Frame disputes in environmental controversies: The case of wetland regulations in Louisiana

Abstract

Stakeholder groups’ arguments for or against regulations represent frames, or versions of reality and visions of solutions. Frame effectiveness, or the ability of a group convincingly to convey its grievances, increases its opportunities to gain valuable resources such as legitimacy, money, facilities, and labor to apply to its agenda for change. This paper uses the constructionist perspective to describe the basic frames advanced by each major group in a contemporary environmental controversy: the role of government in regulating wetland use in Louisiana. Using 91 semis‐tructured interviews as the main data, this paper discusses stakeholder frames from regulatory, regulated, and environmentalist positions and the rhetorical strategies hidden within each group's frames. This paper suggests that the regulated community has greater interpretive dominance in the wetlands controversy than regulators and environmentalists/concerned citizens because the community advances a more diverse set of frames, more effectively “piggybacks” its frames on other central contemporary government criticisms, and is more adept at using “diversionary reframing,” whereby it disregards the costs of wetland loss and shifts the discussion to tangible costs to landowners. Future work on framing in social movements, especially in natural resource disputes, should refine the concept of frame effectiveness and identify recurring strategies that attract public support within disputes.