Aligning Identity: Social Identity and Changing Context in Community-based Environmental ...

333 Pages·2008·0.78 MB·English

Aligning Identity: Social Identity and Changing Context in
Community-based Environmental Conflict

by

Todd A. Bryan

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Natural Resources and Environment)
in The University of Michigan
2008

Doctoral Committee:
Associate Professor Julia M. Wondolleck, Chair
Professor Jane E. Dutton
Professor Steven L. Yaffee
Professor Linda L. Putnam, University of California at Santa Barbara
© Todd A. Bryan
2008
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my chair and committee members, Julia Wondolleck, Steven
Yaffee, Jane Dutton, Martha Feldman, and Linda Putnam for helping guide this effort
while at the same time letting me chart my own course. Their delicate touch is reflected
in the things that went well. The other missteps are of my own making. I would also like
to thank my committee for treating me in many ways as a peer, and in recognizing the
value that my experience as a practitioner brought to the research.
I would also like to thank the scholars affiliated with the Environmental Framing
Consortium, particularly Barbara Gray, Roy Lewicki, and Linda Putnam, and their
graduate students, whose commitment to rigorous research standards and
interdisciplinary research greatly influenced my doctoral experience. Along those lines, I
would also like to thank the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation for suggesting that
the Consortium add the Quincy Library Group to its mix of case studies on the framing of
intractable environmental conflicts, and to funding a portion of this research.
The Ford Foundation Community Forestry Research Fellowship deserves special
thanks for funding a year living and conducting field research in Quincy, California, the
logging community that was the focus of my dissertation. I would also like to thank the
Quincy Library Group, the northern Sierra logging and environmental communities, the
U.S. Forest Service, congressional staff, and non-governmental organizations for their
contributions to this research and for their passion for protecting the Sierras and Sierra
Nevada communities.
ii
I would like to thank my training comrades in the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management Partnership Series, an interdisciplinary band of experts in community-based
collaborative stewardship. Gary McVicker, Charles Pregler, Mike Preston, Herman Karl,
Christine Turner, Gary Mullins, James Kent, Kevin Preister, Gene Williams, and Kris
Komar greatly influenced my perceptions of community and the role that communities
play in land stewardship. Our trips to dozens of western rural communities during our
decade together, and our discussions with local people and each other, provided a rich
context in which to view my research.
Former teachers also deserve special thanks for making learning fun – in
particular Jack Cooler, Darrell Morrison, Jim Zimmerman, and Karl Weick. Finally, I
would like to thank my friends and family for supporting this adventure, for believing in
the intrinsic value of scholarly pursuit, and for restraining themselves from stating the
obvious – you’re too old. In particular I would like to thank my Boulder swim friends and
my two best friends – Catherine Sheridan and Caleb Sheridan Michaels – for recognizing
the value of the journey and in never losing sight of the need to play. Finally, I would
especially like to thank my mother for inspiring me with her understated achievement in
the academic realm – skipping second grade – and my father for demonstrating that life is
always bigger than the self. And to both for allowing me find the path that suited me,
even though that path has been anything but conventional.
iii
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………….ii
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………vi
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………....vii
List of Appendices ……………………………………………………………………...viii
List of Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………….ix
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………...x
Chapter
I. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………..1
II. Social Identity: Conflict, Cooperation, and Common Pool Dilemmas ………17
Social Identity ……………………………………………. …………….17
Contrasting Identity and Social Identity Theories ……………………....25
Social Identity and Social Conflict ……………………………………...26
Social Identity and Cooperation …………………………………………32
Social Identity and Common Pool Resource Dilemmas ………………...39
The Role of Leadership ……….…………………………………………47
III. Methodology: The Use of Frames and Framing …………………………….51
Unit of Analysis: the Frame …………………………………………......52
Data Sources …………………………………………………………….56
Frame analysis – Documenting Identity and Identity Change …………..58
Identity and Characterization Frames …………………………………...60
Contextual Analysis – External Directional Forces ……………………..65
Process Theory Orientation ……………………………………………...68
IV. Case Study: the Quincy Library Group ……………………………………..71
Phase 1 – The Forest Planning Process …………………………………73
Phase 2 – Emergence of the Quincy Library Group …………………….83
Phase 3 – Legislating National Forest Management …………………….93
V. Frame Analysis and the Forest Planning Process …………………………....97
Dominant Identity Frames ………………………………………………97
Dominant Characterization Frames ……………………………………106
Frame Analysis – Phase 1 ……………………………………………...115
VI. Frame Analysis and the Emergence of the Quincy Library Group ………..118
Dominant Identity Frames ……………………………………………..119
Dominant Characterization Frames ……………………………………128
Frame Analysis – Phase 2 ……………………………………………...137
VII. External Forces: the Role of a Changing Context ………………………...140
Changing Community Context ………………………………………...141
Changes in the Environmental Movement …………………………….154
Changing Forest Conditions …………………………………………...169
iv
Changes in the Forest Service …………………………………………184
VIII. Explaining Change: A Social Identity Perspective ……….……………...215
Necessary Conditions ………………………………………………….217
External Directional Forces ……………………………………………223
Necessary Probabilistic Processes ……………………………………..251
IX. Conclusion ………………………………………….…………………….. 261
Contributions to the Research …………………………………………266
Limitations of the Research ……………………………………………269
Application to Public Policy Arena ……………………………………271
Relevance for Public Policy Makers……………………………………271
Relevance for Conflict Management …………………………………..275
Relevance for Participation …………………………………………….279
Appendices
A. Conflict Timeline ……………………………….………………………….284
B. Interviewees and Affiliations ………………………………………………285
C. Media Sources for Identity and Characterization Frames ………………....286
References ……………………………………………………………………………..300

v
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Subgroups accommodated in a Superordinate Identity ……………………...37
Figure 2.2 Dual Identity Model …………………………………………………………38
Figure 5.1 Frequency of Identity Frames ………………………………………………..98
Figure 5.2 Phase 1 Characterization Frames and their Charge ………………………...107
Figure 6.1 Frequency of Identity Frames in phases 1 and 2…………………………....121
Figure 6.2 Phase 2 Characterization Frames and their Charge ………………………...129
Figure 7.1 Trends in Voter Registration for Plumas County from 1972 to 2000 ……...145

vi
List of Tables

Table 5.1 Logging Identity Frames ……………………………………………………..99
Table 5.2 Environmental Identity Frames ……………………………………………..100
Table 5.3 Forest Service Identity Frames ……………………………………………...101
Table 5.4 Characterizations by Loggers towards Environmentalists …………………..108
Table 5.5 Characterizations by Loggers towards the Forest Service …………………..110
Table 5.6 Characterizations by Environmentalists towards Loggers …………………..112
Table 5.7 Characterizations by Environmentalists towards the Forest Service ………..113
Table 5.8 Characterizations by the Forest Service towards Environmentalists ………..115
Table 5.9 Characterizations by the Forest Service towards Loggers …………………..115
Table 6.1 QLG Identity Frames ………………………………………………………..122
Table 6.2 Forest Service Identity Frames ……………………………………………...123
Table 6.3 Environmentalist Identity Frames …………………………………………...124
Table 6.4 Logger Identity Frames ……………………………………………………...125
Table 6.5 Characterizations by QLG towards Environmentalists ……………………..130
Table 6.6 Characterizations by QLG towards Loggers ………………………………..131
Table 6.7 Characterizations by QLG towards the Forest Service ……………………..133
Table 6.8 Characterizations by Loggers ……………………………………………….134
Table 6.9 Characterizations by Environmentalists …………………………………….135
Table 6.10 Characterizations by the Forest Service …………………………………...137
vii
List of Appendices

A. Conflict Timeline ……………………………………………………………….......284
B. List of Interviewees and Affiliations ………………………………………………..285
C. Media Sources for Identity and Characterization Frames …………………………..286
viii
List of Abbreviations

CASPO California Spotted Owl (Assessment Report)
CRS Congressional Research Service
EDR Environmental Dispute Resolution
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ESA Endangered Species Act
FPW Friends of Plumas Wilderness
GAO General Accounting Office
HCA Habitat Conservation Area
ISC Interagency Scientific Committee
MUSY Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFMA National Forest Management Act
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OTA Office of Technology Assessment
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PILT Payments in Lieu of Taxes
QLG Quincy Library Group
SOHA Spotted Owl Habitat Area
SPI Sierra Pacific Industries
USFS United States Forest Service
ix