Activity 4.2 Environmental Policy Frameworks

Frame Type	Davis & Lewicki (2003)	Bryan (2003)	Vincent (2009)
Identity / Values	Identity: Who am I in this conflict? What are my beliefs and values?	Cultural context: Shared beliefs, traditions, and ways of life shape perceptions.	Frames rooted in community identity and historical context; local vs. outsider perspectives.
Characterization	How parties perceive each other, often in terms of blame or trust.	Demographic: Background factors (class, race, age, etc.) influence perspective.	Community members and external stakeholders often stereotype each other’s roles and motives.
Conflict Management	Attitudes toward resolving disagreement (e.g., collaboration vs. confrontation).	Political: Decision-making power and authority in managing conflict.	Competing governance perspectives (federal vs. local control); lack of collaborative framing.
Risk / Threat	How parties define and prioritize environmental and social risks.	Ecological: Objective vs. perceived environmental dangers.	Risk framed differently by stakeholders—some prioritize health, others economic livelihood.
Fact / Knowledge	Disputes over what is considered credible evidence or truth.	Technological/Scientific: Role of data and innovation in shaping views.	Scientific knowledge vs. local experience; distrust of “outside experts.”
Power / Influence	How influence shapes policy and whose voice dominates.	Legal: Regulation, rules, and enforcement power.	Power imbalances—EPA and federal agencies dominate decision-making, limiting local influence.
Economic / Gain-Loss	Often embedded within risk or social control discussions.	Economic: Financial concerns and economic drivers influence conflict framing.	Economic recovery vs. environmental protection—framed as competing interests.

1. Identity & Community Frame	Combines Davis’s identity frame and Vincent’s emphasis on local vs. outsider perspectives. This frame captures how people’s connection to place, history, and community identity shapes their environmental views.
2. Risk & Health Frame	Based on all three sources, this frame focuses on how people prioritize environmental health threats. For example, some may emphasize contaminated water, while others worry more about economic loss from cleanup.
3. Power & Representation Frame	Rooted in Davis and Vincent, this frame addresses who has decision-making authority. It highlights the imbalance between government agencies, industry, and local communities, especially when locals feel ignored.
4. Knowledge & Trust Frame	Drawn from Davis and Vincent, this frame focuses on the conflict between scientific/technical data and lived experience. It also includes whether communities trust the people providing information.
5. Economic Impact Frame	Based on Bryan and Vincent, this frame considers how environmental policies are weighed in terms of personal, community, or economic gains and losses, especially when economic recovery and protection are seen as opposites.

The five frames in my personal environmental policy framework, Identity & Community, Risk & Health, Power & Representation, Knowledge & Trust, and Economic Impact, are drawn from a synthesis of Davis & Lewicki (2003), Bryan (2003), and Vincent (2009). These frames represent not only the different ways people view environmental problems but also the structural imbalances and emotional dynamics that often shape real-world environmental conflicts.

I selected the Identity & Community Frame because all three sources emphasized that environmental disputes are deeply personal. Davis & Lewicki describe how individuals’ self-perceptions shape their engagement in conflict, while Vincent’s case study at Tar Creek shows how long-standing community identity influences how locals see outside agencies and environmental interventions. This frame helps explain why the same issue can be framed differently by people based on where they live and their level of connection to that place.

The Risk & Health Frame highlights how stakeholders evaluate the dangers posed by environmental issues. Davis & Lewicki describe this in terms of perceived risk, and Bryan’s ecological context adds an environmental science angle. Vincent deepens this frame by showing how some Tar Creek residents focused on health risks from contamination, while others prioritized economic survival. This frame is essential in conflict because what seems like a crisis to one group may be seen as manageable or even irrelevant to another.

The Power & Representation Frame addresses who has control over environmental decision-making. Davis & Lewicki emphasize the role of power in shaping outcomes, and Bryan discusses political and legal structures that grant authority to certain actors. Vincent’s study offers a real example of how local voices were often ignored or minimized by federal agencies, even though the environmental harm directly affected those communities. This frame acknowledges that resolving conflict requires more than negotiation; it requires fair representation and equitable influence.

The Knowledge & Trust Frame explores how facts are interpreted and whether they are believed. All three sources recognize that data alone does not resolve conflict. Davis & Lewicki emphasize disagreements about what counts as a “fact,” and Bryan’s technological context considers how science drives the conversation. Vincent adds another layer by showing how Tar Creek residents were skeptical of government data, favoring lived experience over expert opinion. This frame reminds us that trust is just as important as evidence in environmental decision-making.

The Economic Impact Frame focuses on cost-benefit thinking. Bryan’s economic context frames policy in terms of profit, cost, and job effects. Vincent shows how environmental restoration was sometimes seen as a threat to economic recovery in Tar Creek, especially by stakeholders who believed cleanup would hurt local industry. This frame allows policymakers to recognize that financial loss, even if only perceived, can cause strong opposition to environmental action.

sources

Bryan, Todd. “Context in Environmental Conflicts: Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit.” Environmental Practice, vol. 5, no. 3, 2003, pp. 256–264. Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046600002651

Davis, Craig B., and Roy J. Lewicki. “Environmental Conflict Resolution: Framing and Intractability—An Introduction.” Environmental Practice, vol. 5, no. 3, 2003, pp. 200–206. Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046603035580.

Vincent, Shirley G., and Thomas E. Shriver. “Framing Contests in Environmental Decision-Making: A Case Study of the Tar Creek (Oklahoma) Superfund Site.” American Journal of Environmental Sciences, vol. 5, no. 2, 2009, pp. 164–178. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajessp.2009.164.178.