Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 369–386 | Cite as

Enhancing National Security and Energy Security in the Post-911 Era: Group Decision Support for Strategic Policy Analysis under Conditions of Conflict

  • Kevin W. LiEmail author
  • Jason K. Levy
  • P. Buckley


Energy source diversity has become a fundamental principle of both US energy security and national security. The decision of whether or not to approve a new power plant facility in the US involves complex group decision and negotiation processes. These contentious, value-laden, and multi-faceted self organizing processes involve many decision makers (broad constituencies) with conflicting priorities and dynamic preferences, high decision stakes, limited technical information (both in terms of quality and quantity), and difficult tradeoffs. As population pressures and energy demands continue to mount, advances in conflict resolution can help to improve power plant siting processes as well as US energy security and national security. Specifically, this paper uses advances in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution and its associated decision support system (DSS) GMCR II to analyze strategic aspects of a multi-party energy dispute involving the co-management of a shared air shed in the Fraser Lowland Eco-Region based on Sumas Energy 2 (SE2), a contentious power plant project proposed for the US side of the international border between the city of Abbotsford, British Columbia and town of Sumas, Washington. GMCR II provides strategic insights for enhancing energy security, national security, and environmental risk management in the United States.


Environmental risk Decision support Energy security Graph model for conflict resolution 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Buckley PH, Belec J (2005) Issues of cross border management of the Fraser Lowland eco-region. In: Proceedings of CNS-ACSUS convergence and divergence colloquium, Vancouver, pp 221–233Google Scholar
  2. Clarke RA (2008) Your government failed you: breaking the cycle of national security disasters. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. EFSEC (2001) Council Order No. 754, p. 13. 2001., p. 1. Last accessed 22 June 2008
  4. EFSEC (2008) About EFSEC: the Washington State energy facility site evaluation council. Last accessed 22 June 2008
  5. Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour KW (1993) Interactive decision making: the graph model for conflict resolution. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Fang LP, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Peng X (2003a) A decision support system for interactive decision making, part 1: model formulation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C 33(1): 42–55. doi: 10.1109/TSMCC.2003.809361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fang LP, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Peng X (2003b) A decision support system for interactive decision making, part 2: analysis and output interpretation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C 33(1): 56–66. doi: 10.1109/TSMCC.2003.809360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fraser Health Authority (2002) Preliminary summary of data from the Canadian community health survey, British Columbia: Fraser Health Authority. June 2002Google Scholar
  9. Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1984) Conflict analysis: models and resolutions. North-Holland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1988) Decision support systems for conflict analysis. In: Singh MG, Hindi K, Salassa D (eds) Managerial decision support systems, proceedings of the IMACS/IFORS 1st international colloquium on managerial decision support systems. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 13–21Google Scholar
  11. Hebert J (2008) Wednesday, Jun. 25, 2008, Report: energy demand will grow. Associated Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L, Peng X (1997) The decision support system GMCR in environmental conflict management. Appl Math Comput 83(2–3): 117–152. doi: 10.1016/S0096-3003(96)00170-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hornick E (2008) McCain: clean energy a ‘national security issue’. CNN Last accessed 7 Oct 2008
  14. Howard N (1971) Paradoxes of rationality. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Fang L (1987) The graph model for conflicts. Automatica 23(1): 41–55. doi: 10.1016/0005-1098(87)90117-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Labelle C (1998) The effects of smog on the health of Canadians, science and technology division. Library of Parliament, Government of Canada, PRG 98-4E, October, 1998. Last accessed 22 June 2008
  17. Li KW, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2004) Status quo analysis of the Flathead River conflict. Water Resour Res 40(5). Art No. W05S03). doi: 10.1029/2003WR002596
  18. Li KW, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2005) Status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. J Oper Res Soc 56(6): 699–707. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Natural Resources Defense Council (2007) Addicted to Oil: ranking states’ oil vulnerability and solutions for change. July, 2007. Last accessed 7 Oct 2008
  20. Obama B (2006) Energy security is national security. Remarks of Senator Barrack Obama, Governor’s Ethanol Coalition, Washington, DC, February 28, 2006. Last accessed 7 Oct 2008
  21. Peng X (1999) A decision support system for conflict resolution. Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  22. Peng X, Hipel K, Kilgour D, Fang L (1997) Representing ordinal preferences in the decision support system GMCR II. In: Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, vol 1, Orlando, FL, pp 809–814Google Scholar
  23. Quinton J (2008) NSA plans mitigation for electrical facilities. Inside Charm City. Posted on January 6, 2008.
  24. Spectrum: Newsletter of the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation (2001) Power to the people: environmentalists and local community activists nix Sumas 2 power plant, vol 29, Number 1, 2001, pp 4–5. Last accessed 22 June 2008
  25. Sumas Energy 2 Generation Facility Air Quality Issue Summary (2000) BC ministry of environment, lands and parks, environment Canada—Pacific and Yukon Region and the Greater Vancouver regional district, September 11, 2000. Last accessed 22 June 2008
  26. Thomson B (2004) Characterization of the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Airshed. In: Droscher TW, Fraser DA (eds) Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Basin/Puget sound research conference. CD-ROM or Online, 2004. Last accessed 22 June 2008
  27. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1953) Theory of games and economic behavior, 3rd edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  28. Yergin D (2006) Ensuring energy security. Foreign Aff 85(2): 68–82Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Odette School of BusinessUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada
  2. 2.Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public AffairsVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  3. 3.Department of Environmental Studies, Huxley College of the EnvironmentWestern Washington UniversityBellinghamUSA

Personalised recommendations