (chapter 30 in

this handbook). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Coleman, P. T., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2006). Protracted

conﬂ icts as dynamical systems. In A. K. Schneider & C. Honeyman, The negotia-

tor ’s ﬁ eldbook: The desk reference for the experienced negotiator (pp. 61–88).

Washington DC: American Bar Association.

Constanza, R., d ’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997).

The value of the world ’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387 ,

253–260.

Copple, R. F. (2011). A stepped approach to successful NRD alternative dispute reso-

lution. Natural Resources and Environment, 26 (2), 11–14.

Costanza, R., Farber, S., & Maxwell, J. (1989). Valuation and management of wetlands

ecosystems. Ecological Economics, 1 , 335–361.

Cousins, B. (1996). Conﬂ ict management for multiple resource users in pastoralist

and agro-pastoralist contexts. IDS Bulletin, 27 (3), 41–54.

Daily, G. (1997). Introduction: What are ecosystem services? In G. Daily (Ed.),

Nature ’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems (pp. 1–10).

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Daniels, S. (2009). Exploring the feasibility of mediated ﬁ nal offer arbitration as a

technique for managing “gridlocked” environmental conﬂ ict.

Society and Natural

Resources, 22 (3), 261–277.

Dukes, E. F. (2004). What we know about environmental conﬂ ict resolution: An anal-

ysis based on research. Conﬂ ict Resolution Quarterly, 22 (1–2), 191–220.

Elias, A. A. (2008). Towards a shared systems model of stakeholders in environmen-

tal conﬂ ict. International Transactions in Operations Research, 15 , 239–253.

THE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Emerson, K., Orr, P., Keyes, D., & McKnight, K. (2009). Understanding environmental

conﬂ ict resolution: Results of a multi-agency evaluation study. Conﬂ ict Resolution

Quarterly, 26 (4), 27–64.

Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach . Boston: Pitman.

Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1994). Emergent complex systems. Futures, 26 (6), 568–582.

Gallopin, G. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience and adaptive

capacity. Global Environmental Change, 16 , 292–303.

Haydon, J., & Kuang, J. (2011). Developing and expanding the Environmental Conﬂ ict

Resolution Toolkit: Facilitation and consensus building for better environmental

outcomes. In Proceedings of International Conference on Environmental Science

and Development (ICESD 2011) .

Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. (2005). The formation of large-scale collaborative resource

management institutions: Clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and insti-

tutions. Policy Studies Journal, 33 (4), 583–612.

Heikkila, T., & Shlager, E. C. (2012). Addressing the issues: The choice of environmen-

tal conﬂ ict resolution venues in the United States. American Journal of Political

Science, 56 (4), 774–786.

Hsiang, S. M., Meng, K. C., & Cane, M. A. (2011). Civil conﬂ icts are associated with the

global climate. Nature, 476 , 438–441.

Jarraud, N. S., & Lordos, A. (2012). Participatory approaches to environmental con-

ﬂ ict resolution in Cyprus. Conﬂ ict Resolution Quarterly, 29 (3), 261–281.

Kramer, A. (2008). Regional water cooperation and peacebuilding in the Middle East .

Brussels: Initiative for Peacebuilding.

Leach, W. (2006, January/February). Public involvement in USDA Forest Service poli-

cymaking: A literature review. Journal of Forestry , 43–49.

Nie, M. (2003). Drivers of natural resource-based political conﬂ ict. Policy Sciences,

36 , 307–341.

O ’Leary, R., Amsler, T., & Kopell, M. (n.d.). Environmental conﬂ ict resolution:

Strategies for environmental grant makers . Menlo Park, CA: William and Flora

Hewlett Foundation.

O ’Leary, R., & Bingham, L. (2003). The promise and performance of environmental

conﬂ ict resolution . Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

O ’Leary, R., & Raines, S. S. (2002). Lessons learned from two decades of alternative

dispute resolution programs and processes at the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Public Administration Review, 61 (6), 682–692.

Olsson, O. (2007). Conﬂ ict diamonds. Journal of Development Economics, 82 (2),

267–286.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective

action . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ozawa, C. P. (2006). Science and intractable conﬂ ict. Conﬂ ict Resolution Quarterly,

24 (2), 197–205.

MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT

Pearson d ’Estree, T., & Colby, B. G. (2003). Braving the currents: Evaluating environ-

mental conﬂ ict resolution in the river basins of the American West . Boston: Kluwer

Academic.

Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse,

A., et al. (2012). Understanding and managing conservation conﬂ icts. Trends in

Ecology and Evolution, 28 (2), 100–109.

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A lit-

erature review. Biological Conservation, 141 (10), 2417–2431.

Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse.

Environmental Science and Policy, 7 (5), 385–403.

Scheffran, J., Brzoska, M., Brauch, H. G., Link, P. M., & Schilling, J. (2012). Climate

change, human security and violent conﬂ ict . New York: Springer.

Singletary, L., Smutko, L. S., Hill, G. C., Smith, M., Daniels, S. E., Ayres, J. S., et al.

(2008). Skills needed to help communities manage natural resource conﬂ icts.

Conﬂ ict Resolution Quarterly, 25 (3), 303–320.

Susskind, L. (1994). Environmental diplomacy: negotiating more effective environmen-

tal agreements . New York: Oxford University Press.

Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (2006). Breaking Robert ’s rules: The new way to run

your meeting, build consensus, and get results . New York: Oxford University Press.

Susskind, L., Levy, P., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (2000). Negotiating environmental

agreements . Washington DC: Island Press.

Susskind, L., & Ozawa, C. (1983). Mediated negotiations in the public sector.

American Behavioral Scientist, 27 (2), 255–279.

Susskind, L., McKearnen, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999). The consensus building

handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement . Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Tam, C. (2006). Harmony hurts: Participation and silent conﬂ ict at an Indonesian

ﬁ sh pond. Environmental Management, 38 (1), 1–15.

Weber, E., & Khademian, A. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and

collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review,

68 (2), 334–349.

Wittmer, H., Rauschmayer, F., & Klauer, B. (2006). How to select instruments for the

resolution of environmental conﬂ icts? Land Use Policy, 23 , 1–9.

Wondolleck, J. M. (2010). A crack in the foundation? Revisiting ECR ’s voluntary

tenet. Conﬂ ict Resolution Quarterly, 27

(3), 321–343.

Wondolleck, J., & Yaffee, S. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from

innovation in natural resource management . Washington DC: Island Press.

Yasmi, Y., & Shanz, H. (2010). Managing conﬂ ict escalation in forestry: Logging

versus local community interests in Baru Pelepat village, Sumatra, Indonesia.

International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services and Management,

6 (1–2), 43–51.