IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/marxiv/m789p.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stronger together: Strategies to protect local sovereignty, ecosystems, and place-based communities from the global fossil fuel trade

Author

Listed:
  • Allen, Maggie
  • Breslow, Sara
  • Dolsak, Nives
  • Bird, Stoney

Abstract

In the Pacific Northwest, residents are mobilizing to prevent the coastal export of fossil fuels and protect unique ecosystems and place-based communities. This paper examines the diverse groups, largely from the Bellingham area, and how they succeeded in blocking construction of what was to be the largest coal-shipping port in North America, the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT). Tribes, environmental organizations, faith-based groups, and other citizen groups used a multitude of approaches to prevent development, both independently and in concert. This paper reviews the various ways in which the groups collaborated and supported one another to resist the neoliberalization of the coast and support local sovereignty, unique ecosystems, and place-based communities. Groups like Power Past Coal, Protect Whatcom, and Coal-Free Bellingham fought for important and protective changes and evidenced communitywide political support, but the sovereign rights of the Lummi Nation were the legal bar to constructing the coal terminal.

Suggested Citation

  • Allen, Maggie & Breslow, Sara & Dolsak, Nives & Bird, Stoney, 2019. "Stronger together: Strategies to protect local sovereignty, ecosystems, and place-based communities from the global fossil fuel trade," MarXiv m789p, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:marxiv:m789p
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/m789p
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5c4a3cc4bf72310016789d88/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/m789p?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dallas J. Elgin & Christopher M. Weible, 2013. "A Stakeholder Analysis of C olorado Climate and Energy Issues Using Policy Analytical Capacity and the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(1), pages 114-133, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aerang Nam & Christopher M. Weible & Kyudong Park, 2022. "Polarization and frames of advocacy coalitions in South Korea's nuclear energy policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 387-410, July.
    2. Mockshell, Jonathan & Birner, Regina, 2020. "Who has the better story? On the narrative foundations of agricultural development dichotomies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Joshua Newman & Emi Patmisari & Ida Widianingsih, 2022. "Policy analytical capacity and "Eastern" styles of policy analysis: evidence from West Java Province, Indonesia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 469-485, September.
    5. Aurore Flipo & Madeleine Sallustio & Nathalie Ortar & Nicolas Senil, 2021. "Sustainable Mobility and the Institutional Lock-In: The Example of Rural France," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    6. Antje Witting, 2017. "Insights from ‘policy learning’ on how to enhance the use of evidence by policymakers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. Raum, Susanne, 2018. "A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 170-184.
    8. Borrás, Susana & Haakonsson, Stine & Taudal Poulsen, René & Pallesen, Trine & Hendriksen, Christian & Somavilla, Lucas & Kugelberg, Susanna & Larsen, Henrik & Gerli, Francesco, 2023. "The Transformative Capacity of Public Sector Organizations in Sustainability Transitions: A Conceptualization," Papers in Innovation Studies 2023/2, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    9. Rachael M. Moyer, 2022. "Images of controversy: Examining cognition of hydraulic fracturing among policy elites and the general public," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 441-467, July.
    10. Mockshell, Jonathan & Birner, Regina, 2016. "Agricultural development policy debates: who has the better story?," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 249284, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    11. Mockshell, J. & Birner, R., 2018. "The dichotomy between state- and market-oriented agricultural development narratives: Beyond the rational choice explanation?," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277272, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Jessica Balest & Simon Pezzutto & Grazia Giacovelli & Eric Wilczynski, 2022. "Engaging Stakeholders for Designing a FAIR Energy Data Management Tool: The Horizon 2020 EnerMaps Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    13. Siddiki, Saba & Goel, Shilpi, 2015. "A stakeholder analysis of U.S. marine aquaculture partnerships," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 93-102.
    14. Shahryar Monghasemi & Mohammad Reza Nikoo & Mohammad Ali Khaksar Fasaee & Jan Adamowski, 2017. "A Hybrid of Genetic Algorithm and Evidential Reasoning for Optimal Design of Project Scheduling: A Systematic Negotiation Framework for Multiple Decision-Makers," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(02), pages 389-420, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:marxiv:m789p. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://marxiv.org .

    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.