Negotiation Training Reading Room

Negotiation/Conflict Resolution

The Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch (PASA) of the U.S. Geological Survey has generated many publications about negotiation, public perception of the environment, and economic valuation. The more recent publications are listed here. The following publications are listed according to topic and ordered by date, most recent first. For a comprehensive list please visit the PASA bibliography at: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/PASA/bibliography.asp.

Planning for and Diagnosing a Negotiation

• Lamb, B.L., J.G. Taylor, N. Burkardt, and S.C. Gillette. 2005. The effects of urgency to reach agreement on the process and outcome of multi-party natural resource negotiations. International Journal of Organizational Theory and Behavior 8(3): 372-395.
• Lamb, B.L., and N.P. Lovrich. 2005. Agency bargaining behavior in multi-party environmental negotiations: a symposium overview. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 8(2): 175-180.
• Lamb, B.L., and N.P. Lovrich, (eds.). 2005. Symposium on agency bargaining behavior in multi-party environmental negotiations: Part I. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 8(2): 174-273.
• Gillette, S.C. and B.L. Lamb. 2005. Core competencies for natural resource negotiation. Environmental Practice 7(3): 155-164.
• Ponds, P.D., and N. Burkardt. 2002. Role analysis to initiate citizen involvement: a case study of the Wyoming grizzly bear management planning process. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7(4): 301-302.
• Burkardt, N. 2001. Thoughts on motivational problems in networks. In: Getting Results Through Collaboration: Networks and Network Structures For Public Policy and Management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. p. 239-241.
• Lamb, B.L., N. Burkardt, and J.G. Taylor. 2001. The importance of defining technical issues in interagency environmental negotiations. Public Works Management and Policy 5(3): 220-232.
• Lamb, B.L., and N. Burkardt. 2000. Salient technical issues for resolving hydropower conflicts involving instream flow. In: Maione, U., B.M. Lehto, and R. Monti, (eds.). New Trends in Water and Environmental Engineering for Safety and Life: eco-compatible solutions for aquatic environments. Proceedings of an International Conference, Capri, Italy, 3-7 July 2000. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A. A. Balkema. p. [1-12] CD.
• Burkardt, N., B.L. Lamb, and J.G. Taylor. 1998. Desire to bargain and negotiate success: Lessons about the need to negotiate from six hydropower disputes. Environmental Management 22:877-886.
• Lamb, B.L., J.G. Taylor, N. Burkardt, and P.D. Ponds. 1998. A policy model to initiate environmental negotiations: Three hydropower workshops. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 3:1-16.
• Burkardt, N., B.L. Lamb, and J.G. Taylor. 1997. Power distribution in complex environmental negotiations: Does balance matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7:247-275.
• Lamb, B.L., N. Burkardt, and J.G. Taylor. 1996. Quants and wonks in environmental disputes: Are scientists experts or advocates? Pages 173-186 in Dennis Soden (ed.) At the Nexus: Science Policy. Commack N.Y: Nova Publishers.
• Taylor, J.G., B.L. Lamb, N. Burkardt, and S. Flick. 1996. What makes a hydropower negotiation successful? Hydro Review 15(5):66-71.
• Burkardt, N., B.L. Lamb, J.G. Taylor, and T. Waddle. 1995. Technical clarity in inter-agency negotiations: Lessons from four hydropower projects. Water Resources Bulletin 31:187-198.
• Taylor, J.G., N. Burkardt, and B.L. Lamb. 1995. Rules for success in environmental negotiations. Pages 30-37 in John Cassiday (ed.), Waterpower '95: Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
• Burkardt, N., B.L. Lamb, and T. Waddle. 1994. Technical understanding in successful environmental negotiations. Pages 694-697 in D.G. Fontane and H.N. Tuvel (eds.), Water Policy and Management: Solving Problems, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of Water Resources Planning and Management Division of American Society of Civil Engineers.
• Coughlan, B.A.K., N. Burkardt, and D. Fulton. 1993. Assessing the “need to negotiate” in FERC licensing consultations: A study of two hydropower projects. (Abstract), Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 13:331-351.
• Coughlan, B.A.K., and C.L. Armour. 1992. Group decision-making techniques for natural resource management applications. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 185, Washington, DC. This will filter IN the terms "negotiation, planning" and "negotiation, diagnosing."

Instream Flow Negotiation

• Lamb, B.L. 1995. Criteria for evaluating state instream flow programs: Deciding what works. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 121(3):270-274.

Legal Institutional Analysis Model (LIAM)

• Lamb, B.L., N. Burkardt, and D. Lybecker. 2004. Background and applications of the Legal-Institutional Analysis Model (LIAM) for management of infrastructures. In: Miyamoto, A., and H. Morata, (eds.). Proceedings of Infrastructure and Environmental Management symposium, Yamaguchi 2004. Ube, Yamaguchi, Japan: Infrastructures and Environmental Management Research Group, Y.U. p. 54-69.
• Burkardt, N., and B.L. Lamb. 2003. Use of the Legal-Institutional Analysis Model to assess hydropower licensing negotiations [abs.]. In: IFIM Workshop Presentations and Abstracts: On-line Program of the International IFIM Users Meeting, June 1-5, 2003, Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Univ [abs.]. In: Proceedings of the International IFIM Users Meeting, June 1-5, 2003, Fort Collins, CO. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Office of Conference Services. p. [1-8] CD-ROM.
• Burkardt, N., and B.L. Lamb. 2000. Use of the 'Legal-Institutional Analysis Model' for resolving environmental disputes involving hydropower [abs.]. In: Maione, U., B.M. Lehto, and R. Monti, (eds.). Trends in water and environmental engineering for safety and life: eco-compatible solutions for aquatic environments. Proceedings of an International Conference, Capri, Italy, 3-7 July 2000. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema. p. 93
• Lamb, B.L., N. Burkardt, and D.L. Lybecker. 1999. Decision analysis tools: Use of the Legal-Institutional Analysis Model. Chapter 9, Pages 175-194, in D.L. Soden and B.S. Steel (eds.), Handbook of Global Environmental Policy and Administration. New York: Marcel-Dekker, Inc.
• Lybecker, D.L. 1996. Bargaining for environmental public policy in Mexico: Chapala Lake. Masters Thesis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
• Lamb, B.L. 1995. Legal and institutional analysis. Pages 25-47 in K.D. Bovee (ed.), The Complete IFIM: A Comprehensive Overview of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Washington, DC: National Biological Service.
• Lamb, B.L., L.J. Wilds-Magennis, and J.G. Taylor. 1993. Legal-Institutional Analysis Model user's manual. U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO.
• Wilds, L.J.1988. The Legal-Institutional Analysis Model (LIAM): A validation study. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 25. Bio. Rep. 88(33), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Lamb, B.L. 1987. Software for negotiation planning: Experience with a new program. Social Science Microcomputer Review 5(2): 137-148.
• Wilds, L.J. 1986. A new perspective in institutional analysis: The Legal-Institutional Analysis Model (LIAM). Instream Flow Information Paper No. 23, Bio. Rep. 86(9), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Doerksen, H. R., and B. L. Lamb. 1979. Managing the rippling stream: A model of decisionmaking in natural resources administration. Water Resources Bulletin 15(6).

Water Policy and Law

• Soden, D.L., C.R. Bath, F. Cady, and W. Weaver. 1997. Water resources in the Paso del Norte: legal and institutional analysis. Public Policy Research Center for the Center for Environmental Resource Management, El Paso, TX.
• Lamb, B.L., and B.A.K. Coughlan. 1993. Legal considerations in inland fisheries management. Pages 77-104 in C.C. Kohler and W. Hubert (eds.) Inland Fisheries Management. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.
• Lamb, B.L., and E. Lord. 1992. Legal mechanisms for protecting riparian resource values. Water Resources Research 28(4):965-977.
• Lamb, B.L., and H.R. Doerksen, 1990. Instream flow uses of water-laws and methods for determining flow requirements. Pages 109-116 in J.E. Carr, R.W. Paulson, and D.W. Moody (eds.), 1987 National Water Summary. Water Supply Paper 2350. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey.
• Olive, S.W. 1983. Protecting instream flows in Iowa: An administrative case study. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 20. FWS/OBS-83/18, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Olive, S.W. 1982. Protecting instream flows in Idaho: An administrative case study. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 15. FWS/OBS-82/35, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Olive, S.W. 1981. Protecting instream flows in California: An administrative case study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 14. FWS/OBS-82/34.
• Sweetman, D.A. 1979. Protecting flows in Montana: Yellowstone River reservation case study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 10. FWS/OBS-79/36.

Web Sites

• The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project. 2003-2006. Beyond Intractability: A Free Knowledge Base on More Constructive Approaches to Destructive Conflict, University of Colorado: Boulder, Colorado. http://www.beyondintractability.org/
• The Morris K. Udall Foundation’s U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. http://www.ecr.gov/