Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T13:00:20.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Creating Environmental Stakeholder Profiles: A Tool for Dispute Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2005

Deborah F. Shmueli  and
Michal Ben Gal
Deborah F. Shmueli
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel
Michal Ben Gal
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel
Get access

Abstract

In Israel, the same governmental bodies and environmental organizations appear repeatedly as environmental disputants. Irrespective of the conflict, they usually hold consistent perspectives and positions. This research offers a methodology for identifying values frames and creating stakeholder profiles to assist negotiators and disputants in finding common ground or trade-offs in resolving disputes. The profiles enable stakeholders to couch their interests and arguments in language (or frames) understandable to other stakeholders. They enable interveners to steer discussions toward trade-offs or reframing of issues. The research is based on interviews with 160 stakeholders in nine Israeli environmental disputes at national, regional, and local levels.

Type
FEATURES & REVIEWS
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 165 - 175
Copyright
© 2005 National Association of Environmental Professionals

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bauer, M. W. 2000. Classical Content Analysis: A Review. In Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook, M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, eds. Sage, London, 131–151.
Bryan, T. 2003. Context in Environmental Conflict: Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit. Environmental Practice 5(3):256–264.Google Scholar
Elliott, M. 2003. Risk Perception Frames in Environmental Decision Making. Environmental Practice 5(3):214–222.Google Scholar
Elliott, M., B. Gray, and R. Lewicki. 2003. Lessons Learned about the Framing of Intractable Environmental Conflicts. In Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases, R. Lewicki, B. Gray, and M. Elliott, eds. Island Press, Washington, DC, 409–436.
Elliott, M., S. Kaufman, and D. Shmueli. 2003. Frames, Framing and Reframing. Beyond Intractability, G. Burgess and H. Burgess, eds. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, http://www.beyondintractability.org/m/framing.jsp.
Environmental Practice. 2003. Special Issue on Environmental Conflict Resolution and Framing. Environmental Practice 5(3). Oxford University Press, Cary, NC, 83 pp.Google Scholar
Frost, P. J., L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, and J. Martin, eds. 1991. Reframing Organizational Culture. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 400 pp.
Gasul, D., and D. Shmueli. 1999. Conflicts in Planning, Development and the Environment, Conflict Assessment: Duda'im Landfill. Israeli Ministry of Environment, Jerusalem, 69 pp.
Glaser, B. G., and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative Research. Aldine, New York, 271 pp.
Gray, B. 2003. Framing of Environmental Disputes. In Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases, R. Lewicki, B. Gray, and M. Elliott, eds. Island Press, Washington, DC, 11–34.
Gray, B., and A. Donnellon. 1989. An Interactive Theory of Reframing in Negotiation. Unpublished manuscript, College of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University.
Kaufman, S., and J. Smith. 1999. Framing and Reframing in Land Use Change Conflicts. Journal of Architecture, Planning and Research 16(2):164–180.Google Scholar
Lewicki, R., B. Gray, and M. Elliott, eds. 2003. Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases. Island Press, Washington, DC, 469 pp.
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 338 pp.
Peterson, T. R. 2003. Social Control Frames: Opportunities or Constraints? Environmental Practice 5(3):232–238.Google Scholar
Robbins, S. P. 1991. Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and Applications, 7th Edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 719 pp.
Shmueli, D. 2003. Conflict Assessment as an Evaluation Tool. Beyond Intractability, G. Burgess and H. Burgess, eds. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, http://www.beyondintractability.org/m/conflict_assessment.jsp.
Shmueli, D., and M. Ben Gal. 2001. Conflict Assessment for Dialogue among Stakeholders to Control Pollution in the Kishon River Basin. Final report, Israeli Ministry of Environment, Jerusalem, volume A: 36 pp., volume B: 64 pages (in Hebrew).
Shmueli, D., and M. Ben Gal. 2003a. Reframing of Protracted Environmental Disputes: The Tool, Conflict Mapping, Organizational Profiles and Environmental Discourse in Israel. Second year final report, Israeli Ministry of Environment, Jerusalem, 205 pp. (in Hebrew).
Shmueli, D., and M. Ben Gal. 2003b. Stakeholder Frames in the Mapping of the Lower Kishon River Basin Conflict. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 21(2):211–238.Google Scholar
Shmueli, D., and M. Ben Gal. 2004. The Potential of Framing in Managing and Resolving Environmental Conflict. In Advancing Sustainability at the Sub-National Level: The Potential and Limitations of Planning, E. Feitelson, ed. Ashgate Press, Aldershot, England, 197–217.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 270 pp.
Wondolleck, J., B. Gray, and T. Bryan. 2003. Us versus Them: How Identities and Characterizations Influence Conflict. Environmental Practice 5(3):207–213.Google Scholar