A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A New Framework for Water Conflict Resolution
The recent collapse of the Georgia-Florida-Alabama water compact negotiations in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basins discloses significant shortcomings in traditional approaches to resolution of transjurisdictional water conflicts involving multiple competing objectives. Without full recognition of the broader external issues fueling the conflict and without collaboration by the parties to eliminate extraneous sources of intractability, the core dispute is unlikely to be correctly framed, and the negotiations may be ill-informed as a consequence. Poor framing may prevent consensus on core objectives and constraints and misdirect the formulation, analysis and evaluation of water management alternatives. Consensus will be elusive, the diligent efforts of the parties notwithstanding. At the core of the ACT/ACF negotiations were satisficing models for simulation of operational alternatives, which, while sophisticated, addressed primarily symptoms, e.g. flow deliveries, water consumption, reservoir operations, drought response, etc., as opposed to causes of the conflict. The eventual collapse of the negotiations implies that incomplete characterization of the parties, issues, social system, and processes framing the conflict limits the utility of planning decision support systems, and more importantly obscures potentially satisfactory solutions around which consensus is possible. The author proposes a framework for water conflict management designed to systematically disclose and ameliorate many of the most common causes of failure. The procedure consists of the following four steps: (1) identification of sources of intractability in the parties, issues, social system, and negotiation process, (2) re-framing of conflict (parties, issues, social system, process) to eliminate or minimize sources of intractability, (3) achievement of consensus on core problem definition, objectives and constraints, and (4) formulation and parameterization of satisficing models for plan formulation, analysis and evaluation; application of models and consensus-building on management alternatives.
A New Framework for Water Conflict Resolution
The recent collapse of the Georgia-Florida-Alabama water compact negotiations in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basins discloses significant shortcomings in traditional approaches to resolution of transjurisdictional water conflicts involving multiple competing objectives. Without full recognition of the broader external issues fueling the conflict and without collaboration by the parties to eliminate extraneous sources of intractability, the core dispute is unlikely to be correctly framed, and the negotiations may be ill-informed as a consequence. Poor framing may prevent consensus on core objectives and constraints and misdirect the formulation, analysis and evaluation of water management alternatives. Consensus will be elusive, the diligent efforts of the parties notwithstanding. At the core of the ACT/ACF negotiations were satisficing models for simulation of operational alternatives, which, while sophisticated, addressed primarily symptoms, e.g. flow deliveries, water consumption, reservoir operations, drought response, etc., as opposed to causes of the conflict. The eventual collapse of the negotiations implies that incomplete characterization of the parties, issues, social system, and processes framing the conflict limits the utility of planning decision support systems, and more importantly obscures potentially satisfactory solutions around which consensus is possible. The author proposes a framework for water conflict management designed to systematically disclose and ameliorate many of the most common causes of failure. The procedure consists of the following four steps: (1) identification of sources of intractability in the parties, issues, social system, and negotiation process, (2) re-framing of conflict (parties, issues, social system, process) to eliminate or minimize sources of intractability, (3) achievement of consensus on core problem definition, objectives and constraints, and (4) formulation and parameterization of satisficing models for plan formulation, analysis and evaluation; application of models and consensus-building on management alternatives.
A New Framework for Water Conflict Resolution
McMahon, George F. (author)
Operations Management Conference 2006 ; 2006 ; Sacramento, California, United States
2006-08-03
Conference paper
Electronic Resource
English
A New Framework for Water Conflict Resolution
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2006
A Framework for Conflict Resolution
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 1998
A Framework for Conflict Resolution (The Netherlands)
| Online Contents | 1998
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2006
| DOAJ | 2019