Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Policy Windows, Policy Change, and Organizational Learning: Watersheds in the Evolution of Watershed Management

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Employing in-depth, elite interviews, this empirical research contributes to understanding the dynamics among policy windows, policy change, and organizational learning. First, although much of the research on agenda setting—how issues attract enough attention that action is taken to address them—has been conducted at the national scale, this work explores the subnational, regional scale. With decentralization, regional-scale environmental decision-making has become increasingly important. Second, this research highlights the role of policy windows and instances of related organizational learning identified by natural resources managers. Having practitioners identify focusing events contrasts with the more typical approach of the researcher identifying a particular focusing event or events to investigate. A focusing event is a sudden, exceptional experience that, because of how it leads to harm or exposes the prospect for great devastation, is perceived as the impetus for policy change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ali S. H. 2004. A socio-ecological autopsy of the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in Walkerton, Ontario, Canada. Social Sci Med 58:2601–2612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C., D. Schon. 1978. Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C., D. Schon. 1996. Organisational learning II: Theory, methods and practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Babbie E. 2007. The practice of social research, 11th ed. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner F. R., B. D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and instability in American politics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg B. L. 1998. Qualitative research methods for social science, 3rd ed. Allyn and Bacon, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland T. A. 1997. After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland T. A. 1998. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez: How environmental disasters influence policy. Environment September 40(7):4–9 and 27–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland T. A. 2004a. Learning and policy improvement after disaster. Am Behav Sci 48:341–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland T. A. 2004b. “The world changed today”: Agenda-setting and policy change in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Rev Policy Res 21:179–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boje D. M. 2001. Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgar R. J., A. D. Latornell. 1975. Memo to J.W. Giles June 9 Subject: Evaluation of flood plain management policies in Ontario. Archives of Ontario RG1-474

  • Busenberg G. J. 2001. Learning in organizations and public policy. J Public Policy 21:173–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark B. T. 2004. Agenda setting and issue dynamics: Dam breaching on the Lower Snake River. Soc Natural Res 17:599–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark K. L., J. Yacoumidis. 2000. Ontario’s environment and the Common Sense Revolution: A fifth year report. Canadian Institute for Environmental Law & Policy, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Conservation Ontario. 2000. Conservation Ontario corporate profile. Available from http://www.conservation-ontario.ca/

  • Conservation Ontario. 2001. The importance of watershed management in protecting Ontario’s drinking water supplies. Submission to the Walkerton inquiry. Conservation Ontario, Newmarket, Ontario

  • Conservation Ontario. 2004. Submission to the Minister of Natural Resources Re-Investment in Ontario’s Conservation Authorities—Now and in the future. Conservation Ontario, Newmarket, Ontario

  • Conservation Ontario. 2005. Conservation Ontario. Available from http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/

  • Cumming Cockburn Limited. 2000. Hurricane Hazel and extreme rainfall in southern Ontario. Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction Paper Series No. 9. Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, Toronto, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  • de Loe R. 2000. Floodplain management in Canada. Can Geographer 44:355–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin N. K. 1989. Interpretive biography. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin N. K., Y. S. Lincoln. 1994. Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In: N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, (eds). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiol C. M., M. A. Lyles. 1985. Organizational learning. Acad Manage Rev 10:803–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs G. R. 2002. Qualitative data analysis: Explorations with NVivo. Open University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser B. G., A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyther, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham K., S. D. Phillips. 1998. “Who does what” in Ontario: The process of provincial–municipal disentanglement. Can Public Admin 41:175–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall P. A. 1993. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Compar Politics 25:275–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes M. T. 1992. Incrementalism and public policy. Longman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Heclo H. 1974. Modern social politics in Britain and Sweden: From relief to income maintenance. Yale Studies in Political Science Vol. 25. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett M. 1998. Predictable and unpredictable policy windows: Issue, institutional and exogenous correlates of Canadian federal agenda-setting. Can J Political Sci 31:495–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Org Sci 2:88–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes M. 2002. Interviewing. In: T. Greenfield (ed). Research methods for postgraduates, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York. pp 209–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibitayo O., A. Mushkatel, K. D. Pijawka. 2004. Social and political amplification of technological hazards: The case of the PEPCON explosion. J Hazard Mater A114:15–25

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon J. 1984. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause P., A. F. Smith, B. Veale, M. Murray. 2001. Achievements of the Grand River Conservation Authority, Ontario, Canada. Water Sci Technol 43:45–55

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzwiser R., de Loe. 2000, June 3. Aqua phobia: Walkerton’s crisis was tragic but also predictable. The Record, p. H01

  • Kurtz T. M. 1974. Regional storm floodlines and fill regulation lines. Mimeograph. Archives of Ontario RG1-253, 4 pp

  • Lawrence R. G., T. A. Birkland. 2004. Guns, Hollywood, and school safety: Defining the school-shooting problem across public arenas. Social Sci Q 85:1193–1207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis J. 2003. Design issues. In: Ritchie J., J. Lewis (eds). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. pp 47–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom C. E., E. J. Woodhouse. 1993. The policy-making process. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord G. R. 1963. A conservation authority and water management. J Soil Water Conserv 17–18:28–30

    Google Scholar 

  • May P. J. 1992. Policy learning and failure. J Public Policy 12:331–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels S. 1999. Configuring who does what in watershed management: The Massachusetts Watershed Initiative. Policy Studies J 27:565–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles M. B., A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis, 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Minogue M. 1993. Theory and practice in public administration. In: M. Hill (ed). The policy process. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York. pp 10–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell B., D. Shrubsole. 1992. Ontario conservation authorities: Myth and reality. University of Waterloo Department of Geography Publication Series 35: University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell B., D. Shrubsole. 2001. Ontario’s conservation authorities. Water News December:16–21.

  • O’Connor D. R. 2002a. Report of the Walkerton Inquiry part one. The events of May 2000 and Related Issues. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor D. R. 2002b. Report of the Walkerton Inquiry part two. A strategy for safe drinking water. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario Ministry of the Environment (2004) Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Available from http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/water/sdwa/index.htm

  • Ontario Ministry of the Environment (2005) Proposed Clean Water Act, 2005. Available from http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envregistry/026965er.htm

  • Richardson A. H. 1974. Conservation by the people: The history of the conservation movement in Ontario to 1970. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie J., J. Lewis G. Elam. 2003. Designing and selecting sample. In: Ritchie J., J. Lewis (eds). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. pp 77–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose R. 1991. What is lesson drawing? J Public Policy 11:3–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier P. 1986. Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. J Public Policy 6:21–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier P. 1988. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci 21:129–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier P. 1993. Policy change over a decade or more. In: Sabatier A., H. C. Jenkins-Smith (eds). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview, Boulder, CO. pp 13–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Solecki W. D., S. Michaels. 1994. Looking through the post disaster policy window. Environmental Management 18:587–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas G. B. 1999. External shocks, conflict and learning as interactive sources of change in U.S. security policy. J Public Policy 19:209–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2004. Hurricane Hazel 50 years later. Available from http://www.hurricanehazel.ca/

  • Trochim W. M. K. 2005. Research methods: The concise knowledge base. Atomic Dog, Cincinnati, OH

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker JL Jr. 1977. Setting the agenda in the U.S. Senate: A theory of problem selection. Br J Political Sci 7:423–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolman H., E. Page. 2002. Policy transfer among local governments: An information-theory approach. Governance: Int J Policy Admin Inst 15:477–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin R. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods, 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council provided support through grant No. 410-2003-1418, Organizational Knowledge Creation for Watershed Management, Principal Investigator S. Michaels. The Institute for the Study of Society and the Environment, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado provided a conducive setting for the first author to draft this article. The interviewees at five Ontario conservation authorities graciously contributed their time and insights. Dr. Thomas A. Birkland, Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, State University of New York at Albany, Dr. Dan A. Shrubsole, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, and two anonymous reviewers imparted constructive comments on an earlier draft. Part of a previous iteration of this work was presented at the 2005 Hazards and Disasters Researchers Meeting, Boulder, Colorado.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Resource Knowledge Group, School of Planning, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1

    Sarah Michaels, Nancy P. Goucher & Dan McCarthy

Authors
  1. Sarah Michaels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nancy P. Goucher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dan McCarthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Michaels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Michaels, S., Goucher, N.P. & McCarthy, D. Policy Windows, Policy Change, and Organizational Learning: Watersheds in the Evolution of Watershed Management. Environmental Management 38, 983–992 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0269-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0269-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation