1
The Use of
Shared Vision Modeling
for Negotiation and
Conflict Resolution
Dr. Richard N. Palmer, William Werrick,
Andrew Woods, and Allison MacEwan
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington 98195-2700
Palmer@u.washington.edu
http://ce.washington.edu/~palmer
3
4
Models are
definitely
the solution.
Now, what was
the question?
5
Presentation Overview
Comments on Computing
What is Shared Vision Modeling?
Computers and Negotiation
Three Applications of Shared
Vision Modeling
Future Directions
6
Simple Story Line
Today’s water resources managers need
different skills than their
predecessors.
Negotiations of water resource conflicts
will become more sophisticated in
many ways.
Computer tools offer a framework to
help manage and focus this change.
7
8
Why Did We Start Modeling?
Automate the process of calculation
Answer questions faster
Answer questions that previously had
not answers
Recognized a potential (W. Whipple)
9
Because the blackboards weren’t big enough
10
One of the earliest non-military
applications of computers was to water
resources
Harvard Water Program foresaw the
major impacts of computers
Simulation and optimization models
appeared to offer tremendous promise
11
Traditional Water Resources Models
Developed and used by analysts
Developed with single perspective
Created with little peer review
Not portable to many users
12
Why Do We Model Now?
All the previous answers
Frame problems and our thinking
Visualize Results
Formulate Alternatives
Evaluate Sensitivity
Facilitate Negotiations
13
15
16
History
1934 - Fish & Wildlife Coord. Act
1936 - Federal Flood Control Act
1950 - “Green Book”
1962 - U.S. Senate Document 97
1965 - Water Resour. Planning Act
1969 - “Blue Book”
Today's Environment
Shared Costs by Locals
Less Federal Presence
More Stakeholders Interest
Stakeholders have assumed
more significant role
Environmental Concerns
1973 - Principles & Standards
1989 - Principles & Guidelines
17
The Recurring Challenges
Multi-disciplinary teams seek disciplined and
organized approaches to water planning and
management
Stakeholders want more influence in the
formulation of plans and assumptions
The “Study Process” is as important as content
18
Formulate
Teams
Problems and
Objectives
Evaluate
Alternatives
Define the
Status Quo
Implement
the Plan
Formulate
Alternatives
Exercise
the Plan
19
Conflicts in Water Resources
When people disagree about how much
water of a given quality should be at a
specific location at a given time.
“...conflict is often a positive force -evidence of social vitality and ability
to change.” Bill Lord
A sharing of values is not required, but a
tolerance for other values and the
people who hold them.
20
Negotiation
The process of arriving at a
acceptable solution to a dispute
when two or more parties recognize
that differences of interests and
values exist between them.
21
The Settling of Disputes
Traditions
Regulations
Courts
Markets
Negotiations
22
Negotiation
Are there more than two parties?
Are the parties monolithic?
Does the situation repeat itself?
Are there linkages in place?
Is there more than one issue?
Is an agreement required?
23
Negotiation
Is ratification required?
Are threats possible?
Are there time constraints?
Are the constraints binding?
Are the negotiations public?
Is third party intervention possible?
24
Negotiation
Single Negotiation Text
technique used in multi-party
negotiations in which an initial draft
is created to provide a framework
and bounds for continued
modifications of an agreement
25
Computer Models as
Negotiation Tools
When models appear to influence decision
making:
The models support a position previously
held position with political appeal
The models have been incorporated into the
decision- making process at an early stage
and attempt to include economic and nonphysical measures
26
27
What is a
Shared Vision Model?
A “Shared Vision” model is a
collective view of a water resources
system developed by managers and
stakeholders, used to facilitate plan
development, maintenance,
implementation and public
participation.
28
32
National Drought Study
All Parties impacted by plan should be
involved in plan formulation.
(Five Sites, with varying degrees of success)
Impacts of Philosophy
•
•
•
•
Increased the number of participants in the
planning process
Required that the objectives of multiple
stakeholders be explicitly considered
Required a process that promoted
consensus building
Required effective communication
33
National Drought Study

Cedar and Green River Basins, Washington

Marais des Cygnes-Osage River Basins, Kansas
and Missouri

James River Basin, Virginia

Kanawha River Basin, Virginia
and West Virginia

Boston, Massachusetts
34
National Drought Study
UW provided training in modeling and
planning process
First efforts to link seven step planning
process, model construction, and
plan implementation
Ted Williams a national hero
and he only batted 400!
But some good ideas were identified
35
Virtual Droughts
• Build on a foundation supplied by
collaborative planning
• Utilize a Shared Vision Model that
interlaces technical analysis with joint
decision making
• Allow realistic
simulations of drought
36
First Virtual Drought Exercise
• Held on August 4, 1993, in Seattle in
conjunction with the Green River DPS
• Included federal, state and local
managers and stakeholders, as well as
tribal representatives
• Participants negotiated drought
management decisions
• Demonstrated the capabilities of the
Shared Vision Model
• Achieved a high level of realism
37
Requirements of a VDE
• Facilitator
• Participation of managers and
stakeholders
• Media or public affairs representatives
• Information to support decision making
during the Virtual Drought Scenario
• A Shared Vision Model
• Guidelines for the exercise: including
rules, meta rules, and agenda
38
Issues:
• Hydropower
• Navigation
• Water Supply
• Recreation
• Environmental
39
ACT-ACF Model Building Process
What was needed? A model that was...
 Useful - Neutral -Trusted - Endorsed
 Modeling was performed iteratively
Mock Model, Water Balance, and Effects Models
 Operators, Managers, Decision Makers included:
Core groups of 8-10 on model building team
More than 12 workshops
Over 30 teleconferences
Weekly e-mail updates
Homepage created to provide models and documents
40
ACT-ACF Model Building Process
Public Involvement
Three major public involvement workshops
“Circles of influence”
Integrated with other project functions
Interviews with other contractors
Certified review letters
Critical reviews
Competition with other models
41
What were the models?
Developed in the STELLA environment
Captured water releases, reservoir storages, M&I
demands, agriculture demands, hydropower,
operating policies, other allocation rules
Contained outputs from other study elements
2-4 megabytes in size, 2-7 minutes run-time
Presentation graphs
Documentation
All available to interested parties
42
How Were the Models Used
Not always as intended
The term ‘alternatives’ was rarely used
Participants often maintained distance from
implications of models
Progress made in small steps, but an Interstate
Compact was signed
Recent successful gaming simulation
Comments from study partners
43
44
45
46
49
Modeling Goal
Development of a comprehensive
infrastructure model that can integrate
land-use processes, regional growth,
transportation, water demands,
wastewater demands, hydrology, water
quality, and system operations while
reflecting historic and emerging
environmental values in the region.
50
Emerging Infrastructure Issues
Transportation Systems
Supply Regionalization
Water Supply Reliability
Water Rights
Wastewater Treatment
Watershed Stewardship
Environmental Quality
Utilities Rates
Growth Boundaries
Transmission Limitations
I can help, I can help, I can help
Endangered Species Act
Land-Use
HCPs
Zoning
51
Shared Vision Process
Using ESA to provide motivation for
Shared Vision and cooperation
High level of distrust between counties,
cities, state, and federal agencies
Walking the model through the agencies
Successful workshop for model critique
Web access for model documentation and
model distribution planned
52
57
58
Summary
A “Shared Vision” model represents a
collective view of water resource
A shared vision is required at all levels of
planning and management.
Modeling Objectives remain a key
Stakeholder input is essential to shared
vision model development.
Guidelines for model use, distribution, and
maintenance should be established.
59
Summary
Models are only one form of evidence
Success is dependent upon the degree to which
those making decisions trust this type of
evidence
One must be able to “walk-through” decisionmaking without model results
Mock
decision process
Virtual Decisions
Focus on role of model
60
Summary
If model are to be used, they must have a
role from the start
There must be consensus in process as
well as in what to model
The value of information varies
Strive to make the model the “Single text
negotiation document”
61