IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v31y2014i2p65-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding a Period of Policy Change: The Case of Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Policy in Colorado

Author

Listed:
  • Tanya Heikkila
  • Jonathan J. Pierce
  • Samuel Gallaher
  • Jennifer Kagan
  • Deserai A. Crow
  • Christopher M. Weible

Abstract

This paper investigates the beliefs and framing strategies of interest groups during a period of policy change and the factors explaining policy change. We develop propositions to explore questions concerning policy change primarily from the advocacy coalition framework as well as from other theorie. The propositions are tested by examining the promulgation of a Colorado regulation requiring the disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Using coded data of documents published by organizations involved in the rulemaking process, we find divergence between industry and environmental groups on their beliefs concerning hydraulic fracturing, as well as their portraying themselves and each other as heroes, victims, and villains, but some convergence on their more specific beliefs concerning disclosure of chemicals. Interviews point to the importance of policy entrepreneurs, timing, a negotiated agreement, and learning for explaining policy change. The findings provide both theoretical and methodological insights into how and why policy changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanya Heikkila & Jonathan J. Pierce & Samuel Gallaher & Jennifer Kagan & Deserai A. Crow & Christopher M. Weible, 2014. "Understanding a Period of Policy Change: The Case of Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Policy in Colorado," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(2), pages 65-87, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:31:y:2014:i:2:p:65-87
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ropr.12058
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wheeler, David & MacGregor, Margo & Atherton, Frank & Christmas, Kevin & Dalton, Shawn & Dusseault, Maurice & Gagnon, Graham & Hayes, Brad & MacIntosh, Constance & Mauro, Ian & Ritcey, Ray, 2015. "Hydraulic fracturing – Integrating public participation with an independent review of the risks and benefits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 299-308.
    2. Fisk, Jonathan M. & Good, A.J., 2019. "Information booms and busts: Examining oil and gas disclosure policies across the states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 374-381.
    3. Clarke, Brydie & Swinburn, Boyd & Sacks, Gary, 2019. "Investigating menu kilojoule labelling policy adoption from a political science perspective," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Zilliox, Skylar & Smith, Jessica M., 2017. "Memorandums of understanding and public trust in local government for Colorado's unconventional energy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 72-81.
    5. Fry, Matthew & Brannstrom, Christian, 2017. "Emergent patterns and processes in urban hydrocarbon governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 383-393.
    6. Malkamäki, Arttu & Ylä-Anttila, Tuomas & Brockhaus, Maria & Toppinen, Anne & Wagner, Paul M., 2021. "Unity in diversity? When advocacy coalitions and policy beliefs grow trees in South Africa," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    7. Pierce, Jonathan J. & Boudet, Hilary & Zanocco, Chad & Hillyard, Megan, 2018. "Analyzing the factors that influence U.S. public support for exporting natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 666-674.
    8. Payán, Denise D. & Lewis, LaVonna B. & Cousineau, Michael R. & Nichol, Michael B., 2017. "Advocacy coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate: Exploring coalition structure, policy beliefs, resources, and strategies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 78-86.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:31:y:2014:i:2:p:65-87. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.