mirage   mirage   mirage

An investigation and analysis of the incentives and disincentives for conflict prevention and mitigation in the Bureau of Reclamation's water management

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Wolf, Aaron T.
dc.creator Ogren, Kimberly
dc.date.accessioned 2012-06-25T18:47:12Z
dc.date.available 2012-06-25T18:47:12Z
dc.date.copyright 2012-05-11
dc.date.issued 2012-05-11
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1957/30150
dc.description Graduation date: 2012 en_US
dc.description.abstract This study addresses the question: "What are the incentives and disincentives for conflict prevention and mitigation in the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and how do they factor into Reclamation's management of water in the western United States?" Incentives and disincentives for conflict prevention (i.e., actions taken to avoid conflict) and mitigation (i.e., actions taken to resolve, manage, or temper a conflictive situation after conflict has occurred) are identified through a survey and focus groups of Reclamation employees. The two dominant disincentives identified are a lack of resources and Reclamation's organizational culture--specifically its reliance on crisis management, water delivery tunnel vision, and being slow to change. Other disincentives include a lack of forward planning, the existence of an acceptable bandwidth or level of conflict, a perception that conflict is unavoidable or entrenched, politics, and limits on acceptable actions associated with the legal authorization of Reclamation projects. Fewer incentives for conflict prevention and mitigation were identified, but include, pressure from higher management, the promotion of collaboration within the Bureau, and a desire to avoid litigation. The institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework offers some insight into how these incentives and disincentives factored into the implementation of the Water2025 Initiative, and Reclamation’s experience with the Middle Rio Grande silvery minnow and the Endangered Species Act. As attributes of the community and rules-in-use, incentives and disincentives such as organizational culture, politics, funding availability, the desire to avoid litigation, the promotion of collaboration within the agency, and a lack of planning effort offer possible explanations of why Reclamation chose to act as it did. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.subject Water resources en_US
dc.subject Bureau of Reclamation en_US
dc.subject Conflict mitigation en_US
dc.subject Conflict prevention en_US
dc.subject Incentives en_US
dc.subject Institutional analysis and development framework en_US
dc.subject Western United States en_US
dc.subject.lcsh United States. Bureau of Reclamation -- Public opinion en_US
dc.subject.lcsh Conflict management -- West (U.S.) -- Public opinion en_US
dc.subject.lcsh Water-supply -- West (U.S.) -- Management -- Public opinion en_US
dc.subject.lcsh Water-supply -- Management -- Social aspects -- West (U.S.) -- Public opinion en_US
dc.subject.lcsh Water-supply -- Management -- Environmental aspects -- West (U.S.) -- Public opinion en_US
dc.subject.lcsh Rio Grande (Colo.-Mexico and Tex.) -- Management -- Public opinion en_US
dc.subject.lcsh Endangered species -- Rio Grande (Colo.-Mexico and Tex.) -- Management -- Public opinion en_US
dc.title An investigation and analysis of the incentives and disincentives for conflict prevention and mitigation in the Bureau of Reclamation's water management en_US
dc.type Thesis/Dissertation en_US
dc.degree.name Master of Science (M.S.) in Water Resources Policy and Management en_US
dc.degree.level Master's en_US
dc.degree.discipline Graduate School en_US
dc.degree.grantor Oregon State University en_US
dc.contributor.committeemember Steel, Brent
dc.contributor.committeemember Plaza, Dwaine
dc.contributor.committeemember Montgomery, Claire
dc.description.peerreview no en_us


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ScholarsArchive@OSU


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Statistics