Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article develops an evidence-sensitive framework for assessing how peace communication may contribute to environmental conflict transformation at the Bantargebang Integrated Waste Processing Facility in Bekasi City, Indonesia. The analysis addresses limits of compensation-centered responses by connecting communication practices with bargaining power, institutional accountability, and material remediation as criteria for positive peace. An integrative-critical review synthesizes 40 academic, legal, policy, and official sources considered through October 2026, using Galtung’s violence triangle and positive peace, Lederach’s conflict transformation, environmental justice, collaborative governance, and just transition perspectives. The contextual evidence concerns unequal participation, disputes over compensation classification, site-specific groundwater findings, and the 8 March 2026 waste landslide that killed seven people. Four proposed communication mechanisms are examined: rights-based reframing, democratization of evidence, inclusive negotiation, and traceable institutional commitments. These mechanisms are linked conceptually to bargaining influence and implementation capacity rather than treated as demonstrated causal effects. The resulting framework identifies six evaluation domains: recognition, meaningful participation, redistribution of risk, material remediation, accountability, and livelihood security for waste pickers. It also formulates four propositions to guide future field research and distinguish procedural settlement from substantive improvement. The synthesis argues that dialogue, consensus, and compensation alone cannot establish positive peace without verifiable changes in environmental protection and affected groups’ decision-making influence. Because the study collects no primary data and lacks a complete archived search record, the proposed relationships and their effectiveness remain empirically untested.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bahari et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: