Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T14:34:44.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reaching Consensus on Environmental Issues: The Use of Throwaway Computer Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Thomas M. Bonnicksen
Thomas M. Bonnicksen*
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, USA
Get access

Abstract

This article presents one method for building computer models that focus on understanding and resolving complex, or “wicked,” environmental issues. The method is designed to promote cooperative decision-making and consensus among stakeholders, scientists, and managers. The article argues that there are only two ways to resolve “wicked” environmental issues: regulation by conflict or regulation by consensus. It points out that regulation by conflict leads to coercion and further conflict. In contrast, regulation by consensus leads to acceptable and durable decisions. The article concludes that cooperation and consensus are superior to conflict and coercion. The method presented is illustrated with a successful project to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to protect the northern spotted owl in California.

Information

Type
Environmental Conflict
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 1996, pp. 23 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackoff, R.L. (1974). Redesigning the Future. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Bertalanffy, L. von (1964). General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
Bishop, P.C. and Bonnicksen, T.M. (1991). The Future of the Space Industry: Opportunities for Texas. Houston, TX: Space Business Research Center, University of Houston—Clear Lake.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1981). “Cross-Impact Simulation Model.” In The River Recreation Research Consortium, Final Report to the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission: Evaluation of Impacts of Navigation and Associated Operation and Maintenance Procedures on Recreation, Potential Wilderness and Cultural Resources of the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Madison, WI: Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin—Madison.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1985a). The Decade Ahead on the Flathead National Forest: A Report to the USDA Forest Service. Flathead National Forest, Montana.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1985b). Great Lakes Water Access in Wisconsin: Results of the Initial Decision Analysis (IDA) Capstone Workshop. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1985c). “Initial Decision Analysis (IDA): A Participatory Approach for Developing Resource Policies.” Environmental Management 9:379–92.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1985d). Inland Lakes Water Access in Wisconsin: Results of the Initial Decision Analysis (IDA) Capstone Workshop. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1985e). River Water Access in Wisconsin: Results of the Initial Decision Analysis (IDA) Capstone Workshop. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1990a). The Future of the Texas Gulf Coast: Strategies for Managing Beach Access. The Office for Strategic Studies in Resource Policy. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1990b). The Future of the Texas Gulf Coast: Strategies for Managing Shoreline Erosion and Dune Protection. The Office for Strategic Studies in Resource Policy. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1990c). The Future of the Texas Gulf Coast: Strategies for Managing Wetlands. The Office for Strategic Studies in Resource Policy. College Station TX: Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1991). “Managing Biosocial Systems.” Journal of Forestry 89(10):10–15.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1992a). An Assessment of Issues Affecting the Savannah River Basin. Clemson, SC: The Strom Thurmond Institute, Clemson University.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1992b). Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Conservation Plan for California: Results of Workshops Conducted Using The Impact Process. Berkeley, CA: Wildland Resources Center, University of California—Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1993). “The Impact Process.” The Environmental Professional 15(2): 186–97.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1994). An Assessment of Fire Management Strategies for the San Bernardino Mountains. Watershed Fire Council of Southern California and University of California Cooperative Extension, San Bernardino County.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1995a). An Assessment of Wildfire Issues in Southeastern San Diego County, California. Watershed Fire Council of Southern California.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. (1995b). A Challenge to Resource Managers and Conservation Biologists. Hamilton Roddis Memorial Lecture Series, No. 6. Madison, WI: Department of Forestry, University of Wisconsin—Madison.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, T.M. and Becker, R.H. (1982). “Environmental Impact Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach for Assigning Priorities.” Environmental Management 7(2): 109–17.Google Scholar
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (1992). Draft Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Conservation Plan for Private Forestlands in California. Sacramento, CA: Department of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
Cochran, C.E. (1974). “Political Science and the Public Interest.” The Journal of Politics 36:327–55.Google Scholar
Cormick, G.W. (1980). “The ‘Theory’ and Practice of Environmental Mediation.” The Environmental Professional 2(1):24–33.Google Scholar
DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R.B. (1985). “GDSS: A New Frontier.” Data Base 16(2):2–10.Google Scholar
DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R.B. (1987). “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems.” Management Science 33:589–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunham, R.B. (1984). Organizational Behavior. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (1993). Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. USDA Forest Service, USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Forrester, J.W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harmon, P. and King, D. (1985). Expert Systems. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Himes, J.S. (1980). Conflict and Conflict Management. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Keeney, R.L. (1994). “Creativity in Decision Making with Value-Focused Thinking.” Sloan Management Review 35(4):33–41.Google Scholar
Kane, J. (1972). “A Primer for a New Cross-Impact Language—KSIM.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 4:129–42.Google Scholar
Kane, J., Vertinsky, I., and Thompson, W.A. (1973). “KSIM: A Methodology for Interactive Resource Policy Simulation.” Water Resources Research 9:65–79.Google Scholar
Kriesberg, L. (1973). The Sociology of Social Conflicts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lendaris, G.G. (1980). “Structural Modeling: A Tutorial Guide.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics vol. SMC-10(12): 807–40.Google Scholar
Mason, R.O. and Mitroff, I. (1981). Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Phillips, L.D. (1984). “A Theory of Requisite Decision Models.” Acta Psychologica 56:29–48.Google Scholar
Phillips, L.D. (1988). “People-Centered Group Decision Support.” In Doukidis, G.I., Land, F., and Miller, G. (eds.), Knowledge-Based Management Support Systems. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
Phillips, L.D. (1990). “Decision Analysis for Group Decision Support.” In Eden, C. and Radford, J. (eds.), Tackling Strategic Problems: The Role of Group Decision Support. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Rohrbaugh, J. (1989). Demonstration Experiments: Assessing the Process, Not the Outcome, of Group Decision Support. Boston: Harvard Business School Research Colloquium. Publishing Division, Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
Smith, H.R. (1960). Democracy and the Public Interest. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Stark, C.R. Jr. and Seitz, W.D. (1988a). Evaluation of Alternative Procedures for Public Input in Watershed Modeling. Proceedings, The Second Symposium on Social Science in Resources Management, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, June 6-9.Google Scholar
Stark, C.R. Jr. and Seitz, W.D. (1988b). “EZ-IMPACT: A Judgment-Based Program for Public Input in Resource Management and Modeling.” Society and Natural Resources 1(4): 387–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, B.B. and Brannon, E. (1989). Participatory Planning: The Flathead Forest Planning Workshop Revisited. Special Report No. 89-01. New York: National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement.Google Scholar
Thomas, J.W., Forsman, E.D., Lint, J.B., Meslow, E.C., Noon, B.R., and Verner, J. (1990). A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl: A Report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service.Google Scholar
Thompson, W.A., Vertinsky, I., and Kane, J. (1973). KSIM—Policy Simulation: User's Manual. Vancouver, BC: Resource Science Center, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1990). Report to Congress: Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Yadav, S.B. and Khazanchi, D. (1992). “Subjective Understanding in Strategic Decision Making.” Decision Support Systems 8(1):55–71.Google Scholar