ArticleEnvironmental management2023
Managing Intractable Natural Resource Conflicts: Exploring Possibilities and Conditions for Reframing in a Mine Establishment Conflict in Northern Sweden.
Article in Environmental management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.