1.Power & Influence Frame

This frame is about who has a voice. Certain groups possess financial, legal, or political power, while others do not. The authority determines what concepts are taken seriously.The side with more power has a significant influence on how things turn out, whether it's a large corporation, a local community, or a government agency.

2.Responsibility & Decision-Making Frame

This frame is about who should be making the decisions. Some think the government should step in, while others think the community should decide, and others want experts to take the lead. People get frustrated fast when they feel like decisions are being made without them.

3.Values & Identity Frame

Values & Identity frame is all about how people see themselves and what they care about. For example a rancher, hunter, scientist, or someone who grew up loving the outdoors is going to look at an environmental issue way different than someone who hasn’t lived that life. When people feel like their lifestyle or their values are being threatened they push back .

4. Risk & Impact Frame

Everyone sees risk differently as some people focus on short-term stuff like jobs and money while others think long term about the environment and what could happen down the road. 

5. Knowledge & Trust Frame

A lot of environmental conflicts really come  down to whose information people believe. Some people tend to put  their trust in scientists and data, while others may rely more on what they’ve seen with their own eyes or what their community has always known. When both sides feel confident in completely different “facts,” the whole conversation will eventually stalls out. 

I picked these five frames because after going through the two readings, doing my own research, and breaking everything down in the comparison table, these were the ideas that kept showing up as the real drivers of environmental conflict. Each author had their own structure, but the more I analyzed them, the more I realized they were all describing the same patterns in different ways. Instead of copying their setups, I pulled the pieces that made the most sense to me and built a framework that actually fits how people act and respond in real-world conflicts.The first frame I chose was Power & Influence because honestly, it affects everything. Some groups have political backing, financial resources, or legal authority, and those differences shift the whole conflict before the conversation even starts. The readings showed that the “winning” idea isn’t always the most logical one—it’s usually the one supported by whoever has the most power. Understanding who holds influence explains why certain decisions move forward and others get ignored even if the ignored idea makes more sense.My second frame is Responsibility & Decision-Making because it focuses on who people believe should be in charge. Some want the federal government to lead, while others want local communities deciding for themselves. Conflict gets way worse when people feel left out or like decisions are being forced on them. Environmental debates often end up being more about fairness and control than the issue itself.The third frame, Values & Identity, matters because environmental conflict gets personal fast. People tie environmental issues to who they are—like farmers, hunters, conservationists, scientists, or people who grew up close to the land. When someone feels like their lifestyle or identity is being threatened, they push back hard. This reminds us that these arguments aren’t just logical; they’re emotional.Next, I chose Risk & Impact because people judge danger differently. Some focus on short-term things like jobs or costs, while others focus on long-term damage to ecosystems and communities. Those priorities shape what each side thinks is “worth it.”Finally, there’s Knowledge & Trust. Environmental conflicts often stall because people don’t trust the same information. One side trusts scientific data, while another side trusts lived experience or community knowledge. If both sides can’t agree on what counts as “real,” the conversation goes nowhere and nothing gets fixed.Together, these five frames create a realistic way to understand why environmental conflicts happen and why they’re so hard to resolve.