ABSTRACT
This dissertation addresses the problem of how to make sense of environmental conflicts in a way that is both practical enough to direct strategy and comprehensive enough to encompass the full range of the conflict. I make three contributions towards solving this problem. First, after examining the literature from several different disciplines, I determine the attributes required for an effective sensemaking framework for environmental conflicts and further conclude that the Graph Model of Conflict Resolution (GMCR) meets those criteria. Specifically, the framework should be multidisciplinary, include a systems approach, allow for non-rational behaviour, embrace multiple theoretical constructs, facilitate an iterative resolution approach, and utilize one of several methodological approaches to account for time series data. Second, using Northern Gateway as an example, I develop an approach for simplifying a complicated conflict into the kind of inputs the GMCR is equipped to handle, resulting in broadening its application to conflicts that are more nuanced than currently researched in the literature. Third, I support further research by recommending how to improve the choice of decision-makers in the model, suggesting a protocol for primary qualitative validation of the model using subject matter experts, outlining parameters for use in iteratively refining the simulation model, clarifying limitations of the GMCR approach, and suggesting opportunities for further research. I conclude that a useful way to make sense out of a complex environmental conflict is to, counterintuitively, simplify it in the context of the participants’ next unilateral decisions, and use the GMCR approach to determine possible future states of conflict equilibrium.