Academia.edu uses cookies to personalize content, tailor ads and improve the user experience. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy.

Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Data and Methods
Analysis and Results
Conclusion
Differences in Data Collection Strategies
References
All Topics
Sociology
Political Sociology

Ecological Threat and the Founding of U.S. National Environmental Movement Organizations, 1962–1998

Profile image of Social ProblemsSocial ProblemsProfile image of Scott FrickelScott Frickel
format_quote

23 citations

https://doi.org/10.1525/SP.2011.58.3.305
visibility

…

description

26 pages

Abstract

This study examines the role of "ecological threat" in shaping the U.S. environmental movement. Statistical analysis combines founding data on 772 national environmental movement organizations with ecological data on air pollution levels and amphibian and bird populations. We examine these data longitudinally, from 1962 through 1998. Net of other social, economic, and political factors suggested by social movement theory, we find evidence of segmented effects in the expected directions: Declines in wildlife populations are associated with the foundings of wildlife and wilderness protection organizations while increases in air pollution are associated with the foundings of organizations focused on ecosystem well-being and public health. These findings help refine long-held assumptions about the relationship between ecological degradation and environmental activism, and demonstrate the broader utility of the threat concept for strengthening theories of social movement mobilization.

Related papers

The Environmental Movement and the Modes of Political Action
Russell Dalton

Comparative Political Studies, 2003

There have been widely differing claims about how environmental groups attempt to reform environmental policy-from those who see the movement as challenging the prevailing social paradigm through confrontation and violence, to those who lament the movements reliance on conventional styles of political persuasion. This article uses data from the 1998 Global Environmental Organizations Survey (GEOS) to map the political activities used by environmental groups across the globe and to determine what best accounts for these patterns of action. The authors examine the responses of 248 environmental groups in the GEOS; these data allow the authors to compare environmental group behaviors across 59 nations and 5 continents. They find that most environmental groups engage in a mixture of political methods and activities. Although there is little evidence that institutional structures influence participation, the mix of organizational resources and ideology are potent influences on participation patterns. The results help to explain the role that environmental groups play in contemporary politics and the factors that affect this role.

View PDFchevron_right
Joining Up: Patterns of Political Mobilization in Environmental Groups
Sarah Anderson

2013

Patterns of political mobilization are of great interest because they help to predict electoral outcomes, legislative voting, and the outcomes of policy referenda. Moreover, mobilization specifically for collective action poses a puzzle, since it is often costly to the individual. Membership in interest groups offers one measure of political mobilization but is notoriously difficult to measure, especially across space. This paper explores a new measure of mobilization for collective action, in this case environmental action, derived from membership in environmental groups. It reports membership levels at the zip code and state level, verifying that environmental membership levels covary with other measures of environmentalism. In addition, it compares states according to the variability of membership to assess homogeneity of environmental concern and shows where environmental mobilization is changing more quickly.

View PDFchevron_right
The struggle for ecological democracy: environmental justice movements in the United States. D. Faber (editor), New York, The Guilford Press, 1998. ISBN 1-57230-342-5. $18.95 (paperback). 330 pp
Julian Agyeman

Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 1999

View PDFchevron_right
Grassroots environmentalism and strategies for social change
Barbara Epstein

New Political Science, 1995

Over the last six or seven years a broad grassroots environmental movement has emerged, consisting of groups concerned with toxic hazards, especially toxic waste facilities, and also with the disproportionate exposure of communities of color to such hazards. This movement has brought public attention to environmental issues that the mainstream environmental movement in the US has traditionally ignored, and which mainstream environmental organizations continue to treat as low priorities at best. The grassroots environmental movement has played an important part in expanding the concept of environmentalism beyond preservation of the wilderness to include the impact of environmental hazards, and of the degradation of the environment more broadly, on the daily lives and especially the health of ordinary people. The constituency of grassroots environmentalism is diverse and is weighted toward those with less power and resources. It includes women and men, people of income levels ranging from very poor to upper middle class, whites and many different groups of color, but it is predominantly a movement of women and of people with relatively low incomes, and the movement is currently growing most rapidly among groups of color. Though there are racial and gender-based tensions in the movement, the fact that its various constituencies are able to come together on a common terrain inspires hope in the possibility of a progressive politics in the US. This article gives a sketch of this movement, its development, the issues that it is concerned with, its dynamics of race and gender. The article then addresses a particular aspect of the movement: its approach to the state. In the 1930s, popular movements and the left demanded more active intervention in society from a state guided by the interests of the people rather than the interests of the corporations. Since the late 1960s, most radical movements in the US have been hostile to state power, critical not only of the ends towards which the existing state uses its power, but of the existence of a powerful, centralized state. Many radical movements have chosen to operate as far as † The author would like to thank Lisa Bunin, Marcy Damovsky and George Katsiaficas for their comments and suggestions on drafts of this article, and Anatole Anton and Richard Hofrichterfor conversations that contributed to its conceptual framework.

View PDFchevron_right
Environmental Activism: Historical Review, Development and Expansion
Gopal Sonkar

Springer Nature, 2024

The term "environmental activism," which emerged in the 1960s, refers to a social movement with origins in several fields. It includes everything from laws and policies to treaties, conferences, conventions, protocols, agreements, declarations, and recommendations, all aimed at protecting the environment. The term's versatility and variety of use have led to different interpretations. Since ancient times, global communities have engaged in environmental activities, leading to a contested natural environment. These conflicts are over power and resource access, influenced by shared cultural and social constructs. The study explores the evolution of global environmental activism, tracing its development from ancient to contemporary activism. It examines the media's role in addressing environmental activism. The study analyses policy-making documents, focusing on forming global environmental conventions, treaties, guidelines, and declarations. Environmental activism has evolved significantly since its inception. Post-WWII, it expanded globally, particularly in the context of international security. The activism is influenced by social, economic, and political factors, influenced by diverse global states with varying interests, and is a broad framework encompassing diverse perspectives and values.

View PDFchevron_right
Evolution of the Environmental Justice Movement: Activism, Formalization and Differentiation
Katy Hintzen, Bernadette Grafton, rebecca hardin

NOTE: Look for our video abstract, coming soon on the ERL website To complement a recent flush of research on transnational environmental justice movements, we sought a deeper organizational history of what we understand as the contemporary environmental justice movement in the United States. We thus conducted in-depth interviews with 31 prominent environmental justice activists, scholars, and community leaders across the US. Today’s environ- mental justice groups have transitioned from specific local efforts to broader national and global mandates, and more sophisticated political, technological, and activist strategies. One of the most significant transformations has been the number of groups adopting formal legal status, and emerging as registered environmental justice organizations (REJOs) within complex partnerships. This article focuses on the emergence of REJOs, and describes the respondents’ views about the implications of this for more local grassroots groups. It reveals a central irony animating work across groups in today’s movement: legal formalization of many environmental justice organizations has made the movement increasingly internally differentiated, dynamic, and networked, even as the passage of actual national laws on environmental justice has proven elusive.

View PDFchevron_right
The evolving structure of the environmental justice movement in the United States: New models for democratic decision-making
Daniel Faber

Social Justice Research, 2001

Over the last two decades in the United States, mainstream environmental organizations have reduced, rather than increased, democratic participation by citizens in environmental problem-solving. The environmental justice movement, on the other hand, has served to enlarge the constituency of the environmental movement by incorporating poorer communities and oppressed people of color into environmental decision making process; build community capacity by developing campaigns and projects that address the common links between various social and environmental problems; and facilitate community empowerment by emphasizing grassroots organizing over advocacy. This paper outlines the different components in the environmental justice movement. It is our contention that if researchers and policymakers continue to conceive of the ecological crisis as a collection of unrelated problems, then it is possible that some combination of regulations, incentives, and technical innovations can keep pollution and resource destruction at "tolerable" levels for more affluent socioeconomic populations. However, poor working class communities and people of color which lack the politicaleconomic resources to defend themselves will continue to suffer the worst abuses. However, if the interdependency of issues is emphasized as advocated by the environmental justice movement, then a transformative environmental politics can be invented.

View PDFchevron_right
Environmentalism, New Social Movements, and the New Class: A Cross-National Investigation*
Angela Mertig

Rural Sociology, 2009

The environmental movement is one of the most successful social movements in recent decades, garnering substantial public support throughout western Europe and the United States. Environmentalism is also considered a key "new social movement" (NSM), assumed to share fundamental characteristics with other NSMs such as the women's, antinuclear, and peace movements. Using the results of a 1990 cross-national survey of western Europe and the United States, we examine three broad suppositions regarding public support for the environmental movement and other NSMs. We first examine the idea that the general public distinguishes between two branches of contemporary environmentalism-the more traditional one of nature conservation and the newer, broader one of general environmental protection-and find that the general publics in 18 nations make little distinction between them. We next examine the degree to which public support for environmental protection is related to support for other NSMs, and find a strong relationship between the two-thereby validating a widely assumed but seldom-tested tenet found in the NSM literature. Finally, we examine the presumed bases of support for environmental protection and other NSMs, particularly the notion that NSM supporters are drawn heavily from the "new class." We find that demographic variables, including membership in the new class, are poor predictors of support for the goals of NSMs in general and of support for environmentalism in particular.

View PDFchevron_right
American Conservation, the Sierra Club, and Hetch Hetchy: A Social Movement
Andrew Mandley

The last two centuries have seen the creation and rise of the conservation movement as well as the consequential rise of opposition. Traces of the movement began in the early 1800s with the rise of conservational discourse in the political, literary, and social spheres. Since then, participation in the movement has historically fluctuated with the perceived intensity of anticonservational activities by both public and private organizations. Stewart, Smith, and Denton break down the life cycle of social movements into five stages: genesis, social unrest, enthusiastic mobilization, maintenance, and termination (2012, p. 89). Through this framework, the history of the conservation movement reflects a tendency to default to a slow paced stage of maintenance with transitory surges of social unrest and enthusiastic mobilization as needed in order to bring resistance against any pressing anticonservational agendas at hand. This paper discusses the United States conservation movement from its genesis until the end of the Hetch Hetchy controversy by means of Stewart et al.’s model for the life cycle of social movements.

View PDFchevron_right
Political Strategies of American Environmentalism: Inclusion and Beyond
David Schlosberg

Society & Natural Resources, 2002

View PDFchevron_right

References (135)

  1. Abramson, Paul R. and Ronald Inglehart. 1995. Value Change in Global Perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: Univer- sity of Michigan Press.
  2. Adler, Jonathan H. 2002. "Fables of the Cuyahoga: Reconstructing a History of Environmental Protection." Fordham Environmental Law Journal 14:89-146.
  3. Agnone, Jon. 2007. "Amplifying Public Opinion: The Policy Impact of the U.S. Environmental Move- ment." Social Forces 85(4):1593-1620.
  4. Alder, Scott E. and John D. Wilkerson. 2010. The Congressional Bills Project. Retrieved September 29, 2010 (www.congressionalbills.org/download.html).
  5. Aldrich, Howard E. 1999. Organizations Evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  6. Almeida, Paul D. 2003. "Opportunity Organizations and Threat Induced Contention: Protest Waves in Authoritarian Settings." American Journal of Sociology 109(2):345-400.
  7. ---. 2007. "Defensive Mobilization: Popular Movements against Economic Adjustment Policies in Latin America." Latin American Perspectives 34(3):123-39.
  8. Andrews, Kenneth T. and Bob Edwards. 2005. "The Organizational Structure of Local Environmental- ism." Mobilization 10(2):213-34.
  9. Armstong, Elizabeth A. and Suzanna M. Crage. 2006. "Movements and Memory: The Making of the Stonewall Myth." American Sociological Review 71:724-51.
  10. Banaszak, Lee Ann and Heather L. Ondercin. 2010. "Explaining Movement and Countermovement Events in the Contemporary U.S. Women's Movement." Retrieved December 14, 2010 (http://ssrn. com/abstract=1668884).
  11. Barrow, Mark V. Jr. 1998. A Passion for Birds: American Ornithology After Audubon. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  12. Baum, Joel A.C. 1996. "Organizational Ecology." Pp. 77-114 in Handbook of Organization Studies, edited by Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, and Walter Nord. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  13. Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press.
  14. Baumgartner, Frank R., Grant Jordan, John McCarthy, Shawn Bevan, and Jamie Greenan. 2008. "Tracing Interest-Group Populations in the US and UK." Presented at the American Political Science Associa- tion meetings, Boston, MA, August 28-31.
  15. Blaustein, Andrew R. and David B. Wake. 1998. "The Puzzle of Declining Amphibian Populations." Sci- entific American 272:52-57.
  16. Brechin, Steven R. 1999. "Objective Problems, Subjective Values, and Global Environmentalism: Eval- uating the Postmaterialist Argument and Challenging a New Explanation." Social Science Quarterly 80(4):793-809.
  17. Brechin, Steven R. and Willett Kempton. 1997. "Beyond Postmaterialist Values: National versus Indi- vidual Explanations of Global Environmentalism." Social Science Quarterly 78(1):16-20.
  18. Brown, Phil and Edwin J Mikkelsen. 1990. No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukemia, and Community Action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  19. Brulle, Robert J. 2000. Agency, Democracy, and Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  20. Brulle, Robert, Liesel H. Turner, Jason Carmichael, and J. Craig Jenkins. 2007. "Measuring Social Move- ment Organization Populations: A Comprehensive Census of U.S. Environmental Movement Orga- nizations." Mobilization 12(3):255-70.
  21. Buechler, Steven M. 2004. "The Strange Career of Strain and Breakdown Theories of Collective Action." Pp. 47-66 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David Snow, Sarah Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  22. Bullard, Robert D. 1993. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Boston: South End Press.
  23. Buttel, Frederick H. 1987. "New Directions in Environmental Sociology." Annual Review of Sociology 13:465-88.
  24. ---. 2003. "Environmental Sociology and the Explanation of Environmental Reform." Organization and Environment 16(3):306-44.
  25. Carroll, Glenn R. 1988. Ecological Models of Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
  26. Carroll, Glenn R. and Michael T. Hannan. 2000. The Demography of Corporations and Industries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  27. Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications.
  28. Catton, William. R., Jr and Riley E. Dunlap. 1978. "Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm." American Sociologist 13:41-9.
  29. Chatterjee, Samprit and Ali S. Hadi. 2006. Regression by Example. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  30. Cohen, Maurice J. 2006. "The Death of Environmentalism." Organization and Environment 19(1):74-81.
  31. Dalton, Russell J. 1994. The Green Rainbow: Environmental Groups in Western Europe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  32. Delacroix, Jacques and Glenn R. Carroll. 1983. "Organizational Foundings: An Ecological Study of the Newspaper Industries of Argentina and Ireland." Administrative Science Quarterly 28:274-91.
  33. Dowie, Mark. 1995. Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  34. Dunlap, Riley E. and Angela G. Mertig. 1992. "The Evolution of the U.S. Environmental Movement from 1970 to 1990: An Overview." Pp. 1-10 in American Environmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970-1990, edited by Riley E. Dunlap and Angela G. Mertig. New York: Taylor and Francis.
  35. ---. 1997. "Global Environmental Concern: An Anomaly for Postmaterialism." Social Science Quarterly 78(1):24-35.
  36. Dunlap, Riley E. and Michael Patrick Allen. 1976. "Partisan Differences on Environmental Issues: A Con- gressional Roll-Call Analysis." Western Political Quarterly 29(3):384-97.
  37. Dunlap, Riley E. and W. R. Catton. 1979. "Environmental Sociology." Annual Review of Sociology 5:243-73.
  38. Dunlap, Thomas R. 2008. DDT, Silent Spring, and the Rise of Environmentalism. Seattle: University of Wash- ington Press.
  39. Dutton, Jane E. and Susan E. Jackson. 1987. "Categorizing Strategic Issues: Links to Organizational Action." Academy of Management Review 12(1):76-90.
  40. Earl, Jennifer, Sarah A. Soule, and John D. McCarthy. 2003. "Protest Under Fire? Explaining the Policing of Protest." American Sociological Review 68(4):581-606.
  41. Edwards, Bob and Micahel W. Foley. 2003. "Social Movement Organizations Beyond the Beltway: Under- standing the Diversity of One Social Movement Industry." Mobilization 8(1):85-105.
  42. Edwards, Bob and Sam Marullo. 1995. "Organizational Mortality in a Declining Social Movement: The Demise of Peace Movement Organizations in the End of the Cold War Era." American Sociological Review 60(6):908-27.
  43. Edwards, George C. III, and Andrew Barrett. 1999. "Presidential Agenda Setting in Congress." Pp. 109-33 in Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, edited by Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
  44. Edwards, George C., III. and B. Dan Wood. 2000. "Who Influences Whom? The President, Congress, and the Media." American Political Science Review 92(2):327-44.
  45. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1900-1998. EPA 454/ R-00-002. Research Triangle Park: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 17:00:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  46. Epstein, Steven. 2008. "Patient Groups and Health Movements." Pp. 499-539 in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  47. Erikson, Kai. 1994. A New Species of Trouble. New York: W. W. Norton.
  48. Foster, John Bellamy. 1999. The Vanishing Planet: A Short History of the Environment. New York: Monthly Review Press.
  49. Frank, David John, Ann Hironaka, and Evan Schofer. 2000. "The Nation-State and the Natural Environ- ment over the Twentieth Century." American Sociological Review 65:96-116.
  50. Gale Research Inc. 1956-2006. The Encyclopedia of Associations, Volume 1, National Organizations of the U.S. Detroit, MI: Gale Research Co.
  51. Gellert, Paul K. and Barbara D. Lynch. 2004. "Megaprojects as Displacements." International Social Science Journal 55(175):15-25.
  52. Goldstone, Jack and Charles Tilly. 2001. "Threat (and Opportunity): Popular Action and State Response in the Dynamic of Contentious Action." Pp. 179-94 in Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics, edited by R. Arminzade, D. McAdam, E. Perry, W. Sewell, S. Tarrow, and C. Tilly. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  53. Gottlieb, Robert. 1993. Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement. Wash- ington, DC: Island Press.
  54. Guber, Deborah Lynn. 2001. "Voting Preferences and the Environment in the American Electorate." Soci- ety and Natural Resources 14:455-69.
  55. Hamilton, Lawrence C. 2006. Statistics with STATA. Toronto, Ontario: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
  56. Hannan, Michael T. and John H. Freeman. 1984. "Structural Inertia and Organizational Change." Ameri- can Sociological Review 49:149-64.
  57. ---. 1987. "The Ecology of Organizational Founding: American Labor Unions, 1836-1985." American Journal of Sociology 92(4):910-43.
  58. ---. 1989. Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  59. Haynie, Kerry L. 2001. African American Legislators in the American States. New York: Columbia University Press.
  60. Hays, Samuel P. 1987. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  61. Houlahan, Jeff E., C. Scott Findlay, Benedikt R. Schmidt, Andrew H. Meyer, and Sergius L. Kuxmin. 2000. "Quantitative Evidence of Global Amphibian Population Declines." Nature 404(13):752-5.
  62. Inglehart, Ronald. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  63. ---. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  64. ---. 1995. "Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies." PS: Political Science & Politics 28(1):57-72.
  65. Jacobs, David and Katherine Wood. 1999. "Interracial Conflict and Interracial Homicide: Do Political and Economic Rivalries Explain White Killings of Blacks or Black Killings of Whites?" American Journal of Sociology 105:157-90.
  66. Jacoby, William G. and Saundra K. Schneider. 2001. "Variability in State Policy Priorities: An Empirical Analysis." The Journal of Politics 63(2):544-68.
  67. Jasper, James M. 1997. The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  68. Jenkins, Craig J. and Abigail Halcli. 1999. "Grassrooting the System? The Development and Impact of Social Movement Philanthropy, 1953-1990." Pp. 229-56 in Philanthropic Foundations, edited by Ellen Condliffe Lagemann. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
  69. Jenkins, Craig J., David Jacobs, and Jon Agnone. 2003. "Political Opportunities and African-American Protest, 1948-1997." American Journal of Sociology 109(2):277-303.
  70. Johnson, Erik W. 2006. "Changing Issue Representation among Major United States Environmental Movement Organizations." Rural Sociology 71(1):132-54.
  71. ---. 2008. "Social Movement Size, Organizational Diversity, and the Making of Federal Law." Social Forces 86(3):967-93.
  72. Johnson, Erik W., Jon Agnone, and John D. McCarthy. 2010. "Movement Organization, Synergistic Tac- tics and Environmental Public Policy." Social Forces 88(5):2267-92.
  73. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. 1984. "Choice, Values, and Frames." American Psych 39(4):341-50.
  74. Karapin, Roger. 2011. "Opportunity/Threat Spirals in Social Movements: The US Women's Suffrage and German Anti-Immigration Movements" Mobilization 16(1):65-80.
  75. Kellstedt, Paul M. 2003. The Mass Media and the Dynamics of American Racial Attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  76. Kempton, Willet, Dorothy C. Holland, Katherine Bunting-Howarth, and Christopher Payne. 2001. "Local Environmental Groups: A Systematic Enumeration in Two Geographical Areas." Rural Sociology 66(4): 557-78.
  77. Khawaja, Marwan. 1993. "Repression and Popular Collective Action: Evidence from the West Bank." Sociological Forum 8:47-71.
  78. Klandermans, Bert and Dirk Oegema. 1987. "Potentials, Networks, Motivations and Barriers: Steps Toward Participation in Social Movements." American Sociological Review 52:519-31.
  79. Koopmans, Ruud. 1993. "The Dynamics of Protest Waves: West Germany, 1965-1989." American Sociologi- cal Review 58:637-58.
  80. Kriesi, Hanspeter, Ruud Koopmans, Jan Willem Dyvendak, and Marco G. Giugni. 1992. "New Social Movements and Political Opportunities in Western Europe." European Journal of Political Research 22(2):219-44.
  81. Levine, Adeline G. 1982. Love Canal: Science, Politics, and People. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
  82. Liao, Tim F. 1994. Interpreting Probability Models: Logit, Probit, and Other Generalized Linear Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  83. Long, Scott J. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  84. Luft, Rachel E. 2009. "Beyond Disaster Exceptionalism: Social Movement Developments in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina." American Quarterly 61(3):499-527.
  85. Maher, Thomas V. 2010. "Threat, Resistance, and Collective Action: The Cases of Sobibór, Treblinka, and Auschwitz." American Sociological Review 75(2):252-72.
  86. Markham, A. 1994. A Brief History of Pollution. New York: St. Martin's Press.
  87. Martell, Luke. 1994. Ecology and Society. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
  88. Martin, Andrew W., Frank Baumgartner, and John D. McCarthy. 2006. "Measuring Association Popula- tions Using the Encyclopedia of Associations: Evidence from the Field of Labor Unions." Social Science Research 35:771-78.
  89. Marx, Gary T. and James L. Wood. 1975. "Strands of Theory and Research in Collective Behavior." Annual Review of Sociology 1:363-428.
  90. McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press.
  91. McCammon, Holly J. 2001. "Stirring up Suffrage Sentiment: The Formation of the State Woman Suffrage Organizations, 1866-1914." Social Forces 80(2):449-80.
  92. McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald. 1973. The Trend of Social Movements in America: Professionalization and Resource Mobilization. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
  93. ---. 1977. "Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory." American Journal of Sociol- ogy 82:1212-41.
  94. McLaughlin, Paul and Marwan Khawaja. 2000. "The Organizational Dynamics of the U.S. Environ- mental Movement: Legitimation, Resource Mobilization, and Political Opportunity." Rural sociology 65(3):422-39.
  95. McVeigh, Rory. 1999. "Structural Incentives for Conservative Mobilization: Power Devaluation and the Rise of the Ku Klux Klan, 1915-1925." Social Forces 77(4):1461-96.
  96. Melosi, Martin V. 1980. Pollution and Reform in American Cities, 1870-1930. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  97. Mertig, Angela G., Riley E. Dunlap, and Denton E. Morrison. 2002. "The Environmental Movement in the United States." Pp. 448-481 in Handbook of Environmental Sociology, edited by Riley E. Dunlap and William Michelson. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  98. Meyer, David S. 1990. A Winter of Discontent. New York, NY: Praeger.
  99. ---. 1993. "Institutionalizing Dissent: The United States Structure of Political Opportunities and the End of the Nuclear Freeze Movement." Sociological Forum 8:157-79.
  100. ---. 2005. "Social Movements and Public Policy: Eggs, Chicken, and Theory." Pp. 1-26 in Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy in America, edited by D. S. Meyer, V. Jenness, and H. Ingram. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  101. Meyer, David S. and Debra C. Minkoff. 2004. "Conceptualizing Political Opportunity." Social Forces 82(4): 1457-92.
  102. Minkoff, Debra C. 1995. Organizing for Equality: The Evolution of Women's and Racial-Ethnic Organizations in America, 1955-1985. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  103. ---. 1997. "The Sequencing of Social Movements." American Sociological Review 62:779-99. This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 17:00:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  104. Mitchell, Robert C., Riley E. Dunlap, and Angela G. Mertig. 1992. "Twenty Years of Environmental Mobi- lization: Trends among National Environmental Organizations." Pp. 11-26 in American Environmen- talism: The U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970-1990, edited by Riley E. Dunlap and Angela G. Mertig. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.
  105. Mittal, Vikas and William T. Ross, Jr. 1998. "The Impact of Positive and Negative Affect and Issue Fram- ing on Issue Interpretation and Risk Taking." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76(3):298-324.
  106. Molotch, Harvey. 1971. "Oil in Santa Barbara and Power in America." Sociological Inquiry 40:131-44.
  107. Nash, Roderick. 1967. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  108. Nownes, Anthony J. 2004. "The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation: Mobilizing for Gay and Lesbian Rights in the United States, 1950-98." British Journal of Political Science 34:49-67.
  109. Oberschall, Anthony. 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  110. Olzak, Susan. 1992. The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  111. Olzak, Susan and S. C. Noah Uhrig. 2001. "The Ecology of Tactical Overlap in New Social Movements in West Germany." American Sociological Review 66:694-718.
  112. Olzak, Susan and Sarah Soule. 2009. "Cross-Cutting Influences of Protest and Congressional Legislation in the Environmental Movement." Social Forces 88:210-25.
  113. Petulla, Joseph M. 1988. American Environmental History. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.
  114. Roper, David L. n.d. "Party Control of U.S. Government." Retrieved July 19, 2007 (http://arts.bev.net/ roperldavid/politics/partycontrol.htm).
  115. Rosa, Eugene A., Andreas Diekmann, Thomas Dietz, and Carlo C. Jaeger, eds. 2010. Human Footprints on the Global Environment: Threats to Sustainability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  116. Ross, Jerry and Barry M. Staw. 1986. "Expo 86: An Escalation Prototype." Administrative Science Quarterly 31(2):274-97.
  117. Rothman, Franklin D. and Pamela Oliver. 1999. "From Local to Global: The Anti-Dam Movement in Southern Brazil, 1979-1992." Mobilization 4(1):41-57.
  118. Sauer, John R., James E. Hines, and Jane Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-2007. Version 5.15.2008. Laurel, MD: USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Retrieved September 7, 2008 (www.mbr-pwrc.us.gov/bbs/).
  119. Schlosberg, David. 1999. Environmental Justice and the New Pluralism: The Challenge of Difference for Environ- mentalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  120. Schnaiberg, Allan and Kenneth Alan Gould. 1994. Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict. New York: St. Martin's Press.
  121. Smith, Mark A. 2000. American Business and Political Power: Public Opinion, Elections, and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  122. Soroka, Stuart N. and Christopher Wlezien. 2005. "Opinion-Policy Dynamics: Public Preferences and Pub- lic Expenditure in the United Kingdom." British Journal of Political Science 35:665-89.
  123. Soule, Sarah A. and Nella Van Dyke. 1999. "Black Church Arson in the United States, 1989-1996." Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(4):724-42.
  124. Stebbins, Robert C. and Nathan W. Cohen. 1995. A Natural History of Amphibians. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  125. Stimson, James A. 1999. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. 2d ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  126. Szasz, Andrew. 1994. EcoPopulism: Toxic Waste and the Movement for Environmental Justice. Minneapolis: Uni- versity of Minnesota Press.
  127. Tarr, Joel A. 1996. The Search for the Ultimate Sink: Urban Pollution in Historical Perspective. Akron, Ohio: University of Akron Press.
  128. Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing.
  129. Van Dyke, Nella and Sarah A. Soule. 2002. "Structural Social Change and the Mobilizing Effect of Threat: Explaining Levels of Patriot and Militia Mobilizing in the United States." Social Problems 49(4):497- 520. Walker, Edward T., John D. McCarthy, and Frank Baumgartner. 2011. "Replacing Members with Manag- ers? Mutualism among Membership and Nonmembership Advocacy Organizations in the United States." American Journal of Sociology 116(4):1284-1337.
  130. Walsh, Edward J. and Rex H. Warland. 1983. "Social Movement Involvement in the Wake of a Nuclear Accident: Activists and Free Riders in the TMI Area." American Sociological Review 48:764-80.
  131. Wilkerson, John D., T. Jens Feeley, Nicole S. Schiereck, and Christina Sue. 2002. "Using Bills to Trace Attention in Congress: Policy Windows in Health Care Legislating." Pp. 250-69 in Policy Dynamics, edited by Frank Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  132. World Resources Institute (WRI). 2005. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) version 3.0. Retrieved October 14, 2008 (http://cait.wri.org).
  133. York, Richard, Eugene A. Rosa, and Thomas Dietz. 2003. "Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of Modernity." American Sociological Review 68(2):279-300.
  134. Zahran, Sammy H. 2008. "Risk, Stress and Capacity: Explaining Metropolitan Commitment to Climate Protection." Urban Affairs Review 43(4):447-74.
  135. Zald, Mayer and Roberta Ash. 1966. "Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change." Social Forces 44:327-40.
About the authors
Social Problems
University of Cincinnati, Faculty Member
Scott Frickel

Related papers

The Organizational Dynamics of the US Environmental Movement: Legitimation, Resource Mobilization, and Political Opportunity*
Paul McLaughlin

Rural sociology, 2000

We analyze the relationship between legitimation, resource mobilization, and political opportunity and the founding rate of national environmental organizations between 1895 and 1994. We address recent criticisms that organizational ecologists' reliance on the density dependence model-which treats legitimation as an unmeasured intervening variable-has failed to capture the active sociopolitical character of this process . We advocate a more historical approach to legitimation which relies on print media to construct direct measures of legitimation . Specifically, we use the yearly count of environmental books published as a measure of the legitimacy of environmentalism in the U .S . This count remains statistically significant and positively related to foundings even when other variables are added to the model . A negative second-order effect of total books suggests that the recent proliferation of state and local environmental organizations is beginning to depress the founding rate of national organizations . Variations in resource mobilization and political opportunity also have affected foundings, though variables measuring the latter were not significant in the full model.

View PDFchevron_right
Where Do Movements Matter? The United States Environmental Movement and Congressional Hearings and Laws, 1961-1990
Erik Johnson

2006

Research examining the political outcomes of social movement activities has been characterized by a nearly exclusive focus on the final stage of the political process, the passage of laws, as well as a limited conceptualization of how movements affect that process. Here, we empirically assess, for one social movement, the importance of organizational capacity, protest and institutional activities, public opinion, and political opportunities in garnering policy-maker attention to movement-salient issues at two distinct stages in the policy making process. Our findings strongly suggest that environmental movement organizational capacity as well as protest and institutional activities directly influence agenda setting stages in the political process. While we find only limited evidence that the environmental movement directly influenced the passage of federal environmental laws, there is some indication that successful agenda setting facilitated this outcome. Beginning in the late 1960s and continuing through the mid 1980s, the U.S. environmental movement experienced an upsurge in organization building and direct action protest activities. Environmental issues, meanwhile, became an increasingly institutionalized element of the federal policy making agenda during this period (Andrews 1999; Portnoy 1990). Although observers have tended to assume a link between citizen mobilization around environmental issues and federal attention to those same issues, empirically this link remains largely unexplored. What role, if any, did the environmental movement have in affecting change in federal policy making? Has the movement been more influential at certain stages of the legislative process than others? And, how did the movement achieve success: does the use of disruptive tactics, participation in institutionalized politics, or greater organizational capacity best account for political success? In addressing these questions this research contributes to understanding developments within the U.S. environmental movement, one of the largest and most politically active social movements in the United States today. Beyond this substantive contribution, we advance the study of social movement outcomes generally by explicitly addressing two shortcomings in the extant literature. First, existing empirical analyses have tended to emphasize single causal factors of policy change, such as the role of movement organizational capacity (McVeigh, Welch

View PDFchevron_right
Movement Organizations, Synergistic Tactics and Environmental Public Policy
Erik Johnson

Social Forces, 2010

This study builds on political mediation and movement infrastructure models to highlight contingent and synergistic ways in which social movements may impinge upon the U.S. national policy-making process. Analyses employ a variety of datasets to examine the role of environmental movement organizational capacity, protest and institutional activity in garnering Congressional attention to, and action on, salient issues from 1961 through 1990. We find all types of movement activity, but especially the development of national organizational infrastructures, to be positively associated with the convening of Congressional hearings on the environment. Only when there are high levels of both protest and institutional activity is there any evidence that the environmental movement directly influences the passage of environmental laws. Research examining social movement outcomes has primarily focused on policyrelated consequences of mobilization (for reviews see Amenta and Caren 2004; Andrews and Edwards 2004). Increasingly, this literature has sought to incorporate information on a wide variety of theoretically important covariates, including social movement organizations, movement activities, public opinion and elements of the political opportunity structure, as well as exploring the ways in which these factors interact and combine to affect policy change (

View PDFchevron_right
The Founding of Environmental Justice Organizations Across U.S. Counties during the 1990s and 2000s: Civil Rights and Environmental Cross-Movement Effects
Social Problems, Michael J. Lynch, Bob G Childs

This research expands upon organizational ecology theory to examine variations in founding of organizations in the formalized sector of the environmental justice movement across U.S. counties for two time periods (1990–1999 and 2000–2008). Cross-movement effects are examined to determine if founding is more or less likely to occur in counties where related civil rights and environmental organizations are located. Consistent with the notion of agglomeration effects, we hypothesize that during the 1990s the relationship among civil rights density, environmental density, and environmental justice founding is positive and suggests cooperative efforts. That is, environmental justice organizations should form in counties where civil rights organizations and environmental organizations exist. Because the focus of environmental justice organizations may have expanded over time and created a more competitive atmosphere, cross-movement relationships that were positive across counties during the 1990s are hypothesized to turn negative across counties during the 2000s. Multivariate analysis suggests mixed support for these hypotheses. Specifically, civil rights density is positively associated with environmental justice founding during the 1990s and negatively associated with environmental justice founding during the 2000s—suggesting potential cooperative and then competitive effects across counties over time. However, the correlations between environmental density and environmental justice founding, while positive and statistically significant during the 1990s, are not statistically significant during the 2000s. Thus, in the case of organizations in the formalized sector of the environmental and environmental justice movements it appears that there is a trend toward competitive effects even as those effects have yet to materialize.

View PDFchevron_right
Survivor: spectators and gladiators in the US environmental movement, 2000–2010
Soon Seok Park

Social Movement Studies, 2017

What motivates people to participate in which forms of environmental activism? To address this question, we revise empirical models examining environmental activism by disaggregating the outcome variable of movement participation and dichotomizing two key motivational factors. Using repeated cross-sectional data from the US General Social Survey of 2000 and 2010, this study conducts logistic regression of four forms of participation on perceived severity and sense of efficacy, while accounting for biographical availability and political engagement. Results from regression analysis show that vocabularies of motive have substantial impacts on an individual's likelihood of: 1) signing a petition; 2) giving money; 3) joining a group; and 4) joining a protest or demonstration. Their effects are large enough to override the noticeable impacts of liberalism and education. This study also finds that the level of participation in the movement across all forms has decreased between 2000 and 2010. These findings direct our attention to the limited capacity of the public sphere to accommodate the environmental movement during the last decade, as well as to potential changes in environmental activism in the coming decades that may mobilize those previously less likely to participate.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Sociology
  • Social Movements
  • Environmental Studies

    • Cited by

    Opportunity, Threat, and Tactics: Collaboration and Confrontation by Latino Immigrant Challengers
    Greg Prieto

    Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 2016

    Drawing on 61 interviews with Mexican immigrants and ethnographic participant observation conducted over three years, I compare social movement organizing in two cities in one California County: one more progressive and the other more repressive. I profile two campaigns waged by Mexican immigrants and their allies in response to two threats posed by police: (1) car impoundments of undocumented, unlicensed drivers' vehicles and (2) police killings. As political process theory was extended to authoritarian settings, scholars have demonstrated that both growing political opportunity and threat stimulate mobilization. Building on this trend in the literature, this study's contribution lies in its specification of the relationship among political opportunities, threat, and mobilization tactics. I argue increasing local political opportunity gives rise to more collaborative protest tactics, while relatively more threatening environments yield more confrontational tactics. Because opportunity and threat 123 are not objectively assessed, nor do they automatically inspire protest, I also consider the role of state targets, formalized SMOs, and the influence of coalition partners on tactics. Ethnographic methods are particularly useful for understanding the way organizers and activists, from within organizations that favor distinct tactical repertoires, perceive and attribute threat and opportunity, shedding light on the micro-and meso-level dynamics that shape the social form of mobilization.

    View PDFchevron_right
    BUILDING ENVIRONMENTALISM: The Founding of Environmental Movement Organizations in the United States, 1900-2000
    Robert Brulle

    The Sociological Quarterly, 2012

    Between the 19th and the mid-20th century, the environmental movement transformed American culture, forcing a rethinking of the "Manifest Destiny" ideology that had long dominated political thinking toward an understanding of the need to protect and restore the balance between humans and nature. In 1900, there were only a few environmental movement organizations (EMOs), but by 2000, there were over 6,000 national and regional EMOs and over 20,000 local EMOs. What drove this phenomenal growth of EMOs? We examine a 100-year time series of EMO founding, showing that, in addition to the "legitimation-and-competition" effects of organizational density, EMO founding is facilitated by the discourse-creative activities of critical communities, objective threats in terms of air pollution, foundation giving, and powerful political allies in the presidency and Congress. Environmental discourses also legitimized and competed against one another, favoring "early risers" and preservationist discourse. Environmental mobilization needs to be understood in terms of the creation of new discursive frames that identify environmental problems, as well as objective environmental threats, resources, and political opportunities.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Climate justice and sustained transnational mobilization
    Paul Almeida

    Globalizations, 2019

    Samir Amin's final essay called for the creation of a new international organization of progressive social forces. Here I review evidence from twentyfirst century transnational movements germane for understanding the likelihood of the emergence of such an international organization and the issues and sectors most likely to facilitate coalitional unity. More specifically, the ecological crises identified by Amin in the form of global warming and climate change have created an unprecedented global environmental threat capable of unifying diverse social strata across the planet. The climate justice movement has already established a global infrastructure and template to coordinate a new international organization for confronting neoliberal forms of globalization. Pre-existing movement organizing around environmental racism, climate justice in the global South, and recent intersectional mobilizations serve as promising models for building an enduring international organization that will represent subaltern groups and have a substantial impact on world politics.

    View PDFchevron_right
    The Structure of Religious Environmentalism: Movement Organizations, Interorganizational Networks, and Collective Action
    Stephen Ellingson

    Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2012

    Historically, religious groups have been absent from the American environmental movement, but since the late 1990s a host of new religious environmental movement organizations (REMOs) have emerged. Little is known about REMOs or how religion structures the nascent movement field. Drawing on interviews with leaders of 63 REMOs in the United States, we examined whether theological frames and religious affiliations, on the one hand, and environmental interests, on the other, shaped the formation of information exchange and joint action between REMOs. The results show that shared religious affiliations and theological frames are directly associated with joint action between REMOs. In contrast, shared environmental interests are associated directly with information exchange, but not joint action. The results suggest that cultural aspects of religion are linked to the structure of the religious environmental movement.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Personal characteristics, local environmental conditions, and individual environmental concern: a multilevel analysis
    Xinsheng Liu

    Environmental Sociology, 2016

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2026 Academia. All rights reserved