Environmental Policy As Learning: A New View of an Old Landscape

Abstract

Environmental policy in the United States has always been characterized by high levels of political conflict. At the same time, however, policy makers have shown a capacity to learn from their own and others' experience. This article examines U.S. environmental policy since 1970 as a learning process and, more specifically, as an effort to develop three kinds of capacities for policy learning. The first decade and a half may be seen in terms of technical learning, characterized by a high degree of technical and legal proficiency, but also narrow problem definitions, institutional fragmentation, and adversarial relations among actors. In the 1980s, growing recognition of deficiencies in technical learning led to a search for new goals, strategies, and policy instruments, in what may be termed conceptual learning . By the early 1990s, policy makers also recognized a need for a new set of capacities at social learning, reflecting trends in European environmental policy, international interest in the concept of sustainability, and dissatisfaction with the U.S. experience. Social learning stresses communication and interaction among actors. Most industrial nations, including the United States, are working to develop and integrate capacities for all three kinds of learning. Efforts to integrate capacities for conceptual and social learning in the United States have had mixed success, however, because the institutional and legal framework for environmental policy still is founded on technical learning.

From “smart regulation” to “regulatory arrangements”

“…We have chosen the third option because, considering the characteristics of the policy arrangement approach (PAA) (Van Tatenhove et al 2000;Van Tatenhove and Leroy 2003;Arts and Van Tatenhove 2004;Arts and Goverde 2006) and the policy learning concept (Argyris 1976;Argyris and Schön 1978;Sabatier 1993;Glasbergen 1996;Fiorino 2001;Kemp and Weehuizen 2005), it is possible to expect that a merging of these two theories with smart regulation theory will solve the problems with smart regulation (see §5.2).…”

“…Three policy learning types have been distinguished: technical learning, conceptual learning and social learning (Glasbergen 1996;Fiorino 2001;Kemp and Weehuizen 2005). Technical learning consists of a search for new policy instruments in the context of fixed policy objectives.…”

Climate Adaptation in Swedish Forestry: Exploring the Debate and Policy Process, 1990–2012

“…Adaptation policies with wide support of key advocacy coalitions are likely to become more consistent, have greater effect, and be more sustainable. After all there is more evidence for sustainable effects of such learning in the ACF and learning literature e.g., [34,35,[103][104][105] compared to the incremental learning strategies presented above.…”

Environmental Assessment Methodologies for Commercial Buildings: An Elicitation Study of U.S. Building Professionals’ Beliefs on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

“…During the 1990s, efforts to provide instructions on green buildings to building professionals have manifested in more institutional structures such as the creation of BREEAM in the UK, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System in the United States and the Green Globes in Canada and the U.S. Despite this development, Fiorino [2] criticizes policy related to environmental issues frequently being grounded in purely technical principles. He suggests that behavioral and social learning approaches (such as VEPs) have been either neglected or badly executed.…”

“…Both schemes are voluntary in nature and build on a partnership approach with actors in the building industry. Voluntary approaches fall in line with what Fiorino [2] calls a "social learning approach" to environmental policy that includes different groups of stakeholders and actors.…”