Managing Intractable Natural Resource Conflicts: Exploring Possibilities and Conditions for Reframing in a Mine Establishment Conflict in Northern Sweden
Natural resource management (NRM) increasingly relies on communicative measures to enable reframing in intractable conflicts. Reframing occurs when disputants change their perceptions of a conflict situation, and/or their preferences for dealing with it. However, the types of reframing possible, and...
| Published in: | Environmental Management |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Springer US
2023
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10460354/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37286731 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01838-5 |
| Summary: | Natural resource management (NRM) increasingly relies on communicative measures to enable reframing in intractable conflicts. Reframing occurs when disputants change their perceptions of a conflict situation, and/or their preferences for dealing with it. However, the types of reframing possible, and the conditions under which they can occur, remain unclear. Through an inductive and longitudinal analysis of a mine establishment conflict in northern Sweden this paper explores to what extent, how, and under what conditions reframing can occur in intractable NRM conflicts. The findings reveal the difficulty in achieving consensus-oriented reframing. Despite multiple dispute resolution efforts, the disputants’ perceptions and preferences became increasingly polarized. Nonetheless, the results suggest that it is possible to enable reframing to the extent that all disputants can understand and accept each other’s different perceptions and positions, i.e., meta-consensus. Meta-consensus hinges on neutral, inclusive, equal, and deliberative intergroup communication. However, the results show that intergroup communication and reframing are significantly informed by institutional and other contextual factors. For example, when implemented within the formal governance system in the investigated case, intergroup communication lagged in quality and did not contribute to meta-consensus. Moreover, the results show that reframing is strongly influenced by the nature of the disputed issues, actors’ group commitments, and the governance system’s distribution of power to the actors. Based on these findings, it is argued that more efforts should focus on how governance systems can be configurated so that high-quality intergroup communication and meta-consensus can be enabled and inform decision making in intractable NRM conflicts. |
|---|