This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 18 November 2014, At: 08:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Society & Natural Resources: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Framing Water Sustainability in anEnvironmental Decision Support SystemDave D. White aa School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona StateUniversity , Phoenix , Arizona , USAPublished online: 14 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Dave D. White (2013) Framing Water Sustainability in an Environmental DecisionSupport System, Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 26:11, 1365-1373, DOI:10.1080/08941920.2013.788401

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.788401

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Insights and Applications

Framing Water Sustainability in an EnvironmentalDecision Support System

DAVE D. WHITE

School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona StateUniversity, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

This case study applies the theoretical concepts of frame and framing processes toidentify and describe the diagnostic and prognostic frames for water sustainabilityexpressed through an environmental decision support system. The research examinesthe development of WaterSim, a computer simulation model of water supply anddemand in central Arizona. Qualitative data were generated through semistructuredindividual and group interviews, participant observations, and document analysis.The analysis identified a diagnostic frame defining the water sustainability problemas uncertain and long-term water supply shortage caused by prolonged drought,climate change impacts, and population growth. The prognostic frame for water sus-tainability defined the solutions to be urban residential water demand management,retirement of agricultural lands, and conversion of agricultural water to municipaluses to achieve safe yield of groundwater. The results of the study are discussedin terms of implications for decision support systems (DSS) design.

Keywords Arizona, climate change, modeling, water resources management

Environmental scientists and policymakers are increasingly turning to decisionsupport systems (DSS) to address sustainability challenges. Generally, DSS synthe-size information from environmental and social datasets for analysis, simulation andvisualization to evaluate alternatives and scenarios (Matthies et al. 2007). Earlywater management DSS employed multi-objective optimization methods to evaluateeconomic costs and benefits (Serrat-Capdevila et al. 2011). Contemporary DSSmodel system dynamics, feedbacks, and uncertainties while incorporating economic,social, and ecological factors. It is now common for DSS developers to incorporateusers’ perspectives to enhance relevance and usability (Cliburn et al. 2002). Recentresearch has examined stakeholders’ perspectives on model and visualization

Received 24 February 2012; accepted 14 October 2012.This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under

grant SES-0951366, Decision Center for a Desert City II: Urban Climate Adaptation. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendation expressed in this material are thoseof the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation(NSF).

Address correspondence to Dave D. White, School of Community Resources and Devel-opment, Arizona State University, 411N. Central Ave., Ste. 550, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.E-mail: dave.white@asu.edu

Society and Natural Resources, 26:1365–1373Copyright # 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08941920.2013.788401

1365

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

08:

25 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

development (Burch et al. 2010; Cliburn et al. 2002; Serrat-Capdevila et al. 2009) andfactors affecting DSS adoption (Borowski and Hare 2007). Such research reflects agrowing awareness of the importance of understanding how individual actors andsocial groups frame issues and how their perspectives play out through social pro-cesses in participatory, integrated water resources management (Isendahl et al.2009, 2010; Pahl-Wostl 2006).

One area ripe for investigation is the impact of framing on the development ofDSS. As the use of these systems increases, it is critical to understand how modeldevelopers’ perspectives are expressed through the tools they design. Framingprovides an appropriate theoretical lens to analyze DSS development because thisapproach examines the assumptions, choices, and decisions that are made bydevelopers as social actors with independent agency and interests. Framing servesto construct boundaries for environmental problems and solutions and can narrowor widen the discourse and impact the questions asked, knowledge produced, actorsempowered, and ultimately the political opportunities and decisions made (Benfordand Snow 2000; Lewicki et al. 2003).

The purpose of this case study is to analyze water sustainability framingexpressed through WaterSim, an interactive computer model that simulates watersupply and demand for central Arizona and is presented in an immersive theaterenvironment. The primary research question guiding this study is: How was watersustainability framed by WaterSim designers? Subquestions include: What was thediagnostic frame—that is, how was the problem of water sustainability in centralArizona framed by WaterSim designers and what were seen as the sources of theproblems? What is the prognostic frame—that is, what was framed as the solutionto the problem and what actions were available and implied to solve the problem?This study focuses on diagnostic and prognostic framing because these tasks aremost relevant to the initial design and construction of a DSS model. During thisphase, developers’ choices about how to design the model (e.g., which input variablesto include, what policy options to consider, and what output metrics to evaluate)delineate the boundaries of the water problem and potential solutions. Data weregathered through semistructured individual and group interviews, participant obser-vations, and document analysis. Qualitative data were analyzed using both deductiveand inductive codes to identify frames. The results of the study are discussed in termsof implications for DSS design.

Theoretical Background

The concept of frame and associated framing processes have drawn the attention ofscholars in several areas of the social sciences, including cognitive psychology(Tversky and Kahneman 1981), sociolinguistics (Tannen 1993; Van Dijk 1980),environmental policy disputes (Hall and White 2008; Lewicki et al. 2003; Schonand Rein 1994), political communications (Scheufele 2000), and sociology of socialmovements (Benford and Snow 2000). Entman (1993) noted that framing involvesselection and salience; that is, framing highlights certain aspects of a situation tomake them more prominent. Benford and Snow (2000) defined framing as an active,dynamic, and evolving process employed by social actors with independent agency.Benford (1993) and Snow and Benford (1988) identified three key framing tasks:diagnostic framing, prognostic framing, and motivational framing. Diagnostic fram-ing identifies problems and attributes responsibility. Prognostic framing identifies

1366 D. D. White

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

08:

25 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

proposed actions, solutions, or policy alternatives. Motivational framing developsconsensus, mobilizes action, and constructs ‘‘vocabularies of motive’’ (Benfordand Snow 2000, 617). Gray (2003, 15) summarized that frames ‘‘(1) define issues,(2) shape what action should be taken and by whom, (3) protect oneself, (4) justifya stance we are taking on an issue, and (5) mobilize people to take or refrain fromaction on issues.’’

Expectations for frames to be encountered in this study were developed byreviewing framing literature with a focus on applications in natural resources, water,and sustainability. This review first identified a set of master frames that are calledupon by diverse social groups to define problems and solutions and mobilize actionacross a variety of contexts. These included scientific rationality (Hall and White2008; Mercer 2002; Roth et al. 2003), economic growth (Skillington 1997), socialjustice (Edwards 2006), and local knowledge (Brown 1992; Harrison et al. 1998).Additional frame elements found in resource and sustainability literature includedhuman-ecological systems integrity, resource maintenance and efficiency, inter-and intragenerational equity, precaution and adaptation, democratic governance,private property rights, social responsibility, ecosystem preservation, technologicalinnovation, and supply–demand balance (Gibson et al. 2005; Shriver and Peaden2009). These frame elements served as deductive codes in the qualitative analysisas described later.

Case Study Context

The study takes place in Phoenix, AZ, a metro area with a population of 4.2 million(U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Despite an average annual rainfall of 8 inches, the areawas developed in part because of abundant water supplies (Gober 2006). Today cen-tral Arizona relies on intensive management of three key supplies: Arizona’s allot-ment of Colorado River water, surface water from the Salt and Verde Rivers, andgroundwater. For more than a century, efficient management of an extensively engi-neered system provided sufficient and reliable water supplies that supported arapidly growing population.

Looking forward, the region faces challenges that will strain existing systems ofengineering, management, and governance. The Southwest will very likely becomewarmer and drier in the coming century with reduced average flows of the Coloradoand Salt-Verde Rivers (NRC 2010). Seager et al. (2007) suggest this transition isalready underway. Overpeck and Udall (2010) note that the warming trend,droughts, reduced snowpack, and decreased river flows are consistent with anthro-pocentric climate change and seem to be occurring more rapidly than predicted byprior assessments. Policy analysts note that the future will require difficult decisionsregarding trade-offs about how water is used (Gammage et al. 2011). To informdecision making about such trade-offs, university scientists, working with federalsupport, developed an environmental decision support system called WaterSim.

WaterSim

WaterSim is a computer simulation model designed to investigate how alternativeclimate conditions, rates of population growth, and policy choices interact to affectwater supply and demand (Gober et al. 2011). WaterSim models supply from surfaceand groundwater sources and demand from urban residential and commercial

Framing Water Sustainability 1367

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

08:

25 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

sectors while incorporating the rules that govern reservoirs and aquifer use as well aswastewater treatment and reuse. The initial versions of WaterSim (1.0–2.0), whichare the focus of this analysis, were developed between 2005 and 2007 for presentationin the Decision Theater, an immersive environment that includes a 260-degreefaceted screen capable of displaying panoramic computer graphics and three-dimensional (3D) video. In subsequent years, developers redesigned the underlyingmodel based on stakeholder feedback and developed Web and mobile applications.This study examines the ways in which water sustainability was framed by modeldevelopers during the initial design phase.

Case-Study Method

This research employs a case-study design, which is an in-depth and detailed explo-ration of a bounded system over time incorporating multiple sources of data (Yin2009). Qualitative data were generated through semistructured individual and groupinterviews, participant observations, and document analysis. A nonprobability,expertise-based, purposive sampling approach was employed to identify key infor-mants (Patton 1990). The criterion for including participants in the sample was sig-nificant personal experience and in-depth firsthand knowledge of the initial modeldevelopment process. Six semistructured individual interviews and one focus-groupinterview were conducted from January to March 2011 with key informants includ-ing research administrators, model developers, and scientists. Interviews lastedbetween 60 and 90 minutes and were audio recorded. Document analysis was con-ducted to complement and cross-validate the interview data. The documents ana-lyzed included model documentation, research proposals, strategic plans, annualreports, journal articles, and the WaterSim Web site. Data were also gatheredthrough participant observations of model demonstrations to local water manage-ment and policy community stakeholders in the Decision Theater and meetings ofthe WaterSim steering committee, which included the model developers, researchcenter administrators, and faculty researchers.

The analytic strategy followed a pattern matching logic (Yin 2009) to identifyand describe patterns in the empirical data and compare observed frames to expectedframes. Frames were identified deductively, based on theory, and inductively, basedon occurrence of patterns in the data. Deductive themes were derived from framingliterature as noted earlier. Inductive themes were identified using word counts andkeyword-in-context techniques (Wutich and Gravlee 2010). The data were codedby two analysts for themes and patterns using the process as described by Milesand Huberman (1999).

Case-Study Findings

Diagnostic Frame

The analysis identified the diagnostic frame implied by WaterSim designers: Uncer-tain and long-term water supply shortage caused by prolonged drought, climate changeimpacts, and population growth. This framing reflects the resource maintenance andefficiency element of sustainability identified from the literature review. That is,the water sustainability problem was framed as insufficient supply to meet currentand future demand and specifically demand to support current and future popu-lation growth in central Arizona. Comparing data from multiple sources, the

1368 D. D. White

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

08:

25 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

analysis triangulated on the conclusion that the fundamental problem as framed bymodel designers was balancing supply and demand of water, with an emphasis ondemand outstripping supply and subsequent groundwater overdraft. For instance,the model designers choose to estimate both annual and cumulative groundwateroverdraft for each simulation. That is, under a specific set of initial conditions, para-meterizations, and policy options, the model estimates groundwater deficit for a sin-gle year as well as for the full 30-year period of the model simulation. The dominantframing of the developers focused on the long-term cumulative supply–demand bal-ance. When asked about the intended purpose, a model developer stated, ‘‘We knewthat we wanted to have some kind of balancing system.’’ The developer explainedthat the Arizona Department of Water Resources mandates ‘‘sustainable ground-water yield.’’ When asked how the interpretation of this policy affected the designof the tool, the developer said that, to him, sustainable groundwater yield meant that‘‘net groundwater withdrawal should be zero, over the long term, and WaterSimreflects that.’’ The developer continued, ‘‘One of the model interfaces we have usesgroundwater as the indicator of how sustainable the water supply–demand balance isfor the region—a dial measuring groundwater withdrawal and whether it’s sustain-able or not—that is probably the major key in how it’s represented.’’ This framingwas embedded in the initial version of WaterSim and carried forward through sub-sequent model revisions. According to one model developer, ‘‘Groundwater actuallyis a very good proxy for water sustainability.’’ In the focus group, a developer stated,‘‘There’s a mindset, that’s actually written into Arizona’s water policy, called sus-tainable groundwater yield, and so that actually is Arizona’s water policy, and so,that’s what we’re talking about in terms of the computations of the model.’’

The primary causes of the problem, represented by variables included in themodel and consistently diagnosed by model developers and researchers in presenta-tions of WaterSim in the Decision Theater to stakeholders (e.g., members of the cen-tral Arizona water policy and management community), were population growth,drought, and climate change impacts. Specifically, presenters regularly implicatedexcessive outdoor residential water use and current and future surface water supplyreductions resulting from prolonged drought and warming and drying trends asso-ciated with climate change. Additionally, the problem was framed at a regional scaleas the initial version of the tool modeled supply–demand balance for the entirePhoenix metro area.

Prognostic Frame

The prognostic frame in the initial version of the model, which was partially impliedby the early diagnostic framing, was: Residential demand management and retirementof agricultural lands and conversion of agricultural water to municipal uses to achievesustainable groundwater management to support population growth and economicdevelopment. One developer in the focus group stated, ‘‘It is a demand managementframing, that people should manage their demand for water as the way to addressthe situation.’’ Another developer stated, ‘‘WaterSim is really focused on, what arethe things that reduce supply, and what can you do to reduce demand. There’s noth-ing in there that says, ‘what can you do to increase supply.’’’ This framing wasexpressed through the ‘‘policy levers’’ included in the system and model presenta-tions, which focus on demand management. One developer stated, ‘‘There’s a num-ber of policies focused on individual and residential water use you could change, and

Framing Water Sustainability 1369

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

08:

25 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

then you can see the effect of those.’’ There was discussion among developers in thefocus group that the framing in the initial version implied ‘‘residential demand man-agement is the solution set.’’ One developer added, ‘‘That’s also, to a certain extent,the Arizona Department of Water Resources’ main perspective. It’s not their onlyperspective, but that is how they tend to think of it. Gallons per capita.’’ Safe yieldas a goal and measure of success is derived, according to document analysis andinterviews, from a key water policy in Arizona, the Groundwater ManagementAct (1980). This framing reflects decisions modelers made to operationalize safe yieldas a balance where demand is managed to match available supply and therefore pre-sents a successful scenario as one where net groundwater use is zero. Observations ofWaterSim demonstrations in the Decision Theater revealed that the presenter oftenindicated that dramatic reductions in residential per capita demand, coupled withrapid retirement of agricultural lands and transfer of their water rights to the munici-pal sector, were the easiest way to ‘‘solve’’ the problem, achieve groundwater sustain-ability, and thus move the dial from red to green, indicating policy success.

Discussion and Conclusions

This case study analyzed data from interviews, documents, and observations toidentify and describe the water sustainability framing expressed by the developersof a computer simulation and visualization DSS model called WaterSim. The diag-nostic frame alluded to resource management and efficiency (Gibson et al. 2005) todefine the problem as uncertain and long-term water supply shortage caused by pro-longed drought, climate change impacts, and population growth. The prognosticframe incorporated elements of the economic growth master frame (Skillington1997), resource management and efficiency, and supply–demand balance, and sug-gested the solutions to be residential demand management and retirement of agricul-tural lands and conversion of agricultural water to municipal uses to achievesustainable groundwater management to support population growth and economicdevelopment.

Comparing the observed framing to what was expected based on theory andliterature reveals several available frame elements were not expressed by the modeldevelopers and subsequently not incorporated. Specifically, the initial model didnot frame water sustainability according to master frames such as social justice(Edwards 2006) or local knowledge (Brown 1992; Harrison et al. 1998). Several ele-ments of sustainability framing such as human–ecological systems integrity and eco-system preservation were notably absent. The results of these framing processes havetangible implications for the DSS. For instance, the lack of ecosystem preservationframing meant that all the water in the model was allocated to human uses with nosupply allocated for ecosystem services. The lack of social justice framing means thatthe model’s output metric—groundwater overdraft—was reported on an aggregatedregional basis without consideration of how water supply deficits would have differ-ential impacts on vulnerable populations.

These findings should be considered as scientists and policymakers develop DSSthat operationalize sustainability. Sustainability has been promoted as a transforma-tive frame for structuring discourse to resolve policy disputes. Shriver and Peaden(2009, 154) recommended purposive reframing to alleviate a water policy contro-versy: ‘‘Environmental managers can help facilitate this reframing of the disputeby emphasizing what we term the ‘sustainability frame.’ ’’ The idea is that reframing

1370 D. D. White

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

08:

25 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

issues in sustainability language would allow stakeholders to reorient the discourseand envision new solutions to seemingly intractable disputes. The results from thisstudy show, however, that water sustainability was framed in the initial versionsof the model in fairly narrow and conventional terms of a water supply–demand bal-ance to satisfy human uses. While such framing touches on the relevant policy frame-work, it does not necessarily open up the discourse to novel or innovative solutions.Thus, one implication of this study is that a sustainability frame in and of itself is notnecessarily a mechanism for recasting policy discourse in novel ways, unlesssustainability itself is defined in comprehensive terms.

Indeed, the framing expressed by designers of the initial model was subsequentlychallenged and renegotiated through a participatory process with engaged stake-holders. The initial framing revealed some weaknesses of the model for decisionmaking. Through a structured engagement process, the model developers elicitedframes of the problem and solutions as expressed by decision makers and incorpor-ated their perspectives into a redesigned, and reframed, model (White et al. 2010;Wutich et al. 2010). For instance, the framing of the problem at a regional scalewas countered by water management stakeholders, who tended to frame the issueat a subregional scale, focused on the scale of the city or water provider. Subse-quently, the model was redesigned to operate at multiple scales to provide analysesfor 33 individual water providers that can be analyzed independently or aggregated.While the managers were focused on enhancing the model’s relevance to decisionmaking at the municipal scale, this also opened up the model to social justice andintragenerational equity framing allowing for analyses to assess the impact of watersupply–demand scenarios on vulnerable communities.

AsDSS becomemore popular it is imperative to evaluate the active and social pro-cesses that result in embedded frames. Serrat-Capdevila et al. (2011, 423) have pointedout that ‘‘for a DSS to be successful and informative, the process by which it isdevelopedwill be as important, or evenmore so, than the finished decision support toolitself.’’ Frequent recommendations for DSS development include credible scientificmodels, open communication, early engagement of the policy community, sustainedinteraction, development of social capital, and adaptability. This study shows thatthe framing in DSS reflects the (limited) perspectives of those involved in the designof the tool. Thus, designers who aim to develop robust tools that engage a wide spec-trum of stakeholders should make strides to involve diverse perspectives early andoften or risk particular views being reified and ‘‘hard coded’’ into their systems.

Achieving sustainable levels of water use that can spur economic growth andvitality, support natural ecosystems, and contribute to social equity will only becomemore challenging in the future for Arizona. The contribution of the current researchis to illustrate how framing influences the design and use of tools and models thatare increasingly used for decision support. Future research is needed to evaluate the‘‘downstream’’ impacts of framing processes. For instance, how framing processesembedded in DSS actually impact management plans, policies, laws, and other deci-sions that are made based, in part, on such tools. In other words, what are the motiva-tional frames associated with the systems and how do they affect action? Furthermore,additional research is necessary to examine, through discourse analysis, for instance,the active, dynamic framing and counterframing processes that occur as decision sup-port tools are being developed. This research will provide a more nuanced andself-reflexive awareness of how human assumptions and choices, whether strategicor unconscious, serve to constrain or open up sustainability solutions.

Framing Water Sustainability 1371

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

08:

25 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

References

Benford, R. D. 1993. Frame disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement. SocialForces 71(3):677–701.

Benford, R. D., and D. A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overviewand assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26:611–639.

Borowski, I., and M. Hare. 2007. Exploring the gap between water managers and researchers:Difficulties of model-based tools to support practical water management. WaterResources Manage. 21(7):1049–1074.

Brown, P. 1992. Popular epidemiology and toxic waste contamination: Lay and professionalways of knowing. J. Health Social Behav. 33:267–281.

Burch, S., S. R. J. Sheppard, A. Shaw, and D. Flanders. 2010. Planning for climate change in aflood-prone community: Municipal barriers to policy action and the use of visualizationsas decision-support tools. J. Flood Risk Manage. 3(2):126–139.

Cliburn, D. C., J. J. Feddema, J. R. Miller, and T. A. Slocum. 2002. Design and evaluation of adecision support system in a water balance application. Comput. Graphics 26(6):931–949.

Edwards, N. 2006. Meetings on contamination: Framing harmlessness. Humanity Society30:7–23.

Entman, R. M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J. Commun.43(4):51–58.

Gammage, G. Jr., M. Stigler, S. Clark-Johnson, D. Daugherty, and W. Hart. 2011. Wateringthe sun corridor: Managing choices in Arizona’s megapolitan area. Phoenix: MorrisonInstitute for Public Policy, Arizona State University.

Gibson, R. B., S. Hassan, S. Holtz, J. Tansey, and G. Whitelaw. 2005. Sustainability assess-ment: Criteria and processes. London, UK: Earthscan.

Gober, P. 2006. Metropolitan Phoenix: Place making and community building in the desert.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Gober, P., E. A. Wentz, T. Lant, M. K. Tschudi, and C. W. Kirkwood. 2011. WaterSim: Asimulation model for urban water planning in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Environ. Plan.B 38(2):197–215.

Gray, B. 2003. Framing of environmental disputes. In Making sense of intractable environmen-tal conflicts: Concepts and cases, ed. R. J. Lewicki, B. Gray, and M. Elliot, 11–34.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Groundwater Management Act of 1980. Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 45, Chapter 2.Hall, T. E., and D. D. White. 2008. Representing recovery: Science and local control in the

framing of U.S. Pacific Northwest salmon policy. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 15(1):32–45.Harrison, C. M., J. Burgess, and J. Clark. 1998. Discounted knowledges: Farmers and

residents understandings of nature conservation goals and policies. J. Environ. Manage.54:305–320.

Isendahl, N., A. Dewulf, M. Brugnach, G. Francois, S. Moellenkamp, and C. Pahl-Wostl.2009. Assessing framing of uncertainties in water management practice. Water ResourcesManage. 23(15):3191–3205.

Isendahl, N., A. Dewulf, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2010. Making framing of uncertainty in watermanagement practice explicit by using a participant-structured approach. J. Environ.Manage. 91(4):844–851.

Lewicki, R. J., B. Gray, and M. Elliot, eds. 2003. Making sense of intractable environmentalconflicts: Concepts and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Matthies, M., C. Giupponi, and B. Ostendorf. 2007. Environmental decision support systems:Current issues, methods and tools. Environ. Model. Software 22:123–127.

Mercer, D. 2002. Scientific method discourses in the construction of EMF science: Interests,resources and rhetoric in submissions to a public inquiry. Social Stud. Sci. 32:205–233.

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1999. Qualitative data analysis, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

1372 D. D. White

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

08:

25 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

National Research Council. 2010. Advancing the science of climate change. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.

Overpeck, J., and B. Udall. 2010. Dry times ahead. Science 328:1642–1643.Pahl-Wostl, C. 2006. The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of

rivers and floodplains. Ecol. Society 11(1):10.Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Roth, A. L., J. Dunsby, and L. A. Bero. 2003. Framing processes in public commentary on US

federal tobacco control regulation. Social Stud. Sci. 33:7–44.Scheufele, D. A. 2000. Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at

cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Commun. Society 3(2–3):297–316.Schon, D., and Rein, M. 1994. Frame reflection: Towards the resolution of intractable policy

controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.Seager, R., M. Ting, I. Held, Y. Kushnir, J. Lu, G. Vecchi, H. Huang, N. Harnik, A. Leetmaa,

N. Lau, C. Li, J. Velez, and N. Naik. 2007. Model projections of an imminent transitionto a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science 316:1181–1184.

Serrat-Capdevila, A., A. Browning-Aiken, K. Lansey, T. Finan, and J. B. Valdes. 2009.Increasing social–ecological resilience by placing science at the decision table: The roleof the San Pedro Basin (Arizona) decision-support system model. Ecol. Society 14(1):37.

Serrat-Capdevila, A., J. B. Valdes, and H. V. Gupta. 2011. Decision support systems in waterresources planning and management: Stakeholder participation and the sustainable pathto science-based decision making. In Efficient decision support systems—Practice andchallenges from current to future, ed. C. Jao, 423–40. Rijeka, Croatia: In Tech.

Shriver, T. E., andC. Peaden. 2009. Framedisputes in a natural resource controversy: The case of theArbuckle Simpson Aquifer in south-central Oklahoma. Society Nat. Resources 22:143–157.

Skillington, T. 1997. Politics and the struggle to define: A discourse analysis of the framingstrategies of competing actors in a ‘new’ participatory forum. Br. J. Sociol. 48(3):493–513.

Snow, D. A., and R. D. Benford. 1988. Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobiliza-tion. In International social movement research: Vol. 1. From structure to action: Compar-ing social movement research across cultures, eds. B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, andS. Tarrow, 197–217. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tannen, D., ed. 1993. Framing in discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.

Science 211:453–458.U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American fact finder. Table P1: Total population. http://factfinder2.

census.gov (accessed 1 March 2013).Van Dijk, T. A. 1980. Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of

discourse. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton Publishers.White, D. D., A. Wutich, K. L. Larson, P. Gober, T. Lant, and C. Senneville. 2010. Credi-

bility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: Water managers’ assessment of asimulation model in an immersive decision theater. Sci. Public Policy 37(3):219–232.

Wutich, A., and C. C. Gravlee. 2010. Water decision-makers in a desert city: Text analysis andenvironmental social science. In Environmental social sciences: Methods and researchdesign, eds. I. Vaccaro, E. A. Smith, and S. Aswani, 188–211. New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Wutich, A., T. Lant, D. D. White, K. L. Larson, and M. Gartin. 2010. Comparing focusgroup and individual responses on sensitive topics: A study of water decision-makersin a desert city. Field Methods 22(1):88–110.

Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Framing Water Sustainability 1373

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

08:

25 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014