Scale framing of scientific uncertainty in controversy over the Endangered Steller sea lion

Abstract

Political debate about the endangered Steller sea lion turns on uncertainty about the cause of decline and lack of recovery of this marine mammal of the North Pacific Ocean. To shift the political terrain, different groups tried to shift the scale at which problems are framed. US regulators focused on localised interactions, environmental organisations highlighted the entire fishery management regime and the fishing industry focused on natural climate change within the North Pacific region. Because debate is about supposedly objective, scientific realities, these practices of scale framing take on particular significance in this case. Scientific understandings of individual problems are not outside the frame of scale practices, but instead there is a politics of scale around science. This case shows that using scale as a framing device is a powerful political strategy for dealing with uncertainty, because focusing on a particular scale presupposes certain kinds of solutions while foreclosing others.

Landfarming: A contested space for the management of waste from oil and gas extraction

“…A key feature of this conceptualisation of scale relevant to our analysis is the notion that disputants in a controversy may strategically shift the scale at which an issue is framed in their arguments in order to secure their interests in, or stance on, that issue (Jones, 1998). 3 Defining an environmental problem in different scale terms can extend or contract the frame of reference for the debate, justify particular levels of regulatory response or oversight, or render some solutions reasonable while eliminating others (Harrison, 2006;Kurtz, 2003;Lindseth, 2006;Mansfield and Haas, 2006). Such rescaling is not simply a discursive or rhetorical shift, but can have tangible consequences for processes and outcomes (Jones, 1998;Marston, 2000).…”

“…That is, the kinds of questions that are asked (or not asked) and how they are pitched in relation to specific levels of environmental governance (e.g. global, national, regional, district) shape the production of knowledge (and ignorance), which in turn has implications for policy (Kinchy, 2014;Mansfield and Haas, 2006). 4 Kinchy (2014: 250) in respect of shale gas extraction in the USA: scientific credibility contests have implications not only for what is known about gas drilling, but also which level of government has authority to govern the industry.…”

Spatial and temporal scale framing of a decision on the future of the Mactaquac Dam in New Brunswick, Canada

“…These scales and levels are used in framing problems and their solutions, a process known as scale framing (Kurtz 2003, Harrison 2006, Mansfield and Haas 2006, van Lieshout et al 2011, Edge and Eyles 2014. Scale frames therefore describe how stakeholders define the boundaries of problems and solutions in space and time (van Lieshout et al 2011, Edge andEyles 2014).…”

“…In this way, scale is used to frame a problem so that a particular solution appears logical or, conversely, inappropriate (Williams 1999, Harrison 2006, Mansfield and Haas 2006, van Lieshout et al 2011.…”

“…How stakeholders frame environmental issues in terms of scale is beginning to receive particular attention (Kurtz 2003, Mansfield and Haas 2006, van Lieshout et al 2011, Juerges and Newig 2015. Scale framing, as this process is known, means "the process of framing an issue using a certain scale and/or level" (van Lieshout et al 2011).…”