a recent report has unusual significance for environmental professionals: iamerica's living oceans: charting a course for sea change. oceans, from the pew oceans commission, is a provocative overview of the utter inadequacies of current policy to protect marine ecosystems. although these ecosystems started the 20th century in good shape, their status at the start of the 21st century can only be described as disheartening and alarming. all of the good thinking in this special issue on conflict resolution will be needed to grapple with the issues raised by oceans!

the environment has been the focus of degree programs widely available in american universities for slightly more than 30 years. nevertheless, there is no agreement on the content of environmental curricula or on the qualifications of those teaching students in the programs. graduates of environmental programs need more on–the–job training than those of other disciplines if they are to be effective practitioners in their chosen fields.

planning for management of yosemite national park is in the midst of heated public debate. stakeholders from every point of view, from limiting access to promoting more activities within the park, are expressing their deeply held beliefs. these often conflicting and usually contrasting points of view are illustrated by the following reflections:

imagine this: the government is proposing that a new wildlife refuge be established in a rural area near your home city. wildlife officials claim that the refuge is needed to protect valuable wetlands in the area and provide needed habit for migratory waterfowl. they note that they have a responsibility to society to protect and preserve these resources for the public and for future generations. local and national supporters praise the proposal for its value in preserving biodiversity and protecting endangered species and ecosystems, but all are not happy with the proposal. one farmer, whose land would be included in the proposed refuge, noted, “my family has farmed this land for nearly 200 years and the government is not going to tell me what i can do with my land.” other landowners feel the same and organize to fight the refuge proposal.

“evil–doers.” this memorable and provocative characterization of america's terrorist enemy was cast by president george w. bush in a stirring speech to a joint session of congress in september 2001, a few days after the horrific attacks of september 11th. “evil–doers” is a very vivid and negative characterization of a group of people and, not surprisingly, it impassioned the american people. by condemning the “evil–doers” and then issuing the threat to all others that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (bush, 2001), president bush drew a line in the sand between “us” and “them.” in so doing, he provided a timely and classic example of how the framing of identities and characterizations establishes the boundaries, dimensions, and intensity of a conflict.

despite a widespread consensus that reducing exposure to environmental risks is desirable, decision making often requires trade–offs. these trade–offs may focus on the time and resources needed to reduce environmental risks. they may involve increasing risks in one locality in order to promote a more significant reduction in risk in another. or, decreases in one type of risk may necessitate an increase in another form of risk.

our society chooses among alternative environmental futures through decisions expected to yield, upon implementation, the results sought. if our collective understanding of the link between decisions and outcomes is flawed, however, the expected results may not follow. common–sense understanding is often inadequate for identifying environmental problems and evaluating possible solutions. therefore, our future hinges, to a considerable extent, on society's understanding and sensible use of technical information and scientific analyses. how we make sense of—or frame—the information we use to evaluate probable consequences of environmental decisions is, therefore, critical.

natural resource management is squarely situated in a political context in which stakeholders claim the right to participate in policy dialogues. awareness of the social control frames stakeholders bring to an environmental dispute can guide managers in their attempts to achieve more legitimate agreements. in many cases, views of social control are important in explaining differences among disputants' attitudes toward the legitimacy of agreements. by understanding how conflict participants make use of social control frames, managers can work with, rather than against, those participants to craft a legitimate agreement. after summarizing the characteristics of a legitimate agreement, this article suggests how natural resource managers can increase the likelihood that participants will perceive an agreement as legitimate, by understanding the social control frames disputants bring to a situation and then incorporating salient aspects of these frames into the conflict management process.

in a long–standing conflict over voyageurs national park in northern minnesota, proponents of motorized use have battled environmentalists for decades—each side repeatedly using litigation to advance its concerns. the conflict, which began in the early 1960s over the location and management of a national park on the border of minnesota and ontario, resembles a protracted game of hearts in which each side temporarily trumps the other by winning a victory in the courts. most of these victories have been short–lived, however, because of reversals on appeal or changing political circumstances. so who has won? certainly not the national park service, which has continually been buffeted from both sides of the debate. the environmentalists, who want to ensure that the park and its native species are protected from abuse, have not been victorious. nor do the proponents of motorized use declare themselves victors, claiming instead that they have made concession after concession (e.g., giving up desirable snowmobiling trails and floatplane access) in the interest of wildlife preservation.

perhaps the most perplexing and difficult of environmental conflicts are the ones that last for long periods of time, resurface routinely, and seem to go on forever. governmental officials, stakeholders, and even interventionists describe these disputes as “a way of life,” “a long drawn–out affair,” and “still fighting the same fight for 20 years” (putnam and wondolleck, 2003). this type of conflict distinguishes itself from other disputes as being more divisive, involving more layers of agencies and social organizations, weaving in complex and overlapping issues, and typically fostering destructive and self–perpetuating patterns. these controversies often lead to violence, as exemplified in social conflicts over abortion and race relations, and in disputes currently ongoing in the middle east.

the expression “where you stand depends on where you sit” takes on a new dimension when one considers the complexity of environmental conflict. environmental conflicts, some of the most contentious of our time, take place within a complex and dynamic “context” that can influence disputing parties' perceptions of the conflict and each other, and may alter the conflict in dramatic ways. in other words, where you “stand” with regard to a particular environmental conflict will be influenced by where you “sit” in terms of the particular context surrounding the conflict. context, for our purposes, is the complex and dynamic “setting” in which the conflict occurs.

imagine two cities similar in many respects—size, socio–economic status, location—faced with an environmental challenge. in one city, a fractious battle is observed among interest groups, while in the other, parties seem very effective at engaging in deliberations that yield possible solutions to the challenge. all else being similar, the difference might be the level of civic capacity in the two cities. this civic capacity is the focus of this article.

economists by training, the authors of environmental conflict: in search of common ground offer a fast–moving and far–reaching analysis of current environmental debates — from global warming to biodiversity loss to industrial pollution. j. j. pompe and j. r. rinehart propose economic theory as an indispensable framework for understanding environmental policy decisions. by defining environmental degradation as an essentially economic problem, the authors set out to “demystify economics” as it applies to environmental decision making—which, like all decision–making processes (in their view), is fundamentally shaped by human choice and responses to change. peppered with popular analogies, from star wars to the extinction of the passenger pigeon, the lively style reflects the authors' intention to apply economic principles in lay terms, making it a useful introductory text to the field of environmental economics, especially at the undergraduate level.