Waste Management & Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peretz, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Peretz, J. H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Waste Management & Research, Vol. 16, No. 3, 202-209 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X9801600302

Waste management agenda setting: a case of incorrect problem definition?

Jean H. Peretz

Research Scientist, The University of Tennessee, Energy, Environment and Resources Center, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

This paper uses Rochefort and Cobb's anatomy of problem and Kingdon's agenda building model to explain how capac ity issues involving hazardous and solid wastes found their way onto the agendas of the United States Congress and the State of Tennessee General Assembly. Through this case study, several conclusions are offered about agenda building, problem definition, capacity assurance planning and the implications of environmental problems reaching agenda sta tus through political avenues. First, although scientific or technical assertions are often necessary for an environmental issue to reach policy agenda status, neither applies in this case. Instead, political issues (e.g. the perceived failure to site management facilities) prevailed. Second, the outcome of the solution (capacity assurance planning) crystallized problems that were not perceived as problems but might have proven to be and raised the question of incorrect problem identifica tion. Third, capacity assurance planning is a useful analytical tool but should also be viewed as a valid planning exercise. Finally, sustainability and commitment to solving environ mental problems even though they may arise through politi cal avenues are crucial.

Key Words: Solid waste • hazardous waste • capacity assurance planning • USA


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?