This article examines environmental disputants' conflict management frames-their preferred means of responding to conflict-and the impact of those frames on the conflict's intractability.Through case studies we illustrate the consequences of adopting certain conflict management frames,such as litigation,struggle/sabotage and violence,and avoidance,which tend to perpetuate conflicts.Four circumstances in our cases encouraged the adoption of joint problem-solving frames:(1) the disputants faced a common crisis,(2) shifts occurred in the wider context,(3) local champions of reconciliation emerged,and/or (4) third parties intervened.Differences in how disputants frame social control,i.e.,their views about how societal decisions should be made,also affect intractability.We introduce three social control frames and show how these differences can impede resolution,particularly when some disputants prefer local versus national arenas for decision making.Finally,we offer several recommendations for how conflict management and social control frames can be aligned to increase the chances of resolving conflict.
展开▼
