Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:51:25.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategies to Manage Conflicts Among Multiple Users

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

G. Allen Rasmussen  and
Mark W. Brunson
G. Allen Rasmussen
Affiliation:
Dep. of Rangeland Resources, Utah State Univ., Logan UT 84322-5230
Mark W. Brunson
Affiliation:
Dep. of Forest Resources, Utah State Univ., Logan UT 84322-5230
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Land management practices have been developed primarily by focusing on resource objectives. Public perceptions of these practices are seldom considered until after they have been introduced and conflicts have developed among different user groups. This paper reviews attitudes about conflicts and approaches to managing conflicts. The causes of conflict (misunderstanding, lack of information, differing interests, and/or personal values) will determine how successfully a conflict can be managed. Collaborative methods have become very popular, and can effectively address conflicts originating from misunderstandings or differing interests. However, for collaborative processes to be successful when dealing with value-based conflicts, considerable time and a skilled third party facilitator has generally been required.

Keywords

Collaborationconflict resolutionrangeland policy
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 447 - 450
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Amy, D., 1987. The Politics of Environmental Mediation. Columbia University Press, NY. 278 p.Google Scholar
2. Brunson, M. W., and Steel, B. S. 1994. National public attitudes toward federal rangeland management. Rangelands 16:77–81.Google Scholar
3. Burgess, H., 1993. Confronting Intractable Conflicts in Constructive Ways: an Overview of the University of Colorado's Intractable Conflict and Constructive Confrontation Project. National Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution. University of Colorado Press. Boulder, CO. No. 93–37. 21 p.Google Scholar
4. Burton, J., 1990. Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. St. Martin's Press, NY, 295 p.Google Scholar
5. Crowfoot, J. E., and Wondolleck, J. M., 1990. Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement in Conflict Resolution. Island Press, Washington, DC. 278 p.Google Scholar
6. Fisher, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books, NY. 200 p.Google Scholar
7. Kruger, W. C., 1994. Building consensus for riparian users: Towards the twenty-first century. p. 77–82 in Rasmussen, G. A. and Dobrowolski, J. P., eds. Riparian Resources, Natural Resources and Environmental Issues. Utah State Univ. Logan, UT.Google Scholar
8. Lincoln, W. F., 1990. Dispute Resolution—A handbook for land use planners and resource managers. University of Oregon: Bureau of Governmental Research and Service. National Center Associates, Inc. Google Scholar
9. Scifres, C. J., 1980. Brush management: Principles and Practices for Texas and the Southwest. Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station. 360 p.Google Scholar
10. Torell, D. J., 1994. Viewpoint: Alternative dispute resolution in public land management. J. Range Manage. 47:70–73.Google Scholar