Summary
This book showcases a new, comprehensive framework for evaluating multiple dimensions of success in water conflict resolution and in ECR more generally. The framework furthers the search for a more systematic understanding of how effectively different conflict resolution mechanisms perform in specific conflict cases. The reflection that the framework and analysis encourages should also further more informed practice and a more conscious and constructive integration of traditional and innovative resolution processes. In addition, the evaluation framework can potentially be extended and adapted to fit other research and assessment needs, such as conflict resolution within communities and organizations and between nations.
It is our hope that the evaluation framework and method presented here facilitates the standardized documentation of the processes used to manage and resolve environmental conflicts. This, in turn, can further the understanding of how different processes perform with respect to various components of success in resolving conflicts. Our ultimate hope is that our children and grandchildren’s generations will have learned from the bitter and extended environmental conflicts of the late 20th century to devise more effective, durable and just methods for resolving conflicts over natural resources in the new century.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Jim Pharris, Mary Sue Wilson, and Alan Reichman, Federal and Indian Reserved Water Rights: A Report to the Washington State Legislature by the Office of the Attorney General (Olympia, WA: Attorney General of Washington, 2002).
Mike Conner, Congressional Briefing: Background and Status of Indian Land and Water Claims (Department of Interior Ad Hoc Group on Indian Water Rights, 2001).
AEA Task Force on Guiding Principles for Evaluators, “Guiding Principles for Evaluators,” New Directions for Program Evaluation (Summer, 1995): 19–34. See also Patton, M.Q. Utilization-Focused Evaluation (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1997)
J.C. Neuman, “Run River Run: Mediation of a Water Rights Dispute Keeps Fish and Farmers Happy for a Time,” University of Colorado Law Review 67 (Spring 1996): 259–339.; Innes (1999) cites case studies by Corburn (1996), Southeast Negotiation Network (1993), Kerwin and Langbein (1995), and the Consortium on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution (1994).
Judith E. Innes, “Evaluating Consensus Building,” in Consensus Building Handbook, 1999. For a recent example of comparative case study analysis in environmental conflict resolution, see Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnon, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, eds.
Kirk Emerson, A Critique of Environmental Dispute Resolution Research, Presentation to the Conflict Analysis and Resolution Working Group Seminar, University of Arizona, April, 1996.
National Institute for Dispute Resolution, Final Report: Fund for Research on Dispute Resolution (Washington DC: Author, 1996).
Robert A. Baruch Bush, Report on the Assessment of the Hewlett Foundation’s Centers for “Theory Building” on Conflict Resolution (Hewlett Foundation, 1995).
Gail Bingham, Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience (Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation, 1986); E. Brunet, “Questioning the Quality of Alternative Dispute Resolution,” Tulane Law Review 1, no. 62 (1987): 1–56; Leonard G. Buckle, & Suzann R. Thomas-Buckle, “Placing environmental mediation in context: Lessons from failed mediations,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 6 (March 1986): 55–70; Robert A. Baruch Bush, “Defining Quality in Dispute Resolution: Taxonomies and Anti-Taxonomies of Quality Agreements,” Denver University Law Review 66 (1989): 335–380; Robert A. Baruch Bush, Report on the Assessment of the Hewlett Foundation’s Centers for “Theory Building” on Conflict Resolution, 1995; A. Bruce Dotson, “Defining Success in Environmental and Public Policy Negotiations,” Unpublished manuscript; H.T. Edwards, “Commentary: Alternative Dispute Resolution: Panacea or Anathema?” Harvard Law Review 99, (1986): 668–684; Judith E. Innes, “Evaluating Consensus Building,” in Consensus Building Handbook, eds. Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnon and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, 631–675 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999); James S. Kakalik, Terence Dunworth, Laural A. Hill, Daniel McCaffrey, Marian Oshiro, Nicholas M. Pace, and Mary E. Vaiana, An Evaluation of Mediation and Early Neutral Evaluation Under the Civil Justice Reform Act (Report produced by the Institute for Civil Justice, Rand, Santa Monica, CA, 1996); National Institute for Dispute Resolution, Final Report: Fund for Research on Dispute Resolution (Washington DC: Author, 1996); Dean G. Pruitt, Robert S. Pierce, Neil B. McGillicuddy, Gary L. Welton, and Lynn M. Castrianno, “Long-Term Success in Mediation,“ Law and Human Behavior 17 (1993): 313–330; Lawrence Susskind and Connie Ozawa, “Mediated Negotiations in the Public Sector,” American Behavioral Scientist 27, no. 2 (1983): 255–79; William Ury, J. M. Brett, and S.B. Goldberg, Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1988).
Donald A. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner (New York: Basic Books, 1983); M.D. Lang, and A. Taylor, The Making of a Mediator: Developing Artistry in Practice (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2000).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2004). Understanding’ success’. In: Braving the Currents. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 26. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8129-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8129-4_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-7503-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8129-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive