IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v91y2016icp397-409.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two methodological perspectives on the Energy East Pipeline conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Garcia, Amanda
  • Obeidi, Amer
  • Hipel, Keith W.

Abstract

Two complementary approaches for identifying potential resolutions to a conflict are applied to a pipeline dispute in Canada to gain a range of valuable strategic insights as to how it can be resolved. More specifically, the controversy over the Energy East Pipeline for shipping bitumen from the Alberta oil sands for refining in Central and Eastern Canada as well as shipping overseas is investigated using the usual definitions for stability as well as the metarational tree methodology in which policies can be taken into account. As demonstrated by the case study, enhanced strategic insights can be garnered when the metarational tree approach is utilised for exploring conflict resolution within the confines of existing policy. The metarational tree procedure constitutes a useful expansion of the overall Graph Model for Conflict Resolution set of techniques for formally investigating real world disputes.

Suggested Citation

  • Garcia, Amanda & Obeidi, Amer & Hipel, Keith W., 2016. "Two methodological perspectives on the Energy East Pipeline conflict," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 397-409.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:91:y:2016:i:c:p:397-409
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300350
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.033?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amer Obeidi & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour, 2005. "The Role of Emotions in Envisioning Outcomes in Conflict Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 481-500, November.
    2. Luai Hamouda & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2004. "Strength of Preference in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 449-462, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. LaPatin, Michaela & Spearing, Lauryn A. & Tiedmann, Helena R. & Hacker, Miriam & Kavvada, Olga & Daniélou, Jean & Faust, Kasey M., 2023. "Controversy in wind energy construction projects: How social systems impact project performance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    2. Ricardo Lopes Andrade & Maísa Mendonça Silva & Leandro Chaves Rêgo, 2023. "A Scientometric and Social Network Analysis of the Literature on the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1061-1082, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. M. Nassereddine & M. A. Ellakkis & A. Azar & M. D. Nayeri, 2021. "Developing a Multi-methodology for Conflict Resolution: Case of Yemen’s Humanitarian Crisis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 301-320, April.
    2. Sean B. Walker & Keith W. Hipel, 2017. "Strategy, Complexity and Cooperation: The Sino-American Climate Regime," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1027, September.
    3. Keith W. Hipel & Liping Fang & D. Marc Kilgour, 2020. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Reflections on Three Decades of Development," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 11-60, February.
    4. Inohara, Takehiro, 2016. "State transition time analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 372-382.
    5. Katharina Burger & Leroy White & Mike Yearworth, 2018. "Why so Serious? Theorising Playful Model-Driven Group Decision Support with Situated Affectivity," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 789-810, October.
    6. Shawei He & Keith Hipel & D. Kilgour, 2014. "Water Diversion Conflicts in China: A Hierarchical Perspective," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(7), pages 1823-1837, May.
    7. Thomas Homer-Dixon & Manjana Milkoreit & Steven J. Mock & Tobias Schröder & Paul Thagard, 2014. "The Conceptual Structure of Social Disputes," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    8. Keith W. Hipel & Amer Obeidi, 2005. "Trade versus the environment: Strategic settlement from a systems engineering perspective," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 211-233, September.
    9. Garcia, A. & Hipel, K.W., 2017. "Inverse engineering preferences in simple games," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 311(C), pages 184-194.
    10. Haiyan Xu & Yu Han & Ginger Y. Ke & Jun Zhu, 2022. "Modeling and Implementation of a New Negotiation Decision Support System for Conflict Resolution Under Uncertainty," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 531-553, June.
    11. Lukasz W. Jochemczyk & Andrzej Nowak, 2010. "Constructing a Network of Shared Agreement: A Model of Communication Processes in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 591-620, November.
    12. Eva-Maria Pesendorfer & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2007. "Social Embeddedness in Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 399-415, July.
    13. Huang, Yuming & Ge, Bingfeng & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping & Zhao, Bin & Yang, Kewei, 2023. "Solving the inverse graph model for conflict resolution using a hybrid metaheuristic algorithm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(2), pages 806-819.
    14. Ming Tang & Huchang Liao, 2022. "A graph model for conflict resolution with inconsistent preferences among large-scale participants," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 455-478, September.
    15. Haiyan Xu & Keith Hipel & D. Kilgour & Ye Chen, 2010. "Combining strength and uncertainty for preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 497-521, October.
    16. Scott D. Findlay & Paul Thagard, 2014. "Emotional Change in International Negotiation: Analyzing the Camp David Accords Using Cognitive-Affective Maps," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 1281-1300, November.
    17. Qingye Han & Yuming Zhu & Ginger Y. Ke & Hongli Lin, 2019. "A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield Conflicts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    18. Moreno-Jiménez, Jose María & Vargas, Luis G., 2018. "Cognitive Multiple Criteria Decision Making and the Legacy of the Analytic Hierarchy Process/Decisión Multicriterio Cognitiva y el Legado del Proceso Analítico Jerárquico," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 36, pages 67-80, Enero.
    19. Jing Yu & Ling-Ling Pei, 2018. "Investigation of a Brownfield Conflict Considering the Strength of Preferences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    20. Kedong Yin & Li Yu & Xuemei Li, 2017. "An Improved Graph Model for Conflict Resolution Based on Option Prioritization and Its Application," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-14, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:91:y:2016:i:c:p:397-409. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.