(Lack of) Problematization of Water Supply Use and Abuse of Environmental Discourses and Natural Resource Related Claims in German, Austrian, Slovenian and Italian Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper aims to trace back the environmental discourse on water supply and the risk of scarcity and to learn about media dealing with information about natural resources we cannot live without. Therefore, it presents a theoretical concept to identify the degree of problematization of resource related issues in the media and works out regularities of environmental discourses. Design: The presented data of a quantitative as well as qualitative media content analysis (Nvivo) of newspaper articles (n = 1745) published in Central Europe (Italy, Slovenia, Austria and Germany) focuses on the arguments and frames used in relation to the issue of water supply. Based on a theoretical model of public debates and discourses on CSR, sustainability and environmental issues (Bourdieu, 1991; May et al., 2007; Weder, 2012a, 2012b; Castello et al., 2013; Weder, 2015a), the underlying assumption is that only a high degree of problematization (variety and counter activeness of arguments) in the media represents a public discourse. Findings: The results show that the main water supply related sub issues debated in the media are water privatization and management. Media discourses about water as a natural resource are dominated by economic frames, in particular arguments of corporations (particularly in Italy) and political actors (particularly in Austria). Accordingly, the lack of controversy and counterarguments as well as the homogeneity of frames show that the issue of water allocation and the risk of scarcity is not problematized in the media. Implications: Working with the theoretical assumption of a high degree of problematization as condition for public discourses, the qualitative evaluation shows a non-existence of an environmental discourse on resources and sustainable ways of water allocation and usage. This puts the phenomenon of politicization, when environmental discourses are drawn to and used by another (i.e. the political) field, up for discussion with an “abuse” of environmental claims for specific political and economic interests as worst-case scenario.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".