The answer is 42 … What is THE question?

McCormick, Ron; Kapustka, Lawrence A.

doi:10.1007/s13412-016-0376-7

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is particularly the case when ‘what the other says is meaningless to me’ (Pellizzoni 2001, p. 61), because of no apparent shared problem definition, agreed foundation of knowledge or trusted expertise on which decisions may be made (Jasanoff 1997). Messy or wicked problem strategies specifically designed for complex massive problems (Stahl 2014; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009) can also be blocked by those frames, which envisage only one possible question to answer (McCormick and Kapustka 2016), one type of expertise and one solution (Ruhl and Salzman 2010). Intractable multi‐party environmental conflicts, can then be defined as ‘symbolic arena[s] in which disputants with dissimilar framing repertoires differ from and frequently oppose each other for extended periods of time’ (Brummans et al 2008, p. 29).…”

Section: Using Conflict Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Conflict to Bridges: Towards Constructive Use of Conflict Frames in the Control of Bovine Tuberculosis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Control of bovine tuberculosis in cattle (bTB) in England and Wales is characterised by conversational and policy impasses, particularly in relation to badger culling. We created four online discussion groups comprising of badger cull supporters, cull-opponents, aligned antagonists (mixing supporters and opponents affiliated with farming or an environmental/ conservation group) and non-aligned antagonists (mixing supporters and opponents who were not affiliated with a particular group). We held five different discussions with each grouping over the course of a week. We aimed to identify frames held by the opposing groupings within the bTB control controversy, which could either contribute to conflict and impasse, or alternatively could provide a potential conversational bridge between those who differed. Our analysis identified elements of the framings of the bTB control problem, which, particularly in the mixed groupings, lead to deadlock. We also identified some aspects of the framings which allowed those who differed to communicate together more effectively. We argue that these more transformative frames can be used to bridge conflict. that conflict-framing analysis, and the identification of bridging frames in particular, provides, to try 'do' bTB control differently.

show abstract

Section: Using Conflict Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Conflict to Bridges: Towards Constructive Use of Conflict Frames in the Control of Bovine Tuberculosis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This culture can help to avoid "short-term and 'common-sense' solutions (which) often bear unintended consequences that may produce worse situations over the long term than if no action had been taken at all" [55].…”

Section: Integrated Assessment Follow-up -The Culture Of Reflected Numentioning

confidence: 99%

An Integrated Assessment Model for the German Food-Energy-Water Nexus

Schlör¹,

Hake²,

Venghaus³

2017

J. sustain. dev. energy water environ. syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United Nations has defined the food-energy-water nexus as a key issue in the green economy process towards sustainable development. The integrated assessment model is used here to frame and study the heterogeneity of the food-energy-water nexus and to manage the food-energy-water nexus in Germany in a social learning and decision-making process. For the integrated assessment of the German food-energy-water nexus sector, a four-phase approach based on the de Ridder method is used to analyse the food-energy-water nexus against the background of the completely revised German sustainability strategy of 2017. In the first step, the integrated assessment problem analysis, the interconnections of the food-energy-water nexus between the natural resources and the socio-economic system are formulated. The new political values and options needed for the management of the food-energy-water nexus sector are revealed in the second research step and it is stressed that justice is the defining ethical norm of the revised German sustainability strategy of 2017, which is the sustainability framework for the German food-energy-water nexus. Thus, inter-and intragenerational justice is also a central issue of the food-energy-water nexus and is integrated with the social discount rate in the food-energy-water measuring concept (Fisher nexus quantity index) presented in the third step. In the final research step of the integrated assessment approach, it is found that the new food-energy-water nexus policy process also needs a 'culture of reflected numbers', as Voßkuhle calls it, to ensure a social discourse as a permanent learning process for both the German government and society.

show abstract

Resilience Meets the Water–Energy–Food Nexus: Mapping the Research Landscape

Hogeboom

Borsje

Deribe

et al. 2021

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resilience thinking is increasingly promoted to address some of the grand challenges of the 21st century: providing water, energy, and food to all, while staying within the limits of the Earth system that is undergoing (climate) change. Concurrently, a partially overlapping body of literature on the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus has emerged through the realization that water, energy, and food systems are intricately linked—and should therefore be understood and managed in conjunction. This paper reviews recent scientific publications at the intersection of both concepts in order to i) examine the status quo on resilience thinking as it is applied in WEF nexus studies; ii) map the research landscape along major research foci and conceptualizations; iii) and propose a research agenda of topics distilled from gaps in the current research landscape. We identify key conceptualizations of both resilience and nexus framings that are used across studies, as we observe pronounced differences regarding the nexus’ nature, scope, emphasis and level of integration, and resilience’s scope, type, methodological and thematic foci. Promising research avenues include i) improving the understanding of resilience in the WEF nexus across scales, sectors, domains, and disciplines; ii) developing tools and indicators to measure and assess resilience of WEF systems; iii) bridging the implementation gap brought about by (governing) complexity; iv) integrating or reconciling resilience and nexus thinking; v) and considering other development principles and frameworks toward solving WEF challenges beside and beyond resilience, including control, efficiency, sustainability, and equity.

show abstract

The answer is 42 … What is THE question?

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

From Conflict to Bridges: Towards Constructive Use of Conflict Frames in the Control of Bovine Tuberculosis

From Conflict to Bridges: Towards Constructive Use of Conflict Frames in the Control of Bovine Tuberculosis

An Integrated Assessment Model for the German Food-Energy-Water Nexus

Resilience Meets the Water–Energy–Food Nexus: Mapping the Research Landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About