‘Frame Conflicts’ in Natural Resource Use: Exploring Framings Around Arctic Offshore Petroleum Using Q‐Methodology

Abstract

Environmental and natural resource issues are often framed in multiple ways by different stakeholders. Given their complexity, how these issues are framed can diverge significantly, leading to 'frame conflicts'. Frame conflicts have implications for decision makers when addressing socio-ecological problems; this is especially the case for Arctic offshore petroleum. Q-methodology is used to explore framings found across a group of stakeholders on the issue of Arctic offshore petroleum development, to empirically demonstrate the extent of frame conflicts and to explore possible bridges for consensus between these framings. The issue was framed in various ways: a global sustainability concern, a development panacea for Arctic communities, an issue where economic reality clashes with environmental idealism and an issue centred on local sustainability concerns. Despite significant divergence across framings, some potential bridges of consensus were evident, centring on ideas of traditional livelihoods, the importance of emphasizing 'human' aspects of the debate and the inherent risks involved in Arctic offshore petroleum. The implications and challenges of frame conflicts around Arctic offshore petroleum are discussed.It should be noted, however, that the use of such statistical criteria is not wholly objective, and whilst such criteria helpfully guide the factor extraction process this is ultimately a subjective process (Watts and Stenner, 2012).This significance is calculated, following Brown (1980), with the expression 2.58(1√N), with N equalling the number of statements in the Q-set. 489Frame Conflicts in Arctic Offshore Petroleum

Strengthening the science-policy interface for climate adaptation: stakeholder perceptions in Cameroon

“…Study variance above 35% is ordinarily considered to be a sound solution in factor analysis (Kline 2014). The study variance obtained in this study is high compared to previous studies (Frantzi et al 2009;Davies et al 2016;Howard et al 2016). This high variance can be attributed to the fact that most of the participants were able to identify positively with viewpoints expressed in each of the discourses.…”

Exploring frame conflicts in the development of a new mineral resource policy in Austria using Q-methodology

“…The arena of mineral resource governance is marked by exactly such controversies, conflicts, and trade-offs across its different dimensions (Nickless 2017 ; Ayuk et al 2020 ). The frames originating from such a process might differ significantly, reflecting divergent economic, social, environmental, and justice priorities, and potentially reveal new tensions (Dewulf et al 2009 ; Davies et al 2016 ). Wicked problems such as resource governance nevertheless require the involvement of diverse stakeholders to account for their complexity.…”

“…This challenge is exacerbated by the fact that issues defining resource governance are framed through a variety of communication channels, knowledge structures, paradigms, or stakeholder views (e.g. Dewulf et al 2009 ; Davies et al 2016 ). Overall, this makes agenda setting and designing, and agreeing on policy interventions a particularly challenging if not irreconcilable task.…”

Embracing Complexity and Complexity-Awareness in Marine Megafauna Conservation and Research

“…Because stakeholder groups are the backbone of marine megafauna conservation and support for research (Fulton et al, 2015), stakeholder awareness of the interdependencies and inherent complexities of the megafauna conservation landscape is an essential ingredient to effective conservation (Prell et al, 2009). Although not specific to marine megafauna conservation, Q-methods, participatory mapping and collaborative learning methods are examples of approaches that have been used to help "unpack" complexity surrounding natural resource management and use (Davies et al, 2016;Hagan and Williams, 2016;Niedziałkowski et al, 2018). These methods can clarify and map viewpoints and perspectives of different stakeholder groups without bias, helping to articulate the potentially competing interests of the fishing industry and the marine megafauna conservation community (Prell et al, 2009;Forrester et al, 2015).…”