review of current research on non-rational drivers of behaviour in environmental conflicts

July 3, 2015

about me

• phd candidate at university of calgary • faculty of environmental design • director, marketing & communications • 20 years in communications• ba (economics), mba (marketing), jd (law)• biases: iterative design, communications• the following is from my literature review

agenda

• the short version • the topic of interest • the current science• implications for resolution tactics• so what?

the short version

• assessment discipline is not optimal for conflict resolution

• a systems approach can help • environmental conflicts involve non-

rational behaviour • that can be modeled • this may create opportunities to enhance

assessment expertise

topic of interest

• how to make sense of complex environmental conflicts?

• so what?

assessment

• environmental conflicts are multifaceted social interactions

• challenge for predictive theory building • complicated nature crosses disciplines • approach must be multidisciplinary &

comprehensive

assessment

• assessment tends to be discipline-specific – strategic environmental, policy impact, health impact,

regulatory impact, social impact, sustainability impact, cumulative effects, adaptive management, etc., etc.

• bounded rationality vs. post-positivism • governance responsibilities • social impact • pro: expertise • con: fragmentation

theory – biological systems

• von bertalanffy (1950) • heavy constraints • deterministic • self-organization• complexity • psychology

theory – info systems

• buckley (1967) • no constraints • voluntaristic • rationality• cybernetics• environmental

models

systems

• new conflict epistemology – emotional drivers – unconscious thought

• non-reductionism• emergence • nonlinearity • coherence & resolution

systems

• attractors – conflicts are stable, destructive patterns – manifest & latent

non-rational drivers

• multiple layers of reality• unconscious self-organization• the role of emotions• values versus interests• hysteresis• prospect theory • social identity theory

non-rational drivers

• framing & intractability – identity– characterization– conflict management– fact-finding– social control– power– risk

method

• time as independent variable • phenomenological • mathematical

– measuring complexity of data strings – qualitative differential modeling – energy landscapes

method

• agent based modeling – simulates complex environments – self-contained units– interact with others – react & learn – autonomous – limited information

method variable based modeling agent based modeling

goal covering laws generative outcomes

examine patterns of covariation processes of interaction

approach statistical comparison simulation

iterative resolution

• deduction – know cause & rule • induction – know cause & effect • abduction – know rule & effect

iterative resolution

• the role of process • examples of tactics

– disassembly – latent attractors – bifurcation

• wicked problem iteration • learning network• methodology iteration

proposal

• add non-rational decision making heuristics to a common pool resource dilemma with rational heuristics

• compare & contrast outcomes • draw implications for resolution & policy

so what?

• when modeling societal impacts, we can’t assume purely rational behaviour

• leverage current expectations around – social license– iterative resolution

Adelle, C., & Weiland, S. (2012). Policy Assessment: the State of the Art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 25–33.Agazarian, Y., & Gantt, S. (2005). The Systems Perspective. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The Handbook of Group Research and Practice (pp. 187–201). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412990165.d13Asah, S. T., Bengston, D. N., Wendt, K., & DeVaney, L. (2012a). Prognostic Framing of Stakeholders’ Subjectivities: A case of All-Terrain Vehicle Management on State Public Lands. Environmental Management, 49(1), 192–206. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9756-7Asah, S. T., Bengston, D. N., Wendt, K., & Nelson, K. C. (2012b). Diagnostic Reframing of Intractable Environmental Problems: Case of a Contested Multiparty Public Land-Use Conflict. Journal of Environmental Management, 108, 108–19. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.041Auger, P., Bravo de la Parra, R., Morand, S., & Sánchez, E. (2002). A Predator–Prey Model With Predators Using Hawk And Dove Tactics. Mathematical Biosciences, 177-178, 185–200. doi:10.1016/S0025-5564(01)00112-2Axelrod, R. (1997). The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration (p. 248). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The Evolution of Cooperation. Science, 211(March), 1390–1396.Bailey, K. D. (1994). Sociology and the New Systems Theory (1st ed., p. 372). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Balint, P. J., Stewart, R. E., Desai, A., & Walters, L. C. (2011). Wicked Environmental Problems (1st ed., p. 253). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Barker, F., & Capie, D. (2010). Identity as a Variable in Canadian and New Zealand Politics. Political Science, 62(1), 3–10. doi:10.1177/0032318710375760Bartlett, R. V., & Kurian, P. A. (1999). The Theory Of Environmental Impact Assessment: Implicit Models Of Policy Making. Policy & Politics, 27(4). Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/pap/1999/00000027/00000004/art00002Bazerman, M. H. (2013). Framing and the Reversal of Preferences. In Judgment in Managerial Decision Making (8th ed., pp. 82–102). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Bernoulli, D. (1954). Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 22, 23–26 (Original work published 1738).Boettcher, W. A. (2004). The Prospects for Prospect Theory: An Empirical Evaluation of International Relations Applications of Framing and Loss Aversion. Political Psychology, 25(3), 331–362. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00375.x/abstractBond, A., & Pope, J. (2012). The State Of The Art Of Impact Assessment In 2012. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 1–4.Brams, S., & Wittman, D. (1980). Nonmyoptic Equilibria. In International Congress of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Nonmyopic+Equilibria#3Bristow, M., Fang, L., & Hipel, K. W. (2012). System Of Systems Engineering And Risk Management Of Extreme Events: Concepts And Case Study. Risk Analysis, 32(11), 1935–1955.Bristow, M., Member, S., Fang, L., Member, S., & Hipel, K. W. (2014). Agent-Based Modeling of Competitive and Cooperative Behavior Under Conflict. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics: Systems, 44(7), 834–850.Bryan, T. (2004). Tragedy Averted: The Promise of Collaboration. Society and Natural Resources, 17(10), 881–896. doi:10.1080/08941920490505284Buckley, W. F. (1967). Sociology and Modern Systems Theory (1st ed.). Oxford: Prentice-Hall.Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis (15th ed., p. 432). London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (1994). The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition (p. 296). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Campbell, M. C. (2003). Intractability in Environmental Disputes: Exploring a Complex Construct. Journal of Planning Literature, 17(3), 360–371. doi:10.1177/0885412202239138Cederman, L. E. (2005). Computational Models of Social Forms: Advancing Generative Process Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 864–893. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/426412Chen, S. (2010). A Dynamic Programming Implemented Resource Competition Game Theoretic Model. Ecological Modelling, 221(16), 1847–1851. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.04.013Churchman, C. W. (1967). Wicked Problems. Management Science, 14(4), B141–142. doi:10.1111/j.1601-5037.2012.00571.xColeman, P. T. (2004). Paradigmatic Framing of Protracted, Intractable Conflict: Toward the Development of a Meta-framework-II. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10(3), 197–235.Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., Bui Wrzosinska, L., Bartoli, A., Liebovitch, L. S., Musallam, N., & Kugler, K. G. (2011). ‐ The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts (1st ed., p. 274). New York City: PublicAffairs.

references

Coleman, P. T., & Vallacher, R. R. (2007). Intractable Conflict as an Attractor: A Dynamical Systems Approach to Conflict Escalation and Intractability. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(11), 1454–1476. Retrieved from http://abs.sagepub.com/content/50/11/1454.shortCraik, N., Doelle, M., & Gale, F. (2012). Governing Information: a Three Dimensional Analysis of Environmental Assessment. Public Administration, 90(1), 19–36. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02002.xCurceu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. (2007). The Effects of Framing on Inter-group Negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(4), 347–362. doi:10.1007/s10726-007-9098-2Davis, C. B., & Lewicki, R. J. (2003). Environmental Conflict Resolution: Framing and Intractability. Environmental Practice, 5(3), 200–206.Dew, N. (2007). Abduction: A Pre-Condition For The Intelligent Design Of Strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 38–45. doi:10.1108/02756660710760935Doanh, N.-N., Tri, N.-H., & Pierre, A. (2012). Effects of Refuges and Density Dependent Dispersal on Interspecific Competition Dynamics. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 22(02), 1250029. doi:10.1142/S0218127412500290Dobrinevski, A., & Frey, E. (2012). Extinction In Neutrally Stable Stochastic Lotka-Volterra Models. Physical Review E, 85(5), 051903. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.85.051903Dooley, K. J. (1997). A Complex Adaptive Systems Model Of Organization Change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 1(69-97).Doreian, P. (2001). Causality in Social Network Analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 30(1), 81–114. Retrieved from http://smr.sagepub.com/content/30/1/81.shortDuinker, P. N., & Greig, L. A. (2006). The Impotence Of Cumulative Effects Assessment In Canada: Ailments And Ideas For Redeployment. Environmental Management, 37(2), 153–61. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5Epstein, J. M. (1999). Agent-Based Computational Models And Generative Social Science. Complexity, 4(5), 41–60. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199905/06)4:5<41::AID-CPLX9>3.0.CO;2-FErdi, P. (2008). Complexity Explained (1st ed., p. 397). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JwgpLvknc8wC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Complexity+Explained&ots=ouo1ziD2td&sig=1aLm9oNZZIfjNDBibcchh-WKXeQEsteves, A. M., Franks, D., & Vanclay, F. (2012). Social Impact Assessment: The State Of The Art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 34–42.Fang, L., Hipel, K. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (1993). Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model For Conflict Resolution. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45(12), 221 pp. Retrieved from http://www.getcited.org/pub/103086946Flache, A., & Macy, M. W. (2004). Social Life From The Bottom Up: Agent Modeling And The New Sociology. In Social Dynamics: Interaction, Reflexivity, and Emergence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.G. Pruitt, D., & Nowak, A. (2014). Attractor Landscapes And Reaction Functions In Escalation And De-Escalation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(4), 387–406. doi:10.1108/IJCMA-01-2014-0004Gabbay, D., & Woods, J. (2006). Advice on Abductive Logic. Logic Journal of IGPL, 14(2), 189–219. doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzk014Gadlin, H. (2013). Rethinking Intractability: A New Framework for Conflict. Negotiation Journal, 29(1), 99–117. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nejo.12007/fullGelfand, L. a, & Engelhart, S. (2012). Dynamical Systems Theory in Psychology: Assistance for the Lay Reader is Required. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(October), 382. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00382Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox (1st ed., p. 377). Boston: MIT Press.Gottman, J., Swanson, C., & Swanson, K. (2002). A General Systems Theory of Marriage: Nonlinear Difference Equation Modeling of Marital Interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(4), 326–340. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0604_07Gray, B., & Putnam, L. L. (2003). Means to What End? Conflict Management Frames. Environmental Practice, 5(3), 239–246. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=338756Griessmair, M., Strunk, G., Vetschera, R., & Koeszegi, S. T. (2011). Complexity in Electronic Negotiation Support Ssystems. Nonlinear Dynamics and Life Sciences, 15(4), 477–511. Retrieved from http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/21933516Guastello, S. J. (2005a). Statistical Distributions and Self-organizing Phenomena: What Conclusions Should be Drawn? Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 9(4), 463–478. Retrieved from http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/16194302Guastello, S. J. (2005b). 14 Nonlinear Methods for the Social Sciences. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The Handbook of Group Research and Practice (1st ed., pp. 251–373). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412990165.d18Hammond, D. (2002). Exploring the Genealogy of Systems Thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19(5), 429–439. doi:10.1002/sres.499Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243–48.Harris-roxas, B., Viliani, F., Bond, A., Cave, B., Divall, M., Furu, P., … Winkler, M. (2012). Health Impact Assessment: The State Of The Art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 43–52.Hartley, N., & Wood, C. (2005). Public Participation In Environmental Impact Assessment—Implementing The Aarhus Convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(4), 319–340. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.12.002Hempel, C. G. (1951). General System Theory and the Unity of Science. Human Biology, 23(4), 313–322.Hogg, M. A., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Attitudes In Social Context: A Social Identity Perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 89–131. doi:10.1080/10463280701592070Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255–269.Holden, E. (1998). Planning Theory: Democracy Or Sustainable Development? - Both (But Don’t Bother About The Bread, Please). Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research, 15(4), 227–247.Hughes, H. P. N., Clegg, C. W., Robinson, M. a., & Crowder, R. M. (2012). Agent-Based Modelling And Simulation: The Potential Contribution To Organizational Psychology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(3), 487–502. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02053.x

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing Public Participation: Strategies For The 21st Century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. doi:10.1080/1464935042000293170Jervis, R. (1997). System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life (1st ed., p. 315). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Jiménez-Montaño, M. (1984). On The Syntactic Structure Of Protein Sequences And The Concept Of Grammar Complexity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 46(4), 641–659. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02459508Jones, W., & Hughes, S. H. (2003). Complexity, Conflict Resolution, and How the Mind Works. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(4), 485–494.Kahneman, D. (2003). A Perspective On Judgment And Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality. The American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis Of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263–292. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1914185Kalick, S. M., & Hamilton, T. E. (1986). The Matching Hypothesis Reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 673–682.Kauffman, S. A. (1995). At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (1st ed.). New York: Oxford Press.Kaufman, S., Gardner, R., & Burgess, G. (2003). Just the Facts, Please: Framing and Technical Information. Environmental Practice, 5(03), 223–231. doi:10.1017/S1466046603035610Kelly, K. (1994). Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines (p. 521). London: Fourth Estate.Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2005). The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Past, Present, and Future. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(6), 441–460. doi:10.1007/s10726-005-9002-xKolko, J. (2010). Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: The Drivers of Design Synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28. doi:10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15Krippendorff, K. (1994). A Recursive Theory of Communication. In D. Crowley & D. Mitchell (Eds.), Communication Theory Today (pp. 78–104). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc papers/209Krippendorff, K. (2003). The Dialogical Reality of Meaning. The American Journal of Semiotics, 19(1-4), 19–36. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/51/Latane, B. (1981). The Psychology of Social Impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343–356. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/36/4/343/Lawrence, D. P. (1997). The Need for EIA Theory-Building. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 9255(97), 79–107. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925597000309Lawrence, D. P. (2000). Planning Theories And Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20(6), 607–625.Levy, J. S. (1996). Loss Aversion, Framing, And Bargaining: The Implications Of Prospect Theory For International Conflict. International Political Science Review, 17(2), 179–195. Retrieved from http://ips.sagepub.com/content/17/2/179.shortLewicki, R. J., Gray, B., & Elliott, M. (2003). Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts. (R. J. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott, Eds.)Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts (First., p. 469). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Liebovitch, L. S., Vallacher, R. R., & Michaels, J. (2010). Dynamics Of Cooperation-Competition Interaction Models. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 16(2), 175–188. doi:10.1080/10781911003691625Macal, C. M., & North, M. J. (2010). Tutorial On Agent-Based Modelling And Simulation. Journal of Simulation, 4(3), 151–162. doi:10.1057/jos.2010.3McDermott, R. (2009). Prospect Theory and Negotiation. In G. Sjöstedt & R. Avenhaus (Eds.), Negotiated Risks: International Talks on Hazardous Issues (pp. 87–109). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92993-2Mercay, A. (2006). Non-Linear Modelling of Small Arms Proliferation. In J. Borrie & V. M. Randin (Eds.), Thinking Outside the Box in Multilateral Disaramament and Arms Control Negotiations (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 165–190). Geneva: United Nations.Mercay, A., & Borrie, J. (2006). A Physics of Diplomacy? The Dynamics of Comlex Social Phenomena and their Implications for Multilateral Negotiations. In J. Borrie & V. M. Randin (Eds.), Thinking Outside the Box in Multilateral Disaramament and Arms Control Negotiations (1st ed., pp. 129–164). Geneva: United Nations. Retrieved from http://kms2.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/EINIRAS/47361/ichaptersection_singledocument/fe611b3c-8624-4a94-aa7a-2959a29e7211/en/Chap10.pdfMorgan, R. K. (2012). Environmental Impact Assessment: The State Of The Art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 5–14.Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 36(1), 48–49.Noble, B. F. (2009). Promise And Dismay: The State Of Strategic Environmental Assessment Systems And Practices In Canada. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(1), 66–75. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.05.004Nowak, A., Bui Wrzosinska, L., Coleman, P. T., Vallacher, R., Jochemczyk, L., & Bartkowski, W. (2010). Seeking Sustainable Solutions: Using an Attractor Simulation Platform for Teaching Multistakeholder ‐Negotiation in Complex Cases. Negotiation Journal, 26(1), 49–68. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00253.x/fullNowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From Private Attitude To Public Opinion: A Dynamic Theory Of Social Impact. Psychological Review, 97(3), 362–376. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.97.3.362O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2007). Environmental agreements, EIA follow-up and aboriginal participation in environmental management: The Canadian experience. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(4), 319–342. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.002Olszynski, M. Z. P. (2011). Adaptive Management in Canadian Environmental Assessment Law: Exploring Uses and Limitations. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 21, 1–30.Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science, 284, 278–282.Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Pincus, D. (2001). A Framework And Methodology For The Study Of Nonlinear, Self-Organizing Family Dynamics. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 5(2001), 139–174.Pincus, D., Fox, K. M., Perez, K. A., Turner, J. S., & McGeehan, A. R. (2008). Nonlinear Dynamics of Individual and Interpersonal Conflict in an Experimental Group. Small Group Research, 39(2), 150–178. doi:10.1177/1046496408315862

Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, Termites and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively Parallel Microworlds (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Richardson, M., Sherman, J., & Gismondi, M. (1993). Winning Back The Words: Confronting Experts In An Environmental Public Hearing (1st ed., Vol. 47, p. 191). Toronto: Garamond Press. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Winning+Back+the+Words:+Confronting+Experts+in+an+Environmental+Public+Hearing#0Richardson, T. (2005). Environmental Assessment And Planning Theory: Four Short Stories About Power, Multiple Rationality, And Ethics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(4), 341–365. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.09.006Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01405730Sairinen, R., Barrow, C., & Karjalainen, T. P. (2010). Environmental Conflict Mediation And Social Impact Assessment: Approaches For Enhanced Environmental Governance? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 289–292. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.011Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic Models of Segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(2), 143–186.Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communications, 49(1), 103–122.Schön, D. A., & Rien, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies (p. 247). New York: Basic Books, Inc.Shmueli, D. F., & Ben-Gal, M. (2005). Stakeholder Profiles: A Tool for Dispute Management. Environmental Practice, 7(3), 165–175.Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–38. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13310708Smith, E. R., & Conrey, F. R. (2007). Agent-Based Modeling: A New Approach For Theory Building In Social Psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1–56. Retrieved from http://psr.sagepub.com/content/11/1/87.shortSzabó, G., & Fáth, G. (2007). Evolutionary Games on Graphs. Physics Reports, 446(4-6), 97–216. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.04.004Szolnoki, A., Mobilia, M., Jiang, L.-L., Szczesny, B., Rucklidge, A. M., & Perc, M. (2014). Cyclic Dominance in Evolutionary Games: A Review. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 11(100), 20140735. doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.0735Tetlow, M. F., & Hanusch, M. (2012). Strategic Environmental Assessment: The State of the Art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 15–24.Teyber, E. (2005). Interpersonal Process In Therapy: An Integrative Model (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Thom, R. (1975). Structural Stability and Morphogenesis. New York: Addison-Wesley.Vallacher, R. R., Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2010). Rethinking Intractable Conflict: The Perspective Of Dynamical Systems. The American Psychologist, 65(4), 262–78. doi:10.1037/a0019290Von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). The Theory of Open Systems in Physics and Biology. Science, 13(1), 23–29. Retrieved from http://vhpark.hyperbody.nl/images/a/aa/Bertalanffy-The_Theory_of_Open_Systems_in_Physics_and_Biology.pdfVraneski, A., & Richter, R. (2003). What’s News? Reflections Of Intractable Environmental Conflicts In The News: Some Promises, Many Premises. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 21(2), 239–262. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/crq.60/abstractWexler, M. N. (2009). Exploring the Moral Dimension of Wicked Problems. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 29(9/10), 531–542. doi:10.1108/01443330910986306Wiese, S. L., Vallacher, R. R., & Strawinska, U. (2010). Dynamical Social Psychology: Complexity and Coherence in Human Experience. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(11), 1018–1030. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00319.xWilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Making Sense of the World. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1009421303064Wood, G., & Becker, J. (2005). Discretionary Judgement in Local Planning Authority Decision Making: Screening Development Proposals for Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(3), 349–371. doi:10.1080/09640560500067467Wu, B., Zhou, D., Fu, F., Luo, Q., Wang, L., & Traulsen, A. (2010). Evolution Of Cooperation On Stochastic Dynamical Networks. PloS One, 5(6), 1–7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011187Zeeman, E. C. (1977). Catastrophe Theory: Selected Papers, 1972-77 (p. 685). New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.