framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts: theory, methodology and three case...

Geoforum 39 (2008) 2048–2061

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /geoforum

Framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts:Theory, methodology and three case studies

Deborah F. ShmueliDepartment of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 20 February 2008Received in revised form 20 August 2008

Keywords:Framing theoryFraming elicitation toolsGeographical environmental disputesHuman geographic analysisIsraeli spatial land conflictsResource conflicts

0016-7185/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.08.006

E-mail address: [email protected]

When applied to environmental concerns, framing offers a rigorous conceptual and analytic approachwith potentially practical significance for dealing with complex issues relevant to geography. The pur-pose of this article is to introduce framing concepts, typology and modes of analysis to address issueswhich geographers commonly treat: disputes over land ownership and uses, competition for waterresources, cultural clashes over control of territory and resources and the impact of spatial patternsand structures when siting noxious sites. Framing analysis is applied to three cases of environmental con-flict in Israel and, more generally, for understanding conflicts revolving around the management ofhuman habitats in relation to the physical environment.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the book review symposium ‘‘Geography past, geographyfuture”, Agnew (2006) observed that at a time when geographyhas become increasingly fragmented as a discipline, what best uni-tes it is methodological approaches. He writes: ‘‘It is telling per-haps of what still gives some unity to an otherwise increasinglyfissiparous field . . . the most useful chapters in both books are themethods ones.” (Agnew, 2006, p. 116). Methodology, and specifi-cally framing, may be a means of uniting the study of environmen-tal conflicts, planning disputes and other concerns of geographers.

Framing is a cognitive process whereby individuals and groupsfilter their perceptions, interpretations and understandings ofcomplex situations in ways consistent with their own socio-polit-ical, economic and cultural world views and experiences. The prac-tical utility of using framing as an analytical approach in managingenvironmental disputes is to clarify, simplify and communicate tothe parties within the conflict the underlying roots of their respec-tive positions and interests in order to further mutual understand-ing and facilitate compromise or resolution.

When applied to environmental concerns, understanding andbeing able to elicit interested parties’ frames offers indispensableinformation for dealing with complex issues relevant to geographyas well as planning and environmental studies. Geographers havelong worked with information about environmental perceptionand behavior, applying observational and narrative methods tothe study of how people perceive, understand and interpret events

ll rights reserved.

and issues (e.g. Lynch, 1960; Lowenthal, 1961; Burton and Kates,1964; Wright, 1966; Brookfield, 1969; Saarinen, 1976; Blaut,1987; Aitken et al., 1989; McGregor, 2004; Atkinson and Delamont,2006). Social psychologists Foucault (1966), Harre (1993) and Billig(1987) used discourse analysis to separate ‘knowledge’ from ‘ideas’as a means of avoiding presuppositions. Hajer (1995) takes the con-cepts of this group and applies their method to contemporary pol-icy-making and looks at how language creates realities. Discourseanalysis and framing have a lot in common: text analysis, languageuse and narratives, appreciating mutually understood norms androutines. Whereas Hajer does delve into how individuals andgroups construct their world views as an explanatory basis for theirattitudes and actions, none of these methodologies have developedcomparative databases that facilitate and validate such analyses.

The purpose of this article is to introduce framing, and method-ology that can elicit or capture it, to address planning and environ-mental issues that have a strong spatial component frequently atthe heart of geographers’ studies: disputes over land ownershipand uses; competition for water resources; cultural clashes overcontrol of territory and resources; the impact of spatial patternsand structures on the siting of noxious facilities; and, more gener-ally, as a basis for creating a rich, informative and nuanced mode ofanalysis that can contribute helpful insights to the understandingand managing of human habitats in relation to the physicalenvironment. Framing not only deals with the power relationshipsbetween disputants and imbalances in the information bases thatshape different perceptions, but it also explicates the values andgoals that each party holds, pointing to avenues of compromisewhereby all may gain.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00167185

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

D.F. Shmueli / Geoforum 39 (2008) 2048–2061 2049

Three empirically-based case studies of environmental conflictsin Israel illustrate how framing concepts and methods employed inthis paper can be developed and deployed, and the degree to whichthey can be helpful in managing or resolving the disputes. Theseare (1) the siting of the Dudaim National Waste Disposal Facility;(2) the Arab Town of Sachnin’s legal struggle to expand its munici-pal boundaries; and (3) the conflicts stemming from proposals toreduce pollution within the Lower Kishon River Basin. The lessonslearned from these cases are relevant not only for Israel but formany countries in the world.

The article will first provide an overview of the approach, andthen present the three case studies. The analytical tools commonlyused in framing have been further developed by the author andcolleagues for future application specifically to environmental con-flicts in Israel and elsewhere (Shmueli et al., 2006). The three casesillustrate how framing analysis can be employed in different tradi-tions of geographic research to assess the complicated relation-ships between human societies and natural environments,examine the interplay of different cultures and explore the impactof spatial patterns on human behavior.

The concept of framing evolved at the intersection of severaldisciplines, and is best seen as a social science approach to decod-ing and making sense of people’s behavior especially in situationswhere decisions have to be made. In the literature, it has been of-fered and defined as a concept that can be usefully applied indecision-making (e.g. Kahneman and Tversky, 1979); artificialintelligence (e.g. Minsky, 1975); negotiations (e.g. Neale and Baz-erman, 1985; Gray, 1989; Pinkley, 1990); environmental conflictmanagement (e.g.Stern et al., 1986; Lewicki and Davis, 1996; Gray,1997; Kaufman and Smith, 1999; Vaughan and Seifert, 1992;Elliottet al., 2003; Shmueli and Ben-Gal, 2004); psychology and sociol-ogy (e.g. Goffman, 1974; Gonos, 1977; Taylor, 2000); social move-ment theory and place framing (Martin, 2003; Larsen, 2008). Ithas also been applied in the field of business management (e.g.Watzlawick et al., 1974; Goldratt, 1990). In all these applications,the use of framing has been retrospective and summative: analy-ses have looked back at events and their connection to frameselicited from main actors. In this application, it will also be usedas a tool for future actions that may help reconcile differencesand disputes.

As cognitive devices, frames are interpretive lenses throughwhich we see and make sense of complex situations in waysinternally consistent with our world views, giving meaning toevents in the context of life experience, understandings, and roles.As strategic communicative devices, frames help rationalize self-interest, persuade broader audiences, build coalitions or promotepreferred outcomes. Conflicts rooted in geographical stakes (land,location and natural resources) are associated with complex andmutually reinforcing frames about oneself, others (characteriza-tion frames), risks, what information should apply to the situation,and how decisions should be made. The three case studiespresented in this paper have important geographical stakes andillustrate well the interpretive and strategic uses of frames incontested situations.

2. Frames and framing overview

The word ‘frame’ can be used both as a noun (a frame) and as averb (to frame). As a noun, ‘frame’ connotes the boundary withinwhich a picture is displayed and set apart from the background;it plays a filtering role in perception, interpretation and under-standing of specific situations. The verb ‘to frame’ refers to thecrafting of a frame, whether deliberately or not, during communi-cation. Depending on the context, it may be used to conceptualizeand interpret, or manipulate and persuade.

While there are several perspectives on frames and how theyare generated, one research stream casts frames as cognitive de-vices, while the other stresses its communicative role. In the cogni-tive view, frames help individuals cut through complexity byfiltering, simplifying and categorizing in-coming information(e.g., Lewicki et al., 1999; Taylor, 2000; Goldratt, 1990; Kahnemanand Tverski, 1979; Neale and Bazerman, 1985; Vaughan and Seifert,1992). These cognitive structures help to reduce information over-load, and operate as models of reality that trade detail for clarity.Such frames help to make sense of the situation, identifying andinterpreting aspects that seem key to understanding, and relegat-ing some information to the background as less important. An indi-vidual’s frames, often but not always coincident with those of thegroup, help to organize phenomena into coherent, understandablecategories, giving meaning to some observed aspects, while dis-counting others that appear irrelevant or dissonant with the al-ready digested information or with interests. This selectivesimplification filters people’s perceptions and defines – and tosome extent limits – their fields of vision, leading at times to shar-ply divergent interpretations of an observed event.

How people comprehend the impacts of human actions uponthe landscape varies with their framing. For example, when IsraeliJews look at Jewish settlements nestled within the Galilean hills,they view (frame) this landscape as the fulfillment of the Zionistdream through the struggle for Israel’s independence, culminatingin the victory over Palestinian Arabs and the armies of six invadingArab states in May of 1948. Their frame is ‘Atzmaut’ (Indepen-dence), an affirmation of historic claims to the land and serving na-tional security functions ( Kimmerling, 1983; Newman, 1989;Sternhell, 1997). Most Israeli Arabs look at the same geographicallandscape through their ‘Naqba’ (‘Catastrophe’) frame. They viewmany of these Jewish villages as having erased the remnants ofArab villages and usurped the farm and grazing lands either aban-doned at the outbreak or during 1947–48 conflict in anticipation ofreturning with victorious Arab armies, or from which they wereforced during the fighting (Khouri, 1998; Morris, 2008).

As with models, what makes frames useful – their simplifyingeffect on complexity – also makes them prone to error. Often theseinterpretive lenses remain remarkably stable for decades, regard-less of changed circumstances or emerging trends. Therefore theymay become blinders, leading one to discard subsequent informa-tion or coloring its interpretation, as in the Atzmaut – Naqba exam-ple. Israel’s military security today is far more dependent uponhigh-tech military equipment and mobile armed forces than onfrontier outposts, and Israeli Arabs have become increasinglyurbanized, needing less farming land. Nevertheless, with regardto land, both frames remain constant.

Linked to information processing, message patterns, linguisticcues, and socially constructed meanings, frames and reframingare vital to facilitating the discourse underlying many geographicaldisputes and to negotiating their resolutions. Knowing the framesin use and how they were constructed may help understand issueor dispute dynamics, influence them to avoid negative conse-quences and help stakeholders find new ways out of an impasse.

From a communicative perspective (that involves interactionsamong actors in a situation rather than a single individual’ssense-making process), framing is strategic, intended to persuadeothers to one’s own viewpoint, to gain advantage in negotiations,or to rally like-minded people to the cause (Putnam and Holmer,1992; Elliott et al., 2003). In describing spatial conflicts, individualschoose terms that favor their side. Similarly, parties’ views aboutwhat is ‘fair’ in a situation are often driven by their assessmentsof which fairness standards will benefit them most.

Identification with a group falls within both the cognitive andcommunicative frame categories. It entails adhering to sharedframing of a situation either because ‘we’ recognize it as ‘our’

Table 1Framing typology: frames, what influences them and their effects on stakeholders (revised, Shmueli and Ben-Gal, 2003)

2050 D.F. Shmueli / Geoforum 39 (2008) 2048–2061

own, or because ‘we’ see ourselves benefiting from membership inthat group. In this vein, those who see the environment as intrin-sically valuable rather than as a commodity share a frame throughwhich they evaluate environment-related public decisions, andjoin groups defending that point of view. Even within seeminglycohesive groups, such as environmentalists, however, there are of-ten differences – such as between advocates of nuclear power toreduce the greenhouse effect of oil or coal-fired power plants,and those who oppose nuclear power because of possible radiationcontamination and waste storage problems. Identifying with agroup leads a person to ignore differences over issues of lesserimportance – which may have potential value for tradeoffs innegotiations.

Elements that cannot be discounted are unpredictable events,the role of a charismatic leader in a group or of the powerful

bureaucrat who transcends the socio-cultural or political normsof the group. Power relations still count as will be demonstratedin the case studies.

3. Frame typology

The framing approach in this paper is based on categorizingelements into a typology developed by the author and colleagues– identity and values, phrasing, substance, process and character-ization – providing a data-driven empirical dimension that facili-tates comparative analyses. Some of the frames that emerge indifferent contexts are of a general nature (characterizing own oropponents’ group) while other categories are situation-specific.For example, we would expect a land dispute to generate

Table 2Duda’im National Waste disposal site: identity/values versus substance frames

Stakeholder Identity/values Substance

Aspirations Outcomes Issues

Local/districtbodies:

Beer Sheva LobbyLocal Governmental

AuthoritiesDistrict Governmental

Authorities

Social/communityorientationFairness, justice and civicrightsRisk and information

Raise the image of BeerSheva, turning it into thesouthern metropolis of IsraelUnite the Negev communityImprove the quality of lifefor local residents

Place the Negev’s problems highon the public agenda, throughthe struggle against the Duda’imsite

Discrimination against theNegevRisk to quality of life andenvironment in Beer Sheva

National Govern-mental Authorities:

Private Waste DisposalCompanies

Economic orientationScientific/technicalorientation

Find the best and cheapestway for the removal of wastefrom the Tel Aviv metropoli-tan area by securing an alter-native site for the Hiriyadump which was overcapacityRaise standards for wastetreatmentImprove perception of wastedisposal sites to promote thecompanies’ chances for eco-nomic success

Establish a national dumping sitein Duda’im or elsewhereReduce waste at source (conser-vation) and improve treatment

Find a realistic solution forthe large amounts of waste,without causing environ-mental harmDeal with NIMBY (local viewpoint) and negative image ofwaste treatment facilitiesHow to finance increasedcosts to local authorities ofwaste removal owing tostricter standards oftreatment


rights-related frames that would not be present in environmentalconservation disputes. In the latter, frames about the value of theenvironment might be expected to dominate.

The original framing research was conducted between 2000 and2003, with the analysis of thirteen conflict assessments of publicdisputes at varying geographical scales – three at the national,one at the regional and nine at the local level (Shmueli and Ben-Gal, 2003a). Analysis of all thirteen cases included interviews with160 stakeholders. The interviews (ranging in length between oneand a half and three hours) generally followed a modified formof the protocol developed by the Consensus Building Institute(Susskind and Thomas-Larmer, 1999; Carpenter and Kennedy,1988),1 which did not employ a framing approach. The framecategories were derived from a retrospective analysis of theseinterviews combined with various approaches to framing reportedin the literature. The works of Gray and Donnellon (1989) andKaufman and Smith (1999)) were modified to integrate additionalideas about frames and the factors influencing them, which had, inturn, been shaped by the works of Wish et al. (1976), Tverskyand Kahneman (1981), Neale and Bazerman (1985), Pinkley(1990) and Brunner (1991). The retrospective framing analysiswas applied to 12 of the original conflict assessments by sortingand coding stakeholder statements. In the 13th case (theKishon River dispute) framing was built in to the design of theinterview protocol and interactively shared with the involvedstakeholders.

Five major categories of frames described below (also commonto schemes found in the framing literature) emerged: identity andvalues, phrasing, substance, process and characterization.

� Identity and values frames refer to the organizational purposes ofsociety, the various factors that dominate the decision-makingprocesses of the concerned parties, and how these parties viewfundamental values. Fairness, justice and rights, power, social

1 The process includes: (1) introductions (identifying stakeholders, preparinginterview protocols using an open question format); (2) information gathering(personal interviews); (3) analysis (summarize findings, mapping areas of agreement/disagreement); (4) process design for consensus building (goals, agenda, stakeholderselection, time-frame); and (5) report writing, feedback, distribution. Interviews areconfidential, statements do not appear in the report under the interviewee’s name,position or organization with which they are affiliated, but are formulated andpresented as part of a more general group of involved bodies. Interviewee’s approve(or change) draft sections of the report before distribution.

orientation/control, access to information, complexity and riskperceptions are among the sub-frames (see Table 1). Disputantsview themselves as having particular identities in the context ofspecific conflict situations ( Rothman, 1997). These identitiesspring from the individuals’ self-conception and group affilia-tions (both personally and organizationally derived). The morecentral the challenge to one’s sense of self, the more opposition-ally one is likely to act. Typical responses to threats to identityinclude ignoring information and perspectives that threatenone’s individual identity, reinforcing affiliations with like-minded groups, and negatively characterizing outsiders.

� Phrasing frames deal with how the parties express the issues tocommunicate desired outcomes of the conflict. For example,do the terms they use indicate that they perceive the situationas win-lose, or do they see the possibility of mutual gains, orpredictive sequencing?

� Substance frames refer to the actual issues and how disputantsrelate to them. Three substance sub-frames are detailed whichappear in all the case examples to follow:o Aspirations: general hopes for fulfillment of vital interests.o Issues: the perceived bones of contention.o Outcomes: specific positions or desired solutions to the con-

flict at hand”.� Process frames refer to how stakeholders view the structure of

the dispute and/or framework – how and by whom decisionshave been or should be made, whether they are fair and inclu-sive, and whether legal protocols have been followed.

� Characterization frames reveal how parties perceive their ownbehavior, characterize the behavior of others, and assess rela-tionships among the parties.

By 2008, the framing database contained over 50 assessmentsof Israeli environmental disputes which incorporate this approach.Many were carried out by graduate students enrolled in public andenvironmental management seminars led by the author, otherswere solicited by the Ministry of Environment and conducted bythe author and colleagues. The conflict assessments whichintegrate framing add a proactive element to the analysis (Shmueliand Ben-Gal, 2003b). In each of the three cases in this article,2

2 The data used in this article were generated from three assessments (Gasol andShmueli 1999, Draushe et al., 2006, Shmueli and Ben-Gal, 2001).

Table 3Sachnin–Misgav boundary dispute: identity/values versus substance frames



Local bodies:Sachnin Local Council

Fairness, justice and civicrightsSocial/communityorientationSocial controlEconomic orientationPolicy-based decision-makingPolitics role in decision-makingPower: minority groupidentificationPublic representation

Recognition by Israeli Jewsof Arab claims to land for-mally held by themAcknowledgement by IsraeliJews of legitimacy for equalrespect and treatmentIncrease tax baseLocal control of environmen-tal externalities

Additional 2,080 acres ofunimproved land withinSachnin’s jurisdictionNew residential, commer-cial, educational and sportsareasProportionate share of prop-erty tax revenues fromregional industrial park; co-managementTaxes from IDF training zoneand Armament Facility abut-ting the town on previouslyowned land

Recognition of diverse needsand interestsEffective participation andvoice in policy and politicaldecision-makingEconomic opportunitiesImproved quality of lifeCompensation for environ-mental injustice (negativelyimpacted without reapingany of the benefits)Land for expansion

National GovernmentalAuthorities:

District PlanningAuthority

Misgav RegionalCouncil

Israel Defense forces

Group identificationInterpretation of justice,rights (security), fairnessSocial/community orientationPolicy-based decision-makingPolitics role in decision-makingEcologic-environmentalorientation

Maintain rural landscapeand quality of lifeSecurityMaintain demographicequality in numbers andJewish state

Greenbelt as geographicalscreen between Misgav andSachninPreserve forest and naturepreserve lands in statutoryplansRetain lands for futureexpansion of Jewishcommunities

Return of confiscated Arablands and precedentsSecurity concernsEnvironmental concerns– ruralfabricExpansion of Jewish comm-unities

Environmental groups:Israel Armament Devel-

opment Authority

Ecologic/environmentalorientationEconomic orientationPractical/pragmatic

Strong statutory environ-mental plansStatus quo in terms ofoperations

Greenbelts in Jewish juris-dictions in order to ensurepreservationIndifferent to tax jurisdiction

Preservation versus develop-ment – Arab communities’ability to preserve in face ofdevelopment pressuresCompensation

3 The analysis of frequency counted the number of statements coded in a certainframe for each stakeholder, relative to his/her overall number of statements. Thisnumber was scaled for intensity – high (dominant frame), medium or low, andabsent. Example: In one stakeholder group’s interviews in the Kishon case, 230statements were counted. In constructing the scale for that group, 8–12 statementscharacterizing a frame was categorized as high, 4–8 as medium and below 4 as low.Because 12 statements focused on ecological concerns, the Ecological frame wascoded as high intensity. A validity test of the coding was conducted and frame codesvalidated by asking five colleagues to code 90 of the Kishon statements. Although thischeck was context-free (the colleagues were unfamiliar with the case), the statementswere coded in the same frame categories, validating the framing typology.


framing analysis was applied to a different degree and at a differentstage of the process. The following is a brief description of thesethree cases, selected because they span different traditions of geo-graphical study: location, culture and the interplay between humanand natural habitats. Two of the cases, Duda’im (1999) and the Kis-hon (2001), were among the original 13 cases. The Sachnin –Misgav(2006) dispute is one of the cases in the expanded database.

� The Duda’im dispute involves local authority and non-governmen-tal organization (NGO) opposition to the siting of a national wastedisposal facility in Israel’s northern Negev. The distance-decayfactor plays an important role in the competing frames of thenational and local interests. This conflict was one of the originalthirteen cases through which we retrospectively developed theframing typology. Twenty-one interviews were carried outbetween October and December 1998 (Gasul and Shmueli, 1999).

� The Sachnin–Misgav boundary dispute over local control and useof land examines cultural/political clashes typical of Jewish–Arab Israeli land conflicts. Attitudes, perceptions, interests andneeds shape the disputes, and are strongly influenced by thegeographical milieu – in terms of both human and physical land-scapes. Framing was integrated analytically into the conflictassessment, building upon the framing typology developed ear-lier. Seventeen interviews took place between June and Septem-ber 2006 (Draushe et al., 2006).

� The Kishon River dispute is a regional conflict with national sig-nificance arising from competing interests and views over theimpact upon the physical environment of proposed solutionsto the Haifa metropolitan region’s highly polluted Lower KishonRiver Basin. With the integration of framing into the interviewand assessment processes, framing analysis was presented tothe stakeholders and used proactively to begin reframing. Thirtyinterviews took place between January and May 2001 (Shmueliand Ben-Gal, 2001).

As in all framing analysis cases, in the three illustrative disputesthe parties’ various frames and sub-frames were identified by per-forming content analysis on their responses to in-depth interviews.(Shmueli and Ben-Gal, 2004). The text units used for the contentanalysis were the statements of the interviewees, drawn from asampling of direct transcripts, and coded by the frames reflectedin them. The text coding scheme (Miles and Huberman, 1994)was developed in the initial cases, and adapted based on GroundedTheory techniques (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin,1990).

For example, a statement by Kishon fishermen: ‘‘Our objectiveis not to oppose the proposed solution but to reach an agreementwhich will satisfy them as well as us” was coded as reflecting awin–win frame. The statement of the Be’er Sheva lobby in the na-tional landfill dispute: ‘‘The fight against the Duda’im site is in facta flag for other issues such as education and unemployment” wascoded as a social frame.

The coded statements were organized into a database that wasthen analyzed by checking both frame content and frequency ofuse.3 The narrative data were extracted from the categories, sorted,compared and then grouped together to form a descriptive map-ping of the conflicts. The outcome of this analysis was the FramingTypology presented in Table 1. Tables 2–4 highlight the frame

Table 4Lower Kishon River dispute: identity/values versus substance frames



Industry Economicorientation

Continuedeconomic viabilityanduninterruptedoperation

Agreement with the Authorities onstandards and programsEmissions in effect for aprolonged time period

Best Available Technology which is Economicallyfeasible (BATE)Emission limits (standards) per IndustrySynergetic effluent discharge qualityRiver or Sea? Effluent discharge destinationTime period for standards

Sewage treatmentplant

EconomicorientationPublicrepresentation

Continuedeconomicviability and lowercosts for the public

Agreement with the Authoritieson standards and programsEmissions in effect for aprolonged time period

Best Available Technology which is Economicallyfeasible (BATE)Emission limits (standards) per IndustrySynergetic effluent discharge qualityRiver or Sea? Effluent discharge destinationTime period for standards

Governmentauthorities

Scientific/technicalorientation

Full restoration oftheRiver, as evidenceofgovernmentsability totake decisive action

Agreement with the Industrieson standards and programsCleaned effluents discharged toSea through pipeTotal ecological restoration of River:cleaned to allow swimming and fishing

Best Available Technology which is Economicallyfeasible (BATE)Emission limits (standards) per IndustrySynergetic effluent discharge qualityRiver or Sea? Effluent discharge destinationEnvisioned future and functions for the RiverEnvironmental quality objectives

Environmental groupsand users

Ecologic/environmentalorientation Justiceand rights

Protection/preservation ofthe SeaCleanup of theRiver

Cleaned effluents discharged to RiverStrong monitoring and enforcementFrequent reevaluation of standards setfor industryPartial ecological restoration of River:not to level which would allowswimming and fishing (because thiswould necessitate discharging theeffluents into the Sea)Closure of one of the industries

Environmental quality objectivesSynergetic effluent discharge qualityEmission limits (standards) per IndustryRiver or Sea? Effluent discharge destinationMonitoring and controlEnforcement mechanism and who is responsibleTime period for standards – validity and evaluationEnvisioned future and functions for the River


categories of identity/values and substance which are pivotal andinterconnected to the three case studies. The categories of process,characterization and phrasing (included in Table 1) are covered inthe discussion of each case but not included in the tables.

4. Illustrative cases

For each of the three case studies, a concise timeline of events isfollowed by an analysis of the categories of frames held by the par-ties and an interpretation of their contribution to the conflictdynamics.

4.1. Duda’im

‘‘Everyone desires the efficient and rapid removal of the refusethey create. No one wishes the refuse they or others create to beburied by their own home.” (Representative of the State of Israel,in Supreme Court 458/98).

The sequence of events leading to the development of the con-flict surrounding the Duda’im landfill is a classic example of NIMBY(Not In My Back Yard), as well as of disputes between Israel’s Cen-ter (the coastal plain) and its Periphery (the Galilee and the Negev).This is about the siting of an Israeli national landfill for processingwaste from the country’s center (the Tel Aviv metropolitan area)and its southern regions. As the central city of the Negev, Beer She-va has ambitious plans for expansion and development. Seven kilo-meters away from the current city border, Duda’im is its ‘‘backyard”. When it was designated as the location for the planned land-fill, fear of environmental damage to metropolitan Beer Sheva’sdevelopment and quality of life prospects became one of the mainissues in this case.

The national priority of the Negev’s development is weighedagainst another, and for many even greater, national priority –

environmental concerns for the Tel Aviv region – the country’s ma-jor population and economic center. Therefore the national govern-mental ministries and residents living in the center of the country– who desperately needed an alternative to metropolitan Tel Aviv’slandfill site (Hiriya), long out of compliance with health and safetymeasures – strongly supported the plan to site a landfill at Du-da’im. Local and district authorities and citizen lobbies in metro-politan Beer Sheva countered by launching an aggressivecampaign aimed at protecting the periphery’s physical environ-ment by opposing the Duda’im siting (see Map 1).

Proliferation of local disposal sites in Israel has posed environ-mental, safety and health hazards since the 1970s. After 13 yearsof preparation and a number of revisions, an amendment to a na-tional master plan was enacted in 1993 providing for three existinglandfills to be prepared as regional sites. In addition, Duda’im andthree other sites were designated as national, central sites for theabsorption of waste (excluding toxic waste) from throughoutIsrael. This was to be implemented within one year, reflectingthe urgency of addressing the critical condition of Tel Aviv’s Hiriyadisposal site that was causing severe environmental damage,increasing the danger of water sources pollution, and creating anacute hazard for air traffic in the vicinity of Ben Gurion airport.

This decision paved the way for the new national master planenacted in 1993 which specifies a Duda’im National Waste Dis-posal Site B, adjacent to an existing Duda’im A – a local disposalsite that opened in 1990 on 115 acres of land belonging to the Is-rael Land Administration to serve Beer Sheva, three adjacent localauthorities and three surrounding regional councils including BnaiShimon, which was charged with establishing and managing it.

During the three years it took for the government to approvethe master plan, the opposition mobilized. Lobby Beer Sheva, anactivist citizens group that organized to oppose any waste disposalfacility at Duda’im, submitted many petitions to the Supreme Court

Map 1. Duda’im regional setting.


at each phase of the planning process. The Lobby focused on threeissues: negative image, diminished attraction to prospective resi-dents, and lack of any financial benefit to Beer Sheva because thetipping fees would accrue to the Bnai Shimon Regional Councilsince Duda’im was outside Beer Sheva’s municipal jurisdiction.The District Planning Committee, save for the Ministry of Environ-ment’s representative, determined that Duda’im should not beconverted to a national site because of its proximity to Beer Shevaand its suburbs.

Proponents of the plan were also active. Prior to the final deci-sion, the Ministries of Finance, Environment and Interior and theIsraeli Land Administration published a tender for the planning,establishment, operation, and, at the end of operational life, closingand rehabilitation of Duda’im B. Over a 15-year period, the debateescalated around environmental impact statements, tender con-tracts, amendments, extensions, meetings and protests. The resultwas a stalemate.

In 1997–98, rainfall caused the collapse of the edges of the Hir-iya landfill, resulting in severe damage and exacerbating the dan-gers inherent in further operation of the site. Its immediateclosure became imperative. The Ministry of Environment’s solutionwas to begin transporting solid waste from Hiriya to Duda’im A inFebruary 1998, while requiring the Bnai Shimon Regional Author-ity to upgrade the site to the planned level of Duda’im B, an up-grade completed in August, 1998.

Based on analysis of interview data gathered for the conflictassessment (Gasul and Shmueli, 1999) Table 2 displays a summaryof key Duda’im stakeholders’ identity/values and substance frames.

The sharp distinctions in identities and values of the localbodies on the one hand, and the national governmental authoritiesand private waste disposal companies on the other, accentuatedthe strong differences in their substance frames. The local bodies,whose aspirations (interests) were shaped by their ‘social/commu-nity orientation’ and ‘fairness’, as well as ‘justice and civic rights’values frames, focused their concerns on the overall improvementof life in the Negev, fearing landfill threats to environmental qual-ity in metropolitan Beer Sheva. Their frames revealed an intensedesire to put the interests of Israel’s peripheral areas on the na-tional agenda, rooted in feelings of discrimination and inequalityregarding geographic distribution of resources. The spokeswomanfor the Beer Sheva citizens lobby described the dispute as ‘‘a flagfor other social issues such as education and unemployment”.

The aspiration frames of the national governmental authoritiesand private waste disposal companies, driven by economic andhealth considerations, centered mostly on waste disposal and facil-ity siting: ‘‘Turn garbage disposal into an economic opportunitywhile carefully protecting and monitoring the environment” (Na-tional Government Ministry spokesperson).

Identity frames: Parties in conflict take on identities derivedfrom the interplay between their self-conception and interests,

4 Demographic data are from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, June 2006.


and their group affiliations (Rothman, 1997). Opposing a nationallandfill that would primarily serve the Tel Aviv metropolis, BeerSheva residents announced that they – the nation’s southernperiphery – ‘‘were not the nation’s garbage dump”. This case illus-trates how historically and geographically driven identity framesset the country’s periphery against its center.

Risk and information sub-frames: Disputants’ risk frames mayyield drastically divergent assessments of risk level and extent.Risk and information frames depend not only on the disputants’interests, but also on their training, expertise, level of exposureto, and familiarity with, the risk, its potential for catastrophic im-pacts, whether a result of personal choice or imposed, and the ex-tent of risk dread. National government spokespeople framedfailure to site the landfill at Duda’im as a great national risk: ‘‘Israelproduces 3.6 million tons of solid waste per year, disposed of inhundreds of landfills, . . .resulting in serious pollution . . . they haveto be closed down and Duda’im is the only feasible alternative.”‘‘Operatively speaking, Duda’im will not impact Beer Sheva” (Dis-trict Government Agency). ‘‘The technology planned for Duda’imis state-of-the art and no negative environmental impacts wouldresult” (Developer). Locals, however, feared threats to their qualityof life and environment in addition to those known to be associ-ated with the large petrochemical industries and the army camplocated between Duda’im and Beer Sheva. They also doubted thereliability of information and did not trust its sources: ‘‘The expertsare all captives of . . .national ministries and therefore we do notbelieve their risk-free projections” (Beer Sheva Lobby).

Characterization frames were salient, as they often are in pro-tracted disputes: ‘‘The approach of the involved national govern-mental ministries is narrow and bureaucratic and will preventany real negotiation or mediation attempts . . .The Ministry of Envi-ronment has no clear long-term policy, talks of integrated wastedisposal but really only focuses on landfills, has no monitoring orenforcement capabilities . . .” (Beer Sheva Lobby). ‘‘The local BeerSheva residents are not rational. They don’t see or understand na-tional interests . . .They just want political clout” (National Govern-ment Ministry).

At a three-day conflict management workshop in January 1999,stakeholders in the Duda’im dispute met, some for the first time.The reductionist labels, associating many negative characteristicswith other stakeholder individuals or groups which had surfacedin the conflict assessment, shifted in the course of the discussions,toward more constructive relationships. The facilitators’ clarifica-tion of aspirations (Table 2) led to opportunities for positive, directinteraction.

Identify frames are integral to polarized discourse in protracteddisputes and rarely shift dramatically in the short range. On theother hand, characterization frames lend themselves to reframingwith the assistance of a skillful intervener who creates opportuni-ties for positive direct interactions (Lewicki et al., 2003; Kaufmanand Gray, 2003; Shmueli and Ben-Gal, 2004). At the close of theworkshop, the spokesperson for the Beer Sheva lobby expressedamazement at her own ability to communicate with national anddistrict ministry representatives. This allowed all sides to expandthe dialogue to broader issues affecting the region, as well as strik-ing an agreement on Duda’im.

What began as an asymmetrical power relationship betweenthe national government and a peripheral region evolved into arelative power balance as public opinion organized by the BeerSheva lobby gained momentum, and ultimately achieved powersharing.

Duda’im A and B are currently operating jointly as a nationallandfill. The Beer Sheva Lobby obtained a reduction in tipping feesand other in-kind compensations for the city and its suburbs, andgained stronger influence with the Israeli parliament for otherunrelated goals owing to its reputation as an organization with

considerable visibility for its effective activism. As a result, itevolved into a legitimate Negev area-wide lobby. The NationalAuthorities agreed to a more limited operating time – from 25years to a maximum of 6 years (which has already been extended)and reduced its proposed land area from 520 to 170 acres. On theother hand, Tel Aviv’s immediate waste disposal problem has beenresolved, and in the process state-of-the-art technology has beendeveloped and can be applied to future national sites.

5. Sachnin–Misgav land boundary dispute

Clashes that develop in the course of spatial interaction of dif-ferent cultures are recurrent themes in land use conflict studies.This case illustrates how framing contributes to the analysis ofsuch situations.

In the Galilee, rapid urbanization of Arab towns located in whatwas once largely an agricultural valley led to conflict with Jewishvillages. The latter, while set within rural landscapes and seekingto maintain their rural character, are themselves part of the pro-cess of exurbanization as many of their residents commute tometropolitan areas. The conflict over land is multifaceted – geopo-litical as well as economic and cultural. The Galilee has played arole in both ancient and recent times as a security zone against at-tacks from countries to the north. Israeli military concerns, untilrecently rooted in fear of ground attacks from Syria and Lebanon,are focused nowadays on the real possibility of missile attacks.Geopolitically, the tension between Arab and Jewish Israelis hasan important demographic dimension since slightly over half ofthe entire Galilee is Arab and the need to ‘Judaize’ the Galilee isdeeply embedded in Israeli ideology and strategy – indeed indeep-seated identity frames.

Prior to Israel’s independence, Sachnin had been a small agricul-tural village nestled within the fertile Sachnin Valley that cutsthrough the Lower Galilee hills on an east–west plane. It had a pop-ulation of 2600, with over 11,120 acres of Arab-owned land, anduse of another 6177 acres of public land. As a result of governmen-tal land takings, its area has shrunk to 2396 acres even while itspopulation has grown to 27,000, over 90% of which is urbanized.Planners estimate that the town will grow to 40,000 by 2020, witha total Arab regional service population of 120,000 (Khamaisi andSachnin Municipality, 2004).4

Approximately 70% of Sachnin’s residents live below the na-tional poverty line; its rate of unemployment is between 12% and14%, among the highest in Israel. Job opportunities in the townare limited, as industry consists mainly of small workshops, pri-marily iron, metal and glassware, building materials and garages;the service sector is relatively undeveloped; and the agriculturalbase has largely disappeared. Pressed by the need for additionalland and driven by historic claims over lands once owned or usedby Sachnin residents, the municipality had filed requests for gov-ernmental permission to expand its municipal boundaries.

To serve security purposes as well as to increase the Jewishdemographic presence in the Galilee, many of Misgav’s (a sub-re-gion of the Galilee) smaller Jewish settlements were strategicallylocated on hilltops overlooking the Arab villages and towns. Thus,Sachnin is surrounded on three sides by lands now under the juris-diction of the Misgav Regional Council, whose members include 29Jewish and six Bedouin communities with a total population of19,000 on 44,480 acres. East of Sachnin lie the Arab communitiesof Arabeh and Dir Hana, making for an urbanized strip of over50,000 people within the Valley of Sachnin (Map 2).


While restoration of land is a common demand of Israeli Arabs,and especially those of the Galilee, this issue has particular reso-nance for Sachnin. Much of its land was taken by Israeli authoritiesin the wake of Israel’s War of Independence (the Israeli Palestin-ians’ ‘Naqba’), and the town has taken a leading role in the annualLand Day demonstrations and rioting that have been taking placesince the start of the first Palestinian Intifada (uprising) in 2000.

The identity/values and substance frames salient in this disputeare displayed in Table 3.

The conflict at the heart of this case has been sparked by Sach-nin’s application in 2004 to add 2080 acres of unimproved land(Khamaisi and Sachnin Municipality, 2004), most of which is na-tional public land north, west and south of the town, and lies with-in Misgav Regional Council’s jurisdiction, although not part of anyincorporated Misgav towns (Map 3). A small portion of these re-quested lands is already owned by Arab residents but is locatedwithin the Council’s boundary and therefore subject to its zoningregulations. The rationale put forth in Sachnin’s application tothe Interior Ministry was that the expansion would increase thetown’s tax base and enable it to build homes, commercial, educa-tional and sports areas for its growing population. Sachnin also re-quested that one of the regional industrial parks slated to be builtin accordance with the Galilee regional master plan be locatedwithin these expanded borders.

While based upon land claims, the dispute is also related to thepressure Sachnin’s growth exerts on waste disposal, water supplyand road facilities, as well as pollution from adjoining industrialand military complexes over which it has no control. Misgav is op-posed to giving up land that could be used for future Jewish settle-ment and industrial expansion, and wants to set aside additionaltracts of open land, including forested areas, to preserve the ruralcharacter of the landscape. It also wishes to expand a greenbeltthat will put a geographical screen between its communities andSachnin – a reflection of security concerns that deepened afterthe violence the area experienced during the 2000 Intifada. ‘‘TheMaster Plans for Nature Reserves and Forest are critical for main-taining the rural character of this region – the environmental re-sources must be preserved” (District Governmental Agencyspokesperson). ‘‘These national plans are regulations designed tolimit our ability to expand in order for us to maintain the geo-

Map 2. Sachnin–Misga

graphical cohesiveness of families and clans, and maintain our cul-tural distinctiveness” (Sachnin spokesperson).

Misgav refused to recommend this application to the Ministryof Interior. In line with Israeli governmental policy, it is not pre-pared to recognize most of Sachnin’s claims for lands lost in1948. While the Council offered to give up small tracts of land, italso claimed that Sachnin’s natural expansion should be directedeastward within the Valley, on lands that lie between Sachninand the other Arab towns of Arabeh and Dir Hana, and which con-stitute the logical locus for a growing, cohesive, urbanized com-plex. The Ministry of Interior’s ruling, now under appeal by thetown to the Ministry, was to transfer from Misgav to Sachnin just420 of the 2080 acres the latter had sought. The ruling also statedthat the proposed regional industrial zone should be situated with-in Misgav’s jurisdictional area rather than within Sachnin’s muni-cipal boundaries. The Ministry’s actions regarding the appeal arestill pending.

Stakeholder interviews were carried out in connection with aconflict assessment (Draushe et al., 2006), providing the data thatform the basis of the framing analysis. No intervention is yetscheduled, but should one be initiated, the framing analysis isexpected to provide a proactive strategic tool for consensusbuilding.

5.1. Identity and characterization frames

The two peoples have widely divergent frames of reference. Is-raeli Arab claims to lands they formerly held is part of their broad-er struggle for acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their claimsto equal respect and treatment as a distinct people. ‘‘The establish-ment of the Misgav (Regional Council) in 1982 . . . is aimed atsmothering the Arab villages and preventing us from developing.Even though this country speaks of equal rights among its citizens,it continues its discriminatory policies also in the area of land allo-cation and use” (Sachnin spokesperson).

Most Israeli Jews frame their interactions with their IsraeliArab neighbors in the security context. ‘‘Before the Intifada in2000, we (Misgav) worked toward cooperation and joint livingwith our Arab neighbors. We had many joint programs . . . the mot-to of the region was Jewish-Arab coexistence . . . the October 2000

v regional setting.

Map 3. Sachnin requested expansion areas.


uprising left us in shock, we were directly hit, the Jewish commu-nities had to close themselves in and the army had to be called into protect the residents . . .” (Misgav Council spokesperson). ‘‘Untilthe 2000 uprising I carried out all my daily business in Sach-nin . . . I have not returned there since (six years) . . . I have lost alltrust” (Misgav resident).

In contrast, the Israeli Arab identity and values frames concen-trate on the need to alleviate overcrowding and to absorb futuredemographic growth by expanding municipal borders. The combi-nation of limited housing opportunities outside Arab communitiesand the tradition of multi-generational clan (hamula) living add tothe urgency of securing expansion space. More broadly, they alsoframe their claims in terms of land restoration, as part of environ-mental equity, the righting of historical injustices, and recognitionof their sense of being part of the Palestinian people as well as theirrights as Israeli citizens. ‘‘It is unfair that Misgav has jurisdictionover 44,480 acres with less than 13,000 Jewish residents notincluding Bedouins . . .expanding Sachnin’s borders by 8400 [2080acres] is both fair and just” (Sachnin spokesperson).

The usefulness of analyzing these salient identity frames is notin the potential for – or desirability of – changing them, but inunderstanding the positions and underlying interests driving them.This understanding may enable stakeholders to alter characteriza-tion frames, resulting in improved management and resolution ofthe disputes.

5.2. Power and social control as identity sub-frames

Intractable conflicts are often embedded in struggles to alterexisting institutions or decision-making procedures. These framesshape disputants’ assessment of which forms of power are legiti-mate and/or likely to advance their own position. ‘‘We are smallplayers in a much larger play. There is a central theme here . . .howthe State conducts business and how decision-making with regardto its Arabs citizens is conducted. How the political machine works– much is beyond our control” (Misgav spokesperson). ‘‘We knowthat his positions (the government’s District Planner) destroy thechance of our two nations to live together in peace with goodneighborly relations and the chance for a better future” (Sachninspokesperson).

Although altering such frames takes time, they, like character-ization frames, are amenable to shifts as stakeholders experiencethe failure of unilateral, power-based approaches and the potentialof collaborative ones.

Lack of adequate compensation for the environmental risksand damages inflicted on Sachnin feeds the townspeople’s senseof injustice and their calls for environmental equity. The towndoes not receive the tax revenue from the adjoining militaryestablishments and regional industrial park, some of whichare located on expropriated land. Most of the decisions with envi-ronmental impact on Sachnin – land expropriations, the armybase, the siting of the armament facility and the Teradyonindustrial park – were made without the participation of itsrepresentatives.

In the past decade there has been an increase in the number ofmeetings between Sachnin and Misgav representatives, reflecting awillingness to explore joint industrial, educational and tourismventures, as well as with the Ministry of Defense regarding thearmy base and the Israeli Armament complex, and with the Minis-try of Interior about increasing land area. Nevertheless, the powerimbalance between the two peoples is such that the process is notdesigned to permit what Sachnin residents would view as a fairoutcome, even when there has been some participation and discus-sion. For example, ‘‘While we (Sachnin and Misgav) were discuss-ing mutual development plans, the Government decided onapproving a new Jewish settlement within Misgav (Eshbal) onlands that are meant for the future expansion of Sachnin” (Sachninspokesperson). This happened despite stated government policy toexpand existing settlements rather than establish new ones. Nev-ertheless, the new residents of Eshbal have declared their desireto cooperate with their Arab neighbors in joint Arab-Jewish educa-tional pursuits and other mixed activities.

6. Pollution in the Lower Kishon River Basin

The case of the Lower Kishon River pollution highlights the re-gional interests and conflicts arising from the interface betweenhuman activity and the natural environment. Framing was inte-grated into the conflict assessment methodology from the outset,


helping stakeholders proactively to recognize their own framesand those of others (Shmueli and Ben-Gal, 2003b).

The drainage basin of the lower Kishon River estuary covers anarea of 1080 square kilometers (Map 4). While the Upper Kishonconsists mainly of stream flow, the main flow in the Lower Kishonand its small port is composed of industrial effluents from sixchemical and petrochemical companies, emissions from the HaifaWaste Treatment facility and tidal penetration of sea-water intothe River’s estuary.

The Lower Kishon attracted national attention when the IsraelDefense Forces were accused of negligence in using the Kishonfor naval exercises. In the summer of 2000, as a result of legalclaims brought by cancer-stricken Navy Seals servicemen againstthe government and the polluting companies, a Defense Ministrycommission ordered compensation for the ailing army divers butfailed to assign blame to the IDF and the government. The Kishonfishermen, who have a cancer rate 34% higher than fishermen inother Israeli ports, filed a separate suit against the industry andgovernmental authorities, as did the Kishon Rowing Club. The fish-ermen harbor deep resentment that their cries were ignored foryears until media attention to the Navy Seals’ suit put the Riverpollution onto the public agenda.

Why did it take so long for the situation to come to a boilingpoint? From the 1950s through the 1970s, the new State of Israelemphasized the economy and nurturing industry at the expenseof the environment. Because Haifa was the main port of Israeland the locus of its important oil refinery, petrochemical andchemical complexes, its industries were given free rein to expand.An in-depth study in the mid-90s led the governmental authoritiesto declare the need for total ecological restoration, and to decreethat the brackish water should bypass the Kishon and be sent into

Map 4. Kishon R

Haifa Bay through a pipeline. This decision pleased few of the par-ties involved, and a bitter struggle has ensued:

� Industries are ambivalent. The level of water treatment for dis-posal into the sea is lower and thus less expensive than whatis now required for the Kishon, and the sea is ‘far from the reg-ulating eye’, but construction of the pipeline would be expen-sive. If the standards for the Kishon were lowered a little, theywould prefer to meet regulations and continue to dump theireffluents into the Kishon.

� Environmentalists and user groups strongly oppose thepipeline solution, fearing an adverse effect on the Mediterra-nean. They do not trust the industries to restrict their effluentsto purified brackish water, nor do they have confidence in theability of the Authorities to monitor and control industrydischarge.

� Governmental Authorities, with a wide diffusion of responsibilityamong local and national agencies and little coordination amongthem, disagree on the solution. The Ministry of Environment isthe primary proponent of a pipeline to the sea, although thereis opposition to it even within the Ministry.

Seeking to promote a dialogue among the parties involved, theMinistry of Environment commissioned a conflict assessment,which took place between January and June 2001 (Shmueli andBen-Gal, 2001). Framing analysis was imbedded in the Kishonassessment. It generated deeper understanding among the stake-holders and led to some reframing on the part of some of the par-ticipants at the conflict assessment stage.

The salient identity/values and substance frames are presentedin Table 4.

iver Basin.


The identity and values frames of stakeholders in the Kishonconflict are consistent with findings in other similar cases (Hunter,1989; Taylor, 2000).

The complexity and uncertainty of environmental linkages andsynergies, and underlying ignorance regarding long-term effects,suggest to stakeholders holding this frame that the prudent courseis ‘safety first’ – an application of the precautionary principle. ‘‘It isimpossible to know what the impact of the treated sewage will beon the fish in the sea” (Fishermen).

One facet of the justice and rights frame focuses on distributionalconcerns regarding rights and justice to a specific community orgroup, local residents or the society at-large. ‘‘There are 200 fami-lies whose income depends on this River. Does anybody think ofcompensating them? We live in the pollution and they (the Indus-tries) make millions of dollars” (Fishermen). The other facet con-centrates on interpretation and implementation of relevant laws,regulations and standards as a major factor in decision-making.The primary interest of the ecological/environmental orientationis the preservation of the earth’s natural habitat, with preferencefor preservation and sustainability as main factors in decision-making. ‘‘There is a need for a strong enforcing authority, with aprofessional enforcement mechanism. The Authorities should takeall legal steps against polluters” (Environmental NGO).

The economic orientation here presumes that monetary profit,once achieved, leads to other benefits. ‘‘Our objective is to cometo an agreement with the governmental authorities on a reason-able solution which is economically feasible – and then to be leftto operate in peace” (Industry spokesperson).

The salient values frame of the Governmental Authorities, is thetechnical/scientific (science as truth) orientation – viewing scienceand technical knowledge as the primary elements upon which pol-icy decisions should be made. ‘‘International experts say that thesea can easily overcome the levels of acidity that would be re-leased” (Ministry of Environment spokesperson).

Comparing the two categories of frames – ‘Identity/Values’ and‘Substance’ shows that most of the conflicts are between the Gov-ernment Authorities, and the Environmental and User groups.

The vision (aspiration frame) of the Government Authorities forthe Kishon is ‘‘to revive the river and fully restore it”. The Environ-mental Groups on the other hand aspire ‘‘. . . to preserve theSea. The Kishon is already polluted and should be restored to anon-toxic state but not at the expense of the Mediterranean.”The Fishermen now depend on Mediterranean Sea fishing ratherthe Kishon and ‘‘want to live a healthy life with a dignifiedlivelihood”.

The over 30 issues upon which various stakeholder groups fo-cused were examined. Table 4 lists some of the issues accordingto stakeholders’ sequencing and priorities. Issues in italics refer tothe same issues on the agenda of the Industry, Sewage TreatmentPlant and Government Authority stakeholders that are of concernto the Environmental Groups and Users but with very differentsequencing. Issues in boldface form the starting point of the issuesequencing for the first three stakeholder categories but are miss-ing from the Environmental groups and Users, and vice versa.Examination of the issue sequencing and flows surfaced potentialcoalitions (i.e. among Industry, Governmental and Water Treat-ment stakeholders, and between Environmentalists and Users)and are also a reflection of stakeholder values frames.

The Industries’ ‘economic’ frame sets economic viability as themain priority, motivating them to seek a practical agreement withthe Authorities that would reconcile the standards with theirneeds. Environmental and User groups view clean water as a right,emphasizing the ‘enforcement’ outcome frame related to their ‘jus-tice and rights’ Values frame. The ‘ecological’ frame expands theaspirations of the Environmental groups to focus on both the mar-ine environment and the river. The Authorities with their strong

‘scientific/technical orientation’ values frame deemphasized the‘enforcement’ outcome frame. The Industries have the funds to hirethe best experts, and Authorities tend to defer to Industry sugges-tions for standards and programs.

Embedding framing analysis into the Kishon conflict assess-ment illuminated the potential for both framing analysis and refra-ming to serve as tools for change, along a number of fronts:

� The analysis provided a better understanding of the differencesamong stakeholders in the intensity of Values frames, providinginsight into areas which have potential to expand the dialogue.The absence of a frame constituted an opportunity to introduceissues over which there might be consensus, offsetting issuesthat have sparked controversy.

� Re-examining views in light of this understanding led tochanges in stakeholder perception. After each interview, theinterviewees were presented with their interview summariesand were asked to comment as to whether the summary fit theirway of seeing things, and to rate the issues by importance. Whenshifts were indicated, adjustments were made.

� Mapping the substance frames (Table 4) revealed a major con-flict between the aspiration sub-frames of the Authorities andthe Environmental Groups and Users. The Authorities’ focusingon ‘‘full restoration of the Kishon” (necessitating a pipe line tothe Sea) would prevent the sea preservation sub-frame of theEnvironmentalists and Users, although both have the commoninterest in seeing the River cleaned.

� During the six month assessment process, a modest amount ofreframing took place within both the identity/values and sub-stance frames. The Ministry of Environment itself engaged inreframing towards the end of the assessment, shifting from BestAvailable Technology determining environmental quality, toenvironmental quality determining BAT.

After the initial framing process, 29 of the 30 involved stake-holders requested mediation of the dispute. This did not occur,however, because of a Ministry of Environment’s decision to pushunilaterally for its desired pipeline solution. The power relation-ships are such that the Environmental and User groups were ableto block the Government’s pipeline goal, and the Governmentwas able to block any alternative agreement which might havebeen reached through continuation of the process.

Seven years have passed with no resolution. Recently, the Min-istry requested that mediation be initiated to break the stalemate.Unfortunately, the momentum and understandings generated bythe original process have dissipated during the lull, makingresumption of the mediation process more difficult.

7. Conclusion

The approach presented here for eliciting and analyzing framesilluminates the underlying causes of conflicts in the geographicanalysis of environmental disputes. When disputants gain greaterunderstanding and respect for one another’s perceptions,behaviors and goals, they may develop a common language toenable them to talk to, rather than over, one another. This is noguarantee that such conflicts will be resolved, but framing doesopen avenues for joint gains during the negotiation process. A ca-veat and focus of further efforts (Shmueli and Ben-Gal, 2005;Kaufman and Shmueli, forthcoming) is that framing, whether byresearchers or interveners, is an arduous task. The labor-intensivenature of the coding which provides methodological rigor and auseful database, may also be a disincentive for those who couldbenefit from this information. Efforts to develop approaches thatcan take advantage of the emerging knowledge in the field of


framing, while reducing the costly and highly skilled work nowrequired in order to derive the benefits, should be pursued.

A legitimate question is whether framing analysis serves theinterests of researchers but adds little to what a skilled negotiationsfacilitator may accomplish. Our experience is that the insights de-rived from framing analysis have practical importance in publicdecision processes and disputes. The systematic process of elicitinginformation from stakeholders broadens understanding and en-ables some reframing, facilitating tradeoffs in negotiation andmediation. Stakeholders are able to use this frame information,which they accept as trustworthy, and their understanding of theframes may be more fruitful for reaching agreements and decisionsthan the technical merits of arguments. Mutual awareness of oth-ers’ characterization and phrasing frames led to reframing at theworkshop and a compromise in the Duda’im case. It may ultimatelyforge a consensus on a strategy for resolving the Kishon’s pollution.Even within such deep-rooted identity frames as in the Sachnin-Misgav dispute, recognition of one another’s narratives may lead,if not to acceptance, then at least to recognition and to some con-cessions in the positions of both parties, especially at the local level.

While the framing approach presented here was developed as atool for environmental conflict management, it should be useful inother areas of interest to geographers, especially in political, urbanand social geography.

References

Agnew, J., 2006. Book review symposium – geography past, geography future.Progress in Human Geography 30 (1), 115–118. p. 116.

Aitken, S.C., Cutter, S.I., Foote, K.E., Sell, J.I., 1989. Environmental perception andbehavioral geography. In: Gaile, G.I., Wilmott, C.J. (Eds.), Geography in America.Merrill, Columbus, OH, pp. 218–238.

Atkinson, P.A., Delamont, S., 2006. Narrative Methodologies Series: SageBenchmarks in Social Research Methods Series. Sage Publications, California.

Blaut, J., 1987. Place perception in perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology7, 297–305.

Billig, M., 1987. Arguing and Thinking – A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Brookfield, H., 1969. On the environment as perceived. Progress in Geography 1, 51–80.

Brunner, R.D., 1991. Global climate change: defining the policy problem. PolicySciences 24, 291–311.

Burton, I., Kates, R.W., 1964. The perception of natural hazards in resourcemanagement. Natural Resources Journal 3, 412–441.

Carpenter, S.C., Kennedy, W.J.D., 1988. Managing Public Disputes: A Practical Guideto Handling Conflict and Reaching Agreements. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,California (Chapter 4: Analyzing the conflict), pp. 71–91.

Draushe, Y., Oved, A., Abu-Raya, R., 2006. Border disputes – Sachnin – Misgav,Presentation in Conflict Management in Local Authorities Course, University ofHaifa, June 20 (in Hebrew).

Elliott, M., Gray, B., Lewicki, R., 2003. Lessons learned about the framing ofintractable environmental conflicts. In: Lewicki, R., Gray, B., Elliott, M. (Eds.),Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases.Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 409–435.

Foucault, M., 1966. The Order of Things – An Archaeology of the Human Sciences1973 translation. Vintage Books, New York.

Gasol, D., Shmueli, D., 1999. Conflicts in Planning, Development and theEnvironment: Conflict Assessment, Duda’im Landfill. Ministry of Environment,Jerusalem, Israel.

Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies ofQualitative Research. Aldine, New York, NY.

Goffman, E., 1974. Frame Analysis: an Essay on the Organization of Experience.Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Goldratt, E.M., 1990. What is this Thing Called Theory of Constraints and HowShould it be Implemented? North River Press, Croton-on-Hudson, New York.

Gonos, G., 1997. ‘‘Situation” versus ‘‘Frame”: the ‘‘interactionist” and the‘‘structualist” analyses of everyday life. American Sociological Review 42,854–867.

Gray, B., 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems.Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.

Gray, B., 1997. Framing and reframing of intractable environmental disputes. In:Lewicki, R., Bies, R., Sheppard, B. (Eds.), Framing and Reframing of IntractableEnvironmental Disputes, vol. 6. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, p.171.

Gray, B., Donnellon, A., 1989. An interactive theory of reframing in Negotiation.Unpublished report, Pennsylvania State University, College of BusinessAdministration.

Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse – EcologicalModernization and the Policy Process. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Harre, R., 1993. Social Being. Blackwell, Oxford.Hunter, S., 1989. The roots of environmental conflict in the Tahoe Basin. In:

Kriesberg, L., Northrup, T.A., Thorson, S.J. (Eds.), Intractable Conflicts and theirTransformation. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York, pp. 25–40.

Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica 47, 263–289.

Kaufman, S., Gray, B., 2003. Using retrospective and prospective frame elicitation toevaluate environmental disputes. In: Bingham, L., O’Leary, R. (Eds.), The Promiseand Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution. Resources for theFuture, Washington DC, pp. 129–147.

Kaufman, S., Shmueli, D., forthcoming. Framing in public decision interactions:transferring theory to practice. In: Donohue, W., Kaufman, S., Rogan, R. (Eds.),Framing Conflicts: Theory and Applications. Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ.

Kaufman, S., Smith, J., 1999. Framing and reframing in land use change conflicts.Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 16 (2), 164–180.

Kimmerling, B., 1983. Zionism and Territory. University of California. Institute ofInternational Studies, Berkeley, CA.

Khamaisi, R., Sachnin Municipality, 2004. Request for jurisdiction expansion of theSachnin municipality, final report. Submitted to the Israeli Ministry of Interiorand other Governmental Offices, June. (in Hebrew).

Khouri, E., 2006. Gate of the Sea (H. Davies, Trans.). Archipelago Books, Brooklyn,NY. translated from Arabic Bab al-Adab (Beirut, 1998).

Larsen, S., 2008. Place making, grassroots organizing and rural protest: a casestudy of Anahim Lake, British Columbia. Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2), 172–181.

Lewicki, R., Davis, C., 1996. Environmental conflict frames in wetland conversiondisputes. Paper presented at the Center for Research in Conflict and Negotiation,Pennsylvania State University.

Lewicki, R., Gray, B., Elliott, M. (Eds.), 2003. Making Sense of IntractableEnvironmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Minton, J., 1999. Negotiation. McGraw-Hill HigherEducation, Burr Ridge, Illinois.

Lowenthal, D., 1961. Geography, experience and imagination: towards ageographical epistemology. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 51 (3), 241–260.

Lynch, K., 1960. Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Martin, D., 2003. Place framing as place making: constituting a neighborhood for

organizing and activism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(3), 730–750.

McGregor, A., 2004. Sustainable development and ‘warm fuzzy feelings’: discourseand nature within Australian environmental imaginaries. Geoforum 35 (5),593–606.

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, California.

Minsky, M., 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In: Winston, P.H. (Ed.),The Psychology of Computer Vision. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 177–211.

Morris, B., 2008. A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven, CT.

Neale, M.A., Bazerman, M.H., 1985. The effects of framing and negotiatoroverconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy ofManagement Journal 28, 34–49.

Newman, D., 1989. Civilian pressure as strategies of territorial conflict: the Arab-Israeli conflict. Political Geography Quarterly 8, 215–227.

Pinkley, R.L., 1990. Dimensions of conflict frame: disputant interpretations ofconflict. Journal of Applied Psychology 75, 117–126.

Putnam, L., Holmer, M., 1992. Framing, reframing, and issue development. In:Putnam, L., Roloff, M.E. (Eds.), Communication and Negotiation 20. Sage,Newbury Park, CA.

Rothman, J., 1997. Resolving identity-based conflict in nations, organizations, andcommunities. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, California.

Saarinen, T., 1976. Environmental Planning: Perception and Behavior. Houghton,Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts.

Shmueli, D., Ben-Gal, M. 2001. Conflict assessment to promote dialoguebetween the stakeholders involved in the dispute surrounding thetreatment and discharge of industrial wastes in the Lower Kishon Basin.Ministry of Environment, Jerusalem, Israel, draft June, final November(in Hebrew).

Shmueli, D., Ben-Gal, M., November 2003a. Reframing of Protracted EnvironmentalDisputes: the tool, conflict mapping, organizational profiles and environmentaldiscourse in Israel, Final Report, for the Israeli Ministry of Environment(Hebrew, 205 pages).

Shmueli, D., Ben-Gal, M., 2003b. Stakeholder frames in the mapping of the LowerKishon River Basin conflict. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 21 (2), 211–238.

Shmueli, D., Ben-Gal, M., 2004. The potential of framing in managing and resolvingenvironmental conflict. In: Feitelson, E., de Roo, G., Miller, D. (Eds.), AdvancingSustainability at the Sub-National Level. Ashgate Press, Aldershot, England, pp.197–217.

Shmueli, D., Ben-Gal, M., 2005. Creating environmental stakeholder profiles: a toolfor dispute management. Environmental Practice 7 (3), 165–175.

Shmueli, D., Elliott, M., Kaufman, S., 2006. Frame changes and the management ofintractable conflicts. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, Colloquy on IntractableConflicts 24 (2), 207–218.

Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded TheoryProcedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.


Stern, P., Dietz, T., Black, S.J., 1986. Support for environmental protection: the role ofmoral norms. Population and Environment 8, 204–222.

Sternhell, Z., 1997. The Founding Myths of Israel (D. Maisel, Trans.). PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, NJ.

Susskind, L., Thomas-Larmer, J., 1999. Conducting a conflict assessment. In:Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., Thomas-Larmer, J. (Eds.), The Consensus BuildingHandbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 99–135.

Taylor, D.E., 2000. The rise of the environmental justice paradigm. Injustice, framingand the social construction of environmental discourses. American BehavioralScientist 43 (4), 508–580.

Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology ofchoice. Science 211, 453–458.

Vaughan, E., Seifert, M., 1992. Variability in the framing of risk issues. Journal ofSocial Issues 48 (4), 119–135.

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., Fisch, R., 1974. Change, Principles of ProblemFormation and Problem Resolution. Norton & Company, Inc., New York,NY.

Wish, M., Deutsch, M., Kaplan, S.J., 1976. Perceived dimensions of interpersonalrelations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33, 409–420.

Wright, J.K., 1966. Human Nature in Geography: Fourteen Papers 1925–1965.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts: theory, methodology and three case...

Documents