Abstract
Conflict over environmental policies often hinge on the risk to human health posed by a given technology or facility. The agenda setting literature, especially theories of punctuated equilibrium and conflict expansion has long recognized the importance of how a policy is understood, or its issue definition, to explanations of policy change or stability. Much of this literature assumes actors are relatively willing to change their issue definition to facilitate a change in venue with little consideration except strategic advantage. The research presented in this paper suggests this might not always be the case. Through an analysis of a land fill conflict in Ontario, Canada, this paper examines how a strong preference for a preferred issue definition, the threat to human health posed by a proposed landfill, shapes the availability and success of the strategies deployed by the groups advocating that issue definition. The findings presented suggest that it is institutional receptivity of the available policy venues that ultimately explains the ability of these groups to achieve policy change.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The agenda setting literature (and policy literature generally) uses a number of different terms to describe how a policy is defined or understood: ‘problem definition’ (Rochefort and Cobb 1994), ‘issue definition’ (Pralle 2006a), ‘policy image’ (Baumgartner and Jones 1993), frame (Booth and Harrison 2009), and ‘causal story’ (Stone 1989). This list is certainly not exhaustive. This paper treats these as essentially the same concept but adopts the term issue definition from Pralle (2006a).
The margin of error is 4.28%, 95% of the time. It should be noted that while these findings are statistically significant, it is likely that because of the self reported nature of the survey, the survey slightly over-represents people who held strong beliefs, either positive or negative, about Site 41.
References
Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beach, D., & Pederson, R. (2010). Process tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006). Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 455–476.
Birkland, T. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 53–74.
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity, 36(4), 391–409.
Booth, K., & Harrison, K. (2009). The influence of institutions on issue definition: Children’s environmental health policy in the United States and Canada. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(3), 287–307.
Caduff, L., & Bernauer, T. (2006). Managing risk and regulation in European food safety governance. Review of Policy Research, 23(1), 153–168.
Cobb, R., & Ross, M. H. (Eds.). (1997). Cultural strategies of agenda denial. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Collier, D. (2011). Understanding processing tracing. PS: Political Science and Politics, 44(4), 823–830.
Davis, C., & Hoffer, K. (2012). Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking. Policy Sciences, 45(3), 221–241.
Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of American Planning Association, 58(3), 288–300.
George, A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Government of Ontario. (1989). Environmental Assessment Board Decision CH87-03.
Harrison, K. (1991). Between science and politics: Assessing the risks of dioxins in Canada and the United States. Policy Sciences, 24(4), 367–388.
Harrison, K. (2001). Too close to home: Dioxin contamination of breast milk and the political agenda. Policy Sciences, 34(1), 35–62.
Harrison, K., & Hoberg, G. (1991). Setting the environmental agenda in Canada and the United States: The case of dioxin and radon. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 24(1), 3–27.
Johns, C. (2008). Non-point source water pollution institutions in Ontario before and after Walkerton. In M. Sproule-Jones, C. Johns, & B. T. Heinmiller (Eds.), Canadian water politics: Conflicts and institutions (pp. 203–241). Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
Johns, C. (2014). The Walkerton inquiry: Anatomy of success for an inquiry. In G. Inwood & C. Johns (Eds.), Commission of inquiry and policy change (pp. 214–243). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Johnson, G. F. (2007). The discourse of democracy in Canadian nuclear waste management policy. Political Science, 40, 79–99.
Kasperson, R. (2005). Siting hazardous facilities: Searching for effective institutions and processes. In J. Kasperson & R. Kasperson (Eds.), The social contours of risk (Vol. 1, pp. 29–50). London: Earthscan.
Kay, A., & Baker, P. (2014). What can causal process tracing offer to policy studies? A review of the literature. Policy Studies Journal, 43(1), 1–21.
Legge, J., & Durant, R. (2010). Public opinion, risk assessment, and biotechnology: Lessons from attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. Review of Policy Research, 27(1), 59–76.
Leiss, W. (2001). In the chamber of risks: Understanding risk controversies. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Ley, A. J., & Weber, E. P. (2015). The adaptive venue shopping framework: How emergent groups choose environmental policymaking venues. Environmental Politics, 24(5), 703–722.
McAvoy, G. (1998). Partisan probing and democratic decision-making: Rethinking the NIMBY syndrome. Policy Studies Journal, 26(2), 274–292.
Ministry of Environment. (1998). Provisional Certificate of Approval No. 253106.
Montpetit, E., & Rouillard, C. (2008). Culture and democratization of risk management: The widening biotechnology gap between Canada and France. Administration and Society, 39(8), 907–930.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Pralle, S. (2003). Venue shopping, political strategy, and policy change: The internationalization of Canadian forest advocacy. Journal of Public Policy, 23(3), 233–260.
Pralle, S. (2006a). Branching out, digging in: Environmental advocacy and agenda setting. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Pralle, S. (2006b). Timing and sequence in agenda setting and policy change: A comparative study of lawn care pesticides politics in Canada and the United States. Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 987–1005.
Pralle, S. (2006c). The “mouse that roared”: Agenda setting in Canadian pesticides politics. The Policy Studies Journal, 34(2), 171–194.
Pralle, S. (2010). Shopping around: Environmental organizations and the search for policy venues. In A. Prakash & M. Gugerty (Eds.), Advocacy organizations and collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Princen, S. (2010). Venue shifts and policy change in EU fisheries policy. Marine Policy, 34(1), 36–41.
Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994). The politics of problem definition. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Scharpf, F. (1997). Games real actors play. Cambridge: Westview Press.
Schattschneider, E. (1960). The semisovereign people. Boston: Wadsworth.
Scholten, P. W. (2013). Agenda dynamics and the multi-level governance of intractable policy controversies: The case of migrant integration policies in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 46(3), 217–236.
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perceptions of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713–719.
Simcoe County (n.d.). Retrived on April 27th, 2012. http://edo.simcoe.ca/stats/index.htm.
Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675–682.
Stone, D. (1989). Policy paradox (3rd ed.). New York: Norton and Company.
Timmermans, A. (2001). Arenas as institutional sites for policymaking: Patterns and effects in comparative perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 3(3), 311–337.
Zerbe, N. (2007). Risking regulation, regulating risk: Lessons from the transatlantic biotech dispute. Review of Policy Research, 24(5), 407–423.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thorn, A. Issue definition and conflict expansion: the role of risk to human health as an issue definition strategy in an environmental conflict. Policy Sci 51, 59–76 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9312-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9312-x