Examining the Claims of Environmental ADR: Evidence from Waste Management Conflicts in Ontario and Massachusetts

Andrew, John S.

doi:10.1177/073945601128993148

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparison of Agreement Findings in theLiterature Table adaptedand updated fromAndrew (2001). met their hoped-for outcomes in the case.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…For example, we have learned that mediation generally gets high marks from parties on satisfaction with the process and somewhat lower ratings on satisfaction with the outcomes (Coglianese, 2002;Dukes, 2004b). We know that the agreement rate for environmental and natural resource conflict resolution ranges considerably, from 61 to 93 percent depending on who is reporting and when the data are collected (Bingham, 1986;Buckle and Thomas-Buckle, 1986;Sipe and Stiftel, 1995;Sipe, 1998;Susskind, McKearnan, and Thomas-Larmer, 1999;Andrew, 2001;O'Leary and Husar, 2002;Berry, Stiftel, and Dedekorkut, 2003;Frame, Gunton, and Day, 2004). There are increasingly sophisticated, albeit not widely used, tools for measuring the quality of ECR agreements (D'Estree and Colby, 2004;Armbruster, 2008), drawing on antecedent negotiation theory and experimental studies of cooperation and competition (Raiffa, 1982;Axelrod, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental conflict resolution: Evaluating performance outcomes and contributing factors

Emerson

Orr²,

Keyes

et al. 2009

Conflict Resolution Qtrly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This empirical study of fifty-two environmental conflict resolution (ECR) processes is based on an evaluation framework that specifies key conditions and factors that contribute to ECR outcomes. Data were collected on a range of ECR processes and applications. This article reports on findings from a multilevel modeling analysis that focuses on three primary outcomes: reaching agreement, the quality of agreement, and improved working relationships among parties. Effective engagement of parties is identified as a major contributor to all three outcomes. Other key factors that operate directly and indirectly through effective engagement are involvement of appropriate parties, the skills and practices of ECR mediators and facilitators, and incorporation of relevant and high-quality information. Findings generally support the ECR evaluation framework.

show abstract

“…Comparison of Agreement Findings in theLiterature Table adaptedand updated fromAndrew (2001). met their hoped-for outcomes in the case.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental conflict resolution: Evaluating performance outcomes and contributing factors

Emerson

Orr²,

Keyes

et al. 2009

Conflict Resolution Qtrly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Menemen solid waste case site selection was blamed to be done by looking from Google. Some LULUs faced conflicts because of temporal deficiencies like weaknesses in meeting deadlines (Kunreuther et al, 1991(Kunreuther et al, , 1993Andrew, 2001), being late in their site decisions or time of informing local people. An alternative site to Harmandalı solid waste facility should be found before its capacity expired.…”

Section: "mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Effect of political actors: politicization of development issues (Bassett et al, 2002), lack of balance between parties (Andrew, 2001) and siting decisions influenced by political pressures (O'Hare et al, 1983) cause conflicts. The involvement of powerful political actors to manipulate the decisions in both site selection and conflict processes increased the local movements in the cases.…”

Section: "mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The strategies based on technical and ethical concerns include competent siting practice, considering local, environmental, social criteria, developing trust, utilizing from multi-disciplinary approach (Nordenstam, 1994;Been, 1994;Forester, 1999;Carpenter, 1999;Elliott et al, 2003;Healey, 2003;Klosterman, 2003;Llurdes et al, 2003), and using compensation and technology (Ozawa, 1999;Lam and Woo, 2009;Chiou et al, 2011;Lesbirel, 2011). Besides, participatory approaches suggest conflict resolution methods such as mediation, facilitation, negotiation, collaboration and consensus building (Forester, 1999;Innes and Booher, 1999;Straus, 1999;Andrew, 2001;Margerum, 2002;Goldstein and Butler, 2010;Cullen et al, 2010). …”

Section: Planning For Lulusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conflicts over Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs): Reasons and solutions for case studies in Izmir (Turkey)

Kaya

Erol

2016

Land Use Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tLand use planning affects many different and usually conflicting interests. While every land use planning decision has a potential of creating conflicts, Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs) are the most conflict facing subjects in urban land use planning processes. This paper aims to answer the question "what are the reasons and solutions for conflicts in the planning processes of LULUs". This paper is based on a research examining LULU cases inİzmir, Turkey including solid waste facilities, fisheries and quarries to find out the reasons and the solutions for LULU conflicts. The research findings suggest that the conflicts stem not only from negative effects of LULUs on environment and community but also from procedural deficiencies such as lack of knowledge and lack of trust. The findings also call for planning processes with more consideration of local level and public participation seeking for consensus. Meanwhile, the conclusions underline the limitations for the success of participatory processes in which conflicts are resolved with attempts including symbolic benefits rather than considering exact interests of local people.

show abstract

Policy Beliefs in Spatial Decisions: Contrasting Core Beliefs Concerning Space-making for Waste Infrastructure

Wolsink

2004

Urban Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In planning the existence of structural differences in policy, beliefs among stakeholders are crucial. This study concludes that the most salient contrasts in beliefs about spatial and environmental planning concern the way the process is managed. Some of those contrasts reflect fundamental assumptions about the possibilities for reaching consensus and the relevance of involvement of actors in the process. The beliefs of the key actors involved in six siting decisions about waste infrastructure were identified and analysed by using Q methodology and cultural theory. This revealed that core beliefs about choices in environmental policy and waste management are connected with beliefs about spatial planning. The contrasts mainly concern issues of scale linked to competences regarding decision-making. The belief system of dominating actors is mainly hierarchical, combined with a technocratic approach to waste management prioritising incineration. Two alternative belief systems emphasised prevention as priority and egalitarian views on spatial decisions. Although the hierarchical approach of dominant coalitions was far from effective, the tendency remains of increasing top-down planning. Facility siting is increasingly framed in terms of larger areas and the reliance on hierarchical planning fits the authoritarian bias that emerges in such rescaling processes.

show abstract

Examining the Claims of Environmental ADR: Evidence from Waste Management Conflicts in Ontario and Massachusetts

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Environmental conflict resolution: Evaluating performance outcomes and contributing factors

Environmental conflict resolution: Evaluating performance outcomes and contributing factors

Conflicts over Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs): Reasons and solutions for case studies in Izmir (Turkey)

Policy Beliefs in Spatial Decisions: Contrasting Core Beliefs Concerning Space-making for Waste Infrastructure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About