Search

This study explores the concept of representation from the perspectives of environmental nonprofits. While nonprofits often serve as intermediaries between the public and government, the mechanisms through which they understand and advocate for the needs of their constituents remain underexplored, particularly in the environmental policy field where justice issues often arise. This article organizes the representation literature around three dimensions or key questions: How do organizations define their constituents? How do organizations connect with constituents? And, what authority do constituent preferences carry? Answers to these questions are derived from interviews with 22 environmental nonprofits engaged in state-level energy policy in three US states: Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Results demonstrate the utility of the three dimensions in describing the range of responses relevant to the subject organizations, along with key themes and trends among this subgroup of environmental nonprofits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When advocating for policy change, coalitions rely on various elements and strategies of policy narratives, including emotions. However, past research on the Narrative Policy Framework, and more broadly on the policy process, has largely ignored the role of emotions. This paper argues that emotions, such as anger and fear, are central to how coalitions advocate for policy change. It explores the role of anger and fear in policy narratives by examining the oral testimony (n = 474) given over four legislative committee hearings in March 2019 concerning Colorado Senate Bill 19‐181. This bill changed the mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to prioritize protecting the environment and public health over oil and gas development. This research finds the coalition that successfully supported the bill used anger towards the oil and gas industry, while those that opposed the bill relied more on fear of the uncertain consequences of the bill. It also finds the coalition that opposed the bill relied on self‐characterization as heroes and victims, which was a failed strategy. The implications for this research on the Narrative Policy Framework and, more broadly, for the policy process and advocacy are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]