{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014693877551020407, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.736263736263736, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Environmental Dispute Resolution in Public Policy: Strategies for Reducing Costs and Improving Outcomes

Within Australia, disputes over natural resources and the environment are likely to escalate as government policies increasingly proscribe access and use rights. Using the NSW natural resource management system as a model, the common characteristics of environmental disputes are briefly described and analysed to illustrate the difficulties in bringing such disputes to a successful resolution. It is argued that appropriate Environmental Dispute Resolution (EDR) policies and strategies have the potential to provide better alternatives to legal action, to lower transaction costs and to achieve better environmental outcomes. US experience in this area is examined to highlight possible future directions for Australian practice. The article concludes with an examination of three key investment areas which, if pursued, could lead to EDR practice being improved and its outcomes enhanced. These are: development of a systematic EDR research program; the need to translate research outcomes into professional EDR practice; and, the need to provide policy and institutional support for EDR at all levels of government.