University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Nonprofit organizations and the environmental policy outcomes: a systematic inquiry into the role of different types of nonprofits to influence the processes and outcomes of the environmental policy

(USC Thesis Other)

Nonprofit organizations and the environmental policy outcomes: a systematic inquiry into the role of different types of nonprofits to influence the processes and outcomes of the environmental policy

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY OUTCOMES: A SYSTEMATIC INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS TO INFLUENCE THE PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY by Amna Imam A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT) August 2009 Copyright 2009 Amna Imam ii DEDICATION Dedicated to my son Zain Azeem, without his understanding and maturity I would not have been able to work on this. I also dedicate it to my brother Ghazali who taught me how to live. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am very thankful to my dissertation committee members Prof. Tridib Banerjee (Chair), Prof. Dan Mazmanian (Member), Prof. Michael Moody (Member), Prof. Najmeddin Meshkati (Outside Member) and Prof. Kenneth Craik (Outside Member) who guided me through intense periods of intellectual fog and disorientation. I am in particular thankful to and touched by the kindness of Prof. Kenneth Craik (University of California, Berkeley) who is now retired and is no longer accepting students, to very generously agree to be on my committee and for his invaluable help during the course of this dissertation. He read various drafts of my dissertation, and provided very valuable suggestions on them. In addition, he contributed immensely to the strength and validity of the empirical analysis of this research by his expert opinion especially regarding ERI (Environmental Response Inventory). Prof. Banerjee literally created a miracle when he provided a firm and measurable direction to my initial dissertation idea, which needless to say was initially not quite researchable. Prof. Mazmanian, have always been extremely generous with his help and guidance throughout my course of study during MPP as well as during the Ph.D program. I am also very thankful to him for funding my first conference presentation at the 54th Annual North American Meetings of the Regional Science Association International, 2007, Nov. 7 th through 10th at Savannah, GA, U.S.A. In addition, he was instrumental in helping me make sense out of my findings from data analysis. He helped me see the overall picture and the connections between various findings. Prof. Moody’s help was extremely valuable in improving my writing style and making it clear, comprehensible and concise. Moreover, he has been my mentor since the very initial stages of the Ph.D. iv program. He was my Chair for the qualifying exam committee and was extremely helpful in introducing me to and in immersing me in the relevant literature. This greatly helped me in developing a concise and clear research question. I am thankful to Prof. Meshkati for agreeing to be on my committee and for very kindly overseeing the entire process as well as for providing valuable comments and suggestions to improve the empirical analysis of this dissertation. I am very thankful to Dr. George McKechnie for granting me the permission to use his Environmental Response Inventory (ERI). I would also like to thank Prof. David Feldman (UC Irvine; Department of Urban Ecology), Prof. Stephen Finlay (University of Southern California, Department of Philosophy), Dr. Hoppe (Ph.D. Psychology), Prof. Robertson (University of Southern California, School of Policy, Planning, and Development), and Prof. Ashwani Vasishth (California State University, Northridge; Department of Urban Studies) all of whom extended their help and cooperation by providing their expert opinion on my ERI- Environmental Ethics continuum. I am also very thankful to the fellow Ph.D. students and friends, Felicity Hwee- Hwa Chan, Surajit Chakravarty and Xian Zhang who helped me cross-check my automation of the Environmental Response Inventory (ERI). I am also very thankful to numerous friends who provided support and motivation. I also want to thank and acknowledge numerous professors and graduate students who helped me with their valuable comments and suggestions during my Conference presentations. v Table of Contents Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii List of Tables ix List of Figures xiii Abbreviations xv Abstract xvi Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Research Context, Literature Review and Theoretical Framework 11 Section 2.1 Strategies Used by Nonprofit Organizations , Interaction Among Nonprofits, Consciousness- Raising of Nonprofits, and the Impact of Nonprofits and the Environmental Ethics / Perspectives of Nonprofit Organizations 13 2.1.1 What are Nonprofits and Nonprofit Organizations? 18 2.1.2 Perspectives of Nonprofits and the Broad Strategies Used By Them Examined Through the Framework of Cultural Framing, Resource Mobilization and Political Opportunity 18 2.1.3 Perspectives and the Individual and Network Level Activities of Nonprofits 24 2.1.4 Perspectives of Nonprofits and Their Impact on Public Opinion and Environmental Policy 34 2.1.5 Political, Social and Incidental Realities and the Impact of Nonprofits on Public Opinion and Environmental Policy 39 vi Section 2.2 Review of the Literature and the Theoretical Framework: Nonprofits’ Role in Influencing Environmental Policy Formulation 41 2.2.1 Kingdon’s Garbage Can Model 42 2.2.2 Punctuated Equilibrium (P-E) 45 2.2.3 Advocacy Coalition Framework 46 Section 2.3 Review of the Literature and the Theoretical Framework: Nonprofits’ Role in Influencing Environmental Policy Implementation 48 2.3.1 Top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) Theory 50 2.3.2 Bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981) Theory 52 Section 2.4 Review of the Literature and Theoretical Framework: Environmental Ethics of Nonprofit Organizations 53 2.4.1 Instrumentalism and Anthropocentrism 54 2.4.2 Ecocentrism 56 2.4.3 Strong and Weak Sustainable Development 57 2.4.4 Environmental Dispositions 60 Section 2.5 Theoretical Framework 61 2.5.1 The Associative Property 65 2.5.2 Nonprofits and Policy Outcomes 66 2.5.3 Linking Environmental Dispositions and Environmental Ethics 67 Chapter 3 Methodology 73 Section 3.1 Scope of the Study 74 3.1.1 Types of Nonprofit Organizations 77 Section 3.2 Research Questions 78 3.2.1 Secondary Questions 79 3.2.2 Main Research Question 82 Section 3.3 Research Design and Methodology 83 Section 3.4 Data Collection 91 Section 3.5 IRB Approval and Ethical Concerns 95 Section 3.6 Coding of Data and Preparation of Data for Analysis 96 Section 3.7 Quality of Data 100 3.7.1 External Validity 100 3.7.2 Internal Validity 100 3.7.3 Reliability 101 vii 3.7.4 Objectivity 101 Chapter 4 Findings and Discussion 102 Section 4.1 Environmental Ethics of Different Types of Nonprofits 106 4.1.1 Data Analysis and Discussion of Findings 108 4.1.2 Environmental Ethics as Discriminatory Attributes among Different Types of Nonprofits 118 Section 4.2 Nonprofit Organizations and Policy Implementation: Individual Level Strategies 122 4.2.1 All Nonprofits 127 Section 4.3 Nonprofits’ Influence on Environmental Policy Outcomes 135 4.3.1 Discussion of Findings 138 4.3.2 Social Services and Environmental Nonprofits 146 Section 4.4 Network Level Strategies of Nonprofits: Nonprofits’ Interactions with Each Other and Impact on Policy Implementation 153 4.4.1 Collaboration among Nonprofits 156 4.4.2 Confrontation among Nonprofits 158 4.4.3 Relationship between Collaboration and Confrontation of Different Types of Nonprofit Organizations 161 Section 4.5 Interaction of Nonprofit Organizations with Public Agencies 164 4.5.1 Different Types of Nonprofits’ Contact with Public Agencies 166 4.5.2 “Somewhat Responsive” Public Agencies 169 4.5.3 “Responsive” Public Agencies 171 4.5.4 “Not Responsive” Public Agencies 173 4.5.5 Overall Difference in the Nature of Interaction of Different Types of Nonprofits with Public Agencies 174 Section 4.6 Discussion of Findings and Logical Deduction According to the Theoretical Framework 177 Chapter 5 Conclusion 183 References 188 viii Appendix “A”: Carbon Monoxide Levels in Air as Measures of Policy Outcomes at Local / Zip Code Level for South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 198 Appendix “B”: Interview Questionnaire 221 Appendix "C": Environmental Response Inventory Survey Instrument 222 Appendix “D”: The Associative Property 227 Appendix “E”: IRB Approval Letter 233 Appendix “F”: Chart Showing the Ecological Data Used for Analysis 235 Appendix “G” Descriptive Statistics for NPOs’ Interview Data 237 Appendix “H”: NPOs’ Strategies With and Without Direct Contact with Public Agencies 239 Appendix “I”: Permission from Dr. McKechnie to use ERI (Environmental Response Inventory) Survey Instrument and Response from Professor Kenneth Craik 249 ix List of Tables Table 1: Distribution of Environmental Dispositions Along the Environmental Ethics Spectrum 70 Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, etc. for Each Environmental Disposition Category for Each Type of Nonprofits 110 Table 3: One-Way ANOVA Analysis For Differences in the Environmental Dispositions of Different Types of Nonprofits 112 Table 4: Environmental Dispositional Categories and Environmental Ethics of Nonprofit Organizations 113 Table 5: Structure Matrix for Environmental Dispositions of Nonprofits (Discriminant Analysis) 120 Table 6: Functions at Group Centroids for Environmental Ethics of Nonprofits 121 Table 7: Nonprofits’ Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation by Local Public Agencies, by Type of Nonprofits 128 Table 8: Discriminant Analysis - Functions at Group Centroids According to Types of Nonprofits 130 Table 9: Kinds of Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation Most and Least Likely to be Used by Different Types of Nonprofit Organizations 134 Table 10: Regression Analysis with Levels of Carbon Monoxide as Dependent Variable for Different Zip Codes in the SCAQMD Region 138 Table 11: Table Showing Time Series Values of Carbon Monoxide Levels in Air from 2003 to 2007 and the Percentages of Social Services Nonprofits in Each Zip Code 142 Table 12: Percentages of Different Types of Nonprofits which Collaborate and Do Not Collaborate with Other Nonprofits 156 x Table 13: Cross-Tabs for Types of Nonprofits and Collaboration among Nonprofits of Each Type 157 Table 14: Percentages of Different Types of Nonprofits which Confront / Oppose and Do Not Oppose Other Nonprofits 158 Table 15: Cross-Tabulation of Types of Nonprofits with Confrontational Strategy 160 Table 16: Cross-Tabulation of Collaboration and Confrontation for All Nonprofits 161 Table 17: Cross-Tabulation of Collaboration and Confrontation for Different Types of Nonprofits 162 Table 18: Percentages of Different Types of Nonprofit Organizations’ Contact with Public Agencies 167 Table 19: Cross-Tabulation of Types of Nonprofits and Their Contact with Public Agencies 167 Table 20: Frequencies of Different Types of Nonprofits about “Somewhat Responsive” Public Agencies 169 Table 21: Cross-Tabulation of Different Types of Nonprofits and “Somewhat Responsive” Public Agencies 170 Table 22: Frequencies of Different Types of Nonprofits about “Responsive” Public Agencies 172 Table 23: Frequencies of Different Types of Nonprofits about “Not Responsive” Public Agencies 173 Table 24: Structure Matrix for the Overall Differences in the Nature of Interaction of Different Types of Nonprofits with Public Agencies 174 Table 25: Functions at Group Centroids for the Overall Differences in the Nature of Interaction of Different Types of Nonprofits with Public Agencies 175 xi Table 26: Network Level Strategies Most And Least-Likely to be Used by Different Types of Nonprofits 177 Table 27: Pollutants in Air 209 Table 28: Table 4 (Reproduced Here with the Column of Standard Error Included): Regression Analysis with Levels of Carbon Monoxide as Dependent Variable for Different Zip Codes in The SCAQMD Region 218 Table 29: Table Showing the Ecological Data Used for Analysis (Year 2006) 235 Table 31: Descriptive Statistics (Environmental NPOs) 237 Table 32: Descriptive Statistics (Fraternal NPOs) 237 Table 33: Descriptive Statistics (Professional NPOs) 237 Table 34: Descriptive Statistics (Religious NPOs) 238 Table 35: Descriptive Statistics (Social Services NPOs) 238 Table 36: Nonprofits’ Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation by Local Public Agencies without Direct Contact with Public Agencies, by Type of Nonprofits 240 Table 37: Discriminant Analysis - Functions at Group Centroids According to Types of Nonprofits, for Nonprofits without Direct Contact with Public Agencies 241 Table 38: Kinds of Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation Most and Least- Likely to be Used by Different Types of Nonprofit Organizations without Direct Contact with Public Agencies 243 Table 39: Nonprofits’ Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation by Having Direct Contact with Public Agencies, by Type of Nonprofits 245 xii Table 40: Discriminant Analysis - Functions at Group Centroids According to Types of Nonprofits, for Nonprofits Having Direct Contact with Public Agencies 247 Table 41: Kinds of Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation Most and Least Likely to be Used by Different Types of Nonprofit Organizations Having Direct Contact With Public Agencies 248 xiii List of Figures Map 1: Map Depicting Air Monitoring Stations in the SCAQMD Region 75 Figure 1: Research Design (Highlighted Factors are the Focus of This Study 85 Figure 2: Centroids of Different Types of Nonprofit Organizations 119 Figure 3: Nonprofits’ Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation by Local Public Agencies 127 Figure 4: Canonical Discriminant Functions Chart for Nonprofits’ Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation by Local Public Agencies, by Type of Nonprofits 129 Figure 5: Chart Showing the Relationship Between Level of Carbon Monoxide in Air in a Zip Code and the Location Decision of the Percentage of Social Services Nonprofits 148 Figure 6: Canonical Discriminant Function for the Overall Differences in the Nature of Interaction of Different Types of Nonprofits with Public Agencies 176 Figure 7: Schematic of a Trapping Valley. The Temperature Profile in the Valley is Shown on the Right. (Source: Committee on Carbon Monoxide Episodes in Meteorological and Topographical Problem Areas, 2003, Pg. 92) 212 Map 2: Map Showing Annual Average Wind Speeds (2006) in the South Coast Region of California (Black Line within the Map Shows the Boundaries of the Region Governed by the SCAQMD 214 xiv Map 3: Map Showing Dominant Wind Direction at the Air Monitoring Station Locations of South Coast Region of California 216 Figure 8: Nonprofits’ Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation by Local Public Agencies without any Direct Contact with Government Agencies 239 Figure 9: Canonical Discriminant Functions Chart for Nonprofits’ Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation by Local Public Agencies without Direct Contact with Public Agencies, by Type of Nonprofits 241 Figure 10: Nonprofits’ Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation by Local Public Agencies Having Direct Contact with Government Agencies 245 Figure 11: Canonical Discriminant Functions Chart for Nonprofits’ Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation by Local Public Agencies Having Direct Contact with Public Agencies, by Type of Nonprofits 246 xv ABBREVIATIONS AN: Antiquarianism CARB: California Air Resources Board EA: Environmental Adaptation ET: Environmental Trust MO: Mechanical Orientation NP: Need for Privacy NPO: Nonprofit Organization SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District PA: Pastoralism SS: Stimulus Seeking UR: Urbanism xvi ABSTRACT This dissertation breaks new grounds by investigating the role of different types of nonprofits in influencing the environmental policy outcomes. It explores the role of environmental ethics of nonprofits in their influence on environmental policy outcomes. Using Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) survey instrument (McKechnie, 1974), it empirically approximates the values for the environmental ethics of five types of nonprofits (environmental, fraternal, professional, religious and social services). It shows that social services nonprofits which are slightly more ecocentric than other types of nonprofits are significantly related to reduced levels of air pollution over time at the local level. The efforts of environmental NPOs at the state and federal levels seem to support and are supported by the implementation efforts of social services NPOs at the local level to improve environmental quality. On the methodological front, this research employs the amount of carbon monoxide in air as the dependent variable and a measure of policy outcomes. Developing a comprehensive empirical model which includes most of the variables indicated by the literature to impact air quality, as well as the nonprofits at the local level, it shows that nonprofits are significantly related to levels of carbon monoxide pollution in air at the local level. Using a time series model extended over 5 years, it demonstrates that social services nonprofits in particular are strongly related to the improvement in carbon monoxide pollution in air at the zip code level. Although ample literature exists on the role of nonprofits in policy formulation, not much is reported on the role of nonprofits in policy implementation. Drawing from the policy implementation theories of top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) and xvii bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980), this research demonstrates, using data from Southern California, that nonprofits employ different combinations of both top-down and bottom- up channels of influencing policy implementation at the individual level. At the network level nonprofits of different kinds use the strategies of collaboration, confrontation and networking with public agencies to influence policy implementation. The differences in strategies of different types of NPOs are attributable to the differences in the emphasis of their service delivery and advocacy efforts. 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Having worked in the field of public administration, I realized that the service delivery lies neither solely with the public agencies nor entirely with the civil society including the nonprofit organizations (NPOs); rather, it happens somewhere at the intersection of these sectors. Although geography, socio-economy, institutions and politics, explain part of the reasons for any given policy outcome, they do not tell us the whole story, what role do nonprofits play in policy outcomes? Why do they even exist, if all they do is advocacy at the policy formulation stage – what is their role once the policies they desire are already enacted? What is the role of the service delivery of NPOs in the broader policy context? I am interested in these questions, because they are important not only for practitioners (for improved understanding of the role of nonprofits, the policy processes and the policy outcomes) but also because these are very important scholarly questions and have huge implications for the understanding of the processes and outcomes of governance/ public policy also. These questions are important for anybody who is interested in governance and service delivery to the people, who is interested in the evolving forms of institutions and governance. Most scholars agree that governance is becoming more participative. The hollowing out of the state is creating a vacuum which is being filled by the nonprofit organizations. It was but natural that I would be interested in such questions. Moreover, environmental quality is a major issue for the entire world. Global warming, extinction of species, various diseases and birth defects, growth issues of children and various health problems resulting form environmental degradation, in addition to the real or perceived issues of social and environmental justice and equity are 2 all serious causes of concern. Nonprofits of all types, not just the environmental NPOs engage in and contribute to the efforts addressing these issues by focusing on problems such as social justice, health, education, homelessness, economic development, civic participation, etc. Environmental issues seem to be interconnected with and encompass all aspects of public policy and urban planning – or should I say human life and society. Growing up in a society of utmost diversity and contradictions, held together by nothing more than the shared wisdom of interconnectivity, a belief that the opposite side of the coin if blank will invalidate me too - I tend to see all phenomenon and things primarily as interconnected, and hence the decision to study all types of NPOs not just environmental NPOs for their role in improving the quality of the natural environment. Environmental policy and issues apparently validate my perspectives on interconnectivity, nature and the Force. Owing to the immense significance and the holistic view of the environmental issues generally taken in law, policy and urban planning, the significant contributions of all types of NPOs, intertwined with my own personal beliefs as well as my experiences of the NPOs and the public sector; all prompted me to study the role of all types of NPOs in policy processes and outcomes. In this dissertation research I investigate the relationship between the environmental ethics of various types of nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and their impact on the local environmental outcomes. I classify the NPOs into five categories of environmental, fraternal, professional, faith based (religious) and social services nonprofits. Employing, primary and secondary data from websites, interviews and surveys, I examine NPOs’ located and working in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) of California to respond to the research question. I use 3 a holistic approach to the environmental policy and environmental issues emphasizing the role of NPOs. Since there are no established theories tracing the influence of NPOs on policy outcomes, therefore, in this research I contribute by responding to this lacuna in the literature by arguing that nonprofits impact policy outcomes by influencing policy processes of formulation and implementation. Although there are theories of NPOs’ influence on the policy formulation process, but there is little on NPOs’ influence on the policy implementation process., informed by the top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) and bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980) theories, I argue that nonprofits employ similar channels of influence to impact policy implementation also. This theoretical argument was also supported by the empirical evidence in this research. I also argue, informed by the existing literature that the manner of NPO’s influence on policy outcomes is a function of the underlying values of nonprofits. Since in this research I am looking at the environmental policy outcomes, therefore, the influence of NPOs on environmental policy outcomes should also be a function of the environmental ethics of nonprofits. Moreover, I argue that since different types of nonprofits have different types of values and dispositions therefore, different types of nonprofits would have different types of influence on environmental policy outcomes. In addition, staying consistent with the interconnectivity and holistic approach, I employ a comprehensive regression analysis model which makes use of all of the various independent variables known in the literature to influence air quality. This single empirical model uses demographic, institutional, political, land use and transportation, 4 geographic and meteorological data for independent variables, in addition to the data about the NPOs and their environmental dispositions. On the methodological front, I contribute by arguing and empirically demonstrating in the regression model, that carbon monoxide can be used as a measure of policy outcomes and as a dependant variable. In addition, I empirically approximate the values for environmental ethics of different types of NPOs using the environmental dispositions’ scales of Environmental Response Inventory (McKechnie, 1974). I use the Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) (McKechnie, 1974) to measure the environmental dispositions of nonprofits and then using the measured scores for dispositions to quantitatively approximate the environmental ethics of different types of nonprofits. Environmental Response Inventory was considered a more suitable tool for data collection for this research as compared to the Revised 15 – scale New Environmental Paradigm (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig and Jones, 2000) mainly because I intended to administer the survey to the CEOs of the nonprofits and perhaps ERI was more suitable and indirect for such highly educated sample. Moreover, I intended to measure the environmental attitudes across various dimensions and for that too ERI seemed more appropriate. The findings of my research are very interesting, to say the least. I found that NPOs which are more ecocentric than others, although not extremely eceocentric are more likely to be empirically related to reduced levels of carbon monoxide pollution in air over time, at the local / zip code level. I found that although various geographic and other factors in the regression model play important roles in determining environmental policy outcomes, however, in addition to those factors, it is highly probable that NPOs, 5 especially social services nonprofits, may be due to their particular environmental ethics are also significant in determining and improving the quality of natural environment and the environmental policy outcomes, over time, at the local / zip code level. I found that social services NPOs tend to locate in zip codes of high carbon monoxide air pollution and contribute to lowering the carbon monoxide levels in outdoor air in those zip codes over a period of a few years. Using a time-series model, I found that social services nonprofits are more effective in improving air quality at the local zip code level, as compared to the environmental nonprofits which are probably more useful at the national, state and regional levels. The levels of carbon monoxide in outdoor air decreased significantly over a period of five years – 2003 to 2007 (inclusive of 2003 and 2007) in zip codes of location of high percentage of social services nonprofits. It seems that the efforts of the environmental nonprofits at the national and regional levels are translated into policy outcomes at the local level by the social service nonprofits. This gives rise to the emergence of an interconnected, dynamic picture where the work of each type of NPOs is informed by and affected by the socio-economic and other conditions on ground as well as the work and contributions of other types of NPOs. Although social services NPOs tend to locate in zip codes of high carbon monoxide pollution, they were not found to be very fond of locating in the in the zip codes of highest pollution and / or highest need (lowest per capita income). This might be a result of the twin concerns of most social services NPOs, i.e. fund-raising and needs of the community. However, further research is needed to shed more light on this phenomenon. Using discriminant analysis and non-parametric tests, I contribute in this research by analyzing the interview data for strategies of influence of different types of 6 nonprofits policy implementation at the individual level and the network level for all types of NPOs. I isolate the specific sets of strategies that each type of nonprofits is most and least likely to use. At the individual level, the strategies are classified as management level, grass-roots level, and both management and grass-roots level. At the network level, the strategies are classified as contact with public agencies, collaboration, and confrontation. I demonstrate the strategies that NPOs of each type are most and least likely to use to influence the policy implementation process carried out by the public agencies. This dissertation is composed of three chapters in addition to the chapters for introduction and conclusion. In chapter 2 of this dissertation I review the existing literature and present a theoretical framework. In this framework I borrow from the algebraic concept of association to argue that if I can show that nonprofit organizations influence the policy processes of formulation and implementation, and since these processes influence policy outcomes, therefore using associative property I am able to argue that nonprofits impact policy outcomes also. Moreover, I argue based on the existing literature, that nonprofits attempt to influence the perspectives, interpretations and opinions in order to influence the processes of policy, therefore, it is reasonable to say that the perspectives and values of nonprofits are important in their influence on the policy processes and hence on the policy outcomes. More specifically, Sabatier’s theory of advocacy coalition framework (1991, 1988) explains the part played by NPOs in influencing policy formulation. For the role of NPOs in policy implementation informed by the existing implementation theories of top- down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) and bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980), using logical 7 deduction, I argue that nonprofit organizations can be situated within these theories to understand their role in policy implementation, as management level influence (top- down) and grass-roots level influence (bottom-up). In addition to the theoretical framework concerning the role of NPOs in policy processes and outcomes, in chapter 2 I also discuss the various geographic, socio- economic, meteorological, land use, transportation, and demographic factors that the existing literature shows as impacting air quality or environmental quality in general and which I used as independent variables for the empirical model later on in chapters 3 and 4 of this research. In chapter 3 of this dissertation I explain the research question, research design and the methodology of this research. I also explain the scope of this research in this chapter, as well as the specific research questions. I explore air quality, NPOs and other independent variable for the geographic region under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). I ask the research question of: What is the relationship between environmental ethics of local nonprofit organizations and the local place-based environmental outcomes? And what are the implications for the governance process? I use a sequential research design, and primarily a quantitative research design, although it uses qualitative methods also. In this chapter I explain the data collection and coding process. I collected the data was in three phases, in the first phase I collected the ecological data; interview data from nonprofits were collected in the second phase and survey data in the third phase. The sources of data include interviews, surveys (ERI by McKechnie, 1974), official census website, and the air quality, geographic, meteorological, land use and transportation data 8 from SCAQMD and CARB (California Air Resources Board) websites. Moreover, I extracted basic data about nonprofits from the website guidestar.com. In chapter 3, I argue for carbon monoxide in outdoor air as a measure of policy outcomes and to measure the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations. In addition, I also explain the empirical model to respond to the research question and the rationale behind the inclusion or deletion of various demographic, geographic, political, institutional and meteorological variables as independent variables. I also explain the rationale of using time series data for carbon monoxide levels in air to see whether NPOs’ presence in neighborhoods overtime is related to decreased air pollution. In chapter 4 of this research I empirically test and analyze the data to see if the theoretical framework of this research is viable for the dataset of this dissertation or not. I use ecological data of 2988 nonprofits from GuideStar. I interviewed of 227 nonprofits and surveyed 83 nonprofits, and I use these interview and survey data also for chapter 4. Out of the 227 nonprofits interviewed 16 are environmental nonprofits, 19 fraternal, 71 professional, 32 religious and 88 social services nonprofits. Of the 83 nonprofits surveyed using ERI, 29 are social services nonprofits, 12 are religious, 25 are professional, 4 fraternal and 12 environmental nonprofits. In this part of the dissertation research I show that the theoretical framework of this research is viable and is supported by the empirical analysis which uses various techniques including discriminant analysis, regression analysis, correlations, etc. All the arguments of the theoretical framework, including the environmental ethics of nonprofits, their role in policy implementation and their impact on policy outcomes were supported by the data and analysis. 9 In this chapter I use the empirical regression model developed in chapter 2 which includes most of the independent variables shown by the existing literature to influence air quality in one integrated and holistic empirical model. In this model, among other things, I also empirically demonstrate the use of carbon monoxide levels in outdoor air as the dependant variable - as a measure of policy outcomes. I further empirically approximate the values for environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations using the scales and surveys of Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) (McKechnie, 1974). In this chapter I find that higher percentages of social services nonprofits tend to locate in zip codes of higher carbon monoxide air pollution zip codes. Most importantly, higher percentages of social services NPOs (not environmental NPOs) are related to (over time) reduced air pollution in a zip code. This is a very significant finding and supports the notion that nonprofits tend to play a strong and significant role in policy outcomes. Very importantly the fact that social services NPOs are found to be more effective than their environmental counterparts might be explained by considering that compared to the environmental NPOs most social services nonprofits are active at the local level, hence they seem to be effective in the guiding the implementation of policies for improved environmental health and other such mitigating efforts at the local level leading to reduced air pollution, while environmental nonprofits might be more helpful in reducing air pollution by influencing the implementation and formulation of policies at the national and state levels. Thus both types of NPOs seem to be interconnected with each other and support each other in achieving desirable environmental policy outcomes. Moreover, we can also argue that slightly more ecocentrically inclined NPOs are more likely to make a positive contribution to the environmental quality at the local / zip 10 code level. Based on the scores I obtained from the ERI survey, social services NPOs seem to be slightly more ecocentric than other types of NPOs. In addition, in this chapter I analyze the interview data for the nonprofits and create tables of the strategies that nonprofits of different types are most, and least-likely to use during their efforts to impact policy implementation. Consistent with the observations and findings of this research, I study NPOs’ influence on policy implementation in a holistic manner. I look at the strategies used by NPOs to influence policy implementation, at two levels, the level of individual NPOs of all types, and the level of NPOs of all types working in a network environment I find that NPOs differ significantly in the combinations of various individual level strategies they tend to use classified as management level, grass-roots level, and both management and grass-roots level. However, for the network level, most types of nonprofits tend to behave similar to each other. This demonstrates not only the types of strategies that NPOs use at the network level but also that since the NPOs tend to interact with each other and other entities and organizations in a manner similar to each other, we can have further confidence in the my argument that by this kind of interconnectivity through interaction of NPOs, they all influence each other’s efforts. In this case the efforts of social services and environmental NPOs seem to support each other to achieve cleaner and healthier air for the zip codes. The dissertation ends by summarizing the findings of this research and providing directions for future research. 11 CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH CONTEXT, LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Introduction: This research is an attempt to understand the role of nonprofit organizations, in particular the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations, on the environmental policy outcomes. It tries to investigate whether the environmental ethics of different types of local nonprofit organizations, not just environmental nonprofits, have any bearing on the local place-based environmental outcomes or not? Policy outcomes, to a large extent, are a function of the twin processes of environmental policy formulation and policy implementation leading to policy outcomes and outputs. Therefore, this dissertation reviews the current literature for the role of nonprofit organizations in the policy processes to explore whether the environmental ethics seem to impact the processes of policy or not. This is based on the assumption that since the processes of policy formulation and policy implementation influence policy outcomes, therefore, any factor influencing policy processes would also impact policy outcomes. In terms of the processes of policy, although there are established theories of policy formulation charting the role of nonprofits in policy formulation, little is reported in a systematic way about the role of nonprofits in policy implementation. There are no theories explaining the role of nonprofits during policy implementation. In addition to that, or rather probably because of that, there are no theoretical frameworks to help comprehend, in a structured way, the part played by nonprofits in policy outcomes. This chapter is aimed at responding to such lacunae in the literature. 12 This chapter is composed of two distinct parts. In the first part, I review the literature about the various types of environmental ethical frameworks, as well as the strategies of influence used by nonprofit organizations predominantly with regard to the role of nonprofits in policy formulation, and more infrequently with regard to the role of nonprofits in policy implementation – which is mainly discussed in the literature in the context of environmental justice. Based on the literature, I argue that nonprofit organizations of all types and not just environmental nonprofit organizations participate in and try to influence both processes of the policy. I argue that the strategies of influence as well as the actual influence of nonprofits is at least to some degree a function of the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations. In the second part of this chapter, I present the theoretical framework of this research. My objective in this part is to argue that if nonprofits influence policy formulation and policy implementation then it is logical to contend that nonprofit organizations would also impact environmental policy outcomes. Moreover, I further reason that top-down (Lipsky, 1980) and bottom-up (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) theories of policy implementation can be used to explain and understand the part that nonprofit organizations play in policy implementation at the individual level. I also show based on the literature that the nature of nonprofits’ influence on the environmental policy processes and outcomes is related to the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations. 13 2.1 Strategies Used by Nonprofit Organizations, Interaction among Nonprofits, Consciousness-Raising of Nonprofits, and the Impact of Nonprofits and the Environmental Ethics / Perspectives of Nonprofit Organizations: Introduction: The purpose of this part is to demonstrate, based on the existing literature, that the strategies of action chosen by nonprofit organizations, as well as their actual impact on policy outcomes, depends at least to some degree on the environmental ethics of the nonprofit organizations. Moreover, the purpose is also to show that the nonprofit organizations of all kinds, not just the environmental nonprofits, are important participants in the processes of environmental policy. Research shows that nonprofits are an important factor in the policy process either through participation and advocacy in the political process or through awareness campaigns aimed at impacting the public opinion (Rochon and Mazmanian, 1993; Bosso and Guber, 2003; Bullard and Johnson, 2000; Gale, 1986; Carmin and Balsar, 2002; Clarke, 1996; Fisher, 1993; Edwards, 1996; Shabecoff, 1993). Literature talks of nonprofit organizations as the new important political actors, who fill in the vacuum created by hollowing out of the state, in their role as new political actors, they make significant contributions to the political life, and political change (Clarke, 1996). Nonprofits use various strategies to influence public opinion, and environmental policy. Scholars contend that sometimes they are not able to influence the policy itself in the short term. However, they make the important contribution of putting environmental issues on agenda for public discourse, thus informing, and influencing public opinion 14 (Shabecoff, 1993; Rochon and Mazmanian, 1993), which in the long run, favorably influences the environmental policy. However, although the literature discusses the strategies of nonprofit organizations, their advocacy and their service delivery efforts, it does not usually distinguish between the activities on the basis of whether those are meant to influence policy implementation or policy formulation. Mostly when the literature discusses the strategies of nonprofits it is referring to their activities to impact policy formulation. The strategies of nonprofits in terms of their influence on policy implementation are rarely talked about in the literature, and when such strategies are at all reported they are, in most cases, only in the context of environmental justice or sometimes social justice. Perspectives about the natural environment range from extreme anthropocentrism on one end of the spectrum to extreme ecocentrism at the other end, with various forms of environmentalism in between these two extremes. It can intuitively be argued that different nonprofits, either consciously or unconsciously, prescribe to some form of environmentalism on this diverse spectrum. Moreover, intuitively it seems that similar types of nonprofits would have similar perspectives about the natural environment. Since the literature has consistently showed that actions are influenced by ideas and perspectives. It is, therefore, logical to argue that nonprofits having varying perspectives about the natural environment should also vary in the actions they take, either directly for the natural environment, or indirectly in their service delivery and advocacy efforts which inevitably impact the natural environment. For example churches, homeless shelters, chambers of commerce, Sierra Club, Earth First, tree huggers, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), to name a few nonprofits, all differ considerably from each other in 15 their conceptual framework and therefore their activities and strategies about and to the natural environment. Nonprofits employ various kinds of strategies of influence. One of the ways to categorize their strategies is proposed by Andrew Blowers (1997). He defines four broad categories of strategies that nonprofits tend to employ: 1 - collaboration (including reform and entryism), 2 - confrontation (or opposition), 3 - complementary activities, and 4 - consciousness-raising (indirect, generalized campaigning). “The first three relate primarily to strategies for influencing policy-making, while consciousness-raising operates more at the level of values” (Blowers, 1997, p. 861). In this research, I would further categorize the first two types of strategies as network level strategies of nonprofits, and the last two as individual level strategies of nonprofit organizations. The first two types of activities of nonprofits require the presence of nonprofits in a network environment comprising of other nonprofits, public and private organizations. The nonprofits in such an environment decide on whether and who they want to collaborate with and whether or who they want to confront. The last two types of strategies viz. complimentary activities and consciousness-raising are conducted by nonprofits as individual nonprofits. They might chose to collaborate with other organizations in the conduct of these two types of activities, but they can and many times carry out such activities on their own without collaboration or confrontation within the network. This research argues that the nonprofits’ selection of strategies and their influence on the environmental policy outputs can be explained in terms of differences in their environmental dispositions. It argues that the perspectives of nonprofits play a significant 16 role in the nonprofits’ decisions about the strategies they choose to employ. The research explains the role of perspectives in selection of strategies by nonprofits by using the framework of cultural framing, resource mobilization and political opportunity (Carmin and Balsar, 2002; McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly, 2001). In addition, this research also contends that as opposed to individual level strategies of nonprofits, for the network level strategies of nonprofits it is difficult to say that the selection primarily depends on the perspectives of the nonprofit. This chapter contributes to the current literature by differentiating between individual and network level strategies used by nonprofit organizations. These actions are defined in this research as: 1 – individual level: undertaken by the nonprofit organizations mostly individually, e.g. advocacy, publishing, public meetings, expert opinion, etc. based on their perspectives, their defined objectives, funding-sources and perceptions of political opportunity. 2 – Network Level: undertaken by individual nonprofits as part of a network of nonprofit, public and private organizations, e.g. collaboration and confrontation with other nonprofit and network with public and private organizations. This part of the dissertation is divided into three parts. In part one I review the literature to investigate the role of perspectives of nonprofit organizations on the strategies of nonprofits. I use the framework of cultural framing, resource mobilization and political opportunity (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly, 2000) to explore the role of ideas and perspectives of nonprofits in the choice of broad strategies of nonprofits. The goal of this part is to show that the perspectives of nonprofits play an important role in the decision of nonprofits to use certain broad strategies in terms of how they culturally 17 frame the issues? How and where do they mobilize resources? And how do they perceive political opportunity? In the second part of this section, I investigate the specific activities of nonprofits classified under the individual level and the network level activities of nonprofits. I will base this discussion on the collaboration, confrontation, complimentary activities and consciousness raising classification of Blowers (1997). My objective in this part is to demonstrate that the perspectives of nonprofits impact their decisions about the selection of particular activities. The nonprofits work in a particular political and social milieu; therefore, in addition to the perspectives, I will discuss the impact of social and political factors on the decisions about activities of nonprofits through the lens of theories of advocacy coalition framework (Sabatier, 1991, 1988) and policy streams (Kingdon, 1984). In the third part, I discuss the reasons, from literature, about why nonprofits influence public opinion and environmental policy. I suggest in this part that the nonprofits are able to influence the public opinion and the environmental policy through their strategies and specific activities which in turn depend on the perspectives of nonprofits. In addition to perspective, the political, social and incidental realities also play their parts in determining the level of influence of nonprofits on public opinion and the policy. I explain the role of such realities by using a combination of the three theories of advocacy coalition framework (Sabatier, 1991, 1988), policy streams (Kingdon, 1984) and punctuated equilibrium (True, Baumgartner and Jones, 1999). 18 2.1.1 - What are Nonprofits and Nonprofit Organizations? Nonprofit organization is a term that is applied to various kinds of organized entities. Some authors define them as Social Movement Organizations (SMOs) (Gale, 1986). Environmental nonprofits are also sometimes called that Environmental Movement Organizations (EMOs) (Carmin and Balsar, 2002). They are social movements because they attempt to change the social order through their mobilization. They are organizations in that they are more organized than a protesting mob, but less formalized than political parties. However, they are not passive like public opinion. In fact they try to influence public opinion in their favor, and they actively seek to impact environmental policy. This research talks about all kinds of nonprofits with the assumption that all types of nonprofits through their service delivery and advocacy efforts impact environmental policy implementation and outcomes, as explained in detail above. 2.1.2 - Perspectives of Nonprofits and the Broad Strategies Used By Them Examined Through the Framework of Cultural Framing, Resource Mobilization and Political Opportunity: This research defines broad strategies as broad and general approaches taken by nonprofit organizations based on their conceptual framework. These include defining and framing their objectives, mobilizing and targeting sources of funding and perceiving political opportunity. In terms of the cultural framing, resource mobilization and political opportunity framework (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly, 2001), 1 – perspectives provide the bed rock for cultural framing of issues by each nonprofit organization, 2 – perspectives of nonprofits determine their sources of funding, accountability to those sources of funding 19 and hence the selection of strategies acceptable to their sources of funding, and 3 – perspectives of nonprofits determine their perception of political opportunities which determine the strategies they choose from available options. Let us look at each of these separately: 1 – Perspectives of Nonprofits as Filters for Cultural Framing: In this research, based on the existing literature, I argue that the choice of nonprofits’ strategies depends on the perspectives of the nonprofits. Nonprofits and social movements culturally construct the problem through their ethical lens to address the issue. “In other words, a sense-making perspective suggests that EMOs (Environmental movement Organizations) view the sociopolitical, cultural, and natural environments through different cognitive filters. These filters lead to interpretations, and the construction of meaning that in turn provide a foundation for action” (Carmin and Balsar, 2002, p. 367). “The mobilization strategies of different movements should be distinguishable by the values they emphasize, and the things they define as threatening those values” (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano and Kalof, 1999, p. 92). For example the cultural framing of issues by the environmental movement Earth First; and the framing by National Resource Defense Fund (NRDC) are different. Earth First tends to use stronger, action-oriented, outside of the main stream political realm strategies. The website of Earth First shows a circular logo with a strong fist and “No Compromise in the Defense of Mother Earth” written underneath the circle 1 , demonstrating the strong, action-oriented, rebel-rousing approach of the organization, their website claims, “It is a belief in biocentrism, that life of the Earth comes first, and a 1 http://www.earthfirst.org/about.htm 20 practice of putting our beliefs into action. While there is broad diversity within Earth First! … there is agreement on one thing, the need for action!”. On the other hand NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) usually employs strategies that work through established political and judicial institutions. The differences in the selection of strategies between the two nonprofits seem to stem from both movements’ perspectives. NRDC website contends, “NRDC is the nation's most effective environmental action group, combining the grassroots power of 1.2 million members and online activists with the courtroom clout and expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.” 2 Comparing the environmental ethics of these two nonprofits as depicted by their respective mission/objectives statements - it does seem probable that the radical strategies of Earth first come out of its radical ideology. Similarly the law and institution based strategies of NRDC seem to come from their belief and trust in the legal process. 2 – Perspectives of Nonprofits as Determinants of Sources of Funding: The literature presents an argument which states that the nonprofits are ultimately accountable to their contributors and paying members (McLaughlin and Khawaja, 2000). They contention claims that the sources of funding for nonprofits may have significant control over the actions the movements take. The nonprofits are ultimately forced to decide about the strategies per the wishes of their sources of funding. Moreover, the cultural framing, resource mobilization, political opportunity framework (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly, 2000) argues the resource mobilization and cultural framing are related to each other. This means that the resource mobilization strategies of nonprofits to some 2 http://www.nrdc.org/about/ 21 extent depend on the cultural framing of the nonprofits – cultural framing in its turn, as we saw earlier, is a function of the perspectives held by the respective nonprofits. Nonprofits seem to employ strategies of influence, which fulfill the wishes of their respective funding sources. However, the kind of funding sources that each nonprofit attracts also depend on the perspectives held by respective nonprofit’s perspective. For example, the environmental movement Earth First, on its website, states, “Are you tired of namby-pamby environmental groups? Are you tired of overpaid corporate environmentalists who suck up to bureaucrats and industry? Have you become disempowered by the reductionist approach of environmental professionals and scientists? If you answered yes to any of these questions, then Earth First! is for you. Earth First! is effective. Our front-line, direct action approach to protecting wilderness gets results. … Earth First! takes a decidedly different tack towards environmental issues. We believe in using all the tools in the tool box, ranging from grassroots organizing and involvement in the legal process to civil disobedience and monkeywrenching.” Earth First employs stronger, radical strategies and hence attracts “contacts” as resources which agree with the perspectives of Earth First. Their website says, “To start an Earth First! group in your area, consider the following elements: Contacts: Even though it is up to every individual EF!er to come up with campaigns and strategies and carry them out, a successful group still needs a "contact" to: … Become aware of the risks to which you will be exposed. Activists are often arrested during legal actions by police ignorant of the law.” It is pretty obvious that Earth First would tend to attract donors with radical perspective about saving the environment. It also comes under obligation to come up to the expectations of the donors. Such donors do not expect success through mainstream political and legal processes and institutions. Earth First attracts donors who do not seem 22 to trust the political and legal process and system and the Earth First would have to strive to fulfill the radical expectations of its donors. Either way Earth First’s strategies of influence would be influenced by its donors. On the other hand environmental groups like Sierra Club receive funding from people and groups who tend to have higher expectation of success from the political and bureaucratic institutions. Therefore, the tactics of Sierra Club are usually about working within the political institutional framework, with minimal contentious activities (Carmin and Balsar, 2002). The website of Sierra Club requests monetary contributions in the following words, “One of the easiest ways to become an activist is to join the Sierra Club, or make a donation. You can get a Sierra Club membership online right now! When you join or give to the Sierra Club you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you are helping to preserve irreplaceable wildlands, save endangered and threatened wildlife, and protect this fragile environment we call home. You can be sure that your voice will be heard through congressional lobbying and grassroots action on the environmental issues that matter to you most.” 3 Notice the stark difference between this and the language used by Earth First in asking for donations. Similarly religious nonprofits receive funding from people who are inclined toward a particular form, beliefs and practice of a faith. Professional nonprofits, e.g. chambers of commerce, etc. receive funding from their members who are mostly business owners. The resource mobilization strategies of nonprofits depend to a large extent on the objectives and the perspective of nonprofits. In turn the sources of funding for nonprofits 3 http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Main_Join_or_Give&JServSessionIdr001=bgnkwy b6l3.app20a 23 act as the accountability mechanisms for the nonprofits to deliver and come up to the expectations of their donors. 3 – Perceptions of Nonprofits and Political Opportunity: Scholars argue that the strategies employed by nonprofits depend to a great deal on political opportunity. “Nonprofits are not representative, nor are they accountable, and consequently, their influence must be secured ultimately through the formal political process” (Blowers, 1997, p. 866). According to Tarrow (1998), political opportunity structure comprises the “consistent—but not necessarily formal or permanent— dimensions of the political environment that provide incentives for collective action by affecting people’s expectations for success or failure” (Tarrow, 1998, p. 76). Hence, according to this perspective, favorable political environment invites higher level of activity by nonprofits as compared to contradictory political environment (Shabecoff, 1993). More importantly, a more open, accessible, and permissive political structure, which raises expectations of success by nonprofits, causes them, usually, to employ tactics, and measures that use institutional avenues of influencing the environmental policy (Carmin and Balsar, 2002). In pluralistic democracies, sometimes “Nonprofits (which use institutional avenues) form another interest-grouping. While they are dedicated to a variety of causes, they also have an interest in maintaining their influence (and power) over the environmental agenda and decision-making” (Blowers, 1997, p. 850). It is not just the permissiveness or otherwise of the political structure, but also the manner in which each environmental movement perceives the political structure, which affects the tactics it uses. For example, under the same political structure, Earth First, 24 based on its perspective, has low expectation of success, and hence it chooses disruptive tactics; while NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), looking at the similar political structure through its perspective expects higher level of success, and hence chooses institutional ways of influencing the policy. 2.1.3 - Perspectives and the Individual and Network Level Activities of Nonprofits In this part I will show that nonprofit organizations use different types of network level activities, those activities are dependant on the perspectives of nonprofits and the ground realities. This research classifies such activities into two categories of 1 – individual level, and 2 – network level activities. Individual level activities involve actions that nonprofits do on their own without much need of interaction with other nonprofits and / public and private agencies. Network level activities involve functions such as collaboration, confrontation, and networking with public and private organizations. Some activities might be at the intersection of network and individual levels. For example when nonprofits network with public agencies on their own without collaboration with other nonprofits they are using a network level activity individually – hence I will classify this activity as being located at the intersection of network level and individual level strategies. Individual level specific actions are defined in this research as the specific activities undertaken by the nonprofit organizations, e.g. advocacy, publishing, public meetings, expert opinion, etc. based on their perspectives, their defined objectives, sources of funding and perceptions of political opportunity. Nonprofits are "inspired by a particular vision of the society they wish to develop" (Tandon, 1994, p. 53). The values 25 held by nonprofits provide their primary motivations about the level of influence they would want to have (Sikkink, 1995). As already explained the complementary and consciousness-raising activities as classified by Blowers (1997) would fall under the gambit of individual level activities and collaboration and confrontation would be network level activities. A closer look at these strategies and a review of the literature suggests that these activities of nonprofits might also be influenced by the ethical / perspective foundations of nonprofit organizations in addition to the realities of politics, society and circumstances. 1 –Perspectives and the Collaborative Activities of Nonprofits’: Nonprofits tend to collaborate with each other and with other groups to influence both the grass-roots public opinion and the policy formulating legislators in order to obtain policies favorable to their goals of environmentalism. They collaborate with groups that share the core values or share some meaningful thread among the values held by other environmental groups, as well as attempt to collaborate and link the interests of social and ethnic groups within the population with the shared values and goals of environmentalism. In doing so, the nonprofits also collaborate with and provide linkages between the interests of international, federal and local governments on the basis of similar values and goals of environmentalism. Nonprofits collaborate with other social movements, and entities supporting the objectives of their kind of environmentalism. “Groups such as the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides are primarily interested in pollution and its impacts on 26 public health, but they sometimes work with nature-oriented groups on issues such as air pollution” (Switzer, 2004, p. 39). In addition, environmental constraints on development sometimes manifest themselves as opposition of nonprofits by businesses, other lobbies, movements, and interest groups which prefer lower level of constraints on development (Blowers, 1997). However, in this post-modern world, not all business interests oppose environmental objectives of nonprofits. Instead of seeing environmental protection as a burden upon the economy, the ecological modernist sees it as a potential source for future growth. This is sometimes based on the argument that since environmental amenity is considered a superior good, the demand for pollution control is likely to increase, and there is, therefore, a considerable advantage to an economy to have the technical, and production capacity to produce low polluting goods or pollution control technology (Weale, 1992, p. 76). The concept of ecological modernization (Mol, 1995) which contends that technology has the potential to provide solutions to environmental problems, has made possible, the forging of coalitions between nonprofits and businesses. For example the Dow Chemical Company discovered that pollution control at its plants cut operating costs by $2 million a year. “Dow went from being one of the bitterest opponents of environmental regulation in the early 1980s to being a pace-setter in improving corporate environmental performance by the early 1990s” (Shabecoff, 1993, p. 134). On the other hand, nonprofits have also realized that, “merely to oppose growth will achieve little. Instead a wiser strategy for environmentalists is to look for ways in which growth, and environmental improvement support each other, and to study ways to protect the 27 environment at minimal economic cost” (Cairncross, 1995, p. 4). There is evidence that at least some nonprofits are already collaborating with, if they have not actually been co- opted by, the big corporations. “I predict that those who refuse to be coopted will be marginalized” (Sklair, 1994, p. 210). In collaborating with other like-minded groups nonprofits generate alliances which cut across conventional social structures (Blowers, 1997), and hence attempt to influence all strata and segments of the society to have an impact on public opinion, e.g. the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C. demonstrated that it is possible to build multiracial nonprofits (Alston, 1992). Moreover, it is the ability of nonprofits to develop networks, coalitions, and alliances relating local issues to a broader context transcending political frontiers which provides considerable leverage (Eccleston, 1996). Nonprofits link local issues to broader concerns, and provide linkages between local Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and arenas of political negotiation (Blowers, 1997) based upon the linkages provided by similarities in the threads of their respective conceptual frameworks. For example, the African American environmental justice activism in the South, which started out as grassroots, small community based struggle blossomed into multi-use, multiethnic, and multiregional movement (Bullard and Johnson, 1994). Another example might be that of the grassroots nonprofits in India enlisted the support of sympathetic federal government officials like Nalini Jayal for Silent Valley Project (Khagram, 2004). At the level of international collaboration, the Narmada campaign is another example. The campaign was selected by international and Western nonprofits, as an appropriate conflict to 28 facilitate a strategy linking coalitions of environmentalists from West with those in India. The campaign also linked activists from capital city and grass roots (Aufderheide and Rich, 1988; Rich, 1994, Udall 1995). Similarly the linkages of Kerala Sastra Sahiya Parishat (KSSP) with International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) helped KSSP utilize the resources of international organizations for Silent Valley Project e.g. aerial photographs (Khagram, 2004). Also, in order to create linkages and collaboration between the local and national levels of government and political structures, nonprofits also attempt to revive traditional integrating institutions of local place, and community, e.g. for Silent Valley Project (Khagram, 2004), traditional grassroots communities were mobilized, by nonprofits. Therefore, based on their respective ethical foundations, nonprofits not only collaborate with other like-minded groups, but they also link various strata of society and various levels of government, in order to effectively influence grass-roots society’s public opinion as well as the policy processes led by the local and national legislators. 2 – Perspectives and the Confrontational Activities of Nonprofits: Nonprofit organizations sometimes use the strategy of confrontation when their perspectives clash with other perspectives and interests. In addition to the competing perspectives, the political, social and circumstantial realities as explained by the theories of Kingdon (1984) and Sabatier (1991, 1988), also play a significant role in the nonprofits’ decision to use the strategy of confrontation. The collective action of nonprofits sometimes occurs as a result of confrontation of interests. When the perspectives’ related interests of environmentalism clash with other interests (usually development), the attribution of threat or the opportunity of improvement in some cases 29 leads to innovative collective action, both by the environmental groups, and by their challengers (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly, 2001). “On the whole, shared prior knowledge, connections among key individuals, and on-the-spot direction guide the flow of collective action (by nonprofits)” (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly, 2001, p. 49). Sabatier (1991, 1988) explains that advocacy coalitions influence policy change due to three major factors. One of the factors is the interaction of competing advocacy coalitions within a policy subsystem/community, i.e. the interaction of nonprofits with counter movements (Gale, 1986). This interaction, leads to confrontational strategies by the already forged collaboration of advocacy movements within stable system parameters with groups and coalitions favoring opposing ideologies and perspectives (Sabatier, 1991, 1988). The afore-mentioned stable system parameters of the advocacy coalition framework theory (Sabatier, 1991) in case of nonprofits in US can be the representative, federalist democracy of United States. Moreover, shared knowledge can be looked into through the perspective of policy streams, in this case these may be informal policy streams (Kingdon, 1984), where shared knowledge is continuously built up slowly through connections among key individuals leading to collective action. Confrontational strategies used by such shared knowledge collectives can stem out of various factors. Two of the most discussed factors in the literature are: 1 – “anti-modernization stand of the nonprofits characterized by its emphasis on cultural renewal, the emphasis on developing an ecological consciousness, and the critique of industrialism” (Eckersley, 1992, p. 27), and 2 – Opposition by business, industry, and other entities who perceive investment in environmentally- 30 friendly technology as increasing the cost of production and decreasing the profit (Sabatier, 1991). Confrontation can take various forms; nonprofits can mobilize, and organize protests, file law suits, put pressure on government environmental organizations, etc. For example, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have “made environmental litigation an art form” (Switzer, 2004, p. 39). Another example in the context of environmental justice movements is, the “landmark garbage dispute took pace … in Houston … Residents formed the Northeast Community Action Group (NECAG). NECAG and its attorney Linda McKeever Bullard filed a class action lawsuit to block the facility from being built. The 1979 lawsuit Bean vs. Southwestern Waste Management, Inc. was the first of its kind to challenge the sitting of a waste management facility under civil rights law” (Bullard and Johnson, 2000, p. 556). Another example is class action law suit against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority by Bus Riders’ Association, which successfully contested transit racism, and the resulting pollution by buses in low-income minority neighborhoods of Los Angeles (Bullard and Johnson, 2000). Similarly, after President Clinton signed the Executive Order 12898, two Louisiana communities collaborated in protest against, and prevent the location of privately owned uranium enrichment plant by Louisiana Energy Services (LES) near their communities. They organized under ‘Citizens Against Nuclear Trash’ (CANT), an environmental movement. They filed a lawsuit against LES, which resulted in victory of CANT. Just two years after the executive order, communities were already successful in preventing environmentally risky location decision (Bullard and Johnson, 2000). Favorable political environment might have been one of the factors that increased 31 expectation of success, and provided the necessary legal framework for environmental movement to use the strategy of going through the institutional mode. In the same way, Citizens of Convent County in Louisiana protested against sitting of environmentally unsafe and polluting Shintech facility in their county through institutional means in 1991 and forced Shintech to scrap its plan to build PVC plant (Wright, 1998). 3 – Perspectives and the Complimentary Activities of Nonprofits: Nonprofits employ various activities to influence public opinion, and environmental policy according to the perspectives of nonprofits. The specific activities involved might be the use of experts and expert systems and keeping the issues in lime light. The perspectives based complimentary activities are also explained by the theories of advocacy coalition framework (Sabatier, 1991, 1988) and the policy streams theory (Kingdon, 1984). Such activities include the use of experts, and expert systems, sympathetic to the perspectives of the nonprofits, which provide critical information and knowledge. Similar to interest groups, nonprofits use the strategy of experts and expert systems to influence public opinion and environmental policy. These experts are considered by some scholars as “epistemic communities”, “networks of knowledge-based communities that are politically empowered through their claims to exercise authoritative knowledge and motivated by shared principles and causal beliefs” (Haas, 1990, p. 349). “They are increasingly able to back their campaigns with scientific expertise. This is true at the local level where scientific expertise is recruited to support a cause right up to global level where scientists have played such a prominent role both as interest groups themselves and in support of environmental groups” (Blowers, 1997). For example, NRDC websites talks about the NRDC president as: 32 “Frances received a bachelor's degree from Yale College and a master's degree from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. She now co-chairs the Leadership Council of the Yale School of Forestry, and was a member of the Yale Corporation and the School of Management's Advisory Board. Frances has received the Rachel Carson Award from the National Audubon Society, the Distinguished Alumni Award from Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, the Annual Conservation Award from the Adirondack Council and the Robert Marshall Award from the Wilderness Society.” The theories of advocacy coalition framework (Sabatier, 1991, 1988), and policy streams (Kingdon, 1984) also explain the complimentary activities of nonprofits. We can think of ‘advocacy coalition’ as the ‘policy entrepreneur’ (Kingdon, 1984), with regard to their expert knowledge. For example, during the high environmental activism, and legislation of late 60s, and early 70s, especially for Clean Water Act (CWA) the advocacy coalition was vocal in bringing the negative externalities caused by industry that pollute water into lime light, and assisted in problem articulation (problem stream). The coalition was also instrumental in discovering policy alternatives (policy stream), and working through the political process, by using their expert knowledge according to the perspectives they held, of the issue as well as of the political process (Lubell, Schneider, Scholz and Mete, 2002). Thus it worked through the problem, policy, and political streams. Nonprofits also use the strategy of keeping environmental issues on the agenda. They “expand their traditional strategy of keeping the environment on the public and political agendas towards participation in direct negotiation with economic agents and state representatives close to the centre of the decision-making process” (Mol, 1995, p. 58). 33 4 – Perspectives and the Consciousness Raising Activities of Nonprofits: Nonprofits also influence public opinion through consciousness-raising activities e.g. awareness campaigns, media campaigns, environmental journalism, educational efforts, etc. based on the perspectives of nonprofit organizations. They might not always be able to impact the policy, but they generally contribute to the objectives of environmentalism by bringing environmental issues in lime light, creating public awareness about such issues, and influencing public opinion (Rochon and Mazmanian, 1993). Environmental journalism is a form of consciousness-raising activism that shapes public’s perception of environmental risk, and their opinion on issues of environmental policy (Shabecoff, 1993). For example “Gerbson Fishbein founded the influential Environmental Health Newsletter in 1961. Michael Frome, a writer-activist, contributed hundreds of articles to the periodical press on parks and public lands issues” (Shabecoff, 1993, p. 129). Other scholars (Schwartz, White and Hughes, 1985) argue that environmental disasters are ‘newsable’, sensational items, and hence are propagated by the media; this causes a general public hysteria, and perception of risk which contributes to the process of policy change. For example the Union Oil incident, near Santa Barbara, California in 1969 helped focus media attention on the issue. All fishing in the area was stopped for two weeks, and many birds died. This happened because the blowout released 200,000 gallons of crude oil that covered more than 400 square miles of water with a 6-inch thick layer of crude oil, over at least 30 miles of beach (Stoner, 2002,). This was followed by successive reports of death of 26 million fish as a result of contamination of Lake 34 Thonotosassa, Florida, unacceptable mercury levels in Detroit River, and eventually the Cuyahoga River incident (Stoner, 2002). These events helped environmental advocacy organizations gain tremendous public support. Another example is the support of newspaper Hindu against Silent Valley Project, which helped raise consciousness about the issue (Khagram, 2004) 2.1.4 - Perspectives of Nonprofits and Their Impact on Public Opinion and Environmental Policy: Although the strategies selected by nonprofits might depend on the perspectives and ethical foundations of nonprofit organizations, the actual impact that such strategies have on public opinion and environmental policy is not simply a function of the perspectives of nonprofit organizations; it also depends on other political, social and situational realities, which can be explained by a combination lens of the theories of advocacy coalition (Sabatier, 1991, 1988), policy streams (Kingdon, 1984) and punctuated equilibrium (True, Baumgartner and Jones, 1999). However, to a great extent the actual impact f nonprofits on public opinion and environmental policy, seems to be a direct consequence of their particular bend of mind. Various reasons have been introduced in the literature to explain why and how nonprofits are able to influence public opinion and environmental policies. Some scholars think that nonprofits have impact because they socially construct environmental problems according to their perspective in a way which reshapes personal values, and informs public opinion (Johnston et al.; 1994; Gamson, 1992; Cotgrove, 1982). “(Environmental) movement’s success depends on movement activists and organizations building support by activating or reshaping personal norms to create feelings of obligation. … norm-based actions flow from three 35 factors: acceptance of particular personal values, beliefs that things important to those values are under threat, and beliefs that actions initiated by the individual can help alleviate the threat and restore the values” (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano and Kalof. 1999). In order to see how nonprofits impact the values held by the top and bottom levels of bureaucracy, we have to analyze how environmental ethics are formed. What are the foundations on which individuals build their environmental philosophy? Some scholars have responded to these questions in terms of beliefs and faith (White, 1967). Different cultural perspectives are supposed to be underlying our conceptions of nature (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982), and our environmental behaviors rest on basic values and beliefs established during childhood education and socialization (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano and Kalof, 1999, Vlek, 2000). “‘Changes in values and morality’ (CVM) stands relatively by itself as a cultural solution on which much behaviour change might come to rest” (Vlek, 2000, p.162). However, similar cultural and religious influences demonstrate different kinds of environmental philosophies in different individuals (White, 1967). What then, are the bases for such differences in environmental ethics among individuals? Some scholars think that pro-environmental dispositions are activated as a result of social-psychological process that provides moral norms against harming people (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano and Kalof, 1999). This is referred to as the norm-activation theory of environmentalism. Scholars think that altruism is the main motive behind environmental activism. Kalt and Zupan (1984) have provided some reasons as to why disposition matters: 1- In a pluralistic democracy voting is a good tool for generalization and to deal with free rider problem 36 2- voter behavior is altruistic since it is irrespective of outcomes, individual voters vote on disposition because they know that they cannot control every vote and every policy decision taken by the legislator 3- in political scenario pecuniary interests are shared with a large number of people 4- therefore, disposition/values/perspective/view is employed by voters as a device for economizing on information Other scholars have also looked at it from the lens of psychology, because “Many environmental problems are, in essence, behavioural, social, and cultural problems at the level of individual households, business companies, industries, and/or government departments” (Vlek, 2000). Vlek contends that moral norms and dispositions about needs, opportunities and abilities effect individual attitude about environment. Environmental perception and evaluation depends on people’s basic attitude towards nature (e.g. ``anthropocentric’ ’ or ``ecocentric’ ’). Literature talks about non profit organizations and that they are "inspired by a particular vision of the society they wish to develop" (Tandon, 1994, p. 53). The values held by nonprofit organizations provide their primary motivations about the level of influence they would want to have (Sikkink, 1995). “Nonprofit organizations’ success depends on movement activists and organizations building support by activating or reshaping personal norms to create feelings of obligation. … norm-based actions flow from three factors: acceptance of particular personal values, beliefs that things important to those values are under threat, and beliefs that actions initiated by the individual can help alleviate the threat and restore the values” (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano and Kalof, 1999). 37 Therefore, nonprofit organizations’ emphasis is usually norm-based transformation in social and cultural values, for example the environmental nonprofits of late 60s and early 70s led to drastic transformation of social and cultural values. However, nonprofit organizations are composed of various individuals, what then, is the perspective of a nonprofit as a group of different individuals? Studies about the composition of nonprofit organizations show that they are mostly composed of like- minded individuals who form an organization to collectively and effectively work for and fund a cause they believe in (Callen, Klien and Tinkleman, 2001). People sharing the goals of nonprofits tend to volunteer for those nonprofits (Clary, Snyder and Stukas, 1996). Hence non profit groups are composed of individuals having the similar disposition. Scholars argue that the change is brought about by nonprofits by changing the way people think about environmental problems, and the way they think about the limits of their own ability to make a difference. "Change the way people think and things will never be the same" (Stephen Biko quoted by Fisher, 1993). Scholars think that nonprofits try to change the public perception of humans’ relationship with the environment. They think that nonprofits challenge the status quo of the humans’ relationship with the environment. These nonprofits by their very act of challenging the status quo make people think, and once the people’s minds changes, the public opinion, and eventually the legislation changes (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1984; Milbrath, 1989; Dunlap, Xiao and McCright, 2001). Scholars (Ferguson, 1767) think that transformation of civil society leads to transformation of the state, and transformation of the environmental policy. Nonprofits 38 assist in this transformation through their strategies of empowerment, education, research, agenda setting, and outreach (Clarke, 1996). Such empowerment gives rise to environmentally conscientious public opinion, and environmental activism (Kothari, 1986), and thus providing with the possibility of nonprofits’ ability to change the environmental policy. It happens due to "forging together, wrenching apart and recreation of discourses which break with their predecessors" (Adam, 1993, p. 329) by nonprofits. Nonprofits play a prominent role in defining environmental issues through the lens of their particular perspective. Through this process of sense-making, and through their strategies of influence they help in shaping public perception about humans’ relationship with the environment, (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Klandermans, 1991; North, 1990; Weick, 1995), and the belief that humans can, and should do something about alleviating the environmental risk. “Environmental problems do not materialize by themselves; rather, they must be ‘constructed’ by individuals or organizations that define pollution or some other objective condition as worrisome, and seek to do something about it” (Hannigan, 1995, p. 2). This process of cultural framing explains why nonprofit organizations receive the support of public and favorable public opinion. For example in Delaware Basin case, the environmental issues were constructed in such a way by the nonprofits that the businesses had a hard time opposing environmental measures, although they were to bear the costs. Therefore in order to appear responsible in the eyes of public, they supported a solution which puts the burden of cost on them (Wildavsky, 1987 p. 188). Shabecoff (1993) mentions the statement by John Adams of National Resource Defense Council. Adams recalled in 1989, 39 “we would come to the EPA meetings and they would ignore us … I mean really resisted. Well, clearly that is not true any more … we are a respectable part of society in terms of the message we have to deliver and the constituencies we represent. I mean, that’s like jumping from one world to the next; it’s that big a gap” (Shabecoff, 1993, p. 130-131). Why were nonprofits able to achieve this influence? “James Range, vice president for government affairs of Waste Management, Inc. … said that people his age, who were in college during or just before the Earth Day, “have an ingrained commitment to the environment just as we have an ingrained feeling about civil rights. And we are beginning to be vice presidents and senior vice presidents and even presidents of the corporation” (Shabecoff, 1993, p. 135). The influence such activities have in shaping environmental issues, goes deep down to define the core values of environmental ethics, which tends to encompass broader issues of social justice , it includes “issues of class and power in the articulation of environmental conflicts” (Blowers, 1997, p. 849). For example the level of risk which a society is willing to tolerate depends on perception of risk for the society. Nonprofits help develop that perception of risk, and the perception of acceptability, or otherwise of risk for the society, “the notion of acceptable’ risk is elusive in that it is rooted in feelings about justice, fairness and democracy (O’ Riordan et al., 1988). 2.1.5 - Political, Social and Incidental Realities and the Impact of Nonprofits on Public Opinion and Environmental Policy: It is however, naïve to assume that only perspectives help framing the problem. It is the combination of nonprofits’ perspectives with political and experiential realities that determines why nonprofits influence public opinion and environmental policy on perception of risk (Wildavsky, 1987). “Tolerability is thus based on a subjective 40 evaluation of possibilities of exposure and prevention; it is not an unambiguous scientific criterion” (Blowers, 1997, p. 856). The actual impact of nonprofits on public opinion and environmental policy can also be explained by a lens created by combining the theories of advocacy coalition (Sabatier, 1991, 1988), policy stream (Kingdon, 1984), and punctuated equilibrium (True, Baumgartner and Jones, 1999) and applying those theories to nonprofits. For example, in 1969 Cuyahoga River in Cleveland spontaneously burst into flames due to the high amount of oil on its surface, which probably caught flame from the sparks of a passing train. This specific event triggered an almost complete shift of the government policies toward clean water, as a punctuated event in otherwise policy equilibrium (True, Baumgartner and Jones, 1999). “The richly symbolic breaking point for mounting public anger over this steady stream of environmental indignities came in June of 1969, when Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River, laden with oil and other industrial wastes, burst into flames” (Stoner, 2002, pp.3). Nonprofits utilized the opportunity to form policy based advocacy coalitions (Sabatier, 1991, 1988) to mobilize support for strong pro- environment legislation. “The result was a sharp departure in clean water policy, a turning point in the environmental movement” (Stoner, 2002, pp.1). The incident of burning of Cuyahoga River in 1969, directed focused public attention to the issue, and hence provided the coalition of nonprofits like NRDC with the ‘policy window’ (Kingdon, 1984) to influence the environmental policy, and public opinion. Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 through a rare show of bipartisan Congressional support. 41 Conclusion: A review of literature shows that the strategies, activities and influence of nonprofits on public opinion, and environmental policy, can be explained as based on the perspectives of nonprofit organizations, through the processes of cultural framing of issues, resource mobilization and political participation. In particular the decision of nonprofits about strategies is found to be mainly a function of their perspectives. However, the nonprofits’ decision about their specific activities is also explained by the real life conditions of politics and society as explained by the theories of Kingdon (1984) and Sabatier (1991, 1988), as well as by their perspectives. Lastly the actual influence of nonprofits on the public opinion and the environmental policy is a function not only of the perspectives of the nonprofits but also of the politics, society and event as conceptualized by a combined lens of the theories of advocacy coalition (Sabatier, 1991, 1988), policy streams (Kingdon, 1984) and punctuated equilibrium (True, Baumgartner and Jones, 1999). 2.2: Review of the Literature and the Theoretical Framework: Nonprofits’ Role in Influencing Environmental Policy Formulation: Introduction: This part of chapter 2 aims at reviewing the literature to see how scholars have situated nonprofit organizations and advocacy groups in the process of policy formulation and what role do nonprofit organizations play in policy formulation. We shall look at the nonprofits through the lens of theories of policy formulation. In this research, I will discuss, three theories of: 1 – Kingdon’s Garbage Can Model (1982), 1 – punctuated equilibrium (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993; Gersick, 1991; Romanelli and Tushman, 42 1994), and 2 – Sabatier’s (1991, 1988) advocacy coalition. The purpose of this section is three-folds, 1 – I will argue that all the above-mentioned three theories of policy formulation can be linked together to provide an in-depth concept of the process of policy formulation, 2 – Nonprofits of all kinds attempt to influence the process and outcomes of policy formulation, and 3 – Perspective and views of nonprofits play a very important role in how nonprofits influence policy implementation. 2.2.1 – Kingdon’s Garbage Can Model: Literature indicates that various factors influence environmental policy. The garbage can model developed by Kingdon (1984) stipulates three streams of influence on policy: 1 – problem stream, 2 – policy stream, 3 – political stream. Where problem stream refers to real world situations and problems, policy stream refers to interest groups, researchers, etc., and political stream refers to political actors, elected legislators, elections, etc. It therefore implies that in addition to various real world factors like demographics, geography, etc.; non profit and public sector organizations/groups and processes also impact policy formulation. Looking at these three streams of influence, further sophisticated studies provided more detailed information about variables that significantly influence environmental outcomes. Let us take a look at those factors: 1 – Problem Stream: Some studies demonstrate that as far as real world factors are concerned, age, gender, education and income levels are directly and positively related to concern for environment (Neuhaus, 1971; Tucker, 1982; Mohai, 1985). In addition, Hofferbert’s model (1974) of policy outcomes shows that 1 – historic geographic conditions, 2 – socio-economic composition, 3 – mass political behavior, 4 – 43 governmental institutions, and 5 – elite behavior, all impact policy outcomes (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1981). Others argue that factors such as region, residence and salience of the issue also play significant role in concern, action and voting for environment (Shipan and Lowry, 2001) which leads to policy formulation. Providing evidence from Nixon era environmental laws and regulations they claim that in spite of differing political dispositions, bipartisan support in Congress helped pass major environmental regulation. 2 – Political Stream: Research by Kiser and Ostrom (1982) argues that institutional factors are very significant in policy outcomes. These factors include rules and laws governing a particular issue, rules for entry and exit, demographic factors, scope of authority, permissibility and intensity of communication, and means of aggregating individual opinions into collective decision. Some scholars think that conservative, neo-corporatist regimes take environmentalism into account, and that non profit groups are more effective in such regimes (Enloe, 1975; Vogel, 1986; Janicke, 1995; Crepaz, 1995). Others (Offe, 1981) believe that in neo-corporatist regimes powerful groups get more representation through their interest group strategies; and since non profit groups lack the resources of powerful interest groups they get marginalized in such regimes. However, some authors believe that non profit groups act as interest groups (Blowers, 1997). Therefore, it depends on the relative power of non profit groups to other interest groups which determines their level of influence on environmental policy. Another group of researchers is of the opinion that leftist regimes being more liberal, and open to new dispositions, are more conducive to nonprofit groups and hence 44 nonprofits have higher level of influence for environmental policy during such regimes (Jahn, 1998). In addition, liberal public opinion ensures election of representatives with similar values and this leads to stronger environmental regulations in states with predominantly liberal disposition (Kalt and Zupan, 1984). 3 – Policy Stream: The advocacy coalition framework developed by Sabatier (1988) contends that public and private groups sharing the same disposition form coalitions. We can think of ‘advocacy coalition’ as the ‘policy entrepreneur’ (Kingdon, 1984), with regard to their expert knowledge. Many scholars think that non profit groups use the strategy of keeping environmental issues on the agenda. They “expand their traditional strategy of keeping the environment on the public and political agendas towards participation in direct negotiation with economic agents and state representatives close to the centre of the decision-making process” (Mol, 1995, p. 58). They might not always be able to directly impact the policy decisions, but they generally contribute to the policy outcomes by bringing environmental issues in lime light, creating public awareness about such issues, and influencing public opinion (Rochon and Mazmanian, 1993), and thus influencing policy formulation. Also, nonprofit groups influence public opinion through strategies of education and awareness among general public (Haas, 1990; Khagram, 2004), and then this public opinion plays significant (although not solitary) role in impacting environmental policy formulation (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1984; Milbrath, 1989; Dunlap, Xiao and McCright, 2001). 45 2.2.2 – Punctuated Equilibrium (P-E): The theory of punctuated equilibrium (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993; Gersick, 1991; Romanelli and Tushman, 1994) states that policy issues are routinely slightly modified and taken consideration of during the normal course of events, however, no particular issue gains prominence, until some extraordinary event or events bring the issues into limelight and drastic change in the policy, in particular in environmental policy. The theory contends that once an issue is brought into limelight, social movements are formed and mobilized, positive feedback happens, and the policy regarding such issue undergoes drastic change. Once that major change has occurred the policy process attains its usual stable state, with only minor changes over long periods of time, until another major burst of transformation occurs due to another wave of positive feedback process (Gersick, 1991; Miller and Friesen, 1980; Romanelli and Tushman, 1994; Jones and Baumgartner, 2005). Environmental policy in particular bears high correlation to P-E kind of policy evolution (Eldredge 1985; Jones and Baumgartner 2005; True, Baumgartner and Jones, 1999; Elliot, Ackerman and Millian, 1985). Punctuated Equilibrium (P-E) explains public policy evolution process as being usually stable with minor changes. However, unlike incrementalism (Lindblom, 1959, Wildavsky, 1964), P-E argues that these minor evolutionary steps do not add up to any major transformation. The P-E theory explains the dynamics of policy formulation process and the political and social process that might be responsible for positive feedback process that lead to drastic policy change, the mechanisms which bring such events to stark focus and 46 force drastic policy measures can be explained using Sabatier’s advocacy coalition theory (Sabatier, 1991, 1988). Let us therefore, consider the advocacy coalition framework. 2.2.3 – Advocacy Coalition Framework: The advocacy coalition framework developed by Sabatier (1991, 1988) contends that public and private groups sharing similar dispositions and values form coalitions. This can imply that it is not simply the type of nonprofit, e.g. environmental, social services, etc., but rather the shared values and perspectives about issues that motivate nonprofits to form coalitions. Hence when investigating environmental policy processes and outcomes we can consider all kinds of nonprofits as active players. Advocacy coalition framework views policy change as a function of three factors (Sabatier, 1991, 1988): 1. The interaction of competing advocacy coalitions within a policy subsystem/community: In the case of environmental policies, usually two major groups compete with each other – the environmental interests which forge together into coalitions, and the interests of development which form appropriate coalitions to further their claims. The interaction of these competing coalitions under external conditions and effects of stable system – a democratic, participative, open political and institutional structure and practices that enables advocacy coalitions to communicate and compete with each other, leads to policy change. 2. Changes external to the subsystem: Changes in policies governing non- environmental issues, e.g. industry, agriculture, health, etc. and research about health issues tend to impact the environmental policies being formulated. For example the 47 research linking Leukemia to water pollution, industrialization and oil transportation potentially impact water pollution abatement policy. 3. The effects of stable system parameters: The efforts of environmental coalitions as well as other interest groups work within an established political and social framework with a shared understanding of how the system works by all groups. These system parameters provide the necessary background for the effective participation of advocacy coalitions or nonprofit organizations (Sabatier, 1991), in a participative democracy. This framework affords a milieu, whereby civilized discourse and hence policy formulation, is viable among various groups of advocacy coalitions. Advocacy coalition framework also, distinguishes between core and secondary elements of belief system and public policies. The “core beliefs are hypothesized to be relatively stable over periods of (time)” (italic added) (Sabatier, 1991, pp.153). Change in core public policies or major policy change occurs, according to this theory, when one dominant coalition is replaced by the other. According to this theory, the transformation in dominant coalition occurs due to factors external to the subsystem. Those factors can be economic policy, energy policy, numerous incidents of severe environmental degradation, etc. Such major incidents, e.g. burning of spontaneous fire in Cuyahoga River, cause major shift in core beliefs in public opinion, and environmentalists of all kinds replaced economic development as the dominant value and perspective. We can argue based on the claims of P-E (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993) that this shift in core belief corresponds to the major transformation of P-E. P-E provides us with the path that policy formulation usually takes; the advocacy coalition explains the rationale behind ‘period of stability’ and ‘sharp transformation’ of 48 policy. Advocacy coalition explains periods of relative stability as periods of domination of a particular core belief, where advocacy coalitions bring about change at the secondary level of policy only. The sudden transformation is explained as shift in core beliefs, values and perspectives which is caused by factors happening in the world outside of the policy subsystem. P-E similarly argues that some drastic event or events lead to the positive feedback and sudden transformation of the policy. Linking the two theories adds depth and more understanding to the phenomenon of policy formation and the role of nonprofits in environmental policy formulation. Conclusion: This section has argued that that elements of all three of these theories (P-E and advocacy coalition), when combined improve and enrich the understanding and explanation of the process of policy formulation. Moreover, the nonprofit organizations explain, connect and add depth of understanding and valuable insight into the process of policy formulation, and the views, values, perspectives and dispositions of nonprofits have strong bearing on how they impact policy formulation. 2.3: Review of the Literature and the Theoretical Framework: Nonprofits’ Role in Influencing Environmental Policy Implementation Introduction: This section demonstrates, based on the review of the literature that: 1- role of nonprofits can be explained informed by the top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) and the bottom-up (Lipsky,1980) theories of policy implementation, 2 – the environmental ethics / perspectives of nonprofit organizations play some role in how they influence the interpretation of policy for policy implementation by public agencies, and 3 49 – Nonprofits of all types attempt to influence the process of environmental policy formulation. Although scholars have explored the working and activism of nonprofit organizations in-depth, and although they have pointed out the mechanisms of nonprofits’ influence on policy processes in general (DiMaggio and Anheier, 1990), no systematic theory has yet been proposed to explain the modus operandi of nonprofit’s effect on the processes of policy implementation. This research proposes to contribute to this hole in the literature. Please consider that when this research talks about policy implementation it implies policy implementation by public agencies and by the top and bottom levels of public bureaucracy – not directly by nonprofit organizations. This research proposes that we can systematically look at nonprofit organizations’ work on policy implementation through “both” of the theories of top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) and bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981) approaches to policy implementation. It contends that nonprofit organizations influence public opinion at the grass-roots level, as well as influence the interpretation and implementation of policies through influencing perspectives and opinions, and monitoring of activities of the public executives responsible for policy implementation. Literature shows that perspectives/dispositions have strong implications for action and policy. “… ideas do, in fact, have a powerful effect on our thinking and discourse. No matter how carefully we try to separate the political and social ideas, that have been and continue to be expressed in our culture … the task is close to impossible” (Spicer, 2004, p. 354). 50 In this research I argue that the nonprofit organizations work at the level of values and opinions, and attempt to modify and redefine public and elites’ values and ethics and hence interpretation of policies. I have already discussed the role of values and perspectives of nonprofits in their influence on the policy process. Now let us examine the role of nonprofit organizations through the top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) and bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981) levels of influence. 2.3.1 – Top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) Theory: Top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) theory stipulates that policies are implemented by policy elites per their interpretation of the policies. The interpretation of policies, this study argues is a function of values held by policy elites. A more detailed discussion of values and the way nonprofits influence values has already been presented above. However, the question, at this point is, where do nonprofit organizations fit in the general scheme of the top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) theory? Scholars argue that the third sector comprising of nonprofits, markets and households is an intermediate sector and not a clear-cut third sector (Evans, 1995). However, nonprofit organizations play a more substantial role in policy as compared to general public (Sabatier, 1991), due to their proximity and advocacy efforts directed at changing the values and behavior of the policy elites. General public lack the resources to obtain, research and collect information needed to impact environmental policy. Therefore, it is the knowledge elites within non profit groups who have the knowledge and commitment to shape environmental policy (Sabatier, 1991). These experts are considered by some scholars as “epistemic communities”, “networks of knowledge-based 51 communities that are politically empowered through their claims to exercise authoritative knowledge and motivated by shared principles and causal beliefs” (Haas, 1990, p. 349). We have already seen that changes outside of the policy subsystems (Sabatier, 1991) impact policy formulation, for example studies about the harmful impacts of sub- standard environmental quality impact environmental policy formulation. It can, therefore, be argued that nonprofits that are not focused on environment, e.g. social services, professional and religious nonprofits which benefit from and include knowledge elites and experts, e.g. doctors and nurses, teachers and lawyers, engineers, botanists, zoologists, etc. might also play their part in policy implementation by trying to influence the interpretation of policy by policy elites. Although the efforts of such nonprofits might not be directly focused on the natural environment, their actions and strategies of influence on the policy elites might have some bearing on the implementation and outcomes of environmental policy. Nonprofit organizations attempt to impact policy elites through their advocacy efforts as well as through other efforts e.g. research and publication. Through such efforts, nonprofits attempt to modify and re-define the values of policy elites. Once the values of policy elites are redefined, through advocacy and persuasion by nonprofit organizations, then logically speaking the policy elites would tend to interpret the policies according to their newly formed values. Needless to say, these new values of the policy elites are influenced by the nonprofit organizations, and therefore, would demonstrate features of the perspectives of nonprofit organizations in the way they implement policies. 52 2.3.2 – Bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981) Theory: Proponents of bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981) approach argue that policy implementation is a function of grass-roots bureaucracy (Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981).). This view contends that grass-roots bureaucracy implements policies according to their interpretation and perspectives about the policy and per the ground realities as viewed by them. Now, where do nonprofit organizations fit in the framework of bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981) theory? Scholars think that nonprofit organizations try and sometimes succeed in influencing grass-roots perspectives and public opinion (Bosso and Guber, 2003; Bullard and Johnson, 2000; Gale, 1986; Carmin and Balsar, 2002; Clarke, 1996; Fisher, 1993; Edwards, 1996; Shabecoff, 1993). Nonprofit organizations use different strategies of action, of which consciousness raising is considered most instrumental in effecting public opinion (Blowers, 1997). This research argues that when nonprofit organizations shape public opinion, inform and re-define public values and ethics, they must also influence, at least some of the grass-roots bureaucrats, since grass-roots bureaucracy is also included in the general public. It contends that nonprofit organizations strategies of consciousness raising primarily impacts the perspectives which translates into how grass-roots bureaucracy interprets and perceives policies it implements. If nonprofits, succeed in modifying the values, ethics and perspectives of at least, some grass-roots bureaucrats, to some extent – and it is reasonable to believe that nonprofits would have some impact on the re-definition of at least part of the grass-roots bureaucracy’s values, then, according to the bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981) theory, when these grass-roots bureaucrats interpret policies according to their new perspectives, and implement it 53 according to that new perspectives, which is shaped by the influence of nonprofit organizations – it would mean that nonprofit organizations have influence on policy implementation, through the bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981) process. Conclusion: We have thus far established that nonprofit organizations impact policy implementation through influencing the perspectives and values and hence the interpretation of policies by the top and bottom level bureaucracy of public agencies. 2.4: Review of the Literature and Theoretical Framework: Environmental Ethics of Nonprofit Organizations: Introduction: This section looks at the different categories of environmental ethics, the purpose of this section is: 1- to explain the major categories of environmental ethics and environmental dispositions, and 2 – to show that environmental ethics are a function of environmental dispositions. In this research I argue that environmental ethics are developed out of environmental dispositions. Environmental Ethics: Environmental ethics comprise of many diverse perspectives about humans’ relationship with nature “it is dominated by pluralist approaches” (Buttel, 1987). The ethics are sometimes “at odds with each other – because of very different orientations toward environment, technology, and environmental reform” (Buttel, 1987). Here for the purpose of simplicity I will discuss the three major categories of environmental ethics: 54 2.4.1 –Instrumentalism and Anthropocentrism: One of the most prominent among the different types of environmental ethics is the neo-liberal model of economic development (Appiah-Opoku and Mulamoottil, 1997), inspired by utilitarianism (VanDeVeer and Pierce, 1997). Utilitarianism (Bentham, 1789) is based on the concept of anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism believes in man’s centrality in the scheme of the things in the world, implying man’s right to dominate the environment. Accordingly, utilitarianism attempts to utilize the natural environment for the benefit of man. “My criteria are oriented to people, not penguins. Damage to penguins, or sugar pines, or geological marvels is, without more, simply irrelevant. One must … say: Penguins are important because people enjoy seeing them walk about rock. … I reject the proposition that we ought to respect the “balance of nature” or to “preserve the environment” unless the reason for doing so, express or implied is the benefit of man. Ever man is entitled to his own definition of Walden Pond, but there is no definition that has any moral superiority over another, except by reference to the selfish needs of the human race” (Baxter, 1974, p. 5). It must, however, be noted that utilitarianism emphasizes equality of all humans. It seems very reasonable to argue that the idea of considering nonhuman entities on earth as instrumental for human welfare is the foundation of the concept of anthropocentrism, which argues that non-human entities owe their value to the utility it provides to the human beings. Many scholars contend that the value system of utilitarianism, and neo-liberal economic ideology, benefited the society, by ushering in prosperity, which in turn helped the objectives of environmentalism. This concept improved the quality, and quantity of life; it made general prosperity possible; it reduced poverty; it removed numerous natural risks away from human lives (Baxter, 1974; Freeman III, 1983). Most importantly, by 55 helping reduce poverty, and hunger, the neo-liberal model of economic development helped protect the environment, and environmental resources’ base. By reducing hunger through the use of free-market ideology, resources e.g. forests, fisheries, etc, stand a better chance of survival and sustainability. Without free market, these resources are most likely uncritically used to feed the large populations of poor, or for exporting valuable raw material, etc. (Tobin, 2003). Other scholars contend that modern material progress has become possible, only at immense environmental costs to the present and future generations. This view contends that market place is not well suited to determining solutions for environmental problems, especially those environmental issues which are related to the sustainability of the environment for intergenerational equity (Heyne and Johnson, 1976). “We should acknowledge that certain ecological effects are not commensurable with economic effects measured in dollars. Where trade-offs between non-commensurable magnitudes are involved, choices must be made through the political system” (Freeman III, 1983, p. 300). Scholars claim that since many people do not cast their vote in the market economy, therefore, it is not practically possible to achieve Pareto optimal solutions of environmental problems through free-market (VanDeVeer and Pierce, 1997). However, this concept pertains to care for the environment because humans benefit from the natural resources as well as pristine natural environment and clean water and air. Therefore, the concern for environment, although not emanating from the recognition of the inherent worth of the environment, happens indirectly through concern for human welfare. 56 2.4.2 - Ecocentrism: As opposed to anthropocentrism, another perspective advanced by some scholars is that of ecocentrism and/or deep ecology. Ecocentrism argues that nature should be preserved for its own inherent worth and not just because of its utility to the human beings. However, the term might mean different things in different contexts. Ramchandra Guha (1989), for example looks at different interpretations of deep ecology. He is of the opinion that deep ecology in the United States (Leopold, Thoreau, Muir, Huxley, Santayana, etc.) pertains to selective reading of local environmental ethics of developing countries. This kind of deep ecology is usually, about preserving natural habitat, and about maintaining pristine, untouched, virgin natural parks, and grasslands. Although mostly ecocentric, it is sometimes criticized as being anthropocentric at heart, as preserving the nature for the enjoyment of the wealthy human beings alone, so the preservation is sometimes not for the inherent worth of the environment but deep down for the benefit of a select group of human beings. In developing countries (Guha, 1989), due to practical considerations, the pristine land is difficult to preserve. The farmers in India for example, cannot preserve pristine landscapes, because the country has to feed a large population. However, the developing countries and indigenous societies, as a manifestation of their concern for the environment, bring the land under plough in a way that respects nature, and in a way that human development does not harm the balance of nature. Therefore, measures to create natural preservations in India, constructed on the deep ecology model of the developed world, are viewed as elitist in the developing countries – pristine landscapes for the rich. 57 However, no matter how we understand ecocentrism, it seems to underline the inherent worth of all natural states regardless of their utility for human race. This way of thinking about and relating to the environment gives birth to the distinct environmental ethics that environment should be preserved for its own sake irrespective of whether it benefits the humans or not. 2.4.3 – Strong and Weak Sustainable Development: Somewhere in between the two extremes of strong anthropocentrism and strong eceocentrism lies the concept of sustainable development. Defined variously by various scholars, the exact definition of sustainable development remains elusive (Owens, 1994; Lele, 1991). However, most authors agree that the term came into being in 1980 when the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) presented the World Conservation Strategy (WCS) with it, "the overall aim of achieving sustainable development through the conservation of living resources" (IUCN, 1980). World Commission on Environment and Development defined it as: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987; p. 43). Pearce (1993) defines sustainable development as the development where the incomes of future generations should be no less than those of present generations. Sustainable development is at once a scientific principle, a political goal, a social practice, and a moral guideline (Blowers, 1997); it has implications for all public policies (Paehlke, 2003). Sustainable development has been at the base of not only environmental policy, but also policies related to transportation, housing, urbanization, etc. ever since it was explicitly defined (Christoff, 1996). 58 This idea can be situated somewhere in the middle of high anthropocentrism and high ecocentrism because it employs the centrality of humans like anthropocentrism, but also attempts to include the elements of social, environmental and inter-generation justice and equity in its fold to various degrees similar to that of ecocentrism. The idea behind this kind of ethics seems to be that the natural environment and the humans are dependant on each other. It views the relationship between humans and the environment as symbiotic. So rather than humans being solely and unequivocally the center of universe like in high anthropocentrism, and rather than everything having inherent worth irrespective of its utility to humans like in high ecocentrism, this concept is based on the thinking that environment is to be taken care because it is useful for the humans and because everything has inherent worth. This way of thinking apparently gives rise to the environmental ethics of sustainability. At the policy level the influence of the concept of sustainable development varies across a large spectrum of ethical ideas. We can use the classification of “weak” and “strong” model of sustainable development (Alauddin, 2002) to differentiate between the two extremes of this spectrum. “Weak” model of sustainability is depicted in the idea of ecological modernization (Mol, 1995). Ecological modernization believes that pollution reduction and sustainable environment can be achieved through technological innovation, without necessarily changing life style, consumption or growth levels of modern society (Mol, 1995). “Strong” sustainable development on the other hand pertains to addressing the deeper issues of social justice, and inherent worth of everything natural. Strong sustainable development believes in environmental protection through changing life- 59 styles, growth level, and modern economic institutions (Naess, 1988) in order to preserve the natural environment for future generations. This view blames modernization for the disintegration of social structures, and social support (Beck, 1996). Some scholars think that weak sustainable development is better able to achieve environmental sustainability through increased growth, and development (Mol, 1995). Economic development increases the size of the pie, and reduces poverty. Poverty reduction, many scholars think leads to better environmental outcomes (Tobin, 2003). Others (Beck, 1996) think that the objective of continuous and rapid growth is ultimately damaging to the environment. Therefore, growth should either be stopped, or slowed down to prevent any further risk to the environment. The concept of sustainable development also pertains to decentralization, with a view of utilizing, and incorporating the ideas of the grassroots level population in planning for economic development commensurate with social ideals of social justice. It is considered by scholars as empowering for people and community groups. Sustainable development as a norm penetrates to the grassroots level through nonprofit organizations to influence the public opinion, and environmental policy. Other scholars argue that sustainable development is not a real ethical perspective, rather a set of technical guidelines (Beckerman, 1994). They think that the goal of maximizing human welfare, with proper discount rate for the future environmental resources, might be able to better resolve environmental issues (Beckerman, 1994). As a middle ground to both these approaches, some authors emphasize the need to combine ecological planning, and development of weak sustainable development with the social objectives of strong sustainable development (Blowers, 1997). 60 2.4.4 - Environmental Dispositions: Environmental dispositions refer to the way people think about and relate to their environment (McKechnie, 1974). George McKechnie (1974) contributed greatly to the field of environmental dispositions when, as his dissertation research he classified environmental dispositions of individuals into eight environmental scores of: 1 – Pastoralism, 2 – Urbanism, 3 - Environmental Adaptation, 4 - Stimulus Seeking, 5 - Environmental Trust, 6 – Antiquarianism, 7 - Need for Privacy, and 8 - Mechanical Orientation. McKechnie (1974) classified environmental dispositions of individuals in to the following categories: “ 1. Pastoralism (PA): Opposition to land development; concern about population growth; preservation of natural resources, including open space; acceptance of natural forces as shapers of human life; sensitivity to pure environmental experiences; self-sufficiency in the natural environment. 2. Urbanism (UR): Enjoyment of high density living; appreciation of unusual and varied stimulus patterns of the city; interest in cultural life; enjoyment of interpersonal richness and diversity. 3. Environmental Adaptation (EA): Modification of the environment to satisfy needs and desires, and to provide comfort and leisure; opposition to governmental control over private land use; preference for highly designed or adapted environments; use of technology to solve environmental problems; preference for stylized environmental details. 4. Stimulus Seeking (SS): Interest in travel and exploration of unusual places; enjoyment of complex and intense physical sensations; breadth of interests. 5. Environmental Trust (ET): General environmental openness, responsiveness, and trust; competence in finding one’s way about the environment vs. fear of potentially dangerous environments; security of home; fear of being alone and unprotected. 6. Antiquarianism (AN): Enjoyment of antiques and historical places; preference for traditional vs. modern design; aesthetic sensitivity to man- made environments and to landscape; appreciation of cultural artifacts of earlier eras; tendency to collect objects for their emotional significance. 61 7. Need for Privacy (NP): Need for physical isolation from stimuli; enjoyment of solitude; dislike of neighboring; need for freedom from distraction. 8. Mechanical Orientation (MO): Interest in mechanics in its various forms; enjoyment in working with one’s hands; interest in technological processes and basic principles of science; appreciation of the functional properties of objects.” (p.8) Based on the discussion of the three major environmental philosophies mentioned above, it seems obvious that the environmental ethics and environmental dispositions are related to each other. Environmental ethics are either formed by or assist in formation of the environmental dispositions. 2.5 - Theoretical Framework: Introduction: Ample scholarly literature is available on nonprofit organizations and the role of nonprofit organizations on policy formulation (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993; Sabatier, 1991, 1988). The process of policy implementation, and the role of bureaucracy in policy implementation, have also been explained succinctly by the top-down and bottom-up theories (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989; Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981). However, little is reported about role of nonprofits in policy implementation process and on the impact of nonprofits on actual policy outcomes. Moreover, although there is sufficient research in the field about the interaction of nonprofit organizations with each other, we still do not know about the patterns of this interaction for different types of nonprofits and whether interaction of nonprofits with each other has any influence on the process of policy implementation? We do not know if the nature and patterns of this interaction are influenced by the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations? The role of values, perspectives and dispositions of nonprofit organization has also not been 62 sufficiently explored. There is no systematic theoretical framework which explains the part played by the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations on the policy outcomes. This research attempts to address these lacunae in the field by developing a comprehensive, detailed and systematic theoretical framework to explain the effects of ethics of nonprofit organizations on policy outcomes and policy implementation. This theoretical framework contends that policy outcomes are the result of the processes of policy formulation and policy implementation. Therefore, any factor or factors having some bearing on the twin processes of formulation and implementation, would, by virtue of associative property, shape the outcomes. This theoretical framework goes on to argue that nonprofit organizations help shape policy formulation as well as policy implementation, and thus, by associative property, have an effect on policy outcomes. Moreover, it argues that the influence of nonprofits on policy processes is, among other things, a function of the ethic, more specifically, environmental ethics of nonprofits. The theoretical framework further states that, nonprofit organizations impact policy processes at the level of values and opinions of elites as well as general public, and through changing values, they modify public opinion, behavior, policy and the policy outcomes. Hence by associative property nonprofits’ ethics are bound to influence policy outcomes also. This theoretical framework proposes that nonprofit organizations influence the policy processes and eventually the policy outcomes, according to their “respective perspectives” or ethics, or the way they think about and relate to the environment. 63 Therefore, nonprofit organizations holding different kinds of views will impact values, opinions and environmental outcomes in varied ways. Since all kinds of nonprofit organizations, not just environmental nonprofits, play their roles in environmental policy formulation and implementation, for example social services nonprofits for issues of human health and education; faith-based nonprofits for issues of social and environmental justice, professional nonprofits on issues of development and greening of the industry, and fraternal nonprofits through discussions and social events, all are involved in the processes of environmental policy in one way or the other. Therefore, this theoretical framework argues that when we are looking at the environmental policy processes and outcomes, we will be able to provide a more detailed and more thick understanding and description if instead of just exploring the environmental nonprofits, we take all kinds of nonprofits into consideration. The theoretical framework developed by this study demonstrates in a structured way the role of nonprofits’ dispositions on policy outcomes. This framework provides the systematic description in the following steps: 1 – Policy Formulation: Based on the discussion above, it demonstrates nonprofits’ bearing on policy formulation by providing linkages between the two major theories of policy formulation viz., punctuated equilibrium (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993), and advocacy coalition framework (Sabatier, 1991). 2 – Policy Implementation: Informed by the top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) and bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981) theories of policy implementation, this theoretical framework shows that nonprofit organizations engage in activities to influence the top and/or the bottom levels of bureaucracy. 64 3 – Policy Outcomes: Having demonstrated that nonprofits impact policy formulation and policy implementation, this framework then shows that by virtue of associative property, it is logical and reasonable to argue nonprofits would per force have an impact on policy outcomes. 4 – Values/Dispositions of Nonprofits and Policy Outcomes: Throughout the discussion about nonprofits’ influence on policy processes of formulation and implementation, this section shows that the values held by respective nonprofit organizations have a strong bearing on the nonprofits’ impact on the policy processes and on the policy outcomes. Moreover, since we saw in earlier sections that interaction among nonprofits, interaction of nonprofits with public and private organizations and nonprofits’ selection of specific strategies is a function of their environmental ethics, therefore, for the purpose of this research, I contend that the activism and specific activities of nonprofit organizations as well as their interaction with each other for influencing policy implementation (since we are looking at policies that are already formulated) is important in determining nonprofits’ role in policy outcomes, because it is important in their role during policy implementation. This theoretical framework provides linkages between environmental dispositions and environmental ethics, based on the argument provided in section 2.4 that environmental ethics are a function of environmental dispositions. In order to further investigate about the role of values of nonprofits, this section provides linkages between environmental ethics discussed in section 2.3 and the specific environmental dispositional categories also discussed in section 2.3. It places environmental dispositions (McKechnie, 1974) on a spectrum / continuum of 65 environmental ethical philosophies, ranging from high anthropocentrism to high ecocentrism. This continuum is provided to assist in the later on in this research in measuring the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations using the values obtained for environmental dispositions. This section is divided into three parts. In the first part, I explain the associative property in detail, as this forms the crux of the theoretical framework presented in this section. The objective of this part is to show that if we can show that nonprofits influence policy formulation and policy implementation then it is reasonable to argue that nonprofits would per force impact policy outcomes. In the second part I bring the arguments presented in the first part of this section, and the arguments of review sections 2.2 and 2.3 about nonprofits and policy formulation and nonprofits and policy implementation respectively, together through the associative property to show that nonprofits influence policy outcomes and this influence is strongly dictated by the values, and environmental ethics held by respective nonprofit organizations. In the last and third part, I provide specific linkages between environmental dispositions and environmental ethics based on the arguments presented in section 2.3. 2.5.1 - The Associative Property: The associative property, borrowed from Algebra, when applied to policy outcomes, would state that policy outcomes depend on the policy processes; therefore, all factors having impact on policy processes would have an impact on policy outcomes. Since the major processes of policy are policy formulation and policy implementation, therefore, policy outcomes depend on what policy decisions are taken in policy formulation, and on how policy is implemented. Moreover, since nonprofits are major 66 players during both policy formulation and policy implementation, therefore we can say that nonprofits by virtue of associative property influence policy outcomes. For a detailed discussion please see Appendix “D”. 2.5.2 - Nonprofits and Policy Outcomes: Based on the arguments presented in this chapter, we have thus theoretical demonstrated that: 1 - Nonprofit organizations of all kinds influence the process of policy formulation, especially environmental policy, as depicted by the theories of punctuated equilibrium (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993) and the advocacy coalition framework (Sabatier, 1991, 1988). This influence is based on the values and perspectives held by nonprofit organizations. 2 - We have also shown that nonprofits of all kinds play a significant role in policy implementation by attempting to influence the values and especially the environmental values, and hence the interpretation of policies by the top and bottom levels of bureaucracy. The theories of top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) and bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981) argue that bureaucrats implement policies according to their interpretation of policies, and nonprofits by influencing the interpretation of policies by the bureaucrats attempt to impact policy implementation through public agencies. Again, this influence is dictated by the particular values, perspectives and ideas held by respective nonprofit organizations. 3 - Based on our description of the associative property of nonprofits’ influence on policy outcomes, we can thus say that since nonprofits influence policy formulation and policy implementation, and since these two policy processes have considerable 67 influence on policy outcomes, therefore, nonprofits of all types, as significant actors in both of these processes should have some impact, according to their values and perspectives, on policy outcomes in general and environmental policy outcomes in particular. Therefore, we can conclude that nonprofits of all kinds potentially influence policy outcomes in general and environmental policy outcomes in particular. This influence is a function of the perspective, values and environmental ethics of respective nonprofit organizations. We now come to our last point that environmental ethics of nonprofits at least to some extent shape their activities and response to policy implementation. 2.5.3 - Linking Environmental Dispositions and Environmental Ethics: Considering the definitions of anthropocentrism and ecocentrism provided in section 2.3, this research situates McKechnie’s (1974) environmental dispositions on a spectrum of ethical categories raging from high anthropocentrism to strong ecocentrism, with intermediate types of environmental ethics e.g. sustainable development lying somewhere in between the two extremes of strong anthropocentrism and strong ecocentrism. I decided to use ERI versus the revised 15 scale NEP (New Environmental Paradigm (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig and Jones, 2000) for two reasons, first, although the 15 scale NEP has included dimensions of sustainable development, it’s dimensions of limits to growth, balance with nature and anti-anthropocentrism although cover the basic concepts of pragmatism, ecocentrism and anthropocentrism (in that order) I needed a continuum for my research, which was I think more appropriately served by the ERI. 68 Second, and more importantly one of the criticisms of NEP is that it is too simple and straight forward and hence not very suitable for highly educated survey-takers (Lalonde and Jackson, 2002). In the case of this research I attempted to survey the CEOs of nonprofits, I assumed and the collected data later supported that those are mostly very highly qualified people, and hence for the purpose of this research ERI which is more circuitous and indirect provided a more reliable form of survey instrument. However, I intend to use NEP for my future research in different contexts. Based on the definitions of different categories of environmental disposition provided by McKechnie (1974), Environmental Adaptation is closest to the highest level of anthropocentrism and Pastoralism seems to be very near to the highest form of ecocentrism. Environmental adaptation considers the environment as subservient to the human beings. It supports modification of environment for human benefits, human needs according to this disposition have preference over the needs of the environment, hence I placed it at the extreme end of anthropocentrism. Pastoralism on the other hand accepts environmental forces as the shapers for human lives – hence assigns inherent worth to the environment which is independent of its utility or subservience to human needs. Therefore I placed it at the ecocentric extreme of the continuum. Now let us discuss the placement of dispositions from high anthropocentrism to high ecocentrism on a continuum. After Environmental Adaptation as the highest form of anthropocentrism, I placed Mechanical Orientation (MO) next. Mechanical Orientation portrays a disposition that is inclined towards modifying natural elements to serve the 69 needs and wants of humans. However, since it is also a creative category therefore it could not be placed as the most extreme form of anthropocentrism, sand hence was placed second. Since it has a strong potential for use of human consumption and stresses functioning and form over content, therefore it is still toward the anthropocentric end of the spectrum Mechanical Orientation is followed by Urbanism. Urbanism values adaptation of environment for human consumption, however, simultaneously it also values diversity. Therefore, although it stresses centrality of humans over the natural environment, it does so in a balance of appreciation of differences – which makes it less extreme anthropocentric as compared to Environmental Adaptation and Need for Privacy, hence it comes after those two away from the extreme end of anthropocentrism. Moreover, this category of environmental dispositions seems to belong to This is followed by Stimulus Seeking. Stimulus Seeking refers to “interest in travel and exploration of unusual places; enjoyment of complex and intense physical sensations; breadth of interests” (McKechnie, 1974). It clearly emphasizes content over form. However, this is done with a focus on human enjoyment of places. This implies a centrality of human needs – a higher inherent worth of humans compared to other things in the natural environment. Therefore, although it is more toward the ecocentric end of the spectrum, it is not among the more clearly ecocentric dispositions. Need for Privacy comes next to Stimulus Seeking. It pertains to lack of interest in the natural environment as well as denying not only the value of environmental stimuli but also declining human contact. Therefore I placed it next to Stimulus Seeking and somewhere in between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism. 70 Antiquarianism is more clearly ecocentric. It emphasizes emotions attached to natural environment and older objects and aesthetic sensitivity to the natural environment. It values the content and the emotional significance of objects, not the form and function. Hence it is more strongly ecocentric as compared to Stimulus Seeking. Even more ecocentric than antiquarianism is Environmental Trust. It treats the environment at par with human beings. It considers the natural environment as an inherent part of life on earth and the human’s relationship with the natural environment as symbiotic. It recognizes the inherent worth of the natural environment more strongly and more detached to its utility to human beings. Hence it is toward the stronger end of ecocentrim followed by the most extreme ecocentric category of Pastoralism. TABLE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISPOSITIONS ALONG THE ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS SPECTRUM: Anthropocentrism to Ecocentrism Environmental Dispositions High Anthropocentrism Environmental Adaptation Mechanical Orientation Urbanism Stimulus Seeking Need for Privacy Antiquarianism Environmental Trust High Ecocentrism Pastoralism We have already seen in section 2.1 that the strategies of action selected by nonprofit organizations as well as their interaction with each other depends at least to some extent on their environmental perspectives and ethics. We also noted that the strategies of action and the nature of interaction of nonprofits impacts policy formulation. 71 We argued that this also holds true for the influence of nonprofits on the policy implementation process. Now, based on our discussion in this section above about the environmental ethics and dispositions of nonprofits, we can say that: 1. If the environmental ethics of nonprofits are important in determining their strategies of action, and 2. If the environmental ethics of nonprofits are important in determining the nature of their interaction with each other and their specific activities, and 3. If the strategies, interaction and activities of nonprofits play a significant role in their participation during the policy processes which we have seen influence policy outcomes by associative property, then 4. We can theoretically argue that the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations influence the policy outcomes and in particular the environmental policy outcomes. Conclusion: This chapter contributes to the existing knowledge by spelling out the role and applicability of the theories of policy processes for the participation of nonprofit organizations in the policy processes. It further contributes by systematically demonstrating through its theoretical framework that the role of nonprofit organizations in policy formulation as well as policy implementation is important in comprehending and explaining policy outcomes in general and environmental policy outcomes in particular. This chapter shows that nonprofits’ influence on the processes and outcomes of policies is a function of their values and perspectives. It lays the ground for empirical testing of this argument by providing linkages between environmental dispositions and 72 environmental ethics. Since environmental dispositions can be measured using the Environmental Response Inventory, therefore, environmental ethics when linked to dispositions can also be measured, thus providing means and ways of testing the theoretical framework of this research. 73 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Introduction: Based on the theoretical framework presented in chapter 2, this chapter explains the methodology to test the research question: What is the impact of the environmental ethics of different types of local nonprofit organizations on local environmental outcomes? Since this question requires response to several secondary questions, therefore this research was carried out in various steps. This is a dissertation research hence time and resources were both limited. Methods selected for this study therefore, considered not only the research questions but certain limitations also. One of the major hurdles was that the literature does not indicate any reliable measure of air quality outcomes at the local level, which can reliably be considered as a measure of locally emitted air pollution. Identification of such an indicator / measure was a must in order to respond to the main research question of this research viz. understanding the relationship of local environmental outcomes with the environmental ethics of local nonprofit organizations. Therefore, this study conducted more detailed research to identify an indicator to measure the air quality environmental outcomes. This not only assisted with this research but also contributed to the existing literature. It argues that carbon monoxide levels in air can be used as an indicator of environmental outcomes at the local level. Another major limitation was how to objectively measure the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations. As mentioned in chapter 2 under the theoretical framework, this research overcame this difficulty by providing linkages between environmental dispositions and environmental ethics. It then employed the questionnaire 74 of Environmental Response Inventory (McKechnie, 1974) to measure the environmental dispositions of nonprofit organizations and then approximate environmental ethics using dispositions. Please see appendix “C” for the ERI survey instrument. The study was designed to account for and control for the variables and factors other than nonprofit organizations that are mentioned in the literature to influence the environmental policy outcomes, e.g. geography, institutions, socio-economic characteristics, etc. in addition to the variables associated with nonprofit organizations. This was done to enhance the objectivity and the validity of this research and its findings. This chapter provides a scope of the study and the research question(s), appropriate design to empirically test the theoretical framework and respond to the research questions. The detailed research design and methodology is followed by how the methods were actually applied in the field and the ethical and legal considerations that were taken into consideration. It also provides rationale based on validity, reliability and objectivity for using the methodology. It also explains how the data were stored and coded for analysis. 3.1 - Scope of the Study: This study attempts to investigate the air quality as an environmental outcome in Southern California for the region under the jurisdiction of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) of California. It uses the data for levels of air pollutant - Carbon Monoxide as the local level indicator of local policy outcomes, for the monitoring stations of SCAQMD spread all across the South Coast Basin of Southern California. Following is a map (Map 1) showing air monitoring stations of SCAQMD, which collect data for carbon monoxide levels. (Source SCAQMD website): 75 MAP 1: MAP DEPICTING AIR MONITORING STATIONS IN THE SCAQMD REGION: The federally regulated National Ambient Air Quality Standards are set for the following air pollutants: 1 – Ozone, 2 – Particulate Matter, 3 – Carbon Monoxide, 4 – Nitrogen Dioxide, 5 – Sulfur Dioxide, and 6 – Lead. However, most of these pollutants cannot be used as a measure of locally emitted pollution due to the mobile nature of the air and other physical and chemical properties of these pollutants. This effectively means that these pollutants, although can be and have been used as independent variables in quantitative analysis – cannot effectively be used as “dependent” variables. However, this research contributes to the field by explaining that out of these six pollutants only Carbon Monoxide has the physical and chemical attributes to make it a good indicator of local level policy outcomes. It can therefore, be used as a local level environmental outcomes measure / “dependant” variable for testing the theoretical framework of this research. 76 The mobile nature of air results in levels of locally emitted and transported carbon monoxide combined together. However, due to the physical and chemical characteristics of carbon monoxide, it is possible to differentiate those two different types of carbon monoxide levels by considering them along with topographic, geographic and climatic variations across different locations. Hence, carbon monoxide can be used to empirically test the impact of local nonprofits on “local” policy outcomes. In addition to these important characteristics, carbon monoxide is: 1 – used as a determinant by SCAQMD to issue health warnings, and 3 – is an EPA regulated substance for air quality for 2006. These two factors also make it a stronger candidate for the dependent variable. For this research the 8 hour average measure for carbon monoxide levels was selected as dependent variable. This controls for variations due to peak traffic, time of day, etc. The 8 hour annual averages for SCAQMD stations are collected from California Air Resource Board (CARB) website. For a more detailed explanation of the physical and chemical properties of Carbon Monoxide and why it was chosen for this research as a measure of policy outcomes, please refer to appendix “A” of this dissertation. The region of SCAQMD was selected due to real limitations of time and resources and due to the reputation of this region as environmentally pro-active. Since I am located in Los Angeles, therefore it was economically feasible to contact the nonprofits and the public agencies in this region. The phone calls and visits to offices were of local nature and did not require a wealth of resources. Moreover, it was also feasible in terms of time, since it did not require lengthy travels to far-off places, therefore, it was hoped that the 77 data collection will be conducted within a stipulated time and that the dissertation will be completed on time. Within its region, SCAQMD has installed air monitoring stations that measure air quality. These air monitoring stations are capable of gauging air quality to a distance of at most the zip code boundaries within which the stations are located. Therefore, this study examines the independent variables at zip code level of zip codes where air monitoring stations are located, because the dependent variable is per force measured only up to the zip code boundaries roughly. This study was designed around and data were collected for demographic, geographic, socio-economic, political variables and other such independent variables at the zip code level. Moreover, data were also collected for nonprofits working in the specific zip codes which have air monitoring stations installed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The data for the nonprofits from the following zip codes were collected and the same nonprofits were interviewed: 90262 (Lynwood), 91502 (Burbank), 90631 (La Habra), 90807 (Long Beach), 91106 (Pasadena), 90045 (LAX), 92410 (San Bernardino), 91335 (Reseda), 92501 (Rubidoux), 90012 (Los Angeles), 90660 (Pico Rivera), 91767 (Pomona), 91786 (Upland), 92802 (Anaheim), 92262 (Palm Springs), 92626 (Costa Mesa), 92691 (Mission Viejo), 91702 (Azusa), 92530 (Lake Elsinore), and 91321 (Santa Clarita). 3.1.1 - Types of Nonprofit Organizations: In attempting to respond to the research questions, this research, since its theoretical framework assumes that all types of nonprofits and not just environmental nonprofits influence the policy outcomes, therefore classifies the nonprofit organizations 78 into five categories of: 1- environmental, 2 – fraternal, 3 – professional, 4 – religious, and 5 – social services nonprofit organizations. Having classified the nonprofit organizations into the five categories, this research assumes vastly different environmental ethics among different types of nonprofits. 3.2 – Research Questions: The first step to designing the research was to specify the research question. As already explained in chapter 2, and in the first chapter that the main question this research attempts to respond to was: What is the relationship between environmental ethics of local nonprofit organizations and the local place-based environmental outcomes? And what are the implications for the governance process? The significance of this question in the context of existing lacunae and for improved understanding about the nonprofits, as well as the policy process and the environmental governance was also explained in chapters 1 and 2. We know that the nonprofits play a significant role in governance in general and in environmental governance in particular, however, we know surprisingly little in a systematic way as to how do nonprofit organizations influence policy outcomes? What are their mechanisms of influence? Etc. Moreover, although we know that perspectives and environmental ethics are important in determining the strategies of action and the perceptions of nonprofit organizations, no study exists that measures and tests the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations to see whether the perspectives of nonprofits have any effect on the environmental outcomes or not? This research attempts to respond to such questions. 79 3.2.1 – Secondary Questions: Since the main research question is a complicated question, it required responses to several subsequent questions: 1 – How do different types of nonprofit organizations differ in their environmental ethics? This is an important question to respond to. Since in the theoretical framework of this study, I argue that nonprofits of all types influence policy outcomes, and that this influence is a function of their environmental ethics, therefore, it seems logical to classify the nonprofit organizations into different types for the empirical testing of this theoretical framework. Having classified the nonprofits into various categories, it is reasonable to assume that different types of nonprofit organizations will have, on the average, similar environmental ethics within groups and different environmental ethics across groups. Moreover, the average value of environmental ethics will differ across different types of nonprofits. This question is aimed at empirically testing this assumption. 2 - How do nonprofits influence policy implementation at the individual level? How to they attempt to influence the perspectives of public bureaucracy responsible for policy implementation? Does it differ according to the types of nonprofits? As already mentioned in chapter 2, there is a wealth of literature and established theories outlining and explaining the role of nonprofits in policy formulation, and not much about the role of nonprofits in policy implementation, except perhaps some research about their role in issues of environmental justice. Therefore, this research, in its theoretical framework presented a structured explanation of nonprofits’ role by situating them in the framework of top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) and bottom-up 80 (Lipsky, 1980) theories. However, does the framework hold? We would not know unless we test it empirically. Therefore, in order to respond to the main question of this research we have to answer the question of nonprofits’ role in policy implementation. If we find that nonprofits do indeed interact with public agencies according to the structure presented in the theoretical framework of this research, then by associative property we can argue that nonprofits at least theoretically influence policy outcomes according to their environmental ethics. Hence it is important to respond to this question. 3 – Do nonprofits impact environmental outcomes or not? Whether this influence is a function of type of nonprofit or not? In order to respond to the question of whether the environmental dispositions of nonprofit organizations influence policy outcomes or not, we need to ask the question of whether nonprofit organizations have any influence on local environmental outcomes, and whether the influence is a function of type of nonprofit or not. This is so because we are assuming that different types of nonprofit organizations will have more similarity of environmental ethics within their own type as compared to across different types of nonprofits. If we can see that different types of nonprofit organizations have different types of impacts on outcomes, and if the assumption tested in question 1 above is supported, and if in response to question 2 we see that nonprofits attempt to influence policy implementation according to the theoretical framework of this research, then we can be more certain that it is possible that environmental ethics of nonprofits would have some influence on local environmental outcomes. 81 4 – How do nonprofit organizations interact with each other? Is their Interaction a function of their environmental ethics? How is this interaction related to their network level impact on local environmental outcomes? We saw earlier in chapter 2 that nonprofit organizations interact in varying ways with each other and that this interaction, I proposed that this might be a function of their environmental ethics and the theoretical framework argued that the interaction among nonprofits influence policy outcomes. So, is their interaction important in terms of environmental outcomes or not? Is it related to environmental outcomes or not? These are important questions to respond to, in the context of the role of environmental ethics to dictate the choices and decisions of interaction among nonprofit organizations. This research looks at environmental policies that are already formulated; hence when it talks about interaction among nonprofits it implies interaction among nonprofit organizations at the stage of policy implementation. Moreover, since this research classifies nonprofits into five groups, and assumes that the environmental ethics of nonprofits differ according to the types of nonprofits (question 1), therefore, if this assumption is empirically supported and if we can show in question 4 that different types of nonprofits prefer different types of interactions with other nonprofits, then we can argue that interaction among nonprofits is a function of their environmental ethics. In addition, the response to this question would also test the argument of the theoretical framework that the nonprofits attempt to influence policy implementation at the individual as well as the network level. This response will provide valuable insights into the working of and the strategies of nonprofit organizations. 82 5 – How do nonprofits select their strategies of action? Are their strategy decisions the functions of environmental ethics of nonprofits? As already seen in chapter 2, the theoretical framework based on a review of literature argues that the strategies of nonprofit organizations depend at least to some extent on their environmental ethics. This question empirically tests this argument. Since we classify the nonprofits into five categories and since we assume that we can differentiate among nonprofits according to the types based on their environmental ethics, therefore, if this assumption is supported (question 1), and if in response to question 5, we can show that different types of nonprofits select different types of strategies, then we can argue that the selection of strategies is a function of the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations. 6 – Do nonprofits engage in consciousness-raising activities? If they do, is it a function of their type / environmental ethics? Since the literature and the theoretical framework of this research contends that the strategies and consciousness raising activities of nonprofits also to some extent depend on the perspectives of nonprofit organizations, and since such activities help influence public opinion and interpretation of policies by the bureaucracy and hence the policy implementation itself which impacts policy outcomes. Therefore, it makes sense to look at the consciousness raising activities of nonprofit organizations to see whether they differ according to the type / environmental ethics. 3.2.2 - Main Research Question: Reponses to questions 4, 5 and 6 above will inform us about the nature of the strategies of influence selected by nonprofits and about the interaction among nonprofit 83 organizations, and also about whether the selection of strategies and decisions about the nature of interaction among nonprofits are at least to some degree determined by their respective environmental ethics. According to the theoretical framework of this study, our next step is to see whether those strategies and interactions influence the nature of participation in the policy processes by nonprofit organizations or not. If we find that: 1. The strategies and activities of nonprofits are a function of their environmental ethics (questions 4, 5 and 6). Or in other words if we can differentiate among different types of nonprofits based on their strategies and interactions, and 2. Nonprofits do indeed participate in the process of policy implementation in the manner argued by the theoretical framework of this research (question 2), and 3. If different types of nonprofits can be differentiated by their environmental ethics (question 1), and 4. If in response to question 3 we find that different types of nonprofits influence policy outcomes in different ways, then 5. We will be able to contend that the empirical testing of the theoretical framework presented in chapter 2 of this research does not contradict the arguments of the theoretical framework, and that it is empirically possible that the environmental ethics of local nonprofit organizations are related to the local place-based environmental outcomes. 3.3 – Research Design and Methodology: A cursory look at the research questions above demonstrates a need for qualitative research. However, this research devised methodology that is able to quantitatively measure the variables this study aims to investigate, e.g. it measures the environmental outcomes and it also measures the environmental ethics in numbers. Some parts of the 84 research required qualitative data, e.g. the interaction of nonprofits with public agencies and with each other. Qualitative data were collected for such variables but care was taken to limit the responses as much as possible to a selection of specific option for respondents to assist with quantitative analysis. This was done in order to be more confident about the findings of this research. Therefore although this research is a mixed methods research (Creswell, 2003), but it is more inclined toward quantitative methods. It was a sequential design and was carried out in three phases. The discussion about those phases will appear later in this chapter in sections 3.4 and 3.6. Since nonprofits do not operate in a vacuum, rather they function in a certain political, institutional, geographic, economic and social context, therefore, this research attempted to use the data for the variables other than nonprofits in its empirical model as control variables, and to obtain the world view about the role of nonprofit organizations. Figure 1 demonstrates the overall design of this research: 85 FIGURE 1: RESEARCH DESIGN (HIGHLIGHTED FACTORS ARE THE FOCUS OF THIS STUDY): Literature shows that various geo-political and socio-economic variables including nonprofit advocacy at least potentially can have an influence on air quality outcomes. Therefore, other than the data for various attributes of the nonprofits, the following variables were considered for this research. Those variables are as follows: 1 - Nonprofit Organizations: • Environmental disposition • Type of nonprofit • Collaboration / Confrontation with other NPOs • Network with public agencies Environmental Policy Formulation Environmental Policy Implementation Geography / Meteorology: • Wind Direction (predominant) • Inhibited Horizontal dispersion (function of wind speed and upward growth or natural obstacles) Demography: • Income (per capita) • Population Density Land-use and Transportation: • Levels of Traffic (avg.) • Port/Airport Public Organizations, Political/Institutional Environmental Policy Outcomes: • Average Daily Levels of Carbon Monoxide in Air for a year (2006) = Influence (Link) = Independent Variables = Dependent Variable = Process P.S.: Although most of the links are bi-directional, the realm of this research is unidirectional; connections from Left to Right only. 86 Demographic Variables: (Kim, Smorodinsky, Lipsett, Singer, Hodgeson, Ostro, 2004; Mohai, 1985; Neuhaus, 1971; Tucker, 1982): a. gender, b. education level, c. income level, d. race; e. average age, f. percentage of children in population, g. population density, 2 - Geographic Variables: (Hofferbert, 1974): a. Geography (valley, ocean front, plateau, port, wind, etc. properly coded to reflect probabilities for level of pollution, e.g. ports might have high pollution), measured through variables of: a. inhibited horizontal dispersion, and b. wind direction, 3 - Institutional Structural Variables: Institutional arrangement at the local, regional and state levels: mayor, city manager, combination, etc. (Kiser and Ostrom, 1982), 4 – Nonprofit Organizations: Nonprofit organizations, their service delivery and consciousness-raising activities, and the rules for exit and entry for them into political arena (Kingdon, 1984; Sabatier, 1988); 5- Transportation and Land- Use Variables: a. traffic (Carbon Monoxide is caused by partial burning of fossil fuel, and hence is expected to have highest levels in locations with high traffic frequency (Source: SCAQMD website), b. carbon monoxide pollution by automobiles is increased in a stop-and-go traffic as compared to a smooth flowing traffic, hence type of traffic is also important in determining the levels of carbon monoxide in air, c. whether there exists a port/airport and how busy it is. Also, based on literature, the following relationships of independent variables are expected with air quality outcomes: 1– Inverse Relationship: Per the literature cited above, the following variables are expected to be inversely proportional to levels of CO in air: a. level of education, b. per capita income, c. race (higher the percentage of Whites in population, lower the concentration of Carbon Monoxide in air), d. average age, g. wind direction (south and 87 eastwardly direction is considered to have higher concentrations of air pollutants as compared to west and northwardly wind directions in the typical scenario of Southern California, therefore, wind direction coded as 1 for south and 8 for north means that lower the value assigned wind direction higher the percentage of carbon monoxide in air), it is coded as: south = 1, south-east = 2, east = 3, south-west = 4, north-east = 5, west = 6, north-west = 7, and north = 8, e. type of traffic (coded as commercial = 1, arterial = 2, freeway = 3, residential = 4, urban = 5). It is obvious that the more the likelihood of traffic as stop-and-go the lower the value of this variable and higher the likelihood of increased CO pollution; 2 – Direct Relationship: The following variables are expected to be directly proportional to levels of CO in air: a. percentage of children in population, b. frequency of traffic, c. presence of airport/port, d. population density in a zip code, e. Inhibited Horizontal Dispersion (the more inhibition there is for movement of air and for its vertical mixing the higher the level of carbon monoxide will be); it is coded from 0 to 2 using SCAQMD data, 2 being very high probability of inhibition due to low wind speed and high urban growth or mountains. 3 – Unsure about the Direction of Relationship: Since little is reported in literature about the role of different kinds of nonprofits on policy outcomes, therefore, I am unsure about whether social equity, professional, fraternal and religious nonprofits will have a direct or inverse relationship with environmental outcomes. Therefore, the empirical model can be stated as: Y = B 0 + P c X 1 + T f X 2 –T t X 3 + APX 4 + P d X 5 – EX 6 – IX 7 – R w X 8 – AX 9 –WDX 10 + HDX 11 – EX 12 (+/-) (CX 13 + PX14 + RX 15 + SX 16 ) ---- (1) 88 Y = air quality outcome for levels of 8 hour maximum annual average for carbon monoxide, and; E = level of education, I = income level, , Rw = race (higher the percentage of Whites in population, lower the concentration of Carbon Monoxide in air), A = average age, P c = percentage of children in population, T f = frequency of traffic, T t = type of traffic, AP = presence of airport / port near air monitoring station, P d = population density in zip code, WD = wind direction (coded in ascending order from South to North) , HD = Inhibited Horizontal Dispersion, C = Fraternal nonprofits, E = Environmental nonprofits, P = Professional nonprofits, R = Religious nonprofits, S = Social Equity nonprofits Since this study is also trying to determine whether nonprofits play a role in policy outcomes or not, and if they do what kind of a role that is a scenario where not much is known about the direction and strength of their influence hence the (+/-) ambiguity in the empirical model. Environmental nonprofits, however, are expected to reduce pollutants, and hence the minus sign. The analysis does not include the following variables: 1 – Institutional structure: All locations tested in this study have similar political/institutional structures; 2 - Rules for exit and entry into political arena: Since all locations are under jurisdiction of SCAQMD hence are subject to exactly the same rules; 3 – Gender: In the geographical area under consideration the male: female ratio is almost similar across locations. The sample data also demonstrated near perfect collinearity between the following pairs of variables. Hence only one of those is used in analysis, instead of both: 1 - average age and the percentage of children in a population; 2 – level of education and per capita income of a population; 3 – race and income levels; 4 – average age and 89 income level. Therefore, the variables of average age, level of education and race were eliminated from the model and instead only per capita income was used. The relationship becomes: Y = f (I, T f , AP, P d , WD, HD, C, E, P, R, S) --- (2) According to the existing literature, the following attributes of the nonprofits were found to be significant and hence included in the design of this investigation: a. Collaboration/entryism of non profit groups with policy forming and enforcing institutions/agencies (Sabatier, 1991; Kraft and Kamieniecki, 2007), b. Collaboration and confrontation of non profit groups with each other (Switzer, 2004; Eccleston, 1996; Mcadam, Tarrow and Tilly, 2001; Gale, 1986), c. Consciousness-Raising activities by non profit groups (Haas, 1990; Dunlap and Van Liere, 1984; Milbrath, 1989; Dunlap, Xiao and McCright, 2001), d. Mass political behavior (Hofferbert, 1974), e. Salience of issue (Kingdon, 1984). Of these variables, mass political behavior and salience of the issue were not considered in the analysis, since this research looked at the region of greater Los Angeles, which is pretty uniformly liberal throughout and the salience of issues is also pretty evenly distributed across this region. Hence these two variables are not analyzed separately. Please note that the education / consciousness-raising, interactions or strategies of nonprofits are also not part of this empirical model. The theoretical framework of this research argues that the strategies and interactions of nonprofits are a function of the environmental ethics of the nonprofits. It contends that nonprofits of various types differ considerably from each other in their environmental ethics. Therefore, type of nonprofits is the proxy for the environmental ethics of nonprofits and since there is a direct relationship between environmental ethics and strategies and interactions, therefore only 90 one variable of the types of nonprofits was used in this research to avoid perfect collinearity among independent variables. The strategies of NPOs are investigated in this research outside of this empirical model for their role in policy implementation. Moreover, it was decided that if any of the NPOs are found to be significant in this empirical model then a time-series model with the carbon monoxide pollution will be tested to see the overtime relationship of NPOs with air pollution. The research used interviews, surveys, and internet data collected from official websites of SCAQMD and CARB (California Air Resources Board) and other such websites to collect data. The data collection and analysis were conducted in three sequential phases, where each subsequent phase informed and was informed by the data and analysis of the previous phases. Those phases are: Phase 1 – Collection and analysis of the ecological data for dependent and independent variables of relationship (2) shown above: This was meant to respond mainly to question 3 of the research questions. All ecological data for variables shown in relationship (2) were collected and analyzed during this phase, except the data about the attributes of nonprofit organizations. Phase 2 – Collection and analysis of interview data from nonprofits: Based on the data collected for the nonprofits names, locations and contact information in phase 1, interview data from nonprofit organizations were collected and analyzed in phase 2. This data were also analyzed in conjunction with the ecological data collected in phase 1. This phase was designed predominantly to respond to research questions 2, 4, 5 and 6. Please see appendix “B” for interview questionnaire 91 Phase 3 – Collection and analysis of survey data from nonprofits: Nonprofits were surveyed for their environmental ethics. Nonprofits interviewed in phase 2 were asked for their email information and permission to send the survey electronically. Based on this data collected in phase 2, nonprofits were surveyed in phase 3. This data were analyzed along with the data and analysis from the previous two phases, mainly to respond to question 1 and eventually to help respond to the main research question. Please see appendix “C” for ERI survey instrument. 3.4 – Data Collection: Data were collected in three phases between January 2007 and October 2008, as follows: Phase 1: Data for greater Los Angeles region were collected using various techniques of websites research. Data were not sampled for this phase, and all data for all nonprofits and all the ecological variables were collected during this phase. In all data for 2988 nonprofits were collected during this phase. Ecological data were collected specifically for the zip codes within which monitoring stations of SCAQMD are located. This was done after consultation with researchers and experts both at the University of Southern California Engineering School and at SCAQMD. The consultations revealed that monitoring stations measure pollution levels in air for a limited diameter, which at the most extend to the zip code boundaries within which the monitoring stations are located. Since the data for levels of pollutants in air are available only for the specific zip codes where monitoring stations are located, therefore, it was logical to collect data for independent variables for zip codes also so as to have parity in comparison and in analysis. Data were collected and analyzed for 20 monitoring stations and their zip codes. 92 Although SCAQMD has about 23 air monitoring stations, complete air quality and other data were available for 20 of those stations. Therefore nonprofit organizations of those 20 stations were investigated. Data from the following zip codes were collected: 90262 (Lynwood), 91502 (Burbank), 90631 (La Habra), 90807 (Long Beach), 91106 (Pasadena), 90045 (LAX), 92410 (San Bernardino), 91335 (Reseda), 92501 (Rubidoux), 90012 (Los Angeles), 90660 (Pico Rivera), 91767 (Pomona), 91786 (Upland), 92802 (Anaheim), 92262 (Palm Springs), 92626 (Costa Mesa), 92691 (Mission Viejo), 91702 (Azusa), 92530 (Lake Elsinore), 91321 (Santa Clarita). Data for 8 hour maximum annual average for carbon monoxide were collected for the year 2006 from California Air Resources Board (CARB) website as well as from South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) website. Data for demographic variables of education, income, population, proportion of married people in the population, race, age and percentage of children in population, were collected from official census website (census.gov). Data for traffic frequency, type of traffic, wind direction and inhibited horizontal dispersion (wind speed and vertical inhibition) were collected from SCAQMD and CARB websites. For inhibited horizontal dispersion, assistance was also sought from Google Earth for information about geographical factors and built environment. Moreover, data for presence of port or airport in or near the zip code were also collected using Google Earth. Phase 2: Data were not sampled in this phase also and all nonprofits, for which phone numbers were available and collected during the phase one, were called by phone 93 and 227 nonprofits were interviewed for this phase. Data about the names and contact information of nonprofits were collected in phase 1 of this research. All nonprofit organization registered under IRS code 501(C) within these zip codes were interviewed over the phone in phase 2, with the exception of organizations which are public agencies. Data for number and names of nonprofits were collected from website called GuideStar. This website provides complete information about nonprofits operational within each zip code, their addresses and phone numbers and also scanned copies of nonprofits tax returns. The contact information for nonprofit organizations was extracted from those tax documents. The type of nonprofit organization was discerned using methods of triangulation, i.e. from the 501(C) classification of IRS (Grønbjerg and Clarken, 2005; Grønbjerg, 2002; Grønbjerg and Paalberg, 2001) as well as from the self-reported functions of the nonprofit organizations on the GuideStar website, through the nonprofits’ websites and through phone interviews with nonprofit organizations. This provides confidence in validity of data on the website. The questionnaire for the interview was developed according to the review of the literature and based on the theoretical framework of this research. It asked questions to help me respond to the research questions. For the questionnaire, please see Appendix B. All nonprofits that are operating within zip codes of monitoring stations were called on the phone, some of them are non-functional, some had their phone numbers changed, some declined to be interviewed, and some did not return phone calls. In all 224 nonprofit organizations were interviewed. Since the nonprofits with income above $25000 are required to file tax returns, while those making less than that amount are not required to file taxes, it automatically follows that all nonprofits included in this analysis 94 are the ones with incomes above $25000. This is a limitation of this study that nonprofits with income less than $25000 were not included in the analysis. However, this also somewhat reduces the need to analyze the nonprofits according to income and hence leaves more room for analysis according to the types of nonprofits. Phase 3: In all 224 nonprofits were interviewed in phase 2 of this research. At the end of the interviews the CEOs of the nonprofits were asked if it was OK to email them a link to the CEO-ERI survey, almost 20% of the nonprofits refused the survey, of those who agreed, 83 people from 83 nonprofits filled out the survey online. The Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) was developed by George McKechnie in 1972. It was automated and transferred on the web by me, using the software SurveyMonkey. Dr. McKechnie and his dissertation Chair Prof. Kenneth Craik were consulted and shown the final SurveyMonkey version of the ERI before administering the surveys. The ERI survey is 184 questions long (excluding the demographic questions), hence we did not expect a high percentage of nonprofits to respond to the survey and hence the survey response from 83 out of 224 nonprofits was considered quite satisfactory. For the details of this survey and survey questions please see Appendix C. There were some data limitations; the total number of environmental nonprofits, as well as profession nonprofits operating in these zip codes, was disproportionately smaller as compared to social services nonprofits. However, the rate of response for environmental and professional nonprofit organizations was much higher than the social services nonprofits. Hence despite their small numbers overall, I was able to obtain enough data to comfortably calculate and analyze their environmental dispositions. However, the rate of response from fraternal and religious nonprofits was quite low, both 95 types of nonprofits predominantly replied that they do not use computers. Enough data were collected from the religious nonprofits despite their low response rate, probably due to the high overall number of religious nonprofits operating in these zip codes. Therefore, the total responses provided a more or less balanced picture of the different types of nonprofit organizations. Of the total responses 35% responses were from social services nonprofits, 14% each were from the religious and environmental nonprofits, 32% from the professional nonprofits and 5% from fraternal nonprofits. In terms of evaluating the environmental dispositions of different types of nonprofit organizations sufficient data were available to calculate the eight categories of dispositions for each type of nonprofit organizations, except the fraternal nonprofits. Fraternal nonprofits, in addition to the low response rate also have an overall low percentage among all nonprofits in the zip codes studied, but effort was made to make some kind of assessment about the environmental dispositions of fraternal nonprofits also. 3.5 – IRB Approval and Ethical Concerns: Since this research involved human subjects’ survey, ERI is a psychometric analysis survey; therefore permission was sought from the University of California Institutional Review Board. The permission was granted on 11/13/2007 and the study was declared and Exempt Research by the IRB. Data for phase 3 were collected after this approval from IRB. All data were kept secured on my computer and the identifiers for interviews were not shared with anybody else. Moreover, the identifiers for the survey were not collected; it was completely anonymous unless the respondents wished to identify the name of their nonprofits. They were never asked for their names or contact 96 information. This data were also kept under the password protected website and on my personal computer under the password. Please see appendix “E” for IRB approval letter. 3.6 – Coding of Data and Preparation of Data for Analysis: The data were coded in sequential phases, as follows: Phase 1: The data for most ecological variables were available as is. Some variables required a few calculations, e.g. population density was calculated using the total population and the area per sq. ft. of the zip code. Wind direction was coded as: south = 1, south-east = 2, east = 3, south-west = 4, north-east = 5, west = 6, north-west = 7, and north = 8. Traffic frequency was calculated in 10,000 of vehicles per day. Type of traffic is coded as: commercial = 1, arterial = 2, freeway = 3, residential = 4 and urban = 5, in the ascending order of decreased pollution causing traffic. Commercial and arterial traffic tend to be more trucks and more stop-and-go causing more carbon monoxide pollution. This is followed by freeway which are considered less polluting due to absence of traffic lights and hence lesser chance of stop-and-go. Residential areas are less polluting since usually mostly residents and their guests commute to and from there. Lastly, the urban traffic referring to parks and such tends to have even less stop-and-go traffic and hence it is coded as 5. Port/Airport variable was coded from 1 to 4 according to whether a port / airport is present in the zip code or not and even if the port / airport is present how busy is it, if port / airport are not present, how far the closest port / airport are, etc; the higher the value of this variable for a zip code, the higher the likelihood of presence of busy port / airport in that zip code. For inhibited horizontal dispersion, wind speed data was collected from the SCAQMD documents, and then this was read with the Google Earth maps for the presence of mountains, or upward urban growth. “The 97 direction and speed of the wind determines the horizontal dispersion and transport of air pollutants” (SCAQMD, 2002, p. 3-3). Since the wind direction is already included in the empirical model, therefore, now the inhibited horizontal dispersion variable was coded as an approximation from 0 to 2, using the approximate wind speed in each zip code, the topography of each zip code (valley, etc.) and the built-environment of each zip code. Hence Costa Mesa, for example has high wind speed and no mountains or dense vertical urban growth to prevent the dispersion of air, hence the inhibited horizontal dispersion variable was coded as 0 for Costa Mesa. It was coded as 2 for San Bernardino because it has mountains, etc. Moreover, the nonprofits were assigned codes as a first step based on the description of nonprofits available online on GuideStar.com. A total of 2988 nonprofits’ data were coded in this phase. The nonprofits were coded as C for clubs/fraternities, E for environmental, P for professional, R for religious and S for social equity. The nonprofits were assigned these type codes as follows: C = all nonprofits whose objective is association of like minded people mainly for fraternal, socialization purpose; E = all nonprofits which have any environmental objectives, e.g. animal protection, land resources conservation, etc.; P = all nonprofits that either are associations of professionals, promote well being of certain professional group or advocate and research for a certain perspective were grouped under professional; R = all religious nonprofits, mainly churches, temples, synagogues and mosques fall under this category; and S = all social equity organizations involved in activities of providing relief to the people in need were grouped under this category, e.g. international relief, food for poor, etc. 98 Phase 2: The coding for nonprofits in phase 1 was refined after interviewing the nonprofits. Based on the interview question, “What are the objectives of your organization? Would you classify your nonprofit organization as a fraternal club, professional, social service, environmental, or a religious organization?” and based on intensive internet research of the objectives and functions of each nonprofit conducted in phase 1, to triangulate the findings, the nonprofits were coded for recoded for types as C for clubs/fraternities, E for environmental, P for professional, R for religious and S for social equity. Based on the responses of nonprofit organizations to the open-ended question, “What kind of actions do you take to achieve those objectives? Do you work at the community level? Or do you do advocacy? Or do you do both? Or do you do something else?” stated above, the strategies of nonprofit organizations were coded under the categories of strategies as follows: 1- management level influence: nonprofits involved in advocacy, strong fund raising, research, publication, op-ed pieces and other such activities aimed at influencing the perspectives of the management of public agencies 2- grass-roots level influence: nonprofits involved in service delivery related to the objectives of nonprofit organization 3- both management level and grass-roots level influence: nonprofits that demonstrate elements of both 1 and 2 above Some nonprofits work at the federal, state and local levels, in order to make sure that their responses relate to local level of government, such respondents were specifically asked to differentiate among the activities they participate it at each level of 99 the government. For the purpose of this research, only those activities of the nonprofits that include work at the local government level were coded and included in the analysis. In addition, many nonprofits tend to be very involved in policy formulation as well as policy implementation. In order to ensure that the responses separate the activities of nonprofits at the policy implementation stage from the policy formulation stage, the respondents, during the course of their response were specifically asked whether their strategies are aimed at law-making or not. This helped me differentiate and code only the policy implementation activities of nonprofits, among their various other activities. This research assumes indirect influence on the perspectives of local level public agencies through advocacy (managerial level), or service delivery (grass-roots level) efforts of nonprofits, as valid and measurable forms of influence on policy implementation process, in addition to direct and straight forward attempt at influence through direct contact with public agencies. However, in order to provide more sophisticated analysis and understanding of nonprofits’ influence on policy implementation, this research also differentiates among nonprofits on the basis of contact or no-contact with local level public agencies. In order to do so, it asked the question of, “If you deal with government organizations, do you think that they are: 1- responsive, 2- somewhat responsive, 3 – not responsive? Or do you not deal with government organizations at all?” from nonprofit managers, and was coded accordingly. Moreover, the interview question, 3 – “Do you collaborate with other like minded organizations for meeting your objectives? If yes, how?” was coded 1 or 0 for yes and no to collaboration respectively. Qualitative analysis of the ways in which nonprofit organizations collaborate with each other was conducted, however, not in much detail. 100 Lastly, in order to collect data for the confrontational interaction among nonprofit organizations, the nonprofits were asked the interview question, “5 – Do you think that you face opposition of any kind, in achieving your objectives from other entities and/or organizations? If yes, what kind of opposition? How do you deal with it?” The data collected was coded 1 or 0 for yes and no to opposition respectively. The qualitative part of the question about the kinds of opposition and the way nonprofits deal with it was conducted but not in much detail. Phase 3: Survey data of CEO-ERI from 83 nonprofit organizations were coded. The environmental dispositional scores of individual nonprofits were calculated using the formulae for calculation provided by the ERI manual (McKechnie, 1974). The formulae were incorporated in an excel worksheet, so as to diminish the possibility of human error as well as to provide a more efficient and time saving method of calculating the environmental dispositions. 3.7 – Quality of Data: 3.7.1 - External Validity: This methodology, although specific to air quality and the SCAQMD region is quite generalizable. The questions asked from the nonprofit organizations as well as the design of this research are based on the variables identified by research to influence the environmental quality. Therefore the findings of this research should be applicable to policy outcomes in general and environmental policy outcomes for sure. 3.7.2 - Internal Validity: The rigor of this research and the validity of the instruments used are self evident. Environmental Response Inventory was used for the survey which was developed and 101 defended by George McKechnie (1974) as his dissertation research and has since been used by other researchers also. The interview questionnaire was developed to respond to the questions of this research and according to the attributes of nonprofits identified by previous research as important for nonprofits’ participation in the governance processes. This not only enhanced the internal validity of this research but also the generalizability and hence the external validity of the research also. Moreover, the large sample size (2988 nonprofits for phase 1, 224 for phase 2 and 83 for phase 3) further provides confidence about the internal validity of this research. The ERI instrument was automated, the automation was manually counter-checked by three independent Ph.D. students from the School of Policy, Planning, and Development (SPPD) at the University of Southern California (USC). 3.7.3 - Reliability: The interviews and surveys were conducted with all participants in the same way. Interview and survey request transcripts were developed and were administered to all respondents similarly. For details of those transcripts please see Appendix D. 3.7.4 - Objectivity: Effort was made to remain objective about the study. No assumptions were made as to the behavior or responses of nonprofit organizations or the survey responses. My Committee and the Chair were consulted regularly for removing any bias in interviews or anything else. 102 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Introduction: This chapter analyzes the data collected for this research and attempts to respond to the research questions of this study. Classifying nonprofit organizations into five categories of environmental, fraternal, professional, religious, and social services, it aims to provide empirical evidence for the viability of the theoretical framework of this study. It demonstrates that 1- local nonprofit organizations influence local place-based policy outcomes, 2- different types of nonprofit organizations have different types of environmental ethics, 3 – the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations are related to the environmental policy outcomes of the local area, 4 – nonprofit organizations influence policy outcomes, for policies already formulated by influencing the process of policy implementation working through the top-down and bottom-up channels at the individual level, 5 – the nature of network level strategies, activities, and the interactions of nonprofits with each other, with the public agencies and with the general public, which nonprofits use to influence the policy implementation are to some extent a function of the environmental ethics of the nonprofit organizations, and 6 – therefore the influence of different types of nonprofit organizations on the policy implementation process and hence the policy outcomes is a function of the environmental ethics of different types of nonprofits. On the methodological front this research contributes to the existing literature by introducing the variable of the carbon monoxide levels in outdoor air as a measure of environmental outcomes which can be used as a dependant variable and this research demonstrates the application. Moreover, it also contributes by devising means to measure 103 the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations. It uses the Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) an environmental dispositions measuring survey instrument which was designed by Dr. George McKechnie (1974) for his dissertation research, to measure the environmental dispositions of nonprofits, and then places them on a spectrum it designed from high anthropocentrism to high ecocentrism to approximate the environmental ethics of nonprofits. This chapter is divided into seven parts. In the first part, using ERI and the distribution of environmental dispositions of McKechnie (1974) over the continuum of environmental ethics, I measured the environmental ethics of the five types of nonprofit organizations. My goal in this part is to show that different types of nonprofit organizations differ significantly in their environmental ethics. This environmental ethical framework is normally distributed within each nonprofit group, but differs across groups. Using discriminant analysis, I showed that this indeed is true for the data set of this research. Therefore, type of nonprofit organizations can be used as proxy for the environmental ethics of the different types of nonprofits. In the second part of the chapter, I explore the individual level role of different types of nonprofit organizations in the policy implementation process. Using the type of nonprofits as the proxy for the environmental ethics of nonprofits, I demonstrate that nonprofits in general attempt to influence the process of policy implementation through both top-down and bottom-up channels at the individual level as claimed by the theoretical framework of this research. However, different types of nonprofits differ considerably in their choice of these strategies as predicted by the theoretical framework of this study. It further empirically shows that the nonprofits’ efforts of influencing public 104 opinion and consciousness-raising might also be a function of the environmental ethics of the different types of nonprofit organizations, thus supporting the basic theoretical framework of this research. In the third part of this chapter I analyze the ecological data and the percentages of different types of nonprofits in each zip code, along with 8 hour maximum averages of outdoor carbon monoxide as the dependant variable to show that different types of nonprofit organizations have different types of relationships with the local environmental policy outcomes. I find that social services nonprofits are positively and significantly related to the high levels of carbon monoxide in air. Since in the previous parts of this chapter I had already shown that the type of nonprofit is also a proxy for a particular environmental ethics, therefore, I argue based on the findings of part three that the environmental ethics of different types of nonprofits are related to the local environmental outcomes and that different types of nonprofits influence outcomes differently. Parts four and five of this chapter are dedicated to the analysis and discussion about different types of nonprofits’ network level efforts of influence on the policy implementation process. In part three I look at nonprofit organizations interaction with each other. I demonstrate that nonprofits use the activities of collaboration and confrontation with other nonprofit organizations in their efforts to influence policy implementation. Using factor analysis, I show that the nonprofit organizations of different types differ considerably and significantly form each other in their preferred choice of interaction with other nonprofits. This supports the argument of the theoretical framework of this research that the environmental ethics of different types of nonprofits 105 play a part in how nonprofits interact with each other. Moreover it gives more confidence in the argument of this research that the strategies of nonprofits and their interaction determine their role in policy outcomes. Since different types of nonprofits influence policy outcomes differently and since they interact with each other differently form each other. And since both the interaction and the impact on outcomes are a function of the type of nonprofits which is a proxy for the environmental ethics of nonprofits, I argue that this section provides even more evidence of the robustness of the theoretical framework of this research. In the fifth part, I discuss the nonprofits’ interaction with public agencies, since the theoretical framework of this study contends that this interaction also influences policy implementation which impacts policy outcomes. I demonstrate using factor analysis and discriminant analysis that nonprofits of different types differ considerably in their perceptions of the responsiveness of public agencies, which in turn impacts their interaction with the public agencies. More importantly this analysis showed that social services nonprofits in particular were quite different in their perceptions of public agencies’ responsiveness. We have already seen that the social services nonprofit organizations impacted the local environmental outcomes in a way that is different from all other types of nonprofits. We also saw earlier that the environmental ethics of social services nonprofits are different from the environmental ethics of other types of nonprofits. Hence we can even more forcefully argue for the viability of the theoretical framework of this investigation, and state that it is empirically possible that the nonprofits organizations influence policy implementation in a structures way, they impact policy 106 outcomes, and this impact is a functions of their activities which at least in part depend on the environmental ethics of nonprofit organization. In the sixth part, I provide a summary of findings about network level strategies of nonprofits in attempting to influence policy implementation. In the seventh part of this chapter I discuss the findings of this chapter and using logical deduction show that the empirical findings support the contentions of the theoretical framework of this study. 4.1 - Environmental Ethics of Different Types of Nonprofits: Introduction: Although the literature has talked about environmental ethics and environmental perspectives of nonprofit groups and its general influence on the strategies, activities and influence of nonprofit organizations on environmental governance, no empirical study was found to-date that measures the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations. Moreover no study so far has attempted to measure and compare the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations of different types. This chapter measures the environmental ethics of different types of nonprofit organizations. In addition, it aims to respond to the first sub-question of this research: “1 – Do different types of nonprofit organizations differ in their environmental ethics or not?” It contributes to the existing literature by using the Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) (McKechnie, 1974) survey instrument to measure the environmental dispositions of nonprofit organizations, and then approximating the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations based on their environmental dispositions. 107 It was assumed that the internal structure of nonprofits is top-down. This means that the top leadership of nonprofits is the major influence on the environmental ethics of nonprofits and hence the CEOs or the main decision makers of the nonprofits were surveyed for this research. The survey results were used as approximations for the environmental ethics of the respective nonprofit organizations. To respond to the first sub-question of this study, this research relied on question 1 of the interview questionnaire, “1 – What are the objectives of your organization? Would you classify your nonprofit organization as a fraternal club, professional, social service, environmental, or a religious organization?” It also collected survey data from the same population as the interviews, using ERI. The methods of data collection, the rationale, as well as the methods of coding and preparation of data for analysis were explained in the chapter on methodology. This section empirically supports the assumption that nonprofits of different types differ in their environmental dispositions from each other. The data analysis bears the following results: 1 - Environmental ethics are closely related to environmental dispositions of nonprofits and hence a measure of environmental dispositions using Environmental Response Inventory (McKechnie, 1974) can be used to approximate the environmental ethics of the nonprofits, 2 - Different types of nonprofit organizations are not drastically different in their environmental ethics, they all favor sustainable development, but they considerably differ in their approaches to sustainable development. The research further shows that although all types of nonprofits in general have a centrist approach to environmental ethics, they 108 are in general more inclined toward anthropocentrism. However, within this centrist approach, professional nonprofits are quite ecocentric, while environmental nonprofits have high scores on anthropocentrism as well as ecocentrism showing balanced yet strong perspectives. Religious and social services nonprofits are more anthropocentric within the centrist sustainable development framework. However, all types of nonprofits tend to agree on the moderate approach of sustainability rather than any kinds of extremes of anthropocentrism or ecocentrism, this may be one of the reasons why those nonprofits are able to cooperate and collaborate with each other. 3 - Environmental ethics can be the useful discriminating attributes among different nonprofits and different types of nonprofits and can potentially be used to better understand the role of nonprofits in environmental policy. The role of the values and perspectives of nonprofit organizations in policy processes is generally emphasized in the literature (Adam 1993; Sabatier, 1991; Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Klandermans, 1991; North, 1990; Weick, 1995; Dunlap and Van Liere, 1984; Milbrath, 1989; Dunlap, Xiao and McCright, 2001; Bullard and Johnson, 2000; Sikkink, 1995). An understanding about the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations will greatly help us in improved understanding of the policy process, the environmental policy outcomes and the role and strategies of nonprofits in environmental policy processes and outcomes. 4.1.1 Data Analysis and Discussion of Findings: The environmental dispositions of individual nonprofits calculated by embedding the calculations of CEO-ERI in an Excel worksheet for individual survey responses were averaged for each type of nonprofits. Based on the analysis of survey data obtained, we 109 can argue that in general all nonprofits irrespective of their type tend to favor sustainability with a slight tilt toward the anthropocentric variety of sustainability. In terms of different types of nonprofits, environmental nonprofits seem to be very highly concerned about the humans as well as about the environment, their ethics seem to be more toward sustainable development with a slight tilt toward anthropocentrism. Fraternal and religious nonprofits seem to be favoring sustainable development also with a centrist approach to sustainable development, although religious nonprofits show slight favor to anthropocentrism. Professional nonprofits are in favor of sustainable development but are more ecocentric than anthropocentric. Social services nonprofits are more anthropocentric than ecocentric, although still very much in the center favoring sustainable development. The data analysis showed that all types of nonprofits in general tend to agree on the basic principles of sustainability and in taking a middle ground between extreme ecocentrism and extreme anthropocentrism. This analysis further showed that environmental and professional nonprofits are not as different from each other as is generally thought. The divide between businesses and environmentalism is not quite wide. This can also mean that different types of nonprofits including environmental and professional are able to cooperate and collaborate with each other probably because they share some common values. Following is a description and discussion of the findings. However, before we get to the discussion of the findings, let us first look at the descriptive statistics of the data. The CEO-ERI data were collected for 83 nonprofits. The following table provides the number of each type of nonprofit surveyed, means and standard deviations 110 It should be duly noted that standard deviation for each one of these environmental dispositional categories within each type of nonprofit are, for the most part quite high. This might in general mean that there is less similarity among nonprofits within a group (a type of nonprofits) per environmental disposition. However, our assumption of normal distribution within each type of nonprofits was centered on “overall” disposition - not within each category of dispositions. Moreover, our assumption also centered around nonprofits of a type within a particular zip code and due to the small size of data as well as the requirements of confidentiality in case of human subjects’ survey I could not differentiate and calculate means and standard deviations for each type of nonprofits per zip codes. Hence, although the large standard deviations do not confirm our assumption of normalcy, they do not specifically contradict it either. A larger data set and more detailed subsequent research is needed to shed more light on it. TABLE 2: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, ETC. FOR EACH ENVIRONMENTAL DISPOSITION CATEGORY FOR EACH TYPE OF NONPROFITS: Environmental Dispositions Statistics for Each Type of Nonprofits Type of Nonprofits EA NP UR MO SS AN ET PA Environmental N 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Missing Data 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mean 65.91 60.73 61.18 64.45 62.73 59.36 64.36 61.91 Std. Dev. 4.61 2.94 2.48 4.41 7.07 5.87 10.13 9.3 Fraternal N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Missing Data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 58.25 54 60.75 58.5 51.75 52.25 74.75 56 Std. Dev. 16.03 5.23 4.86 9.61 14.57 10.9 21.53 17.91 111 TABLE 2: CONTINUED … Environmental Dispositions Statistics for Each Type of Nonprofits Type of Nonprofits EA NP UR MO SS AN ET PA Professional N 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Missing Data 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mean 57.16 54.84 58.72 56.72 53.76 56.68 75.88 51.28 Std. Dev. 12.94 9.23 5.15 14.29 16.96 10.57 23.22 20.78 Religious N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Missing Data 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mean 62.9 55.9 61 63.5 60.8 55.2 69.1 57.4 Std. Dev. 9.92 5.97 4.5 10.37 11.79 8.87 17.09 14.71 Social Services N 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 Missing Data 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mean 58.37 54.48 60.52 55.93 55.22 55.41 77.48 50.74 Std. Dev. 13.85 10.08 5.7 14.96 17.36 12.55 23.78 20.11 The gold highlighted standard deviations are the ones with values above 10. However, a one-way ANOVA analysis revealed significant differences among each type of nonprofits for most of the categories of environmental dispositions. Again, since the nonprofits were not differentiated for each zip code, it is difficult to say if our assumption was supported regarding nonprofits of each type differing significantly form other types on their environmental dispositions. But we can at least say that the assumption was not rejected. A further analysis (discriminant) below will further explore and analyze this aspect. 112 TABLE 3: ONE-WAY ANOVA ANALYSIS FOR DIFFERENCES IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL DISPOSITIONS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS: ANOVA Environmental Dispositions Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. EA Between Groups 743.6 4 185.9 1.23 0.31 Within Groups 10874.22 72 151.03 MO Between Groups 898.1 4 224.53 1.33 0.27 Within Groups 12161.12 72 168.9 UR Between Groups 75 4 18.75 0.75 0.56 Within Groups 1796.17 72 24.95 SS Between Groups 932.06 4 233.01 0.98 0.42 Within Groups 17127.76 72 237.89 NP Between Groups 348.35 4 87.09 1.21 0.31 Within Groups 5177.18 72 71.91 AN Between Groups 205.22 4 51.31 0.45 0.77 Within Groups 8182.85 72 113.65 ET Between Groups 1677.85 4 419.46 0.92 0.45 Within Groups 32681.58 72 453.91 PA Between Groups 1282 4 320.5 0.94 0.45 Within Groups 24657.53 72 342.47 The gold highlighted values demonstrate the categories of environmental dispositions which seem to be below 0.5 and hence more significant in differentiating across different types of nonprofits. A more detailed discussion is below. All Nonprofits: The survey data was first analyzed for all nonprofits irrespective of their type, without distributing survey cases according to the type of nonprofits. The analysis showed that the scores were slightly higher for anthropocentric categories as compared to the ecocentric categories, for example as we can see in table 2, the average score for the environmental adaptation which is the high anthropocentric category, is 59.64, while the score for high ecocentric dispositional category of Pastoralism is only 53.65, this is a difference of 6 points. However, the highest average score for all nonprofits was found to 113 be for the category of Environmental Trust, which is a higher, but not the highest category of ecocentrism, the average score for environmental trust was 73.86, which is remarkably higher than all other scores for all nonprofits on the average. However, the score for Urbanism which is a higher anthropocentric category was also quite high, it was 60.10. Based on the scores for all nonprofits, it seems that they are slightly weighed toward anthropocentric categories, but only slightly, they overall seem to be trying to achieve some sort of a balance between high anthropocentrism and high ecocentrism. It can therefore, safely be argued that overall the nonprofits of all types are somewhat in the center and ethically favor the concept of sustainability with a slight tilt toward anthropocentrism. TABLE 4: ENVIRONMENTAL DISPOSITIONAL CATEGORIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS: High Anthrop ocentris m High Ecocent rism EA MO UR SS NP AN ET PA Average Disposition Scores for all nonprofits 59.64 58.52 60.1 56.36 55.65 56.19 73.86 53.65 Environmental 65.91 64.45 61.18 62.73 60.73 59.36 64.36 61.91 N 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Missing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mean 65.91 64.45 61.18 62.73 60.73 59.36 64.36 61.91 Std. Deviation 4.61 4.41 2.48 7.07 2.94 5.87 10.13 9.3 Fraternal 58.25 58.5 60.75 51.75 54 52.25 74.75 56 N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 58.25 58.5 60.75 51.75 54 52.25 74.75 56 Std. Deviation 16.03 9.61 4.86 14.57 5.23 10.9 21.53 17.91 114 TABLE 4: CONTINUED … High Anthropocentrism High Ecocentrism EA MO UR SS NP AN ET PA Professional 58.08 57.38 59 54.67 55.13 57.21 74.42 52.63 N 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Missing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mean 57.16 56.72 58.72 53.76 54.84 56.68 75.88 51.28 Std. Deviation 12.94 14.29 5.15 16.96 9.23 10.57 23.22 20.78 Religious 62.9 63.5 61 60.8 55.9 55.2 69.1 57.4 N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Missing 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mean 62.9 63.5 61 60.8 55.9 55.2 69.1 57.4 Std. Deviation 9.92 10.37 4.5 11.79 5.97 8.87 17.09 14.71 Social Services 58.37 55.93 60.52 55.22 54.48 55.41 77.48 50.74 N 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 Missing 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mean 58.37 55.93 60.52 55.22 54.48 55.41 77.48 50.74 Std. Deviation 13.85 14.96 5.7 17.36 10.08 12.55 23.78 20.11 The gold highlighted cells in table 4 denote the highest score for the dispositional category in the column and the blue highlighted cells denote the lowest score for each dispositional category. The gold highlighted cells in “the standard deviation” rows indicate standard deviations of values above 10. Now let us look at the different types of nonprofit organizations, their dispositions and environmental ethics and try to formulate some conclusions of this basis. Environmental Nonprofits: Based on our theoretical framework we expected environmental nonprofits to have high scores on ecocentric categories and low scores on anthropocentric categories. However, the results of the data analysis were surprising. Environmental nonprofits scored the highest on high anthropocentric as well as high ecocentric categories of 115 environmental dispositions. While the high scores on ecocentric dispositions are understandable, what can be the rationale behind high anthropocentric scores for environmental nonprofits? As explained earlier, under the discussion about sustainable development, the disposition of environmental nonprofits of the greater Los Angeles region seems to be favoring a kind of balanced view of the human’s relationship with the environment. It seems that they are considering the inherent worth of both the humans as well as the environment, and at the same time recognize the interdependent nature of the humans-nature relationship. Therefore, instead of simply caring for the environment to the exclusion of humans, they are apparently trying to create the optimal situation for both – the humans as well as the environment. However, the tilt seems to be slightly anthropocentric, since the scores for anthropocentric categories are slightly higher than the scores for ecocentric categories, although this difference is not too big. Moreover, the environmental nonprofits have the lowest score for environmental trust which is a considerably high eceocentric category. The lowest score on this category shows a clear albeit slight tilt toward anthropocentric variety of sustainable development. Moreover, the values of environmental nonprofits on the average seem conflicting. They seem to have high scores on environmental dispositional categories that are potentially opposing to each other. It might be that the environmental NPOs have not developed consensus on their basic values. This might actually be true, because different environmental NPOs have strikingly different environmental ethics from each other, while they all pertain to work for improved quality for the natural environment. The examples of Earth First, NRDC and the Sierra Club, which are all environmental NPOs but very different from each other, given above in chapter 2 provide one explanation for 116 this kind of scores for the environmental NPOs. However, the standard deviations for all environmental dispositions for the environmental NPOs are not very high indicating a narrow spread, or in other words, the environmental NPOs surveyed for this research seemed to have environmental ethics similar to each other. That leaves the question of whether the values of environmental ethics are still growing, being refined and re-formed with changing scenarios open to future research. Fraternal Nonprofits: Now, as already explained due to the small size of data available for fraternal nonprofits, our discussion of fraternal nonprofits does not have the same level of confidence as other types of nonprofits. However, we can see from table 4 above, that fraternal nonprofits have the lowest scores in stimulus seeking and antiquarianism which are slightly anthropocentric and ecocentric scores respectively. But they have a very high score on environmental trust which is also an ecocentric category. It therefore seems that fraternal clubs are really toward the very center of sustainable development, trying to find a balance between the needs of humans and the nature. Professional Nonprofits: The results were astonishing for the professional nonprofits also. I expected the professional nonprofits to score high on anthropocentric categories; instead they have the lowest score on the highest anthropocentric category of environmental adaptation. Also, they have a quite high score on environmental trust which is a high ecocentric category. It seems that businesses are trying harder than it is generally thought, to be green. Or this may be due to the decades of work by environmental nonprofits and the creation of pro- environment public opinion in the greater Los Angeles region that is now bearing fruit as 117 the more ecocentric environmental ethics of professional groups. Although professional nonprofits are also somewhat to the center based on their overall scores in table 4, their inclination is more toward ecocentrism as compared to anthropocentrism. Religious Nonprofits: Religious nonprofits are right in the middle. They have no highest or lowest scores. However, we can see from table 4 above that the scores for anthropocentric categories for religious nonprofits are slightly higher as compared to their scores on ecocentric categories. Their score for pastoralism – the highest ecocentric category is 57.4, while their score for environmental adaptation is 62.9. However, overall the scores for religious nonprofits are evenly distributed across the different categories with no dramatic variation. We can therefore contend that religious nonprofits in the greater Los Angeles region have sustainable development environmental ethics with a slight anthropocentric and somewhat conflicting approach. Social Service Nonprofits: The results for social services nonprofits were also interesting. They have the lowest average score on pastoralism which is the highest ecocentric category. This may imply that social services nonprofits do not have a predominantly environmental focus. This might make sense since social service nonprofits attempt to provide services to the highest need segment of the population. Their objectives usually relate to providing resources to the people – their focus is people and resources as instrumental to people. Hence they have the lowest score on the highest category of ecocentrism. However, they have the highest score on environmental trust which is pretty high on the eceocentric category. We are not sure whether this high score is a translation of social services 118 nonprofits to care for the sick and the needy or is it care for the environment? But either way, it does seem that social services nonprofits do not completely discount the environment and they value it for its own inherent worth at least to some extent. They also have the lowest scores on need for privacy and mechanical orientation. These are high anthropocentric categories. However, these are high individualistic categories also. Social services nonprofits tend to care for the welfare of humans in general, not for themselves as individuals, hence the low scores. Social services NPOs were found to have the broadest spread within group for each type of environmental disposition (table 4). Most of the standard deviations with the exception of Urbanism have values over 10. This might also be explained by the vast variety of social services NPOs present on ground. There are social services NPOs that are concerned with education, other that care for health, still others for children, elderly, women, minorities, homeless, and the list goes on. Although as explained earlier in section 4.1.1 (table 2) this does not matter as much for the purpose of this research because in spite of this kind of spread the differences across different types of NPOs are more significant, and this is what is important for the purpose of this research. However, future research can further refine the categorization of the types of social services NPOs into various categories of education, health, homeless, etc. to provide a more sophisticated analysis of which types of social services NPOs in particular are more effective in helping achieve desirable environmental policy outcomes. 4.1.2 - Environmental Ethics as Discriminatory Attributes Among Different Types of Nonprofits: Now, are the differences in these scores significant? Can we differentiate among 119 different types of nonprofits based on their environmental dispositions and environmental ethics? This question has immense theoretical significance and in the future can help us better understand the strategies as well as the influence of nonprofit organizations of the processes and outcomes of the policies. Analysis of data shows that nonprofits of different types are not drastically different from each other; they are more or less all of them in favor of sustainable development. However, while they have this consensus on sustainable development, there are considerable and significant differences in their approach to sustainable development varying with the different types of nonprofits. Therefore, a discriminant analysis of the data was conducted with grouping done according to the different types of nonprofits. 1 refers to environmental, 2 to fraternal, 3 to professional, 4 to religious and 5 to social services nonprofits. Figure 2 below shows the centroids of the different types of nonprofit organizations. FIGURE 2: CENTROIDS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS: 120 Although a detailed discussion of the discriminant analysis is beyond the scope of this chapter, a cursory look at the group centroids for each type of nonprofit organizations reveals that the centroids are located quite far from each other although all of them are situated somewhat in the center of the graph. This implies clear differences among different types of nonprofits based on their environmental ethics. Function 1 is high mechanical orientation, high stimulus seeking and very low antiquarianism, i.e. centered sustainable development with a strong anthropocentric tilt. It has a significance of 0.3, implying that different types of nonprofits are mostly differentiated along this function. Environmental nonprofits are right at the center of function 1. Professional nonprofits are toward the negative side of function 1 since they have an ecocentric bent. Social services nonprofits are also slightly to the negative side of it demonstrating a centrist but slightly ecocentric perspective. Religious nonprofits are toward the positive end of function 1 showing a more anthropocentric perspective. Observing the structure matrix of the discriminant analysis, we can see that function 1 can be named as Mechanical Orientation and function 2 as Environmental Trust. Therefore function 1 is predominantly an anthropocentric function and function 2 is predominantly an ecocentric function based on the linking of environmental dispositions with environmental ethics in the theoretical framework of this study. TABLE 5: STRUCTURE MATRIX FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DISPOSITIONS OF NONPROFITS (DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS): Structure Matrix Function 1 2 3 4 Mechanical Orientation 0.41* -0.38 0.3 0.41 Environmental Trust -0.28 0.37* -0.37 -0.34 121 TABLE 5: CONTINUED … Structure Matrix Function 1 2 3 4 Need for Privacy 0.18 -0.41 0.70* 0.26 Environmental Adaptation 0.38 -0.28 0.56* 0.17 Stimulus Seeking 0.34 -0.14 0.53* 0.37 Antiquarianism -0.05 -0.18 0.46 0.44* Urbanism 0.32 0.04 0.33 -0.52 * Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant function However, the significance value of function 1 is 0.305 and for function 2 it is 0.611 calculated using Wilke’s Lambda. This shows that the differentiation between different types nonprofits based on the environmental ethics can predominantly be done according to how anthropocentric they are. Functions at group centroids also show that professional and social services nonprofits are more ecocentric, and that the social services nonprofits are mainly to the center and only slightly to the ecocentric side, they have negative values for function 1. The other nonprofits, environmental and fraternal are positive on function 1 though not very strong. While religious nonprofits are more strongly toward the anthropocentric side. TABLE 6: FUNCTIONS AT GROUP CENTROIDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS OF NONPROFITS: Functions at Group Centroids Type of Nonprofits Function 1 2 3 4 Environmental 0.26 -0.55 0.46 0 Fraternal 0.28 -0.7 -0.58 -0.49 Professional -0.49 -0.13 -0.14 0.13 Religious 1.04 0.16 -0.2 0.18 Social Services -0.08 0.39 0.1 -0.12 122 Conclusion: This section provides a framework to link environmental dispositions with environmental ethics. It contributes to the literature by providing a methodology to objectively measure the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations. Through empirically testing the theoretical framework, the research demonstrates that nonprofit organizations of different kinds do in fact differ from each other on the basis of their environmental ethics. Moreover, although there are significant differences in the environmental ethics of different types of nonprofits, this research shows that all types primarily agree on the basic premise of the ethics, i.e. a moderate, central and practical approach of sustainable development, rather than the extreme forms of anthropocentrism and ecocentrism. This may be the reason that environmental and professional nonprofits are now able to collaborate with each other. Most importantly it empirically supports the main assumption of this study that different types of nonprofits have on the average similar environmental ethics within groups, however, across groups the ethics differ considerably enough for us to argue that nonprofit organizations of different types can be differentiated from each other on the basis of their environmental dispositions. Or conversely that the type of nonprofits can be used as a proxy for the environmental ethics of nonprofits to see whether the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations has any impact on policy outcomes or not. 123 4.2 – Nonprofit Organizations and Policy Implementation: Individual Level Strategies: Introduction: This section of the chapter employing interview data of nonprofit organizations, tests the part of the theoretical framework which argues that the nonprofit organizations try to influence policy implementation by employing both the top-down and bottom-up strategies. Moreover, since I argued that nonprofits attempt to influence policy according to their individual perspective, and that the type of nonprofits can be used as a proxy for their perspectives as seen in section 4.1. Therefore, if we can show that different types of nonprofits although take different approaches to these individual level strategies of the top-down and bottom-up then we can argue that our argument was supported by data. This chapter indeed empirically supports the assertions of the theoretical framework. It responds to the second, fifth and sixth sub-questions of this research: “2 - How do nonprofits influence policy implementation? How to they attempt to influence the perspectives of public bureaucracy responsible for policy implementation? Does the selection of individual level strategies of influencing policy implementation differ according to the type of nonprofits? Are strategy decisions the functions of environmental ethics of nonprofits?” And “6 – Do nonprofits engage in consciousness-raising activities? If they do, is it a function of their type / environmental ethics? ” For its data this section relies on questions 1, 2 and 4 for the interview questionnaire. The process of data collection and coding has already been explained in the chapter on methodology. Those interview questions are, “1 – What are the objectives of your organization? Would you classify your nonprofit 124 organization as a fraternal club, professional, social service, environmental, or a religious organization?”, “2 – What kind of actions do you take to achieve those objectives? Do you work at the community level? Or do you do advocacy? Or do you do both? Or do you do something else? And “4 –If you deal with government organizations, do you think that they are: 1- responsive, 2- somewhat responsive, 3 – not responsive? Or do you not deal with government organizations at all?” Interviews conducted of 227 nonprofit organizations of various types demonstrate that very few nonprofit organizations exclusively work through the managerial (top) level of public agencies, and that most of the nonprofit organizations tend to employ the channel of grass-roots (bottom-up) influence. However, contrary to traditional belief of predominantly grass-roots activities by the nonprofits, this research shows that a considerable percentage of nonprofit organizations attempt to influence both – the managerial, as well as the grass-roots levels of bureaucracy in the public agencies, in order to impact the policy implementation by public agencies according to the nonprofits’ respective their interpretations of policies. Informed by the conceptual framework offered by the theories of top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) and bottom-up (Lipsky, 1980; Barrett and Fudge, 1981) of policy implementation, this research classifies the individual level strategies of nonprofits into three categories of: 1 – exclusively influencing the management level of public agencies, 2 – exclusively influencing the grass-roots bureaucracy, and 3 – influencing both, the management level as well as the grass-roots level of public bureaucracy. These strategies are variously employed by nonprofits with or without direct contact with local public agencies. 125 The nonprofits, as already explained are organized according to the five categories of: 1 – environmental, 2 - fraternal clubs, 3 - professional, 4 – religious and 5 - social services (including educational) nonprofit organizations. Moreover, since the nonprofits can employ top-down, bottom-up and both strategies either through direct or through no contact with public agencies, therefore this study also classifies nonprofits into two groups of nonprofits, 1 – all five types of nonprofits without direct contact with public agencies, and 2 – all five types of nonprofits having direct contact with public agencies. Analysis of the data revealed that different types of nonprofit organizations indeed use different types of strategies at the individual level to influence the process of policy implementation. Since we already observed in section 4.1 that the type of nonprofit can be used as a proxy for the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations, therefore, we can now argue, based on the findings of this section, that the logic of the theoretical framework presented by this study is empirically supported, that: 1 - the nonprofit organizations’ choice of strategies at least to some extent is related to the type of nonprofits, and 2 – nonprofit organizations employ both top-down and bottom-up strategies of influencing policy implementation. The data, when coded for different levels of bureaucracy which nonprofits’ attempt to influence during the policy implementation process, showed that only 4% of nonprofits employed the strategy of exclusively impacting the managerial level (top- down) of policy executives in local public agencies. Conversely, 63% of nonprofits used the strategy of exclusively influencing the grass-roots level (bottom-up) of local public bureaucracy. However, a considerable percentage of all nonprofits, 33% attempt to have 126 an influence on both the managerial as well as the grass-roots levels of public bureaucracy. Comparing the analyses for all three groups of nonprofits, where the first group comprises of all nonprofits, the second groups consists only of nonprofits without any direct contact with public agencies and the third groups consists entirely and exclusively of nonprofits having direct contact with public agencies, we see that the behavior of social services, environmental, religious and fraternal club nonprofits although different from each other, varied little across these three groups. The only type of nonprofits that showed difference in behavior by virtue of having or not having direct contact with public agencies was the professional nonprofit type. For the groups of all nonprofits and for nonprofits having direct contact with public agencies the professional nonprofits showed more inclination to use the strategies of exclusively management level influence and exclusively grass-roots level influence, and less inclination to use a combination of both strategies. However, for the group of nonprofits without any direct contact with public agencies, professional nonprofits were found to be more inclined to use a combination of both strategies as well as exclusively management level influence strategy. For the group of nonprofits without any direct contact with public agencies, professional nonprofits were less likely to use the strategy of exclusively grass-roots influence. The role of nonprofit, voluntary and advocacy organizations in policy formulation is well-documented through advocacy coalition theory (Sabatier, 1991, 1988), the concept of policy window of Kingdon (1984 ), attempts of change by nonprofit organizations explained through the punctuated equilibrium framework (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993), etc. Although the field has somewhat addressed the role of nonprofit 127 and philanthropic organizations in policy implementation (Andreassen, 2008; Austin, 2003), however, little is reported about the role of nonprofit sector in policy implementation, in a systematic and organized way through well-established theoretical frameworks. Although theories for explaining and understanding the processes and phenomenon of policy implementation exist (Barrett and Fudge, 1981; Lipsky, 1980; Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989), which attempt to explain the process of policy implementation through bureaucratic channels and bureaucratic influence, there is a lack of systematic explanations of nonprofits’ influence – if any, on the implementation process. It is hoped that this research will not only contribute to the theoretical understanding of nonprofits and policy processes, but would also assist the field of practice and governance through better comprehension of the role of nonprofit sector in policy processes. 4.2.1: All Nonprofits: FIGURE 3: NONPROFITS’ STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION BY LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES: Non-Profits' Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation By Local Public Agencies 4% 63% 33% Exclusively Management Level Exclusively Grass-Roots Level Both Management and Grass-Roots Levels of Local Bureaucracy Non-Profits Attempt to Influence Percentage of Non-Profits 128 TABLE 7: NONPROFITS’ STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION BY LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES, BY TYPE OF NONPROFITS: Environmental Fraternal Club Professional Religious Social Services Exclusively Management Level Influence 0 0 12% 0 0 Exclusively Grass-Roots Level Influence 50% 75% 50% 80% 67% Both Management and Grass- Roots Influence 50% 25% 38% 20% 33% For detailed descriptive statistics of this interview data including values for means and standard deviations please see appendix “G” below. It seems from the table above that among all nonprofits, the environmental nonprofits stand out as most frequently using both top-down ad bottom-up approaches to influence policy implementation by local bureaucracy. In order to see, whether there were any significant differences in the strategies of influence used by different types of nonprofits, discriminant analysis of the data was conducted so as to provide a picture of whether the differences are significant and which types of differences are significant across different types of NPOs. . Following is the canonical functions figure: 129 FIGURE 4: CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT FUNCTIONS CHART FOR NONPROFITS’ STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION BY LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES, BY TYPE OF NONPROFITS: Here 1 refers to Environmental, 2 to Fraternal, 3 to Professional, 4 to Religious and 5 to Social Services NPOs. Function 1 along the x-axis refers to management level influence while function 2 is grass-roots level influence. Although the group centroids of all nonprofits are closely plotted in the graph, a closer look at the functions at group centroid shows that NPOs differ from each other considerably in terms of their strategies at the individual level. 130 TABLE 8: DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS - FUNCTIONS AT GROUP CENTROIDS ACCORDING TO TYPES OF NONPROFITS: Functions at Group Centroids Type of Nonprofit Function 1 - Exclusively Management Level Influence 2 - Exclusively Grass-Roots Level Influence 1 - Environmental 0.056 -0.538 2 - Fraternal -0.378 0.239 3 - Professional 0.499 0.077 4 - Religious -0.34 0.171 5 – Social Services -0.202 -0.076 Table 8 shows that while all other nonprofits are negative on the exclusively management level influence function, professional and environmental nonprofits are positive, showing considerable difference from other types of nonprofits. This apparently translates into demonstrating that as a group professional and environmental NPOs are more inclined to use the strategy of exclusively management level influence as compared to other types of nonprofits. This makes intuitive sense. Professional nonprofits exist primarily to safeguard and promote the interests of an industry or a trade – most of the times. Therefore it makes sense for them to engage in management level advocacy efforts in order to obtain concrete forms of policy implementation based on an interpretation of policy that is favorable to the professional nonprofits’ stated purpose. Therefore, professional nonprofits per force would tend to influence the managerial level of local government bureaucracy. Another interesting observation to be made from discriminant analysis of this data is that religious, professional and fraternal nonprofits have positive values for the variable of exclusively grass-roots level influence, while environmental and social services are 131 negative for this function. Now, since professional nonprofits are also more inclined compared to other types of nonprofits to use the exclusively management level influence, and they are also more inclined to use the grass-roots level influence we can say that they are least inclined to use a combination of both approaches. The observation that professional nonprofits are positively inclined to use bottom-up strategy seems counter intuitive for professional nonprofits who are primarily interested only in concrete forms of policy implementation by the elites. However, this data include professional nonprofits, e.g. theaters that consider themselves as professional, theater lighting providers who again consider themselves as professional, but who are primarily interested in their performance, service delivery and business reputation and hence work at and in turn influence the grass-roots level. Such professional nonprofits would not be very inclined to approach the management level of local public bureaucracy. Hence we have professional nonprofits, that tend to predominantly get involved either in exclusively management level or exclusively grass-roots level activities but not as much in the a combination of both strategies. Although some professional nonprofits practice a combination of both strategies also, but discriminant analysis shows that the combination strategy is the least preferred by the professional nonprofits. This analysis also shows that environmental and social services nonprofits tend to not to use the exclusively grass-roots influence as compared to religious, professional and fraternal nonprofits. Since social services nonprofits were also negative on the exclusively management level function, the only logical conclusion we can draw is that, social services nonprofits are more inclined as compared to other types of nonprofits to 132 use the strategy of attempting to influence both the management level and grass-roots level bureaucracy of local public agencies. Environmental NPOs on the other hand are more likely to use management level strategies or both types of strategies as compared to the grass-roots level strategies exclusively. This is a very significant finding and helps to providing reasoning with the finding of this research that social services NPOs are more effective at the zip code as compared to the environmental NPOs to help reduce air pollution. It seems that the environmental NPOs in the dataset of this research are more interested in the national and state level policy formulation and implementation that is probably why they are not very inclined to use grass-roots level strategies at the local level. Social services NPOs, on the other hand use both strategies at the local level and may be that is one of the reasons for their significant effectiveness at the local level in reducing air (carbon monoxide) pollution. Conversely religious, professional and fraternal clubs are comparatively more inclined to use the exclusively grass-roots level strategy. This is also based on the nature of these two types of nonprofits. Religious nonprofits traditionally and by law shun contacts with public agencies and avoid getting involved in the day-to-day working of public agencies; they do not specifically attempt to conduct research and publish to influence policy implementation. However, through their grass-roots efforts of service delivery, whether they want to or not, they influence grass-roots society which includes grass-roots bureaucracy and hence religious nonprofits tend to predominantly use a strategy of grass-roots level influence on policy implementation. This is not to say that religious nonprofits do not use the combination strategy – they do that at times. During 133 the course of my interviews I noticed that religious nonprofits tend to use the combination strategy in times of increased need, as perceived by them. For example, the gay marriage issue in California, prompted many religious nonprofits to use the combination strategy since they felt very strongly about the issue as being drastically opposing to their deeply held values and beliefs. However, their predominant mode of strategy remains exclusively grass-roots level. Same is true for the fraternal clubs, by their very nature they are social and mutual support clubs of people with certain similar characteristics. They tend to provide support to the members and at times help them in personal and professional growth. Sometimes they also perform some social services for the society in general. During these processes, they do not target the management level of local bureaucracy for any specific objectives or any kind of advocacy, but they tend to influence a segment of grass-roots’ level of society and by doing so they impact the perspectives of grass-roots level bureaucracy. However, although grass-roots level influence is the predominant strategy of fraternal nonprofits, some fraternal nonprofits such as golf clubs and manager’s clubs, tend to use the combination strategy, where they are driven to developing the skills of young professional, but also tend to influence the perspectives of management level bureaucrats. But the combination strategy is not what we would generally expect fraternal club nonprofits to employ, based on this data. Also, I did not find any evidence where fraternal clubs would use the exclusively management level strategy. But may be this is a limitation of the data and may be further research would find something different. The following table summarizes these observations: 134 TABLE 9: KINDS OF STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION MOST AND LEAST LIKELY TO BE USED BY DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS: Type of Nonprofit Strategies Most Likely to Use Strategies Least Likely to Use 1 – Environmental 1 – exclusively management level, 2 - both 1 - exclusively grass-roots level, 2 - Fraternal Club 1 - exclusively grass-roots level 1 – exclusively management level, 2 - combination of both management level and grass-roots level influence 3 - Professional 1 - exclusively management level, 2 - exclusively grass- roots level 1 - combination of both management level and grass-roots level influence 4 – Religious 1 - exclusively grass-roots level 1 - exclusively management level, 2 - combination of both management level and grass-roots level influence 5 - Social Services 1 - combination of both management level and grass- roots level influence 1 - exclusively grass-roots level, 2 - exclusively management level These are very interesting findings which provide us with an analytical and conceptual map, a systematic and structured way of understanding the different ways, in which nonprofit organizations of different types attempt to influence policy implementation by local public agencies. I also analyzed the data and strategies of NPOs which have direct contact with public agencies and those that do not have direct contact with public agencies. However, none of the functions of the discriminant analysis for these two groups were significant; hence the details of that analysis are given in the Appendix “H” below. 135 4.3 – Nonprofits’ Influence on Environmental Policy Outcomes: Introduction: Per the theoretical framework of this research and data analysis in section 4.1, we have already seen that different types of nonprofits have different types of environmental ethics and hence type of nonprofits can be used as the proxy for different environmental ethics they represent. We have also seen above in 4.2 that the nonprofits influence policy implementation at the individual level through the top-down and bottom-up framework argued in the theoretical framework of this research. Now, if we can show that the nonprofit organizations of different types have some influence on environmental policy outcomes and that different types of nonprofits have different types of impact on policy outcomes, we can empirically demonstrate support for another component of the theoretical framework and solve one part of the puzzle which argues that nonprofit organizations actually have influence on environmental policy outcomes according to their environmental ethics. This section aims to respond to the sub-question 3 of this research, i.e. “3 – Do nonprofits impact environmental outcomes or not? Whether this influence is a function of type of nonprofit or not? ” It employs the ecological data collected for this research. The process of data collection and preparation for this analysis is already explained in the chapter on methodology. Research has shown that urbanism especially urban sprawl, as well as thickly populated places are related to greater air pollution (Audirac, Shermyen, and Smith, 1990; Johnson, 1992). Other socio-economic factors like income, geography, etc. 136 (Hofferbert, 1974) are also shown to influence environmental outcomes. Moreover, the role of nonprofits in policy formulation is dealt with in considerable detail (Sabatier, 1991, 1988). The advocacy and collaboration (Ali, 2003) efforts go beyond the policy processes to impact the attitudes and practices with the objective of achieving the desirable and environmentally just air quality outcomes. Scholars have attempted to measure the impact of participation on environmental outcomes measured as local plans (Brody, 2003). However, little is reported by way of empirical modeling and findings about the statistical impacts of socio-economic factors and nonprofit organizations on actual air quality “outcomes”. I could not find any existing empirical model which is comprehensive and inclusive of most of the socio-economic factors (including nonprofits) that are indicated by the literature to have an impact on air quality. This section is an attempt to study whether any or all of the socio-economic, demographic and geographic factors such as age, income, race, etc. as well as nonprofit organizations of different types in collaborative environmental planning (Lane, 2003; Mandarano, 2008), have any bearing on the place-based air pollution. This research develops an empirical model that includes most of the socio-economic factors and nonprofits indicated by the literature to influence air quality. Moreover, social scientists and researchers in urban planning and policy, while attempting to empirically investigate the relationship of place-based urban social factors (e.g. income level, population density, etc.) with air quality face a major hurdle – air is mobile, air pollutants chemically react with each other and undergo transformation on a continuous basis. This means that the level of pollution measured at any specific location 137 estimates not only the locally caused pollution, but also the transported and transformed pollution for all kinds of pollutants in air. In order to investigate the air quality as policy outcome of urban social factors, we need to find a way by which we can use an air pollutant as a dependent variable in empirical analysis. Because of these limitations public policy and urban planning research is highly constrained in what it can produce as information, analysis, prediction and evaluation of policies. Now the question is; is there an air pollutant out of the USEPA regulated pollutants which can be used as a measure of local level policy outcomes, and as “dependent variable” in social science empirical research and regressions? Is there a pollutant for which we can, with some degree of confidence, isolate the local/zip code/place-based level of pollution from transported and transformed level? This research also attempts to respond to these questions. This research contributes to the existing literature by arguing that if we consider the particular topography and meteorology of a place, we can use measured levels of Carbon Monoxide in air as an indicator of local air quality in a particular zip code. For details please see Appendix A. Using levels of carbon monoxide in air as dependent variable, this research empirically shows that socio-economic factors and nonprofits do indeed have an impact on environmental outcomes. It shows that per capita income and the percentage of social equity nonprofits in a zip code are two variables that are significantly related to place- based carbon monoxide levels in air. This section presents analysis which clearly shows that social services nonprofits are statistically and significantly related to the environmental policy outcomes and that the higher percentages of social services nonprofits in a zip code are related to higher levels of local carbon monoxide pollution in 138 that zip code. Moreover, low per capita income is also related to high pollution. However, there is no relationship between income level and the percentage of nonprofits in a zip code. 4.3.1 - Discussion of Findings: Social science research about environmental outcomes, so far, has shied away from using levels of air pollution as dependent variables due to the issues discussed above. However, considering the discussion on Carbon Monoxide in Appendix A, we can be reasonably confident of employing it as a dependent variable in social science regression analyses and other statistical analyses. Based on the empirical model stated in methodology above, a regression analysis was carried out to investigate the influence of various socio-economic factors on air quality outcomes, if any. The following table shows the results of the regression analysis, for details about data please see Appendix F. TABLE 10: REGRESSION ANALYSIS WITH LEVELS OF CARBON MONOXIDE AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE FOR DIFFERENT ZIP CODES IN THE SCAQMD REGION: Independent Variables Coefficients t Stat P-value Intercept 3.095 1.467 0.181 Traffic Frequency^ 0.354 2.37 0.045 Type of Traffic (arterial, highway, etc.)^ -0.107 -0.862 0.414 Port/Airport^^^ -0.08 -0.483 0.642 Predominant wind direction^ 0.16 1.696 0.128 Per Capita Income^^ -0.472 -1.906 0.093 Population Density^^ 1.126 1.747 0.119 % of Environmental Nonprofits^^^^ -1.844 -0.3 0.772 % of Professional Nonprofits^^^^ -2.653 -1.389 0.202 % of Religious Nonprofits^^^^ -0.184 -0.059 0.954 % of Social Equity Nonprofits^^^^ 6.537 2.055 0.074 139 TABLE 10: CONTINUED … Independent Variables Coefficients t Stat P-value Inhibited Horizontal Dispersion^ = f(speed and mountains or upward urban growth) -0.806 -2.856 0.021 ^Data Source: CARB or SCAQMD website ^^Data Source: US Census website ^^^Data Source: Google Earth ^^^^ Data Source: Guidestar.com The value of adjusted R 2 is 0.86 which means that 86% of the variations in levels of carbon monoxide can be explained by this model. This is a considerably strong R 2 for social science research and demonstrates that the model is quite robust. Now, to see whether any of the factors in the model were significant or not, we conducted the t-test as well as calculated the p-values. Per capita income was found to be significant at the 5% level. Its coefficient also has a negative value implying that the relationship between per capita income and the place-based carbon monoxide pollution in air is an inverse relationship, i.e. lower per capita income is significantly related to the higher carbon monoxide levels. This means that using the topography and meteorological variables in the model we were able to isolate the locally produced carbon monoxide from the transported carbon monoxide, used it as a dependant variable in the model and were able to demonstrate the relationship of the independent socio-economic factor of per capita income with air pollution. Although it is a generally accepted fact that low income neighborhoods / zip codes have worse environmental quality. This model empirically demonstrated it. The relationship between per capita income and carbon monoxide pollution can be due to various reasons, a complete discussion of which is beyond the scope of this study. However, the coefficient for per capita income is not too high, it is 140 only 0.47, which essentially implies that for every 1 unit decrease in per capita income the carbon monoxide level in air increases by 0.47 unit, keeping all other independent variables constant. As expected traffic frequency is also positive and significant at the 5% level with a coefficient value of 0.354. This means that for every 1 unit increase in traffic frequency the carbon monoxide level in air increases by 0.354. Predominant wind direction is significant but at 10% level and it has a very small coefficient of positive 0.16. This means that wind direction although significant, is not very effective in changing the levels of carbon monoxide pollution in air. The variable of inhibited horizontal dispersion is also significant at the 5% level with a high value of coefficient i.e. -0.806, which essentially means that every unit decrease in inhibited horizontal dispersion increases the level of carbon monoxide in air by 1 unit. This is counter intuitive and against the expectations of the theoretical framework of this research. However, it might be noted that this inhibited horizontal dispersion was measured for the South Coast region of California which has cities like Long Beach, where the inhibited horizontal dispersion value might be low since Long Beach is a coastal area, but at the same time since it is a busy port and a has high traffic frequency, therefore, in spite of low inhibited horizontal dispersion value its air pollution level might be higher. The particular geographical and economic context of the South Coast region might have led to this counter intuitive value for the variable. Another variable that was found to be significant was the percentage of social equity nonprofit organizations. This variable is significant at the 5% level and hence we can be more confident about it. The coefficient for social equity nonprofits is positive and 141 high, its value is 6.57. This means that for every 1 percentage point increase in the percentage of social services nonprofits compared to other types of nonprofits in the zip code, the level of carbon monoxide in air increases by 6.57 units and vice versa, while keeping all other independent variables constant. However, the question now becomes, is there a relationship between per capita income and the percentage of social services nonprofits in a zip code? Do low income zip codes have high percentage of social equity nonprofits? A t test was conducted to see whether there is a relationship between per capita income and the percentage of social equity nonprofits in a zip code relative to other types of nonprofits. One tailed paired test had a value of 1.5*10 -10 and two tailed, paired test had the value of 3*10 -10 , both of these values are insignificant indicating no significant relationship between per capita income and the percentage of social equity nonprofit organizations in a zip code. Hence the results obtained from regression analysis seem to hold ground. Per capita income is inversely related to the carbon monoxide pollution in a certain zip code and the percentage of social equity nonprofits is directly and positively related to high levels of carbon monoxide in air in a certain zip code. We cannot speculate about the reasons of our results at this point. Further research into various aspects of per capita income and the social services nonprofits is expected to shed more light on the phenomenon. It does seem, however, that social services NPOs tend to locate in zip codes of high need, low income and lower middle income zip codes. They do not generally seem to prefer locating in zip codes of very high income where they are not needed. They are also not found to be located in zip codes of lowest per capita incomes. The reasons 142 provided in the literature about social services NPOs not preferring to locate in zip codes of lowest income relate to issues of funding for the social services NPOs. Although this analysis of air pollution data from the year 2006 show a relationship between the percentages of social services nonprofits in a zip code and the level of carbon monoxide in that zip code, it does not in any way demonstrate the direction of this relationship. In order to see whether social services nonprofits actually impact carbon monoxide pollution levels in the zip codes of their location, we shall look at a time series model comparing percentage of social services nonprofits with the levels of carbon monoxide pollution in these zip codes over a period of 6 years to provide us with an idea of whether there is a relationship between social services nonprofits and the increasing and decreasing levels of carbon monoxide in air. The following table shows the time series trend of the levels of carbon monoxide in air and the percentage of social services nonprofits in each zip code, arranged in ascending order of the percentages of social services nonprofits: TABLE 11: TABLE SHOWING TIME SERIES VALUES OF CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS IN AIR FROM 2003 TO 2007 AND THE PERCENTAGES OF SOCIAL SERVICES NONPROFITS IN EACH ZIP CODE: Carbon Monoxide Level in Air / Year Zip Code Station 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 % of Social Services NPOs Difference between the Carbon Monoxide Levels of 2003 and 2007 91786 Upland 1.70 1.80 1.80 2.10 2.90 0.14 1.20 92802 Anaheim 2.90 3.00 3.30 4.10 3.90 0.16 1.00 143 TABLE 11: CONTINUED … Carbon Monoxide Level in Air / Year Zip Code Station 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 % of Social Services NPOs Difference between the Carbon Monoxide Levels of 2003 and 2007 92530 Lake Elsinore 1.40 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.30 0.16 -0.10 91702 Azusa 1.80 1.70 1.70 2.00 2.60 0.17 0.80 92691 Mission Viejo 2.20 1.80 1.60 1.60 1.80 0.18 -0.40 91767 Pomona 2.00 2.10 2.50 3.10 4.40 0.19 2.40 91335 Reseda 2.80 3.40 3.50 3.50 4.10 0.19 1.30 90660 Pico Rivera 2.90 2.70 2.40 3.60 4.00 0.19 1.10 92410 San Bernardino 2.30 2.30 2.40 3.30 4.60 0.20 2.30 90012 Los Angeles 2.20 2.60 3.10 3.20 4.60 0.20 2.40 92626 Costa Mesa 3.10 3.00 3.20 4.10 5.80 0.21 2.70 91321 Santa Clarita 1.20 1.30 1.30 3.70 1.70 0.22 0.50 92501 Rubidoux 2.90 2.10 2.50 3.00 3.70 0.24 0.80 90631 La Habra 2.90 3.00 3.10 4.00 4.10 0.25 1.20 92262 Palm Springs 0.80 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.30 0.27 0.50 90045 LAX Hastings 2.40 2.30 2.10 3.00 5.00 0.28 2.60 90807 Long Beach 2.60 3.40 3.50 3.40 4.70 0.33 2.10 91106 Pasadena 2.30 2.80 2.80 3.40 3.80 0.35 1.50 90262 Lynwood 5.10 6.40 5.90 6.70 7.30 0.36 2.20 91502 Burbank 2.80 3.50 3.40 3.70 4.70 0.47 1.90 Although the table above shows higher values in the difference column corresponding to higher percentages of social services nonprofits, we cannot be sure about it unless we obtain chi square values for the relationship between percentages of social services nonprofits and the difference in the levels of carbon monoxide over a period of five years. We assume here that the nonprofits we studied in 2006 were also present on the ground from 2003. This is a reasonable assumption since the data for nonprofits were collected from the GuideStar website and the GuideStar website displays data for 144 nonprofits who had filed income tax for at least one previous year. The nonprofits that were found on the GuideStar website usually had income tax forms going back to the 90s. Hence it is reasonable to assume that the nonprofits included in this analysis were working since 2003 and in 2007, although our base year is 2006. Based on our observation of the above table that increased percentages of social services nonprofits in a zip code is related to increased values of differences in levels of carbon monoxide from 2003 to 2007, we can argue that the social services nonprofits, at least to some degree are also responsible for reduced levels of air pollution in these zip codes. Social services nonprofits were also found to be significant in the regression analysis above. However, regression analysis did not establish or support causality. It merely stated a relationship which could go both ways, e.g. it might be that social services nonprofits tend to locate in areas of high pollution because high pollution leads to and is a cause of various health and socio-economic problems which the social services nonprofits aim to solve. However, the time series analysis provided us with more confidence about the role of social services nonprofits in mitigating air pollution. This analysis supports the idea that higher percentage of social services nonprofits indeed seem to lead to lower levels of carbon monoxide in air. The Pearsons Chi Square value for percentage of social services nonprofits and the difference in the levels of carbon monoxide from 2003 to 2007 is 231, which is significant at the 0.0005 level with 19 degrees of freedom. It has a p-value of 0.3. This demonstrates a significant and positive relationship, i.e. higher percentages of social 145 services nonprofits are related to more significant decreases in the levels of carbon monoxide in the local air. A simple correlation demonstrates an r-value of 0.35 with 18 degrees of freedom, showing that at least 12% and at most 16% of the variation in air quality is linearly related to the percentage of social services nonprofits in a zip code. The r value of 0.35 is significant at the 0.10 level for one tailed correlation test. This further strengthens our confidence in the argument that social services nonprofits tend to have some kind of relationship with reduced levels of carbon monoxide in air in the zip codes of their location. The discussion of possible reasons for this finding are beyond the scope of this study, however, we can assume that since social equity nonprofits are mostly altruistic organizations, they might tend to focus more on the measures that feed the hungry, and care for the development needs of the high-need segments of the society. Or there may be some other related factor or reason, whatever the case, subsequent research is needed to provide further information. We saw above in section 4.1 that the environmental ethics of all types of nonprofits differ from each other according to the type of nonprofits – in other words, the types of nonprofits can be differentiated on the basis of environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations. And now we see that the higher percentage of social services nonprofits in a zip code is related to higher levels of air pollution and locally created carbon monoxide. It thus logically shows a relationship between the environmental ethics of nonprofits and the environmental outcomes. It shows that since the type of nonprofits can be used as a proxy for the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations, therefore the 146 environmental ethics of nonprofits are, at least to some degree, related to the environmental policy outcomes of the local zip code area. This is in accordance with the theoretical framework of this study and empirically supports the arguments of the theoretical framework of this study. This analysis and findings of the research also clearly demonstrate the application of using level of Carbon Monoxide in air as the dependent variable / policy outcome in air at the local/zip code level in empirical analysis of quantitative data for social science research. The analysis and research of this study was made possible only by employing air quality as the dependant variable and as the measure of air quality outcomes. It opens new opportunities for doing similar and more advanced research about urban planning and policy formulation and implementation. It provides an innovative way of testing for and identifying explanatory socio-economic variables for achieving desirable policy outcomes and outputs. Higher level of confidence about the power of explanatory variables in determining the outcomes and outputs might also help us in conducting more in-depth policy analysis for the purpose of forming local and regional polices and urban planning. Use of Carbon Monoxide levels isolated from transported levels of Carbon Monoxide has wide applicability and is not limited to Greater Los Angeles Region alone. 4.3.2 - Social Services Nonprofits and Environmental Nonprofits: Social services nonprofits seem to have the strongest influence on environmental policy outcomes based on the data of this research. It is interesting to note that based on the analysis of data for this dissertation, social services nonprofits demonstrated a tendency to be located in middle and lower middle income zip codes more often than 147 higher middle income, very high income and very low income zip codes. This was concluded because: 1 - Although social services nonprofits and per capita income levels were not significantly related to each other; per capita income and carbon monoxide levels in air are related to each other so that high per capita income is related to low carbon monoxide pollution and vice versa. 2 – Similar to the per capita income, the percentage of social services nonprofits was also linearly related to levels of carbon monoxide in air. It is positively and significantly related to the carbon monoxide level in air. 1 and 2 above indicate that although there is no direct linear relationship between the percentage of social services nonprofits and income level, an indirect but significant relationship between the two might exist. Having seen that social services nonprofits tend to locate in areas of higher need and having seen that areas of higher need also tend to have low per capita incomes, we might expect to see a positive and significant relationship between the percentage of social services nonprofits and per capita income. However, no such relationship exists. This leads us to believe that although social services nonprofits tend to locate in areas of high need, it is probable that they do not locate in areas of highest needs. Literature also demonstrates that this indeed is true on a larger scale and that the location decisions of nonprofits are more often than not based on needs of the community as well as the possibilities of generating funding for the nonprofits. Charities are no longer considered uncontaminated by market phenomenon (Futter, Cion, Overtun, 2002). 148 Moreover, these decisions are also based on the likelihood of success in a particular location for the kind of services provided by social services nonprofits. FIGURE 5: CHART SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEVEL OF CARBON MONOXIDE IN AIR IN A ZIP CODE AND THE LOCATION DECISION OF THE PERCENTAGE OF SOCIAL SERVICES NONPROFITS: Social Sevices NonProfits and Levels of CO in Air 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000 6.0000 7.0000 Locations in Southern California Arranged in Descending order of Levels of Carbon Monoxide (CO) in Air Percentage of Social Services NPOs for Each Zip Code The figure above shows that social services nonprofits do not in general tend to locate in the zip codes of highest need (lowest per capita income). Nor do they locate as much in zip codes of highest per capita income (3.5) or lowest need. Neither are they present as frequently in zip codes of considerably high per capita incomes (3.0). They are located mostly in zip codes that are lower middle income or low income, but not lowest, between per capita ranges of 1.5 to 2.0 mostly and to some extent up till 2.5 per capita income levels. 149 Based on the figure and discussion above, I made the decision to look at a time series model. Since social services nonprofits tend to locate in areas of high need, I was curious to see whether they actually make a difference in the areas of their location. I therefore decided to analyze a time series model of percentages of social services nonprofits and the level of carbon monoxide in air over a few years. Based on the relationship of social services nonprofits with per capita income we now knew that social services nonprofits are more likely to locate toward one end of the curve (lower income) more often than the other end (very high income). Therefore, I decided to conduct a one- tailed correlation test as opposed to two tailed correlation test for the time series model. It is interesting to note that based on the analysis of data above (table 11), we can see that social services nonprofits tend to make positive difference over a longer period of time on the environmental quality of the zip code of their location, at least in terms of reduced levels of Carbon Monoxide pollution. This research attempted to demonstrate that nonprofits are “one” of the factors among a multitude of factors that are related with environmental policy implementation and environmental outcomes. It did not pertain to claim that nonprofits are the only reason for the reduction of air pollution. The analysis of data shows that nonprofits in general and social services in particular, indeed might be one of the factors impacting environmental outcomes. Although it might seem strange at the moment to observe that environmental nonprofits do not play as significant a part in environmental outcomes as social services nonprofits, it will become clearer in the preceding paragraphs that the efforts of social services NPOs work in conjunction with the environmental NPOs to achieve the desirable environmental policy outcomes. The 150 interconnectivity among NPOs’ service delivery and advocacy is the key to understanding their impact on environmental policy outcomes. Comparing the environmental dispositions’ scores of social services nonprofits with environmental nonprofits in table 4 above, we can see that while social services NPOs scored the highest on Environmental Trust, environmental NPOs scored the lowest on Environmental Trust. Environmental Trust is the second highest category of ecocentrism. In addition, social services NPOs scored the lowest on Mechanical orientation which is the second highest anthropocentric category, while the environmental NPOs scored the highest on Mechanical Orientation. These results, although not conclusive do tell us that social services NPOs are more ecocentric than they are thought to be. Interestingly the social services NPOs also have the lowest score on pastoralism which is the highest ecocentric category. However, pastoralism corresponds more to the environmentalism of the type which tends to emphasize the preservation of the natural environment over everything else. This was a dominant view in the early movement of the 60s and the 70s, however, with time, more balanced and pragmatic approaches such as ecological modernization which talk about green development replaced the dominance of pastoralism. Environmental NPOs, we can see from table 4 still have the highest score on pastoralism, i.e. preserving the natural environment in its virgin form. This presents a very interesting picture, which on the one hand shows the environmental NPOs actively trying to preserve open space, and trying to achieve this through the national, state and regional governments. At the local level however, the social services nonprofits which have the highest score for Environmental Trust, are 151 busy, assisted by the laws which Environmental NPOS help enact, to improve the health and well being of the humans and the natural environment through their every-day service delivery and advocacy efforts for issues such as health, children, families, women, elderly, homeless, education, and such. Although these social services NPOs do not directly address the issue of clean air, however, their causes indirectly support and perform functions that promote healthier air quality. This frees the environmental NPOs to look at the bigger picture and the overall environmental objectives while social services NPOs benefit from those efforts and in turn provide benefits to the environmental NPOs by helping improve environmental policy outcomes at the local / zip code level. This was also supported by our earlier finding in section 4.2 which shows that environmental NPOs do not prefer grass-roots level strategies of influencing policy implementation at the local level while social services NPOs do. This may be one of the reasons why at the local level social services NPOs may be more effective as compared to the environmental NPOs in helping reduce air pollution at the local level. This completes the circle for this research, which initially attempted to consider a holistic picture of the issue of air quality and nonprofits. All the factors that this research considered for its analysis, including different types of NPOs, work interactively and interdependent with each other to impact the environmental policy outcomes. Conclusion: This research developed a comprehensive empirical model inclusive of most socio-economic factors that are shown to influence air quality outcomes in general. It demonstrated a robust relationship between socio-economic factors and place-based air 152 pollution. It showed that lower per capita income is related to high level of carbon monoxide pollution in air and vice versa. Similarly it also demonstrated that high percentage of social equity nonprofits in a zip code is positively and significantly related to higher levels of carbon monoxide in air. Moreover, Carbon Monoxide seems to be the only US EPA regulated pollutant whose measured levels at local monitoring stations can be used as measures of air quality policy outcomes as place-based local outcome at the local zip code level, while also incorporating other meteorological and geographical factors in the empirical model, e.g. wind direction, wind speed and natural and built environmental and geographical features. Most importantly it supports the theoretical framework of this research that the nonprofit organizations are related to the local environmental outcomes. Since we already saw that different types of nonprofits have on the average different types of environmental ethics, and that the type of nonprofits can be used as a proxy for the environmental ethics of different types of nonprofit organizations. Therefore, based on the observation that social services nonprofits in the long run tend to be related to decreased levels of carbon monoxide in air, we can argue that the nonprofits do indeed impact or are at least related to the local environmental outcomes and that this relationship is based on the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations. These findings have potential beyond this study. This research has shown a method of potentially to resolve a major difficulty in the form of lack of viable and valid dependent variables for air quality outcomes for researchers interested in measuring the effect of local policy implementation and local socio-economic factors on place-based air quality outcomes. More importantly it can be used to analyze policies in the formulation 153 stage to better predict the outcomes It can be used to conduct further research into demographic, sociological, political, and other local policy and urban planning related factors at zip code level in the greater Los Angeles region and for other places. It can also be used to respond to questions about land-use and transportation planning / policy and to discern effective practices from the non-effective ones. It can also be used for evaluation research once a policy is formulated to quantify differences in implementation and to isolate the effect of topographical, demographical and other factors from the impact of policy implementation. It also raises further questions. Where and how it is applicable? How to accurately measure Carbon Monoxide in air? How to apply this research to predict policy outcomes? How to apply this knowledge in land-use and transportation planning / policy? Etc. Further research is needed to respond to such questions. 4.4 – Network Level Strategies of Nonprofits: Nonprofits’ Interactions with Each Other and Impact on Policy Implementation: Introduction: Since the theoretical framework of this study differentiated between the individual and network level strategies of nonprofit organizations, this section, therefore, is an effort to look at the network level strategies of nonprofit organizations in terms of their interaction with each other this section analyzes the activities of nonprofits that deal with their interaction with each other. This section shows through discriminant analysis and chi test that nonprofits of different types differ considerably in their approach to interaction with other types of nonprofits, hence it can be argued that their respective environmental ethics might be responsible for such differences. Further, if the environmental ethics determine the network level activities of influence of nonprofits and 154 if the activities of influence determine their impact on the local environmental outcomes (which we saw happens) - then we can say that the environmental ethics of nonprofits influence their impact on local environmental policy outcomes. In the theoretical framework, it was argued that the network level activities of nonprofit organizations are a function of the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations, so if the network level activities of nonprofits differ by type of nonprofit, which we have already seen can be used as a proxy for the environmental ethics, then we can say that the argument of the theoretical framework was empirically supported. Moreover, the theoretical framework argued that the nature of interaction of nonprofit organizations with each other also depends on the environmental ethics of nonprofits. Again, if we can demonstrate that nonprofits mostly collaborate with like minded nonprofits and feel threatened by nonprofits that do not share their world view then we can say that this part of the theoretical framework is also empirically supported. The analysis showed that nonprofits differ considerably in their interaction of collaboration as well as confrontation from each other. Using discriminant analysis and chi test, it shows that it is possible that the underlying environmental ethics of nonprofits are responsible for the differences observed in the behavior of nonprofits. It shows that social services nonprofits differ considerably from other types of nonprofits in their interaction style. This might further strengthen the findings of section 4.1 and section 4.3 that social services nonprofits are different in their environmental ethics from other types of nonprofits and that this may possibly be the reason why they have an impact on environmental policy outcomes which is different from all other types of nonprofits. It also further strengthens our empirical demonstration of the theoretical framework. 155 The aim of this section is to empirically respond to the sub-question 4 of this research, i.e. “4 – How do nonprofit organizations interact with each other? Is their Interaction a function of their environmental ethics? How is this interaction related to their local environmental outcomes?” This part relies on two of the interview questions for its data, question 3, which is “3 – Do you collaborate with other like minded organizations (even if it is not your primary objective) for meeting your objectives? If yes, how?” and question 5, which asked, “5 – Do you think that you face opposition of any kind, in achieving your objectives from other entities and/or organizations? If yes, what kind of opposition? How do you deal with it?” These questions were coded as explained in the chapter on methodology and the coded data were used for this analysis. This section is divided into three parts, in the first part I look at the collaborative interactions among different types of nonprofits. My goal in this part is to show that different types of nonprofit organizations differ in their choice of collaboration and that this decision may be based on their underlying differences in environmental ethics. In the second part I analyze the confrontational interaction among nonprofits. My goal again is to demonstrate that he differences in the decision about confrontation among nonprofits might be a function of their underlying environmental ethics. In the third part I will look at the combined strategies of confrontation and collaboration for each type of nonprofit organization. I will show that although all types of nonprofits engage in both activities of interaction with other nonprofits, they differ considerably in their approach to this interaction, and these differences might be a function of their underlying environmental ethics. 156 Discussion of Findings: 4.4.1 - Collaboration among Nonprofits: Nonprofits of all types demonstrated a strong inclination to collaborate with other nonprofit organizations, for all types of nonprofits except religious the ration of not collaborating to collaborating was roughly 25:75, for religious nonprofits 81% reported collaborating with other nonprofit organizations. The following table provides a clear idea of these statistics: TABLE 12: PERCENTAGES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS WHICH COLLABORATE AND DO NOT COLLABORATE WITH OTHER NONPROFITS: Collaborate Type of Nonprofits Collaborate or Not Frequency Valid Percent Environmental Do Not Collaborate 4 25 Collaborate 12 75 Fraternal Do Not Collaborate 6 31.58 Collaborate 13 68.42 Professional Do Not Collaborate 18 25.71 Collaborate 52 74.29 Missing Data 1 Religious Do Not Collaborate 5 16.13 Collaborate 26 83.87 Missing Data 1 Social Services Do Not Collaborate 22 25.58 Collaborate 64 74.42 Missing Data 2 For detailed descriptive statistics of this interview data including values for means and standard deviations please see appendix “G” below. We can see from the table above that the ratio of not collaborating to collaborating for social services and professional 157 nonprofits is exactly the same. Religious nonprofit organizations tend to collaborate more while fraternal nonprofits collaborate less. However, the objective of this section is to differentiate between different types of nonprofit organizations, assuming that the underlying differences in their respective environmental ethics lead to the differences in the behavior of nonprofits and for the purpose of this section – the behavior of nonprofits that deals with their interaction with other nonprofits. Therefore, a crosstabs analysis and chi test of the variables was conducted for different types of nonprofits as variables and the variable of collaboration, which was coded as 1 or 0 depending on whether nonprofits collaborate with each other or not. The following table provides cross-tab analysis for differences in collaborative behavior of different types of nonprofits: TABLE 13: CROSS-TABS FOR TYPES OF NONPROFITS AND COLLABORATION AMONG NONPROFITS OF EACH TYPE: Type of Nonprofits * Collaborate Cross-tabulation Don't Collaborate Collaborate Type of Nonprofits Environmental N 4 12 % within Environmental 25 75 % within collaborate 7.27 7.19 % of Total 1.8 5.41 Fraternal N 6 13 % within Fraternal 31.58 68.42 % within collaborate 10.91 7.78 % of Total 2.7 5.86 Professional N 18 52 % within Professional 25.71 74.29 % within collaborate 32.73 31.14 % of Total 8.11 23.42 158 TABLE 13: CONTINUED … Type of Nonprofits * Collaborate Cross-tabulation Don't Collaborate Collaborate Religious Count 5 26 % within Religious 16.13 83.87 % within collaborate 9.09 15.57 % of Total 2.25 11.71 Social Services N 22 64 % within Social Services 25.58 74.42 % within collaborate 40 38.32 % of Total 9.91 28.83 Total N 55 167 % within Total 24.77 75.23 % within collaborate 100 100 % of Total 24.77 75.23 For detailed descriptive statistics of this interview data including mean and standard deviation values please see appendix “G” below. However, the Chi-square value is 0.776 indicating that the differences among different types of nonprofits in terms of whether they collaborate with other nonprofits or not are not significant and hence on the basis of this network level strategy we cannot differentiate among different types of nonprofits. 4.4.2 - Confrontation among Nonprofits: Nonprofits of all types demonstrated that they do use the strategy of confrontation and opposition or feel opposed by other nonprofits. However, they did not show as strong an inclination toward confrontation as they did toward collaboration. The ratio of confrontation to no confrontation for all types of nonprofit organizations was different from each other. The following table provides a clear idea of these statistics: 159 TABLE 14: PERCENTAGES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS WHICH CONFRONT / OPPOSE AND DO NOT OPPOSE OTHER NONPROFITS: Confrontation Type of Nonprofits Confront or Not Frequency Valid Percent Environmental Do Not Confront 9 56.3 Confront 7 43.8 Fraternal Do Not Confront 16 84.2 Confront 3 15.8 Professional Do Not Confront 47 67.1 Confront 23 32.9 Missing Data 1 Religious Do Not Confront 21 67.7 Confront 10 32.3 Missing Data 1 Social Services Do Not Confront 62 73.8 Confront 22 26.2 Missing Data 4 For detailed descriptive statistics of this interview data including values for means and standard deviations please see appendix “G” below. Environmental nonprofits reported the highest percentage of opposition (44%). This is followed by the professional and religious nonprofits which reported opposition 32% of the times. Social services perceived opposition 26% of the times and the fraternal nonprofits only about 16%. However, my objective in this section is to differentiate between the different types of nonprofit organizations, assuming that the underlying differences in their respective environmental ethics lead to the differences in the behavior of nonprofits and, for the purpose of this section – the behavior of nonprofits that deals with their interaction of confrontation with other nonprofits. Therefore, a cross-tabulation analysis of the variables was conducted for different types of nonprofits as variables and the 160 variable of perceived opposition (henceforth referred to as confront or confrontation), which was coded as 1 or 0 depending on whether nonprofits confront each other or not. TABLE 15: CROSS-TABULATION OF TYPES OF NONPROFITS WITH CONFRONTATIONAL STRATEGY: Type of Nonprofits * Confrontational Strategy Cross-tabulation Don't Confront Confront Type of Nonprofits Environmental N 9 7 % within Environmental 56.25 43.75 % within Opposition 5.81 10.77 % of Total 4.09 3.18 Fraternal N 16 3 % within Fraternal 84.21 15.79 % within Opposition 10.32 4.62 % of Total 7.27 1.36 Professional N 47 23 % within Professional 67.14 32.86 % within Opposition 30.32 35.38 % of Total 21.36 10.45 Religious N 21 10 % within Religious 67.74 32.26 % within Opposition 13.55 15.38 % of Total 9.55 4.55 Social Services N 62 22 % within Social Services 73.81 26.19 % within Opposition 40 33.85 % of Total 28.18 10 Total N 155 65 % within Type of Nonprofits 70.45 29.55 % within Opposition 100 100 % of Total 70.45 29.55 For detailed descriptive statistics of this interview data including values for means and standard deviations please see appendix “G” below. The value of chi-square for this cross-tabulation was 4.211 with a significance of 0.378 indicating that the differences 161 across different types of nonprofits based on their confrontational strategies are not very significant. 4.4.3 - Relationship between Collaboration and Confrontation of Different Types of Nonprofit Organizations: We observed in our analysis the collaboration and confrontational interactions of nonprofits with each other. Therefore it is reasonable to see whether the two activities for each type of nonprofit group are related to each other. Therefore both variables were cross tabulated with each other for all nonprofits initially. The following table shows the results of this cross-tabulation. TABLE 16: CROSS-TABULATION OF COLLABORATION AND CONFRONTATION FOR ALL NONPROFITS: Collaborate * Confront Cross-Tabulation Don’t Confront Confront Don't Collaborate N 46 8 % within collaborate 85.19 14.81 % within confrontation 29.68 12.31 % of Total 20.91 3.64 Collaborate N 109 57 % within collaborate 65.66 34.34 % within confrontation 70.32 87.69 % of Total 49.55 25.91 Total N 155 65 % within collaborate 70.45 29.55 % within confrontation 100 100 % of Total 70.45 29.55 The Pearson Chi-Square for this cross-tabulation is 7.46 with a p-value of 0.006, showing that there is significant relationship between the activities of collaboration and confrontation chosen by nonprofits. This further strengthens the argument of the theoretical framework that the interaction among nonprofits is to some extent determined 162 by their respective environmental ethics. However, in order to be surer about it, let us see this cross-tabulation separately for each type of nonprofit organizations. The following table shows the results of such cross-tabulation: TABLE 17: CROSS-TABULATION OF COLLABORATION AND CONFRONTATION FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS: Collaborate * Confrontation Cross-Tabulation by Type of NPOs Type of Nonprofits Don’t Confront Confront Environmental Don’t Collaborate N 4 0 % within collaborate 100 0 % within confrontation 44.44 0 % of Total 25 0 Collaborate N 5 7 % within collaborate 41.67 58.33 % within confrontation 55.56 100 % of Total 31.25 43.75 Fraternal Don’t Collaborate N 5 1 % within collaborate 83.33 16.67 % within confrontation 31.25 33.33 % of Total 26.32 5.26 Collaborate N 11 2 % within collaborate 84.62 15.38 % within confrontation 68.75 66.67 % of Total 57.89 10.53 Professional Don’t Collaborate N 14 4 % within collaborate 77.78 22.22 % within confrontation 29.79 17.39 % of Total 20 5.71 Collaborate N 33 19 % within collaborate 63.46 36.54 % within confrontation 70.21 82.61 % of Total 47.14 27.14 Religious Don’t Collaborate N 3 2 % within collaborate 60 40 % within confrontation 14.29 20 % of Total 9.68 6.45 Collaborate N 18 8 % within collaborate 69.23 30.77 % within confrontation 85.71 80 % of Total 58.06 25.81 163 TABLE 17: CONTINUED … Collaborate * Confrontation Cross-Tabulation by Type of NPOs Type of Nonprofits Don’t Confront Confront Social Services Don’t Collaborate N 20 1 % within collaborate 95.24 4.76 % within confrontation 32.26 4.55 % of Total 23.81 1.19 Collaborate N 42 21 % within collaborate 66.67 33.33 % within confrontation 67.74 95.45 % of Total 50 25 The Pearson Chi-Square is insignificant for all type of nonprofits except environmental and social services. The Pearson Chi-Square for environmental nonprofits is 4.148 with a p-value of 0.042, hence showing significant relationship between the activities of collaboration and perceived or real confrontation with other nonprofits for the environmental nonprofit organizations. Moreover, the Pearson Chi-Square for Social Services nonprofits is 6.651 with a p-value of 0.01 showing significant correlation between the confrontation and collaboration in social services nonprofits’ interaction with other nonprofits. The differences in the activities of nonprofits in terms of their interaction with each other further empirically shows the viability of the theoretical framework of this research that the actions of nonprofit organizations are determined at least to some extent by their underlying environmental dispositions which differ across types of nonprofits. We are getting closer to showing that since the actions and the manner of influence of policy processes by the nonprofits is determined to some extent by their environmental ethics and since they influence environmental policy outcomes using those activities, therefore, it is possible that the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations impact 164 the local place-based environmental outcomes. Please note that I am not claiming that environmental ethics are the only reason for this differentiation among nonprofit organizations. I am only arguing, based on the theoretical framework and on the empirical evidence that environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations might, in addition to other external factors, be related to these differences in the approaches of different types of nonprofit organizations. 4.5 – Interaction of Nonprofit Organizations with Public Agencies: Introduction: Literature indicates that nonprofit organizations interact with public agencies to influence policy implementation, which the theoretical framework of this study argued, influences the local environmental outcomes. Moreover, the theoretical framework contends that the interactions of nonprofit organizations with public agencies are determined among other things by the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations. This section of the dissertation tests this part of the theoretical framework. This section shows that: 1 – social services nonprofits differ considerably form other types of nonprofit organizations in their interactions with public agencies, 2 – all types of nonprofit organizations are different from other types in their interactions with public agencies, assuming normal distribution of perceptions of interaction within each type of nonprofit organization, 3 – it is further proof that since social services are different in their environmental ethics from other types of nonprofits which leads to their different nature of interactions with public agencies, hence they impact local environmental outcomes differently, further strengthening the support for the theoretical framework of this research. 165 This part is designed to respond to sub-question 5 of this research, “5 – How do nonprofits select their strategies of action? Are strategy decisions the functions of environmental ethics of nonprofits?” And it relies on the question4 of the interview, “4 – If you deal with government organizations, do you think that they are: 1- responsive, 2- somewhat responsive, 3 – not responsive? Or do you not deal with government organizations at all?” for its data. This part is divided into five parts. In the first part I look at whether the nonprofits of different types have contact with public agencies or not. My goal in this part is to show that the nonprofit organizations of different types differ significantly in their contact with public agencies. In the second part, I look at whether different types of nonprofits differ in their perception of public agencies as “somewhat responsive”. I demonstrate that they do and that social equity nonprofits differ considerably more than other types of nonprofit organizations. In the third part, I show that the nonprofit organizations differ considerably and significantly from each other in their perceptions of whether the public agencies are responsive or not. Again social services nonprofits differ more than the others, strengthening our previous finding that social services nonprofits influence policy outcomes in a different way as compared to other types of nonprofits. In the fourth part I test the hypothesis for the perception of public agencies as not responsive by different types of nonprofits. Again they were considerably different. In the fifth part I look at the overall picture and the nature of nonprofits interaction with public agencies. Using discriminant analysis I show that nonprofit 166 organizations differ from each other significantly on the dimension of somewhat responsive. The overall finding of this part is that nonprofits of different types have different environmental ethics, and the type of nonprofits can be used as a proxy for the environmental ethics of nonprofits. Using type of nonprofits as the proxy for environmental ethics of nonprofits we see significant differences among different types of nonprofits in the way they attempt to influence the processes of policy implementation by public agencies. By attempting to influence the process of policy implementation, local nonprofits influence the local environmental outcomes. We have already seen that nonprofits have an influence on policy outcomes and that different types of nonprofits have different types of impacts on the policy outcomes which might also be a function of the different types of environmental ethics of different types of nonprofit organizations. Discussion of Findings: 4.5.1 - Different Types of Nonprofits’ Contact with Public Agencies: Nonprofit organizations of different types showed varied trends in their interactions with public agencies. 87% of the environmental nonprofit organizations reported having some contacts with public agencies to influence policy implementation. This was followed by religious nonprofits, 71% of which have some contact with public agencies. 65% of social services nonprofits, 44% of the professional nonprofits and 42% of the fraternal nonprofits reported some kind of contact with public agencies. Please see the following table: 167 TABLE 18: PERCENTAGES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS’ CONTACT WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES: Contact with Public Agencies Type of Nonprofits Contact or Not Frequency Valid Percent Environmental No Contact with Public Agencies 2 12.5 Contact with Public Agencies 14 87.5 Fraternal No Contact with Public Agencies 11 57.9 Contact with Public Agencies 8 42.1 Religious No Contact with Public Agencies 20 28.2 Contact with Public Agencies 51 71.8 Professional No Contact with Public Agencies 18 56.3 Contact with Public Agencies 14 43.8 Social Services No Contact with Public Agencies 31 35.2 Contact with Public Agencies 57 64.8 For detailed descriptive statistics of this interview data including values for means and standard deviations please see appendix “G” below. Since I am interested in finding out whether these differences are significant or not, therefore, cross-tabulation analysis was conducted to see whether the different types of nonprofits. The following table illustrates the findings of cross-tabulation: TABLE 19: CROSS-TABULATION OF TYPES OF NONPROFITS AND THEIR CONTACT WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES: Type of Nonprofits * “contact with public agencies” Cross-Tabulation Contact No Contact Type of Nonprofits Environmental N 14 2 % within Environmental 87.5 12.5 % within contact 9.7 2.7 % of Total 6.4 0.9 168 TABLE 19: CONTINUED … Type of Nonprofits * “contact with public agencies” Cross-Tabulation Contact No Contact Fraternal N 8 10 % within Fraternal 44.4 55.6 % within contact 5.6 13.3 % of Total 3.7 4.6 Professional N 51 19 % within Professional 72.9 27.1 % within contact 35.4 25.3 % of Total 23.29 8.68 Religious N 14 17 % within Religious 45.2 54.8 % within contact 9.7 22.7 % of Total 6.39 7.76 Social Services N 57 27 % within Social Services 67.9 32.1 % within contact 39.6 36.0 % of Total 26.0 12.3 Total N 144 75 % within Type of Nonprofits 65.8 34.3 % within contact 100.0 100.0 % of Total 65.8 34.3 The value of chi-square for this cross-tabulation is 14.561 and has a p-value of 0.006 indicating significant difference across different types of nonprofits according to whether they are in direct contact with public agencies or not. Since the finding was significant, there a discriminant analysis was conducted to gain a more in-depth understanding of the interactions of different types of nonprofits with public agencies. The analysis showed that fraternal clubs and religious nonprofits are more likely “not” to have direct contact with public agencies, whereas other types of nonprofits are more likely to have such direct interactions with public agencies. This makes intuitive sense as religious nonprofits by law and tradition tend to avoid contacts 169 with public agencies. Similarly fraternal clubs tend to engage mainly in social activities within the group and hence tend to avoid interactions with bureaucracy. This further supports the theoretical framework and the findings of this research which consistently demonstrate different types of nonprofits to behave significantly differently from each other. This analysis makes the case for my theoretical framework even stronger. Different types of nonprofits show varying behavior which is significantly different from other types of nonprofits. Hence, based on the sequential accumulation of all the empirical evidence we are becoming more confident of the theoretical framework and in saying that the environmental ethics of nonprofits influence nonprofits actions, behaviors and strategies of influence and hence are related to the impact of nonprofits on local environmental outcomes. Now let us look at the differences among different types of nonprofit organizations in the nature of their interaction with public agencies. 4.5.2 – “Somewhat Responsive” Public Agencies: A frequency analysis of the different types of nonprofit organizations showed different types of nonprofits differing considerably in whether they consider public agencies as somewhat responsive to nonprofits or not. The following table shows this: TABLE 20: FREQUENCIES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS ABOUT “SOMEWHAT RESPONSIVE” PUBLIC AGENCIES: Somewhat Responsive Public Agencies Type of Nonprofits Frequency Valid Percent Environmental Not "somewhat responsive" 10 62.5 "somewhat responsive" 6 37.5 Fraternal Not "somewhat responsive" 17 94.44 "somewhat responsive" 1 5.56 170 TABLE 20: CONTINUED … Somewhat Responsive Public Agencies Type of Nonprofits Frequency Valid Percent Professional Not "somewhat responsive" 53 75.71 "somewhat responsive" 17 24.29 Missing data 1 Religious Not "somewhat responsive" 26 83.87 "somewhat responsive" 5 16.13 Social Services Not "somewhat responsive" 63 75 "somewhat responsive" 21 25 For detailed descriptive statistics of this interview data including values for means and standard deviations please see appendix “G” below. 37% of the environmental nonprofits thought that the public agencies are somewhat response. 24% of professional and social services nonprofits thought likewise. 15% of the religious and only 5% of the fraternal nonprofits thought that the public agencies are somewhat responsive in the nonprofits’ interaction with public agencies to influence policy implementation. However, in order to see whether theses differences are significant or not, a cross- tabulation analysis was conducted when the variable of somewhat responsible has a value of 1 for different types of nonprofit organizations. TABLE 21: CROSS-TABULATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS AND “SOMEWHAT RESPONSIVE” PUBLIC AGENCIES: Type of Nonprofits * somewhat_responsive Cross-Tabulation Not Somewhat Responsive Somewhat Responsive Type of Nonprofits Environmental N 10 6 % within Environmental 62.5 37.5 % within somewhat_responsive 5.92 12 % of Total 4.57 2.74 171 TABLE 21: CONTINUED … Type of Nonprofits * somewhat_responsive Cross-Tabulation Not Somewhat Responsive Somewhat Responsive Fraternal N 17 1 % within Fraternal 94.44 5.56 % within somewhat_responsive 10.06 2 % of Total 7.76 0.46 Professional N 53 17 % within Professional 75.71 24.29 % within somewhat_responsive 31.36 34 % of Total 24.2 7.76 Religious N 26 5 % within Religious 83.87 16.13 % within somewhat_responsive 15.38 10 % of Total 11.87 2.28 Social Services N 63 21 % within Social Services 75 25 % within somewhat_responsive 37.28 42 % of Total 28.77 9.59 Total N 169 50 % within Type of Nonprofits 77.17 22.83 % within somewhat_responsive 100 100 % of Total 77.17 22.83 The value of chi-square for this cross-tabulation is 6.102 and a significance of 0.192 showing slightly significant differences across different types of nonprofits based on whether they reported “somewhat responsive” public agencies or not. 4.5.3 – “Responsive” Public Agencies: A frequency analysis of the different types of nonprofit organizations showed different types of nonprofits differing considerably in whether they consider public agencies as responsive to nonprofits or not. The following table shows this: 172 TABLE 22: FREQUENCIES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS ABOUT “RESPONSIVE” PUBLIC AGENCIES: Responsive Public Agencies Type of nonprofit Frequency Valid Percent Environmental Not Responsive 10 62.5 Responsive 6 37.5 Fraternal Not Responsive 11 61.11 Responsive 7 38.89 Missing data 1 Professional Not Responsive 39 55.71 Responsive 31 44.29 Missing data 1 Religious Not Responsive 23 74.19 Responsive 8 25.81 Missing data 1 Social Services Not Responsive 52 61.9 Responsive 32 38.1 Missing data 4 For detailed descriptive statistics of this interview data including values for means and standard deviations please see appendix “G” below. 44% of professional nonprofit organizations said that the public agencies are responsive. This was followed by roughly 37% from social service, fraternal and environmental nonprofit organizations. Religious nonprofits perceived the responsiveness of public agencies as “responsive” 25% of the times. However, in order to see whether theses differences are significant or not, a cross- tabulation was conducted when the variable of responsible has a value of 1 for different types of nonprofit organizations. It has a chi-square value of 3.115 with a p-value of 0.539 demonstrating insignificant differences across different types of nonprofits along 173 the measure of reported responsive public agencies. Therefore, this dimension cannot be used to determine the differences across nonprofits of different types. 4.5.4 – “Not Responsive” Public Agencies: Frequency analysis of nonprofit organizations showed that different types of nonprofits differ in whether they consider public agencies as not responsive to nonprofits or not. The following table shows this: TABLE 23: FREQUENCIES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS ABOUT “NOT RESPONSIVE” PUBLIC AGENCIES: Not Responsive Public Agencies Type of Nonprofits Not Responsive or Not Frequency Valid Percent Environmental Not "Not Responsive" 14 87.5 "Not Responsive" 2 12.5 Fraternal Not "Not Responsive" 18 100 Missing data 1 Professional Not "Not Responsive" 67 95.71 "Not Responsive" 3 4.29 Missing data 1 Religious Not "Not Responsive" 30 96.77 Missing data 1 Social Services Not "Not Responsive" 80 95.24 "Not Responsive" 4 4.76 Missing data 4 Almost 13% of environmental nonprofits thought that public agencies are “not responsive”. Roughly 5% of religious and social services nonprofits and 3% of religious nonprofits thought that public agencies are not responsive. None of the fraternal agencies thought that public agencies were not responsive. This may be because of the small sample size of the fraternal nonprofits, or may be their disposition; we cannot be sure about the reason. 174 In order to see whether theses differences are significant or not, a cross-tabulation analysis was attempted when the variable of not responsible has a value of 1 for different types of nonprofit organizations. The chi-square value for the cross-tabulation was 3.32 and a significance of 0.506 indicating that nonprofits of different types cannot be differentiated along this dimension and hence the cross-tabulation table is not presented or reproduced here. 4.5.5 – Overall Difference in the Nature of Interaction of Different Types of Nonprofits with Public Agencies: Now, I am interested in looking at the overall picture, in gauging whether the nature of nonprofits’ interactions with public agencies demonstrate significant differences across nonprofits in their overall interaction patterns. For this purpose, discriminant analysis was performed. The grouping variable was the type of nonprofits and the independent variables were the variables of “somewhat responsive”, “responsive”, and “not responsive”. Following is the table for Structure Matrix: TABLE 24: STRUCTURE MATRIX FOR THE OVERALL DIFFERENCES IN THE NATURE OF INTERACTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES: Structure Matrix Function 1 2 3 Responsive 0.23 0.92* 0.33 Not responsive 0.37 -0.55 -0.75 Somewhat responsive 0.57* -0.36 -0.74 *. Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant function The structure matrix shows that function 1 can be named as Somewhat Responsive, since the largest absolute value of the correlation is for Somewhat 175 Responsive, and function 2 can be named as Responsive, again for the same reason. However, based on the calculations of the Wilke’s Lambda, only function 1 is significant at the 10% level. Other functions are not significant, and hence we can safely ignore them, the p-value for function 1 is 0.074 which is significance at the 10% level. In order to see whether the nonprofits of different types differ from each other significantly on function 1, we have to look at the group centroids for each type of nonprofit organization. The following table shows that: TABLE 25: FUNCTIONS AT GROUP CENTROIDS FOR THE OVERALL DIFFERENCES IN THE NATURE OF INTERACTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES: Functions at Group Centroids Type of Nonprofits Function 1 2 Environmental 0.59 -0.19 Fraternal -0.55 0.12 Professional 0.12 0.1 Religious -0.41 -0.17 Social Services 0.05 -0.01 Since only function 1 is significant, therefore, we will ignore the values for function 2. The table above shows that fraternal and religious nonprofits differ from other types of nonprofits in their overall nature of interactions with public agencies, in that they are less likely to perceive the public agencies as “somewhat responsive”, while environmental, professional and social services nonprofits are more likely to perceive their interactions as “somewhat responsive”. This supports our initial theoretical arguments that nonprofits of different environmental ethics differ in their interactions with public agencies. Since we have already shown that the type of nonprofits can be used as a proxy for the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations, and we have seen 176 that different types of nonprofits have different types of environmental ethics, hence now we can say that different types of environmental ethics display different types of interactions with public agencies. This provides further confidence in the theoretical framework. Following is the chart of canonical discriminant functions. Function 1 which is significant at 10% level in differentiating among different types of NPOs, in figure 2, corresponds to the “somewhat responsive” variable. The figure 6 shows that environmental, professional and social services nonprofits are more likely to perceive their interactions with public agencies as somewhat responsive, as compared to the fraternal and religious nonprofits. FIGURE 6: CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION FOR THE OVERALL DIFFERENCES IN THE NATURE OF INTERACTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES: 177 TABLE 26: NETWORK LEVEL STRATEGIES MOST AND LEAST-LIKELY TO BE USED BY DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFITS: Type of Nonprofits "Not Responsive" Public Agencies "Somewhat Responsive" Public Agencies "Responsive Public Agencies Environmental Not Likely Likely Not Likely Fraternal Not Likely Not Likely Not Likely Professional Not Likely Likely Not Likely Religious Not Likely Not Likely Not Likely Social Services Not Likely Likely Not Likely 4.6 – Discussion of Findings and Logical Deduction According to the Theoretical Framework: My main research question was: “What is the relationship between environmental ethics of local nonprofit organizations and the local place-based environmental outcomes? And what are the implications for the governance process?”, and I stated in the methodology chapter that in order to respond to the main research question I would have to provide responses to a set of sub-question, those questions were: 1 – Do different types of nonprofit organizations differ in their environmental ethics or not? 2 - How do nonprofits influence policy implementation? How to they attempt to influence the perspectives of public bureaucracy responsible for policy implementation? Does it differ according to the types of nonprofits? 3 – Do nonprofits impact environmental outcomes or not? Whether this influence is a function of type of nonprofit or not? 178 4 – How do nonprofit organizations interact with each other? Is their Interaction a function of their environmental ethics? How is this interaction related to their local environmental outcomes? 5 – How do nonprofits select their strategies of action? Are strategy decisions the functions of environmental ethics of nonprofits? 6 – Do nonprofits engage in consciousness-raising activities? If they do, is it a function of their type / environmental ethics? I also mentioned that responses to questions 4, 5 and 6 above will inform us about the nature of the strategies of influence selected by nonprofits and about the interaction among nonprofit organizations, and also about whether the selection of strategies and decisions about the nature of interaction among nonprofits are at least to some degree determined by their respective environmental ethics. According to the theoretical framework of this study, our next step is to see whether those strategies and interactions influence the nature of participation in the policy processes by nonprofit organizations or not. If we find that: 1. The strategies and activities of nonprofits are a function of their environmental ethics (questions 4, 5 and 6). Or in other words if we can differentiate among different types of nonprofits based on their strategies and interactions, and 2. Nonprofits do indeed participate in the process of policy implementation in the manner argued by the theoretical framework of this research (question 2), and 3. If different types of nonprofits can be differentiated by their environmental ethics (question 1), and 179 4. If in response to question 3 we find that different types of nonprofits influence policy outcomes in different ways, then 5. We will be able to contend that the empirical testing of the theoretical framework presented in chapter 2 of this research does not contradict the arguments of the theoretical framework, and that it is empirically possible that the environmental ethics of local nonprofit organizations are related to the local place-based environmental outcomes. Empirical findings support for the theoretical framework of this study. Let us take the first point, “if we find that strategies and activities of nonprofits are a function of their environmental ethics (questions 4, 5 and 6), or in other words if we can differentiate among different types of nonprofits based on their strategies and interactions”. We found in sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 that this holds for the data set of this research and that the strategies and interactions of different types of nonprofit organizations are different from each other. In section 4.1 of this chapter we saw that different types of nonprofits have different environmental ethics and that the type of nonprofit can be used as a proxy for the environmental ethics of nonprofits. Therefore, if different types of nonprofits have different strategies, then those strategies are a function of the environmental ethics of nonprofits since type of nonprofit is the proxy for the environmental ethics of nonprofits. Having shown that, let us come to the second point, “nonprofits do indeed participate in the process of policy implementation in the manner argued by the theoretical framework of this research (question 2)”. In section 4.2 of this chapter I showed that nonprofit organizations of different types do participate in the process of policy implementation according to the manner argued by the theoretical framework of this paper through the top-down and bottom-up approaches. They attempt to influence the 180 interpretation of policy by the bureaucracy in public agencies. I further showed that although all types of nonprofits follow the basic structure of the theoretical framework of this research in their efforts to influence policy implementation, there are significant differences among different types of nonprofits as to the mix of the top-down and bottom- up approaches they select to employ. So this part of the logic was also shown to hold empirically in this chapter. Now the third point, “If different types of nonprofits can be differentiated by their environmental ethics (question 1)”. In section 4.1 of this chapter I calculate the environmental ethics of different types of nonprofit organizations and showed that the environmental ethics are significantly different form each other across different types of nonprofits. Hence the type of nonprofits can be used in empirical research as the proxy for environmental ethics of each types of nonprofit group. This part of the puzzle was also solved and solved in support of the theoretical framework of this dissertation. Point four states, “If in response to question 3 we find that different types of nonprofits influence policy outcomes in different ways”. In section 4.3 of this chapter, I conducted a regression analysis of nonprofits and certain other important ecological zip- code level variables as independent variables and the level of carbon monoxide in outdoor air as the dependant variable. In this section I showed that the nonprofit organizations impact policy outcomes especially the environmental policy outcomes at the local level and that different types of nonprofit organizations have different types of impacts on environmental outcomes. This part of the logic was also successfully shown to hold in support of the theoretical framework of this research. 181 Finally, point 5 brings it all together, it states, “(if all of the previous points hold, then) We will be able to contend that the empirical testing of the theoretical framework presented in chapter 2 of this research does not contradict the arguments of the theoretical framework, and that it is empirically possible that the environmental ethics of local nonprofit organizations are related to the local place-based environmental outcomes”. Hence we have shown through empirical testing and logical deduction that empirical evidence supports the theoretical framework of this study. Moreover, in the theoretical framework explained in chapter 2 of this dissertation, I stated that, 1. “If the environmental ethics of nonprofits are important in determining their strategies of action, and 2. If the environmental ethics of nonprofits are important in determining the nature of their interaction with each other and their specific activities, and 3. If the strategies, interaction and activities of nonprofits play a significant role in their participation during the policy processes which we have seen influence policy outcomes by associative property, then 4. We can theoretically argue that the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations influence the policy outcomes and in particular the environmental policy outcomes.” Now in this chapter I have empirically and logically followed these steps and supported the arguments of the theoretical framework with the empirical evidence. 182 Conclusion: The aim of this chapter was to empirically test the theoretical framework of this research. The chapter, in many steps, through empirical evidence and logical deduction tested the theoretical framework of this research. I showed empirical support for the theoretical framework explained earlier in chapter 2. 183 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION This dissertation research attempted to delve into and investigate the role of various kinds of nonprofit organizations and in particular the role of the environmental ethics of different types of nonprofit organizations in the process of policy implementation and in policy outcomes involving environmental quality outcomes. The research developed a theoretical framework, which demonstrated that nonprofit organizations (NPOs) of all types, not just the environmental nonprofits, are significant players in the processes of policy formulation and policy implementation. The theoretical framework argued that NPOs of all types attempt to influence policy implementation and formulation of environmental policy and hence all types of NPOs should be studied while exploring the factors impacting environmental policy outcomes. The theoretical framework argued that theories such as advocacy coalition framework (Sabatier, 1988) explain the role of NPOs in policy formulation. However, since there are no theories explaining the role of NPOS in policy implementation, in order to provide support to the argument of this research that NPOs influence policy implementation, this research drew from the top-down (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989) and bottom-up (Lipsky,1980) theories of policy implementation. The findings suggest that typically NPOs attempt to influence policy implementation by working through the channels of management level, grass-roots level and both management and grassroots level influence to public organizations to influence the interpretation of policies by the policy elites. The theoretical framework argued that since the NPOs attempt to influence the process of policy implementation through influencing the interpretation of the policy. 184 They NPOs attempt to influence the values and ethics of the public servants so as to impact the policy interpretation at the implementation stage by the public organizations. The findings of this research suggest that NPOs attempt to influence the interpretation of policies according to the dominant values held by the respective NPOs. Therefore, it makes sense to argue that different types of NPOs holding different types of environmental ethics would tend to influence environmental policy outcomes differently. In order to measure the environmental ethics of the 5 types of NPOs this research studied, viz. (1 – Environmental, 2 – Fraternal, 3 – Professional, 4 – Religious, and 5 – Social Services), this research used a survey instrument called the Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) developed by George McKechnie (1974). ERI responses are used to measure the scores for the environmental dispositions. This research used the eight environmental dispositional categories defined by McKechnie, and arranged them on a continuum going from high anthropocentrism to high ecocentrism, thus devising a way to empirically approximate the environmental ethics of NPOs. This research used an innovative empirical model comprising of all demographic, geographic, meteorological, socio-economic, land use, transportation, institutional and political factors as well as nonprofits as independent variables in one comprehensive model. Moreover, for the first time it devised a way to use air quality as a dependant variable. It finds that carbon monoxide in outdoor air, due to its particular chemical and physical properties can be used as a measure of locally emitted pollution in air, and hence this research employs it as the dependant variable in its comprehensive empirical model. This empirical model showed that high percentages of social services nonprofits are related to high levels of carbon monoxide in air. This means that social services NPOs 185 tend to locate in zip codes of high carbon monoxide pollution. Although it was also shown that social services NPOs do not necessarily locate in zip codes of lowest per capita income. In order to see whether the location decision of social services NPOs in zip codes of high carbon monoxide pollution results in healthier air quality over time, a time series model was developed and tested. The time series model looked at the levels of carbon monoxide I the zip codes of SCAQMD from the year 2003 to the year 2007, and the percentage of social services NPOs in each zip code. The time series model found that higher percentage of social services NPOs in a zip code are positively and significantly related to more reduced carbon monoxide pollution in air for their respective zip codes. This was a very significant finding and showed that although environmental NPOs are very effective at the national and state levels, at the local level, social services NPOs through their indirect service delivery and advocacy efforts regarding homelessness, children, etc. are very effective in helping improve air quality in their zip codes. What is even more interesting is that social services NPOs were found to be more ecocentric than any other type of NPO, supporting the argument that at the local level, higher eceocentric (though not extreme high) NPOs are more effective in creating healthier natural environmental conditions and more desirable environmental policy outcomes. Moreover, in order to be confident about the argument of the theoretical framework of this research that NPOs play an active role during the policy implementation process, this research analyzed the interview data from the NPOs, it found that indeed all types of NPOs employ the 1- management level, 2 – grass-roots 186 level and 3 – both management and grass-roots level strategies of influencing the policy implementation process by the public agencies, at the individual level. At the network level all types of NPOs working with each other and with public agencies employ the strategies of collaboration, confrontation and networking with public agencies in some combination. These are very significant findings obtained from the discriminant analysis of the interview data. These innovative findings provide systematic description of the types of strategies most and least likely to be used by NPOs of each type at the individual and network levels during the policy implementation process carried out by the public agencies. The theoretical framework of this research was supported by the data and empirical analysis of this research. However, this research raised more questions than the answers it provided. In the future I would be interested in investigating the within-group environmental ethics and impacts for each of the five types of nonprofit organizations studied in this research. For example I would want to study the differences in the environmental ethics of different types of environmental NPOs. Moreover, I would like to further test the theoretical framework of this research at the national level. I would like to investigate it for all air quality districts of California, as well as for other states of the US to provide more confidence about its applicability. In addition we do not know how international NPOs impact environmental policy outcomes at the global level, as well as at the level of developing countries. I would be interested in expanding my research to those areas. 187 I have considerable data from this research which can further be analyzed in different ways but those ways were not particularly relevant to this dissertation. For example I found out that all the air monitoring stations in SCAQMD are located in high income, predominantly white zip codes, we do not know whether it has environmental justice implications or not. I would like to study this phenomenon. In addition, I have considerable demographic data of the people who responded to the ERI (McKechnie, 1974) surveys, I would like to see the relationship between demographic factors and environmental ethics of nonprofits, as well as the relationship between demographics and the role of nonprofits in policy outcomes. Moreover, I studied air quality in this dissertation as an environmental outcome; in the future I would be very interested in exploring the environmental outcomes as they relate to water quality. Although this research provided important insights about the policy process, factors influencing air pollution, the role of NPOs of different kinds in impacting local air quality outcomes at the zip code level, strategies of different types of NPOs at the individual and network levels, etc. it failed to provide all answers. However, it raised important questions which will help guide future research. 188 REFERENCES Adam B.D. (1993). Post-Marxism and the new social movements. Can. Rev. Soc. Anthropol. 30(3), 316– 36 Alauddin, Mohammad. (2002). Environmentalising economic development: A south east Asian perspective [Electronic Version]. Discussion Papers Series 299, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia. Retrieved January 16 th , 2007 from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:11064/DP299Jan02.pdf Ali, Saleem H. (Dec., 2003). Environmental planning and cooperative behavior: catalyzing sustainable consensus. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 23, 165 - 176. Alston, D. (1992). Transforming a movement: People of color unite at summit against environmental racism. Sojourner 21(1), 30-31 Appiah-Opoku, Seth and Mulamoottil, George. (1997). Indigenous institutions and environmental assessment: The case of Ghana. Environmental Management, 21(2), 159-171 Audirac, Ivonne, Shermyen, Anne H. and Smith, Marc T. (1990). Ideal urban form and visions of the good life Florida's growth management dilemma. Journal of the American Planning Association, Volume 56, Issue 4, pages 470 – 482 Aufderheide P., and Rich B. 1988. Environmental reform and the multilateral banks. World Policy Journal 5(2), 300– 21 Barrett, S. and Fudge, C. (1981) Policy and action. London, Methuen. Baxter, William. (1974). People or penguins: The case for optimal population. New York: Columbia University Press Beckerman, Wilfred. (1994). Environmental values 3. Cambridge, UK: The White Horse Press Bentham, Jeremy. (1789). Introduction to principles of morals and legislation, printed for publication 1780, published 1789, Oxford: Clarendon Press Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday Blowers, Andrew. (1997). Environmental policy: Ecological modernization or the risk society? Urban Studies, 34(5-6), 845-871 189 Bosso, Christopher J. and Guber, Deborah Lynn. (2003). The boundaries and contours of American environmental activism. In Vig, Norman J. and Michael E. Kraft (eds.) Environmental policy: New directions for the twenty-first century. Washington DC: CQ Press Bowen, J.L., Walsh, P.A. and Henry, R.C. (1996). Analysis of data from Lynwood carbon monoxide study, final report A032184 [Electronic Version]. Prepared by Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, for Research Division, California Air Resources Board (CARB), Sacramento, CA Briggs, David J., Hoogh, C., Gulliver, J., Wills, J., Paul E., Simon K. and Smallbone, K. (May, 2000). A regression-based method for mapping traffic-related air pollution: application and testing in four contrasting urban environments. The Science of The Total Environment, Volume 253, Issues 1-3, Pages 151-167 Brody, Samuel D. (2003). Measuring the effects of stakeholder participation on the quality of local plans based on the principles of collaborative ecosystem management. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 22, pp. 407 - 419. Bullard, Robert D. and Johnson, Glenn S. (2000). Environmentalism and public policy: Environmental justice: Grassroots activism and its impact on public policy decision making. Journal of Social Issue, 56, 555 Buttel, Frederick H. (1987). New directions in environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 465-488. California Energy Commission Website, www.energy.ca.gov. (n.d.). Map retrieved in March, 2008 from http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/wind/WIND_SPEED_30M.PDF Cairncross, F. (1995). Green Inc.: A guide to business and the environment. London: Earthscan Carmin, JoAnn and Balsar, Deborah B. (2002). Selecting repertoires of action in environmental movement organizations. Organization and Environment, 15(4), 365 Clarke, G. (1996). Non-Governmental organizations (NGOs) and politics in the developing world. Papers on International Development, 20, Swansea, Wales: Cent. Development Studies Committee on Carbon Monoxide Episodes in Meteorological and Topographical Problem Areas (CB). (2003).Managing carbon monoxide pollution in meteorological and topographical problem areas. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press. 190 Cotgrove, S. F. (1982). Catastrophe or cornucopia: The environment, politics and the future. Chichester: JohnWiley & Son Crepaz, M. M. L. (1995). Explaining variations of air pollution levels: Political institutions and their impact on environmental policy-making. Environmental Politics, 4 Dunlap, Riley E. and Van Liere, Kent D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 1013–28 Dunlap, Riley E., Xiao, C. and McCright, A.M. (2001). Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10(4), 23-48 Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig A. G. and Jones R. E. (2002). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issue, 56, 425-442. Eccleston, B. (1996). Does north south collaboration enhance NGO influence on deforestation policies in Malaysia and Indonesia? In D. Potter (Ed.) NGOs and environmental policies: Asia and Africa (pp. 66-89). London: Arnold Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory: Toward an ecocentric approach. London: UCL Press Edwards, M. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961– 72 Enloe, C. H. (1975). The politics of pollution in a comparative perspective. Ecology and power in four nations. New York: David McKay Company Ferguson A. (1767). An essay on the history of civil society, [Electronic Version] in the Cambridge ‘blue’ series, ed. by Fania Oz-Salzberger (1995), retrieved online in 2008, at: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3 Ftitle=1428&layout=html#chapter_19704 Fisher, Julie. (1993). The road from Rio: Sustainable development and the nongovernmental movement in the Third World. Foreword by Thomas W. Dichter. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Fowler A. (1993). NGOs as agents of democratization: An African perspective. Journal of International Development, 5(3), 325– 39 191 Frank, L.D. and Engelke, P. (2005). Multiple impacts of the built environment on public health: Walkable places and the exposure to air pollution. International Regional Science Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, 193-216 Freeman III, Myrick A. (1983). The ethical basis of the economic view of the environment. Center for the Study of Values and Social Policy, University of Colorado: Boulder, CO Friedman, M.S., Powell, K.E., Hutwagner. L., Graham, L.M. and Teague, W.G. (2001). Impact of changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on air quality and childhood asthma. The Journal of American Medical Association, 285, pages 897-905. Futter, Victor, Judith A. Cion and George W. (2002). Nonprofit governance and management. American Society of Corporate Secretaries, American Bar Association. Section of Business Law. Published by American Bar Association, 2002 Gale, Richard P. (1986). Social Movements and the state: The environmental movement, countermovement, and government agencies. Sociological Perspectives, 29(2), 202-240 Gamson, W. A. (1975). The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood Ill: Dorsey German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ). (n.y.). Environmental Handbook-Documentation on monitoring and evaluating environmental impacts - Volume III: Compendium of environmental standards [Electronic version]. Retrieved July, 2008 from: http://www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/HC270799/HDL/ENV/enven/begin.htm#Envi ronmental%20Handbook Guha, Ramchandra. (1989). Radical American environmentalism and wilderness preservation: A Third World critique. Environmental Ethics, 11(1), 71-83 Haas, P. (1990). Obtaining international environmental protection through epistemic consensus. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 19(3), 347-363. Hannigan, J. (1995). Environmental sociology: A social constructionist perspective. London: Routledge Hofferbert, Richard (1974). The Study of Public Policy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Heyne, Paul & Johnson, Thomas. (1976). Toward economic understanding. Chicago Science Research Associates 192 Jahn, Detlef. (1998). Environmental performance and policy regimes: Explaining variations in 18 OECD countries. Policy Sciences, 31(2), 107-131 Janicke, M. (1995). Framework conditions for environmental policy success: An international comparison. In A. Carius, L. Hottler and H. Mercker, eds., Environmental management in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Berlin: German Foundation for International Development Johnson, Michael P. (2001). Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and proposed research agenda. Environment and Planning A, volume 33, pages 717 – 735 Johnson, M. (1992). Capturing traditional environmental knowledge. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. Kalt, Joseph P. & Zupan, Mark A. Jun. (1984). Capture and disposition in the economic theory of politics. The American Economic Review, 74 (3), 279-300. Khagram, Sanjeev. (2004). Chapter 2: Dams, democracy and development in India in Dams and development: Transnational struggles for water and power. Cornell University Press Kim, C.W., Phipps, T.T. and Anselin, L. (Jan, 2003). Measuring the benefits of air quality improvement: a spatial hedonic approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Volume 45, Issue 1, Pages 24-39 Kim, Janice J., Smorodinsky, S., Lipsett, M., Singer, Brett C., Hodgeson, Alfred T. and Ostro, Bart. (2004). Traffic-related air pollution near busy roads: The East Bay Children’s Respiratory Study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care, 171.66.122.149 Kingdon, John. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown and Company, Boston Kiser, Larry and Ostrom, Elinor. (1982). The three words of actions. In E. Ostrom (ed.) Strategies of political inquiry (pp. 179 – 222). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Klandermans, B. (1991). The peace movement and social movement theory. International Social Movement Research, 3, 1-39 Koop, Gary and Tole, K. (Jan., 2004). Measuring the health effects of air pollution: to what extent can we really say that people are dying from bad air? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Volume 47, Issue 1, 30-54 193 Kothari R. (1986). NGOs, the state and world capitalism. Economic Politics Weekly 21, 2177– 82 Kraft, Michael E. & Kamieniecki, Sheldon (eds.). (2007). Business and environmental policy: corporate interests in the American political system. Cambridge: MIT Press Lane, Marcus B. (2003). Participation, decentralization, and civil society: Indigenous rights and democracy in environmental planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 22: 360 – 373 Lalonde, R. and Jackson F. L. (2002). The New Environmental Paradigm scale: Has it outlived its usefulness? The Journal of Environmental Education, 33-4, 28-36. Leopold, Aldo. (1949). A Sand County almanac. New York. Ballantine Books. Lindsey, Greg and Carl Schoedel. (Jun., 1997). Anticipatory analysis in environmental planning: Managing argument in wellhead protection. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 16: pp. 243 – 256 Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-level bureacuracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, Russell Sage Foundation. Lubell, Mark, Schneider, M.,Scholz, J. T. and Mihriye Mete (Jan., 2002). Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, No. 1, 148-163 Mandarano, Lynn A. (Jun., 2008). Evaluating collaborative environmental planning outputs and outcomes: Restoring and protecting habitat and the New York—New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 27, 456 – 468 Mazmanian, Dan and Sabatier, Paul. (1989). Implementation and public policy. University Press of America Mazmanian, Dan. and Sabatier, Paul. (1981). Liberalism, environmentalism, and partisanship in public policy-making: The California Coastal Commissions. Environment and Behavior, 3, p. 361 McAdam, Doug M., Sidney Tarrow and Charles Tilly. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA McKechnie, George, E. (1974). Manual of Environmental Response Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press 194 McLaughlin, Paul and Khawaja, Marwan. (2000). The organizational dynamics of the U.S. environmental movement: Legitimation, resource mobilization, and political opportunity. Rural Sociology, 65 (3), 422 Milbrath, Lester W. (1989). Envisioning a sustainable society, Albany, NY: SUNY Mohai, P. (1985). Public concern and elite involvement in environmental conservation issues. Social Science Quarterly, 66(4), 820-838 Mol, A. (1995). The refinement of production: Ecological modernization theory and the chemical industry. Utrecht: van Arkel. Munro, Emily R. (2007). Research governance, ethics and access: A case study illustrating the new challenges facing social researchers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Volume 11, Issue 1 Naess, A. (1988). Self realization: An ecological approach to being in the world. In J. Seed, J. Macy, P. Fleming, & A. Naess (Eds.), Thinking like a mountain: Toward a council of all bBeings, (19-30). Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers. Neidell, Matthew J. (Nov. 2004). Air pollution, health, and socio-economic status: the effect of outdoor air quality on childhood asthma. Journal of Health Economics Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 1209-1236 Neuhaus, R. (1971). In Defense of People. New York: MacMillan Nininger, R. C. (1991). Determination of source contributions to high ambient carbon monoxide concentrations and categorization of carbon monoxide potential. Final Report. [Electronic version]. Contract No. A832135. Prepared by AeroVironment, Inc., Monrovia, CA, for Research Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. NewYork: Cambridge University Press. Offe, C. (1981). The attribution of public status to interest groups. In S.D. Berger (Ed.), Organizing interests in West Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pearce, D. (1993). Economic values and the natural world. London, Earthscan. Peters, A., Liu, E., Verrier, R.L., Schwartz, J., Gold, D.R., Mittleman, M., Baliff, J., J. Annie Oh, A.J., Allen, G., Monahan, K., and Dockery, D.W. (Jan, 2000). Air pollution and incidence of cardiac arrhythmia. Epidemiology, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 11-17 195 Pope III, C. A., Burnett, R.T., Thun, M.J., Calle, E.E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., Thurston, G.D. (2002). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. The Journal of American Medical Association 287:1132-1141. Rich B. (1994). Mortgaging the earth: The World Bank, environmental impoverishment, and the crisis of development. Boston: Beacon Rochon, Thomas R. and Mazmanian, Daniel A. (1993). Social movements and the policy process. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 75-87 Sabatier, Paul A. (Jun., 1988). Policy change and policy-oriented learning: Exploring an advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 21(2-3), 129-168 Sabatier, Paul A. (1991). Toward better theories of policy process. Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147-156 Shabecoff, Philip. (1993). A fierce green fire: The American environmental movement. New York: Hill and Wang Shipan, C. R. and Lowry, William R. (2001). Environmental policy and party divergence in Congress. Political Research Quarterly, 54( 2), 245-263. Sikkink, K. (1995). Non-Governmental organizations and transnational issue networks in international politics. Proceedings from Annual Meeting of American Society of International Law, 89, 413– 15 Sklair, L. (1994). Global sociology and global environmental change, in: M. Redclift and T. Benton (eds.) Social theory and the global environment, 205-227. London: Rutledge. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). (2007a). 2007 Annual air quality monitoring network plan. SCAQMD Website. Retrieved March, 2008 from: http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/AQ- Reports/2007AQMonitoringNetworkPlan/MainDoc.pdf South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). (2007b). Draft air quality monitoring network plan: Appendix A – Network Depictions. SCAQMD Website. Retrieved March, 2008 from: http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/AQ- Reports/2007AQMonitoringNetworkPlan/AppA.pdf South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). (2007c). Final 2007 AQMP Appendix II – current air quality, June 2007. SCAQMD Website. Retrieved March, 2008 from: http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Appendix_II.pdf 196 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). (2002). Chapter 3. Valley generating station final EIR. SCAQMD Website. Retrieved June, 2009 from: http://www.aqmd.gov/ Soloff, C., Sanson, A., Wake, M. and Harrison, L. (2007). Enhancing longitudinal studies by linkage to national databases: Growing up in Australia, the longitudinal study of Australian children. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Volume 10, Issue 5, 349 – 363 Spicer, Michael. (2004). Public administration, the history of ideas, and reinventing government movement. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 353-362 Stern, Paul C., Dietz, Thomas, Abel, Troy, Guagnano, Gregory A. and Kalof, Linda. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support of social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2) Stoner, Nancy. (Oct., 2002). Clean water at risk: A 30 th anniversary assessment of the Bush administration’s rollback of clean water protections [Electronic version]. Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Water Network, retrieved, June, 2006 from: http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/cwa30/cwa30.pdf Switzer, Jacqueline Vaughn. (2004). Environmental politics: Domestic and global dimensions. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth Tandon R. (1994). Civil society, the state and the role of NGOs. In I. Serrano (Ed.) Civil society in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 117– 36). Washington, DC: CIVICUS Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. New York: Cambridge University Press Tobin, Richard J. (2003). Environment, population, and the developing world. In Vig, Norman J. And Michael E. Kraft (Eds.), Environmental policy: New directions for the twenty-first century. Washington DC: CQ Press True, J.L., B.D. and FR Baumgartner, F.R.. (1999). Punctuated-equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in American policymaking. Westview Press Tucker, W. (1982). Progress and privilege. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday Udall, L. (1995). The international Narmada campaign: A case of sustained advocacy, in Fisher WF, ed. 1995a. Toward sustainable development? Struggling over India's Narmada River. Armonk, NY: Sharpe, pp. 210– 27 197 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Website, www.epa.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved in March, 2008 Vlek, Charles. (2000). Essential psychology for environmental policy making. International Journal of Psychology, 35 (2), 153 – 167 Vogel, D. (1986). National styles of regulation. Environmental policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press Weale, A. (1992). The new politics of pollution. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. White, Lynn Jr. (1967). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203-1207 Wildavsky, Aaron. (1987). Speaking truth to power. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books Wright, B.H. (1998). St. James parish field observations. New Orleans, LA: Xavier University, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice 198 APPENDIX “A”: CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS IN AIR AS MEASURES OF POLICY OUTCOMES AT LOCAL / ZIP CODE LEVEL FOR SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SCAQMD) Abstract: One of the major difficulties in social science research about air quality is that there are no widely accepted methods of specific measurement of air quality “outcomes” as a function of certain precise and place-based policy, planning and socio- economic factors. Based on the physical and chemical properties of carbon monoxide, this research proposes that level of outdoor carbon monoxide (CO0 in air, for a zip code, can be used as a measure of policy outcomes (dependant variable) in empirical analysis of zip code level independent variables’ relationship with local air pollution. The research demonstrates that this new methodology can open various avenues of interesting inquiries in social sciences research. Introduction: Research has shown that urbanism especially urban sprawl, as well as thickly populated places are related to greater air pollution (Audirac, Shermyen, and Smith, 1990; Johnson, 2001). Other socio-economic factors like income, geography, etc. (Hofferbert, 1974) are also shown to influence environmental outcomes. Moreover, the role of nonprofits in policy formulation is dealt with in considerable detail (Sabatier, 1988, 1991). The advocacy and collaboration (Ali, 2003) efforts go beyond the policy processes to impact the attitudes and practices with the objective of achieving the desirable and environmentally just air quality outcomes. Scholars have attempted to measure the impact of participation on environmental outcomes measured as local plans 199 (Brody, 2003). However, little is reported by way of empirical modeling and findings about the statistical impacts of socio-economic factors and nonprofit organizations on actual air quality “outcomes”. I could not find any existing empirical model which is comprehensive and inclusive of most of the socio-economic factors (including nonprofits) that are indicated by the literature to have an impact on air quality. This research is an attempt to study whether any or all of the socio-economic, demographic and geographic factors such as age, income, race, etc. as well as nonprofit organizations of different types in collaborative environmental planning (Lane, 2003; Mandarano, 2008), have any bearing on the place-based air pollution. This research develops an empirical model that includes most of the socio-economic factors and nonprofits indicated by the literature to influence air quality. The study classifies the nonprofit organizations into five categories of environmental, fraternal, professional, religious, and social services to see whether they differ by type in their impact on air quality outcomes. This research empirically shows that socio-economic factors and nonprofits do indeed have an impact on environmental outcomes. It shows that per capita income and the percentage of social equity nonprofits in a zip code are two variables that are significantly related to place-based carbon monoxide levels in air. Social scientists and researchers in urban planning and policy, while attempting to empirically investigate the relationship of place-based urban social factors (e.g. income level, population density, etc.) with air quality face a major hurdle – air is mobile, air pollutants chemically react with each other and undergo transformation on a continuous basis. This means that the level of pollution measured at any specific location estimates not only the locally caused pollution, but also the transported and transformed pollution 200 for all kinds of pollutants in air. In order to investigate the air quality as policy outcome of urban social factors, we need to find a way by which we can use an air pollutant as a dependent variable in empirical analysis. Because of these limitations public policy and urban planning research is highly constrained in what it can produce as information, analysis, prediction and evaluation of policies. Now the question is; is there an air pollutant out of the USEPA regulated pollutants which can be used as a measure of local level policy outcomes, and as “dependent variable” in social science empirical research and regressions? Is there a pollutant for which we can, with some degree of confidence, isolate the local/zip code/place-based level of pollution from transported and transformed level? This research also attempts to respond to these questions. This research contributes to the existing literature by arguing that if we consider the particular topography and meteorology of a place, we can use measured levels of Carbon Monoxide in air as an indicator of local air quality in a particular zip code. This research argues that Carbon Monoxide is the only pollutant among the USEPA list of pollutants, which is a “primary” pollutant under all circumstances, i.e. it is emitted directly into the air, and, it has a long atmospheric life – this means that very little chemical transformation of CO takes place in air for about 1-2 months. Therefore, Carbon Monoxide seems to be the only pollutant in the list for which the transformation aspect of pollutant is negligible and hence can safely be ignored in the analysis of social factors. The remaining factor of transported Carbon Monoxide can be controlled for by considering topographical and meteorological factors of the zip code. In order to account for seasonal and temporal variations in levels of Carbon Monoxide, this research contends that using annual 8 hour averages for levels of Carbon Monoxide account for 201 and provide central tendency for seasonal and temporal variations in carbon monoxide levels in air. Therefore 8 hour annual average levels of carbon monoxide can be used for quantitative analysis to estimate the influence of local/zip code level variables on Carbon Monoxide levels in air. This research is divided into three parts. In the first part I examine the existing literature on role of nonprofit organizations in the policy and social processes as well as the methodology of social science research involving air pollution. My objective in this part is to show that although scholars have looked at the role of nonprofits in the social and political processes, the literature is lacking in empirical studies linking nonprofits to environmental outcomes. I also show that so far CO level have not been used in the social science research as dependant variable. In the second part, I explain the methodology of this research. I explain the various data sources for the analysis and findings of this research. In this part I look at the transportation, chemistry and chemical transformation of Carbon Monoxide to account for transformed carbon monoxide. My goal in this part is four fold. It is firstly, to show that carbon monoxide is a primary pollutant under most circumstances, and hence its presence in air is due to direct emissions rather than through chemical conversion of other chemical. Secondly, it is to show that carbon monoxide has a long atmospheric life. Third, due to the first two characteristics of Carbon Monoxide the transformation factor can safely be ruled out for most approximations. Lastly, it is to show that if we consider the topography, wind speed and wind direction in our analysis then we can account for the transported carbon monoxide and having accounted for the transported carbon monoxide we can use the carbon monoxide level as a dependant variable in our empirical 202 analysis. Research about topography and meteorology of air pollution shows that the following factors influence levels of carbon monoxide in air: “1. Unfavorable topography. Low lying areas surrounded by higher elevations on three or more sides are vulnerable to CO buildup. 2. Unfavorable meteorology. Stagnant winter conditions characterized by ground level temperature inversions … and low windspeeds inhibit vertical mixing of CO. 3. Significant local CO emissions. 4. High concentrations of CO transported from nearby areas” (Committee on Carbon Monoxide Episodes in Meteorological and Topographical Problem Areas (CB), 2003, pg. 91). I contend that carbon monoxide is a pollutant whose transported values can be accounted for when considered with 1 – topography including built environment features, 2- wind direction and 3 – wind speed, and thus can effectively be used in empirical analysis of social factors’ link with air pollution. In the third part, I discuss the findings of this research. I demonstrate in this part that a comprehensive empirical model of socio-economic factors with carbon monoxide level as the dependant variable is a robust model. Classifying nonprofit organizations into the five categories of environmental, fraternal, professional, religious and social equity, I also demonstrate that per capita income and the percentage of social equity nonprofits are significantly related with levels of carbon monoxide in air. Lastly, I show that carbon monoxide levels can be used as the place-based environmental outcomes / dependant variables in social science research. I end the research by summarizing the findings of the research and providing directions for future research. 203 Nonprofit Organizations, Social Factors and Air Pollution as a “Dependant” Variable – A Review of the Existing Literature and Methodologies of Research: Considerable literature has been published on the role played by nonprofit organizations in the policy processes (Sabatier, 1988, 1991). There is also substantial literature on the role that nonprofits play to fill the vacuum created due to hollowing out of the state, by their efforts of mobilization, advocacy and persuasion (Fowler, 1993) that goes far beyond policy formulation advocacy efforts and attempts to mobilize and impact public opinion and practices toward sustainable and more “green” ways of living, as well as creating a more environmentally just society through uniform and equal implementation of environmental laws in the context of existing socio-economic factors such as gender distribution, income, geography, etc. (Hofferbert, 1974; Mohai, 1985; Neuhaus, 1971; Tucker, 1982). All these advocacy efforts of nonprofit organizations, rationally speaking, are aimed at impacting the environmental outcomes. Considering the socio-economic variables, do nonprofits have actually any impact on environmental outcomes or not? This question has been raised in different ways by the scholars in the field (Lindsey and Schoedel, 1997; Mandarano, 2008). I was unable to find any substantial work that statistically and empirically analyzes the impact of nonprofit organizations on actual place-based environmental policy outcomes. I could not find a research that develops a comprehensive empirical model inclusive of various socio-economic factors under which nonprofits operate as well as the nonprofits themselves, to test the effect (s) of such factors on actual place based air quality outcomes. Scholars have also pointed out the difficulties involved in the development of such models (Mandarano, 2008), as involving too many parameters and 204 other difficulties. This research contributes to the literature by developing and testing such a model. What are the actual measurable effects of nonprofit organizations’ advocacy efforts on environmental policy outcomes? What are the effects of other socio- economic factors on environmental policy outcomes? Moreover, in this age and time when all kinds of nonprofits are involved in environmental policy in one way or the other, professional nonprofits for green products, religious and social services nonprofits for environmental and social justice, health of the community, etc, it is pertinent to empirically study how and whether these different types of nonprofits impact the actual place-based environmental outcomes. However, little is reported in the literature about the type and direction of impact that nonprofit organizations have at a local level on local environmental outcomes. This research attempts to respond to these lacunae in the literature. In addition, the uncertainty regarding air pollution measurement and the empirical methods used for air quality studies is found to be a cause of concern by Koop and Tole (2003). “… standard deviations for air pollution-mortality impacts become very large when model uncertainty is incorporated into the analysis…. proper treatment of model uncertainty critically determines the accuracy of the resulting estimates—applies to many studies that seek to estimate environmental effects” (Koop and Tole, 2003, pg. 1). On similar lines, I argue that in addition, the accuracy in measuring and isolating the locally generated pollution versus the transported and/or transformed pollution in air is also crucial in obtaining robust and reliable empirical results of empirical analysis of socio-economic, demographic and other social variables in social science research involving air quality, especially when exploring the role of social factors on air quality. 205 More importantly levels of air pollution have so far, only sporadically been used as dependent variables in empirical social science research, if at all. Most of the social science research so far has employed levels of air pollution ad independent variables and then assessed their impact on social variables – mostly diseases. Social science research, can however, be better informed if it can use any air pollutant as a dependent variable to approximate the impacts of local social variables on local air quality. Research has demonstrated that air pollution is linked to higher incidence of various diseases for example cardiac arrhythmia is found to be related to higher levels of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, black carbon and fine particulate mass (Peters, et al., 2000). In their research the authors measured all the afore-mentioned pollutants in air, daily from 1995 to 1997 in South Boston. Similarly Pope III, et al. (2002) linked the individual’s risk factor data for approximately 500 000 adults with air pollution data for metropolitan areas throughout the United States and combined with vital status and cause of death data through December 31, 1998 to show that, “Fine particulate and sulfur oxide–related pollution were associated with all-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality. Each 10-μg/m 3 elevation in fine particulate air pollution was associated with approximately a 4%, 6%, and 8% increased risk of all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, respectively. Measures of coarse particle fraction and total suspended particles were not consistently associated with mortality” (Pope III, et al., 2002, pg. 1). These methods were very accurate and extremely useful for their respective research and linked air pollution to patient conditions. However, these methods did not pertain to provide means to measure locally caused levels of pollutants in air. They measured the levels or used measured levels of pollutants in air, but did not isolate locally produced pollutants from transported and reacted pollutants in air. Moreover, in order for 206 data to be viable for research studies Soloff, Sanson, Wake and Harrison (2007) provide certain criteria. Accordingly the data should be relevant, in addition data quality and cost as well as privacy, consent and ease of access is also important. The methodology used in some of the more accurate research is usually too expensive and difficult to access and hence not easily replicable. In order to measure the impact of local transportation modes on local air quality Friedman et al (2001) used a variation of pre-post design in which they compared the 17 days of the Olympic Games (July 19–August 4, 1996) to a baseline period consisting of the 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after the Olympic Games to study the impacts of traffic changes in Atlanta, GA, during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games and concomitant changes in air quality and childhood asthma events. The alternative transportation strategy implemented during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, GA, provided such an opportunity. Their study showed that during the Olympic Games, the number of asthma acute care events decreased 41.6% (4.23 vs. 2.47 daily events). This is a very effective method, however, conditions for measuring such local level impact on air pollution do not occur in the normal course of social activities and hence is very difficult to replicate in many studies. In their research “Measuring the benefits of air quality improvement: a spatial hedonic approach” Kim, Phipps and Anselin (2003), developed a spatial-econometric hedonic housing price model to measure the marginal value of improvements in sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen dioxide (NO x ) concentrations. Again, although very useful, the model cannot be used to isolate locally produced pollutants from transported pollutants. 207 The local/zip code level measurements of Carbon Monoxide (CO) obtained from the United States Federal Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have also been successfully used to discern the impact of CO on childhood asthma (Neidell, 2004). This study shows a link between high levels of CO and higher incidence of asthma among children in lower socio-economic status families. Again, his study looked at the existing level of pollutants in air as independent variables without isolating the locally emitted Carbon Monoxide versus the transported Carbon Monoxide as dependent variable. Frank and Engelke (2005) showed that local level of Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds in air are a function of local traffic and more importantly traffic speed. They demonstrated that high density neighborhoods with high traffic frequency and low traffic speeds have higher levels of Carbon Monoxide, Volatile organic Compound and Nitrogen Oxides. They however, did not use Carbon Monoxide as a measure of policy outcome and did not specify that Carbon Monoxide alone can be a pollutant for which we can most confidently decipher the influence of local factors versus transported factors. Although methods are in place to measure air quality at a certain location and to develop accurate GIS maps of the air quality at various locations (Briggs, et al., 2000) there are not many studies on the methodology of isolating locally emitted air pollution from transported and transformed pollutants in air. Isolating local air pollution from transported and transformed pollution can potentially greatly help social science researchers in examining the link between local socio-economic, demographic and other such social variables and air pollution. It proposes the use of data readily available form the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) website as well as from other 208 environmental public agencies. This is not only easy to access and affordable data collection but also enhances the transparency of the study and its methodology. Transparency is considered as one of the important elements for the viability of quantitative data by some authors as well as by some regulatory agencies (Munro, 2007). This is what this research pertains to respond to. Methodology: The data collection and empirical model for the regression analysis of this research has already been explained in sections 3.3 and 3.4 of this research. Here we will discuss in detail about carbon monoxide as a dependant variable Dependant Variable - Carbon Monoxide in Air: Carbon monoxide is generated in the air due to partially burned fuel from local traffic, factories, industries, etc. where fuel is partially burned due to various reasons, e.g. slow-moving, stop-and-go traffic. “Carbon monoxide, or CO, is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. Other non-road engines and vehicles (such as construction equipment and boats) contribute about 22 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. Higher levels of CO generally occur in areas with heavy traffic congestion. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO emissions may come from motor vehicle exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources such as forest fires. Woodstoves, gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas and kerosene space heaters are sources of CO indoors” (Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Website, epa.gov) Carbon Monoxide is regulated by USEPA because carbon monoxide when inhaled with air has serious health implications for human, animals and plants. 209 “When carbon monoxide is inhaled in sufficient concentration, it can displace oxygen and bind with the hemoglobin in the blood, reducing the capacity of the blood to carry oxygen. Individuals most at risk from the effects of CO include heart patients, fetuses (unborn babies), smokers, and people who exercise heavily. Normal healthy individuals are affected at higher concentrations, which may cause impairment of manual dexterity, vision, learning ability, and performance of work. The results of studies concerning the combined effects of CO and other pollutants in animals have shown a synergistic adverse effect after exposure to CO and ozone” (SCAQMD, 2007b. pg. II-2-18 ). Transformation of Carbon Monoxide in Air through Chemical Reactions: Now let us look at the chemistry of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a primary pollutant, which means that it gets into air directly in the form of carbon monoxide and not through reaction of other gases and pollutants in air. This implies that its concentration is strongest near the source. The US Environmental Protection Agency establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), under the Clean Air Act of 1990, for various air pollutants deemed harmful to human health, life and well-being. Following table lists those air pollutants. Some of the pollutants are primary pollutants under some circumstances and secondary pollutants under other set of circumstances. However, the table shows that carbon dioxide under all circumstances is a primary pollutant: TABLE 27: POLLUTANTS IN AIR: Pollutant Type SO 2 Primary SO 2 Primary SO 2 Secondary PM 10 Primary and Secondary PM 25 Primary and Secondary PM 25 Primary and Secondary CO Primary CO Primary O 3 Primary and Secondary 210 TABLE 27: CONTINUED … Pollutant Type O 3 Primary and Secondary NO x Primary and Secondary Pb Primary and Secondary Source: USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency’s official website) Of all the regulated pollutants, carbon monoxide is the only one that is always a primary pollutant while other pollutants are not always such. It means that although carbon monoxide can potentially convert into other chemicals, but chemical reactions of other gases and compounds in air, including air pollutants, do not produce carbon dioxide, it is produced by some sources of pollution and is emitted directly in the air. However, Carbon Monoxide as a chemical once emitted in air persists without reacting for a long time. “The dwell time of CO in the atmosphere is between 1 and 2 months on average” (Horn, 1989, quoted by the German Ministry). Although it eventually oxidizes to produce carbon dioxide in air but its persistence interval in the environment is generally quite large. Therefore, the probability of missed measurement of Carbon Monoxide due to conversion into other compounds via chemical reactions is very low. Therefore, we can safely assume that transformation of Carbon Monoxide is negligible if at all and hence we do not necessarily have to consider this factor in our analysis. Transportation of Carbon Monoxide in Air – Topographical, Meteorological and Other Factors in Dispersion of Carbon Monoxide: Carbon Monoxide disperses horizontally and vertically. Vertical dispersion moves the gas out of the measurement range of air monitoring stations after a certain height. However, Carbon Monoxide travels from place to place through horizontal dispersion 211 also. Dispersed carbon monoxide transporting from other locations to an air monitoring station site loses some of its carbon monoxide concentration by the time it reaches point B from point A. Therefore Carbon Monoxide measured at the same height in atmosphere at point B as it is measured at point A will have lost some Carbon Monoxide produced at point A. Since transported Carbon Monoxide can be measured using wind direction and speed as well as topography and geography, therefore, it is possible to isolate the amount of transported Carbon Monoxide from locally emitted Carbon Monoxide. Hence level of carbon monoxide measured at a particular location can potentially be used as representing local source pollution. Now let us look at each of the factors of topography, meteorology, etc. in the context of south coast region of California to see whether carbon monoxide levels measured by monitoring stations at various sites of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) can in fact be tested against local zip code level socio-economic independent variables. Let’s look at each factor individually: Terrain - Topography: Unfavorable topography in Greater Los Angeles Region: Low lying areas surrounded by higher elevations on three or more sides are vulnerable to CO buildup: In case of greater Los Angeles, the region of SCAQMD is composed of low lying land surrounded by higher elevations (mountains and/or dense vertically developed urban areas. “The Basin is bounded to the north and east by mountains with maximum elevations exceeding 10,000 feet. The unfavorable combination of meteorology, topography, and emissions 212 from the nation’s second largest urban area result in the Basin having the worst air quality in the U.S” (SCAQMD Website, 2007c, p. 17). FIGURE 7: SCHEMATIC OF A TRAPPING VALLEY. THE TEMPERATURE PROFILE IN THE VALLEY IS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT. (SOURCE: COMMITTEE ON CARBON MONOXIDE EPISODES IN METEOROLOGICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL PROBLEM AREAS, 2003, PG. 92): Some studies about carbon monoxide pollution in California talk about lower gradient at various locations, which might impact comparative levels of carbon monoxide at various locations (Bowen, J. L.; P. A. Walsh, and R. C. Henry, 1996). Scholars also think that: “The ease with which air can mix vertically to disperse pollutants depends critically on how the air temperature changes with altitude.” (Committee on Carbon Monoxide Episodes in Meteorological and Topographical Problem Areas (CB), 2003, pg. 92) In addition to gradient, the climatic conditions of temperature, wind speed and direction also impact levels of measured Carbon Monoxide at a particular location. “.. southwestern California experiences inversions at higher altitudes because of strong subsidence associated with descending air in the subtropical eastern Pacific Ocean high-pressure system. Inversions in southwestern California are high because, in contrast with the winter situation in Fairbanks, sunshine on the surface permits vertical mixing in the atmospheric layer near the surface. Topographical features, such as the 213 presence of an urban area in a valley, can inhibit horizontal dispersion of air. Unless the large-scale wind is strong enough to enable horizontal dispersion, the local air mass will remain confined to the valley” (Committee on Carbon Monoxide Episodes in Meteorological and Topographical Problem Areas (CB), 2003, pg. 92) Therefore, for the purpose of accuracy, we recommend using factors such as terrain / topography (natural i.e. mountains, coast, etc. and man-made i.e. high rises, downtown, etc.) and temperature in the empirical analysis for measuring the impact of local level social factors on levels of Carbon Monoxide in air. Terrain must be used in the empirical model as a variable in order to account for transported Carbon Monoxide. Temperature, however, might not necessarily be included in the empirical model. Since temperature is also a function of altitude; therefore considering “terrain” in our analysis, accounts for that part of variation in temperature according to location. Therefore, in some instances, using the factor of terrain alone, and not the temperature variances, can still provide us with reasonably accurate approximation of place-based, locally emitted Carbon Monoxide. In order to account for seasonal and temporal place- based variations in temperature, we can use 8 hour annual average level of Carbon Monoxide pollution in air. This provides us with statistical central tendency and account for seasonal and temporal variations in temperature, without explicitly considering temperature in our empirical model. The above diagram (figure 7) shows that wind speed plays a more significant role in terms of carbon monoxide concentrations in air; this brings us to our next point: 214 Wind Speed - Meteorology: Unfavorable meteorology in Greater Los Angeles Region - Stagnant winter conditions characterized by ground level temperature inversions … and low wind speeds inhibit vertical mixing of CO: Wind conditions throughout the Greater Los Angeles region show similar average wind speeds throughout the region at 30 m elevation for the most part, with few exceptions, as shown in Map 2. The black boundary in the map shows the approximate boundary of the region which comes under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. MAP 2: ANNUAL AVERAGE WIND SPEEDS (2006) ON THE SOUTH COAST REGION OF CALIFORNIA (BLACK LINE WITHIN THE MAP SHOWS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE REGION GOVERNED BY THE SCAQMD): (Source: California Energy Commission Website, highlighted boundary of Greater Los Angeles Region added by this author) 4 4 http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/wind/WIND_SPEED_30M.PDF 215 The 30 meter elevation was chosen for the average annual wind speed since most air monitoring stations are located at heights of 30 meters or less and measure carbon monoxide at that height. Although the above map shows that average wind speed for the entire region is almost similar, but there are localized variations in wind speed at various locations. Wind speed, wind direction along with terrain factors such as mountains and high-rise buildings should, therefore, be taken into consideration to account for variations in wind’s horizontal and vertical dispersion of Carbon Monoxide at different locations. Moreover, there might be seasonal and/or temporal difference in wind speed for the region, but the average annual wind speed measures the central tendency and accounts for such variations. Therefore, considering annual wind speed for empirical analysis of social factors will account for some part of transported Carbon Monoxide. Now let us look at our last point, wind direction and transportation of carbon monoxide from adjacent areas. Wind Direction - High concentrations of CO transported from nearby areas in Greater Los Angeles Region: Looking at the map of annual average wind speed in the region (map 1), it is clear that wind speeds in this region, on average, are usually similar across the region. With this kind of speed, and usual sunlight conditions of California, by the time wind reaches from one monitoring station to another, some of it is already dispersed vertically. However, quite a large portion of Carbon Monoxide is still transported horizontally to zip codes other than the zip codes of origin of Carbon Monoxide. Such transportation depends on wind direction. Therefore considering wind direction along with measured 216 levels of Carbon Monoxide at each monitoring station can enable us to account for transported Carbon Monoxide. Wind direction in the SCAQMD region varies according to location. Wind direction can influence direction of horizontal dispersion of Carbon Monoxide and hence the level of Carbon Monoxide measured at various locations. Lynwood with highest level of pollution has southward going wind; zip codes with lower levels of CO have usually northbound wind flowing from the ocean to land. MAP 3: MAP SHOWING DOMINANT WIND DIRECTION AT THE AIR MONITORING STATION LOCATIONS OF SOUTH COAST REGION OF CALIFORNIA: (Map Source: SCAQMD website; Draft Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan: Appendix A – Network Depictions, June 2007.Wind Directions Data: SCAQMD Website. 2007 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan) Research conducted on south coast region of California states, 217 “A study to characterize the spatial and temporal behavior of the carbon monoxide (CO) buildup in Lynwood and in the Los Angeles basin surrounding Lynwood was performed during the winter of 1989-90.The Monitoring data were collected from 36 stations in the Los Angeles Basin during three intensive study periods. Two of these periods produced high- CO exceedance episodes and are reported. They were: a 24-hour period during 19-20 December 1989 and a 40-hour period during 8-10 January 1990. Statistical analysis of the data from these episodes shows higher concentrations of CO in Lynwood than in other areas of the basin. The cumulative frequency distributions suggest that Hawthorne and Lynwood have either strong local source influences or meteorological/geographical factors. The vertical distribution of CO indicates that the concentrations between 15 and 30 meters are strongly influenced by the same sources that influence the surface concentrations; however, CO concentrations at 30-45 meters may be influenced by transported carbon monoxide from more distant sources as well” (Nininger, R. C, 1991, pg. 1). Research also shows that, “A good portion of CO concentrations at LYNN that exceeds CO concentrations at other locations appears to originate in the local area” (Bowen, J.L.; P. A. Walsh and R. C. Henry, 1996, pg. iv). It must be noted that carbon monoxide levels are measured by the monitoring stations at heights ranging from 2 m to 10 m. Hence the data obtained for carbon monoxide levels is strongly influenced by local sources of pollution, and not as much by transported carbon monoxide from more distant sources. However, some part of Carbon Monoxide does get transported, this transported Carbon Monoxide, can be accounted for by considering wind direction in analytical analysis. Therefore, we strongly recommend considering wind direction in the empirical analysis of social factors for air pollution. Discussion of Findings: Social science research about environmental outcomes so far has shied away from using levels of air pollution as dependent variables due to the issues discussed above. However, considering the above-mentioned discussion on Carbon Monoxide, we can 218 employ it as a dependent variable in social science regression analyses and other statistical analyses. Based on the empirical model stated in methodology above, a regression analysis was carried out to investigate the influence of various socio-economic factors on air quality outcomes, if any. The following table shows the results of the regression analysis: TABLE 28: TABLE 4 (REPRODUCED HERE WITH THE COLUMN OF STANDARD ERROR ADDED): REGRESSION ANALYSIS WITH LEVELS OF CARBON MONOXIDE AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE FOR DIFFERENT ZIP CODES IN THE SCAQMD REGION: Independent Variables Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Intercept 3.095 2.110 1.467 0.181 Traffic Frequency^ 0.354 0.149 2.370 0.045 Type of Traffic (arterial, highway, etc.)^ -0.107 0.125 -0.862 0.414 Port/Airport^^^ -0.080 0.165 -0.483 0.642 Predominant wind direction^ 0.160 0.094 1.696 0.128 Per Capita Income^^ -0.472 0.248 -1.906 0.093 Population Density^^ 1.126 0.645 1.747 0.119 % of Environmental Nonprofits^^^^ -1.844 6.151 -0.300 0.772 % of Professional Nonprofits^^^^ -2.653 1.910 -1.389 0.202 % of Religious Nonprofits^^^^ -0.184 3.095 -0.059 0.954 % of Social Equity Nonprofits^^^^ 6.537 3.181 2.055 0.074 Inhibited Horizontal Dispersion^ = f(speed and mountains or upward urban growth) -0.806 0.282 -2.856 0.021 ^Data Source: CARB or SCAQMD website ^^Data Source: US Census website ^^^Data Source: Google Earth ^^^^ Data Source: Guidestar.com The value of adjusted R 2 is 0.87 which means that 87% of the variations in levels of carbon monoxide can be explained by this model. This is a considerably strong R 2 for social science research and demonstrates that the model is quite robust. Other related findings have already been discussed in section 4.3.1 of this research. 219 This analysis and findings of the research clearly demonstrate the application of using level of Carbon Monoxide in air as the dependent variable / policy outcome in air at the local/zip code level in empirical analysis of quantitative data for social science research. The analysis and research of this research was made possible only by employing air quality as the dependant variable and as the measure of air quality outcomes. It opens new opportunities for doing similar and more advanced research about urban planning and policy formulation and implementation. It provides an innovative way of testing for and identifying explanatory socio-economic variables for achieving desirable policy outcomes and outputs. Higher level of confidence about the power of explanatory variables in determining the outcomes and outputs might also help us in conducting more in-depth policy analysis for the purpose of forming local and regional polices and urban planning. Use of Carbon Monoxide levels isolated from transported levels of Carbon Monoxide has wide applicability and is not limited to Greater Los Angeles Region alone. Conclusion and Directions for Further Research: This research developed a comprehensive empirical model inclusive of most socio-economic factors that are shown to influence air quality outcomes in general. It demonstrated a robust relationship between socio-economic factors and place-based air pollution. It showed that lower per capita income is related to high level of carbon monoxide pollution in air and vice versa. Similarly it also demonstrated that high percentage of social equity nonprofits in a zip code is positively and significantly related to higher levels of carbon monoxide in air. Moreover, Carbon Monoxide seems to be the only US EPA regulated pollutant whose measured levels at local monitoring stations can 220 be used as measures of air quality policy outcomes as place-based local outcome at the local zip code level, while also incorporating other meteorological and geographical factors in the empirical model, e.g. wind direction, wind speed and natural and built environmental and geographical features. These findings have potential beyond this research. This research has shown a method of potentially to resolve a major difficulty in the form of lack of viable and valid dependent variables for air quality outcomes for researchers interested in measuring the effect of local policy implementation and local socio-economic factors on place-based air quality outcomes. More importantly it can be used to analyze policies in the formulation stage to better predict the outcomes It can be used to conduct further research into demographic, sociological, political, and other local policy and urban planning related factors at zip code level in the greater Los Angeles region and for other places. It can also be used to respond to questions about land-use and transportation planning / policy and to discern effective practices from the non-effective ones. It can also be used for evaluation research once a policy is formulated to quantify differences in implementation and to isolate the effect of topographical, demographical and other factors from the impact of policy implementation. It also raises further questions. Where and how it is applicable? How to accurately measure Carbon Monoxide in air? How to apply this research to predict policy outcomes? How to apply this knowledge in land-use and transportation planning / policy? Etc. Further research is needed to respond to such questions. 221 APPENDIX “B” INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE 1 – What are the objectives of your organization? Would you classify your nonprofit organization as a fraternal club, professional, social service, environmental, or a religious organization? 2 – What kind of actions do you take to achieve those objectives? Do you work at the community level? Or do you do advocacy? Or do you do both? Or do you do something else? 3 – Do you collaborate with other like minded organizations (even if it is not your primary objective) for meeting your objectives? If yes, how? 4 –If you deal with government organizations, do you think that they are: 1- responsive, 2- somewhat responsive, 3 – not responsive? Or do you not deal with government organizations at all? 5 – Do you think that you face opposition of any kind, in achieving your objectives from other entities and/or organizations? If yes, what kind of opposition? How do you deal with it? 222 APPENDIX “C” – ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE INVENTORY SURVEY INSTRUMENT 223 224 225 226 227 APPENDIX “D”: THE ASSOCIATIVE PROPERTY The Associative Property: The associative property, borrowed from Algebra, when applied to policy outcomes, would state that policy outcomes depend on the policy processes; therefore, all factors having impact on policy processes would have an impact on policy outcomes. Since the major processes of policy are policy formulation and policy implementation, therefore, policy outcomes depend on what policy decisions are taken in policy formulation, and on how policy is implemented. Moreover, since nonprofits are major players during both policy formulation and policy implementation, therefore we can say that nonprofits by virtue of associative property influence policy outcomes. We can show this by: The twin processes of policy formulation and policy implementation impact policy outcomes ----- (1) This statement (1) makes intuitive sense, since policy outcomes do not occur in a vacuum rather those are the results of some socio-political processes. The most obvious of the processes that can have an influence on policy outcomes are policy formulation and policy implementation. Moreover, in the case of environmental policy all kinds of nonprofits, from environmental to professional (chambers of commerce, etc.) from faith- based to women’s clubs, are active participants for one reason or the other. Faith-based nonprofits, for example are very concerned by the environmental justice implications of the policies, social services organizations care about the human health impacts of the 228 environment, etc. Therefore, we can argue that in case of environmental policy, we should look at and study the role of all kinds of nonprofits, not just environmental nonprofits, in the processes and outcomes of the policies. Borrowing from the algebraic concept of association, it can, therefore, be said that if policy formulation and policy implementation sway the outcomes, then combining all factors that shape the two processes of formulation and implementation, must also have the same impact on outcomes as the effect of formulation and implementation on outcomes. Now, considering the sub-processes within the major processes of policy formulation and implementation, for this section I define a term “factor”. A “factor” for the purpose of this section is any entity, e.g. nonprofit organizations that plays a part in the in the policy processes. The term “factor” for the purpose of this section is inclusive of actions performed on and by the entity which is involved in the policy processes. It should be emphasized that the term “factor” here refers to entity as well as processes. It is not just the distinct entities like nonprofits, or public agencies that combine to form the whole of policy formulation and implementation, it is also the interaction and interplay of entities and processes that form the entirety of policy formulation and implementation and therefore referred to as “factor”. This means that the secondary processes and factors involved in policy formulation and implementation, for example, how policies are formulated, the way policy decisions were taken, the amount of support or opposition the policy decisions had, the way policies are implemented, the amount of support or opposition it had, the way policies are interpreted for implementation, the level of support a particular interpretation of policy has, the ground realities and circumstances of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the 229 population, the geography, politics, economy, etc. all have impact on policy outcomes. However, policy formulation and policy implementation remain the two major, umbrella, inclusive terms, that this section considers as covering the secondary and tertiary processes of policy. We can say that: Combination of all factors (a,b,c,d, …) that influence the two processes of policy formulation and implementation impact policy outcomes ----- (2) Statement (2) above forms the backbone of this section’s theoretical framework of nonprofits’ influence on policy outcomes. The theoretical framework goes on to show that nonprofits of all kinds operating and influencing through various mechanisms and strategies of action, as well as the democratic, participative environment of decision- making and implementation result in the formation of a factor henceforth called the nonprofits, which is a combination of the entity (nonprofit organizations) with a processes of participation. Nonprofits, it should be noted, is one of the many explanatory and determining factors impacting policy outcomes. Therefore, Nonprofit organizations and Participatory Processes = one of the factors that influence the two processes of policy formulation and implementation ----- (3) Now, if: 230 Combination of all factors (a,b,c,d, …) that influence the two processes of policy formulation and implementation impact policy outcomes ----- (2) Then: Any one of the factors (a,b,c,d, …) that influence any of the two processes of policy formulation and implementation has some impact on policy outcomes ----- (4) And, therefore, If the factor of nonprofits is one of the factors (a,b,c,d, …) that influence any of the processes of policy formulation and implementation, then it will have some impact on policy outcomes ----- (5) And, If a factor influences “both” the processes of policy formulation and policy implementation, then it will have stronger impact as compared to factors which impact only one out of the two processes of policy (either formulation or implementation), on policy outcomes ----- (6) 231 Statements (5) and (6) above are the main statements for the theoretical framework presented in this section. Moreover, from (5) and (6) above, we can also deduce that if we are only concerned about the policy formulation process and want to see whether it has any impact on the policy outcomes, we can look at the formulation process and the all kinds of nonprofits involved in formulation in isolation from the implementation process according to the statement (7) below: Nonprofits influencing policy formulation impact policy outcomes ----- (7) In addition, under the circumstances when we already have a formulated policy for a long period of time, may be decades or centuries, and we want to see the impact the nonprofits have on policy outcomes, obviously it will be mostly irrelevant and not practical to see the impact the of currently existing nonprofits on policy formulation. Policy itself and the policy decision can, under such conditions, be taken as given and constant. In such cases it will be more reasonable and practical if we are more interested in nonprofits’ impact on the policy implementation process. Now, deducing from statements (5) and (6) above, we can isolate the impact of all kinds of nonprofits on policy implementation from the policy formulation process and can still say that: Nonprofits influencing policy implementation impact policy outcomes ----- (8) 232 Having discussed the associative property for nonprofits’ influence on policy outcomes, we will now proceed to see the role nonprofits play in policy formulation and policy implementation. We have seen in sections 2.2 and 2.3 that nonprofit organizations are significant participants in policy formulation and policy implementation. We also observed that the extent, nature and direction of nonprofits’ influence on policy processes depends at least to some extent on the environmental ethics of nonprofit organizations. Finally we also noticed that all types of nonprofit organizations play some role in the twin processes of the environmental policy. 233 APPENDIX “E” IRB APPROVAL LETTER UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FWA 00007099 Approval Notice for Exempt Applications (Contingencies have been met) Date: Tue Nov 13 12:08:54 2007 Principal Investigator: Amna Imam Faculty Advisor: Tridib Banerjee Co- Investigators: 234 Project Title: Impact of Environmental Dispositions of Nonprofit Organizations (NPOs) on Air Quality Outcomes at Local and Regional Levels USC UPIRB # UP-07-00335 The University Park Institutional Review Board (IRB) designee requested modifications/clarifications to the above referenced study on 11/2/2007. It is noted that the required responses were provided as requested by the IRB. The IRB determined that your project meets the requirements outlined in 45 CFR 46.101 category (2) and qualifies for exemption from IRB Review. IRB Exemption of this study was granted on 11/13/2007. Your study is exempt from the regulations under 45 CFR 46; however, in order to be compliant with the principles of the Belmont Report, the UPIRB recommends that you use the revised documents when recruiting or enrolling potential subjects. The recruitment documents and Information Sheet will not be stamped by the UPIRB, but can be accessed under the “Documents” tab in the study workspace in iStar. 235 Sincerely, Scott Maul, Ph.D. Program Specialist, University Park IRB APPENDIX “F” TABLE SHOWING THE ECOLOGICAL DATA USED FOR ANALYSIS (YEAR 2006): (TABLE 29) 236 SCAQMD Air Monitoring Station Carbon Monoxide Level 2006* Traffic in 100000s veh / day Type of Traffic Port/Airport coded Predominant wind direction coded Income Level (per capita income)in 10000s % of Professional Nonprofits % of Religious Nonprofits % of Social Services Nonprofits % of Environmental Nonprofits Inhibited Horizontal Dispersion = f(speed and mountains or upward urban growth) Population Density Lynwood 6.4000 4.0000 1.0000 2.0000 1 0.9549 0.09 0.36 0.36 0.00 2.0000 1.4251 Burbank 3.5000 0.5000 2.0000 3.0000 1 1.6874 0.24 0.14 0.47 0.04 2.0000 0.8846 Long Beach 3.4000 0.1000 1.0000 4.0000 4 2.8830 0.26 0.20 0.33 0.00 1.0000 0.6888 Reseda 3.4000 0.6000 2.0000 1.0000 6 1.6899 0.25 0.28 0.19 0.02 2.0000 1.0303 La Habra 3.0000 0.0100 4.0000 1.0000 4 2.1690 0.09 0.31 0.25 0.01 2.0000 0.4551 Anaheim 3.0000 0.0050 4.0000 2.0000 2 1.4111 0.23 0.37 0.16 0.02 1.0000 0.9972 Costa Mesa 3.0000 0.0100 4.0000 2.0000 6 2.6525 0.35 0.18 0.21 0.03 0.0000 0.4657 Pasadena 2.8000 0.0250 4.0000 1.0000 6 3.2347 0.27 0.17 0.35 0.00 2.0000 0.8153 Pico Rivera 2.7000 2.5000 3.0000 1.0000 2 1.2984 0.19 0.33 0.19 0.00 2.0000 0.8112 Los Angeles 2.6000 0.1000 1.0000 1.0000 6 1.8769 0.50 0.11 0.20 0.00 2.0000 0.8736 LAX Hastings 2.3000 0.0100 4.0000 4.0000 5 2.8635 0.34 0.13 0.28 0.01 1.0000 0.3640 San Bernardino 2.3000 0.2000 4.0000 1.0000 3 0.9449 0.23 0.33 0.20 0.00 2.0000 0.5259 Rubidoux 2.1000 0.1000 4.0000 1.0000 6 1.5052 0.44 0.13 0.24 0.08 2.0000 0.3132 Pomona 2.1000 0.1000 2.0000 1.0000 4 1.3821 0.29 0.37 0.19 0.02 2.0000 0.8221 Upland 1.8000 0.0002 4.0000 2.0000 8 1.8914 0.33 0.27 0.14 0.02 2.0000 0.5282 Mission Viejo 1.8000 0.4240 2.0000 1.0000 6 2.9984 0.25 0.26 0.18 0.01 2.0000 0.5436 Azusa 1.7000 0.0100 5.0000 1.0000 6 1.3753 0.17 0.23 0.17 0.03 2.0000 0.2508 Santa Clarita 1.3000 0.0100 4.0000 1.0000 2 2.2526 0.14 0.36 0.22 0.06 2.0000 0.1592 Palm Springs 1.0000 0.0500 5.0000 2.0000 3 2.2205 0.40 0.15 0.27 0.03 2.0000 0.0235 Lake Elsinore 1.0000 0.0010 4.0000 2.0000 1 1.5155 0.23 0.34 0.16 0.00 2.0000 0.0532 237 APPENDIX “G” DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR NPOs’ INTERVIEW DATA: TABLE 31: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (ENVIRONMENTAL NPOS): Descriptive Statistics (Environmental NPOs) N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Management Level Strategies 16 0 0 0 0 Grass-roots Level Strategies 16 0 1 0.44 0.51 Both Management and Grass-Roots 16 0 1 0.56 0.51 Collaborate 16 0 1 0.75 0.45 Confront 16 0 1 0.44 0.51 Somewhat Responsive Public Agencies 16 0 1 0.38 0.5 Responsive Public Agencies 16 0 1 0.38 0.5 Not Responsive Public Agencies 16 0 1 0.13 0.34 No Contact with Public Agencies 16 0 1 0.13 0.34 Valid N (listwise) 16 TABLE 32: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (FRATERNAL NPOS): Descriptive Statistics (Fraternal NPOs) N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Management Level Strategies 19 0 0 0 0 Grass-roots Level Strategies 19 0 1 0.84 0.37 Both Management and Grass-Roots 19 0 1 0.16 0.37 Collaborate 19 0 1 0.68 0.48 Confront 19 0 1 0.16 0.37 Somewhat Responsive Public Agencies 18 0 1 0.06 0.24 Responsive Public Agencies 18 0 1 0.39 0.5 Not Responsive Public Agencies 18 0 0 0 0 No Contact with Public Agencies 18 0 1 0.56 0.51 Valid N (listwise) 18 TABLE 33: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (PROFESSIONAL NPOS): Descriptive Statistics (Professional NPOs) N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Management Level Strategies 69 0 1 0.13 0.34 Grass-roots Level Strategies 69 0 1 0.51 0.5 Both Management and Grass-Roots 69 0 1 0.36 0.48 Collaborate 70 0 1 0.74 0.44 Confront 70 0 1 0.33 0.47 Somewhat Responsive Public Agencies 70 0 1 0.24 0.43 238 TABLE 33 : CONTINUED ... Descriptive Statistics (Professional NPOs) N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Responsive Public Agencies 70 0 1 0.44 0.5 Not Responsive Public Agencies 70 0 1 0.04 0.2 No Contact with Public Agencies 70 0 1 0.27 0.45 Valid N (listwise) 69 TABLE 34: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (RELIGIOUS NPOS): Descriptive Statistics (Religious NPOs) N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Management Level Strategies 32 0 0 0 0 Grass-roots Level Strategies 31 0 1 0.81 0.4 Both Management and Grass-Roots 31 0 1 0.19 0.4 Collaborate 31 0 1 0.84 0.37 Confront 31 0 1 0.32 0.48 Somewhat Responsive Public Agencies 31 0 1 0.16 0.37 Responsive Public Agencies 31 0 1 0.26 0.44 Not Responsive Public Agencies 31 0 1 0.03 0.18 No Contact with Public Agencies 31 0 1 0.55 0.51 Valid N (listwise) 31 TABLE 35: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (SOCIAL SERVICES NPOS): Descriptive Statistics (Social Services NPOs) N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Management Level Strategies 88 0 0 0 0 Grass-roots Level Strategies 87 0 1 0.68 0.47 Both Management and Grass-Roots 87 0 1 0.32 0.47 Collaborate 86 0 1 0.74 0.44 Confront 84 0 1 0.26 0.44 Somewhat Responsive Public Agencies 84 0 1 0.25 0.44 Responsive Public Agencies 84 0 1 0.38 0.49 Not Responsive Public Agencies 84 0 1 0.05 0.21 No Contact with Public Agencies 84 0 1 0.32 0.47 Valid N (listwise) 84 239 APPENDIX “H”: NPOS’ STRATEGIES WITH AND WITHOUT DIRECT CONTACT WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES Nonprofits Having No Direct Contact with Public Agencies: Now, not all of the nonprofit organizations analyzed above, directly contact the local public agencies in an attempt to influence the perspectives and interpretations of the members of the bureaucracy in local public agencies. Therefore, it is important to compare the strategies of nonprofits that are in direct contact with public agencies versus those nonprofits that attempt to influence the perspectives of public agencies indirectly, as discussed in the theoretical section of this study. Out of 226 nonprofits, only 74 or 33% of all nonprofits reported having no contact with public agencies. Among the nonprofits having no contact with public agencies, 1% use the strategy of exclusively management level influence, 80% use the strategy of exclusively grass-roots level influence and 19% reported using both management level and grass-roots level strategies of influencing policy implementation by public agencies – although the strategies were used indirectly, without any direct contact with public agencies. FIGURE 8: NONPROFITS’ STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION BY LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES WITHOUT ANY DIRECT CONTACT WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: Non-Profits' Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation Without Direct Contact With Public Agencies 1% 80% 19% Exclusively Management Level Influence Exclusively Grass-Roots Level Influence Both Management and Grass-Roots Influence Levels of Local Bureaucracy Non-Profits Attempt to Influence Percentage of Non-Profits 240 For detailed descriptive statistics of this interview data including values for means and standard deviations please see appendix “G”. As far as the different types of nonprofits are concerned within this sub-group of nonprofits which have no contact with public agencies, again only professional nonprofits seem to use the strategy of exclusively managerial level influence on the policy implementation process. TABLE 36: NONPROFITS’ STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION BY LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES WITHOUT DIRECT CONTACT WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES, BY TYPE OF NONPROFITS: Environmental Fraternal Club Professional Religious Social Services Exclusively Management Level Influence 0 0 6% 0 0 Exclusively Grass-Roots Level Influence 50% 91% 76% 87% 75% Both Management and Grass-Roots Influence 50% 9% 18% 13% 25% For detailed descriptive statistics of this interview data including values for means and standard deviations please see appendix “G”. We can also see from the table above that within the nonprofits which have no direct contact with public agencies, environmental nonprofits are most likely to employ the strategy of influencing both at the managerial level and the grass-roots level, albeit indirectly, of the public agencies. In order to discern whether there are any significant differences by type of nonprofits among those nonprofits that have no direct contact with public agencies, discriminant analysis of the nonprofits having no direct contact with public agencies was conducted. 241 FIGURE 9: CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT FUNCTIONS CHART FOR NONPROFITS’ STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION BY LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES WITHOUT DIRECT CONTACT WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES, BY TYPE OF NONPROFITS: Here 1 refers to Environmental, 2 to Fraternal, 3 to Professional, 4 to Religious and 5 to Social Services NPOs. Function 1 along the x-axis refers to management level influence while function 2 is grass-roots level influence. A close examination of functions at group centroids reveals similar, if not completely same trends of strategies by type of nonprofits. Table 37 below demonstrates those differences. TABLE 37: DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS - FUNCTIONS AT GROUP CENTROIDS BY TYPES OF NONPROFITS, FOR NONPROFITS WITHOUT DIRECT CONTACT WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES: Functions at Group Centroids Type of Nonprofit Function 1 - Exclusively Management Level Influence 2 - Exclusively Grass-Roots Level Influence 1 - Environmental -0.346 -.660 2 – Fraternal -0.033 0.542 242 TABLE 37: CONTINUED … Functions at Group Centroids Type of Nonprofit Function 1 - Exclusively Management Level Influence 2 - Exclusively Grass-Roots Level Influence 3 - Professional 0.520 -0.83 4 - Religious -0.180 -0.024 5 – Social Services -0.195 -0.081 We can see that professional nonprofits tend to employ the strategies related to influencing management level of public agencies exclusively as compared to other types of nonprofits. The function is positive only for professional nonprofits, while it is negative for all other types of nonprofit organizations. However, unlike the results of previous analysis of all nonprofits which showed that professional nonprofits in general are more likely also to use exclusively grass-roots strategies, the professional nonprofits without direct contact with public agencies are less likely to use the strategy of exclusively grass-roots influence, which logically implies that they are more likely to use the strategy of using both management level and grass-roots level influence. Although this seems counter intuitive, but when we are talking about nonprofits which do not want to have any contact with public agencies, and they are professional nonprofits also, then the non profits that fall into this category include dance schools, music schools, management consultancies, fund raising organizations for other nonprofits, etc. Such professional nonprofits, although shun direct contact with public agencies, but they do try to raise funds from higher income groups of the society, as well as promote and advocate for their objectives to the high education and high income segments of the society and hence indirectly attempt to influence the perspectives of management level bureaucracy 243 of local public agencies in addition to performing their service delivery activities. Hence they are more likely to use a combination of both strategies. Such professional nonprofits at times use exclusively grass-roots strategies also, but according to the discriminant analysis they are more likely to use the combination and exclusively management level strategies. Other results for nonprofits without direct contact with public agencies remain similar to the findings of all nonprofits and hence the same explanation will apply. For nonprofits with no direct contact with public agencies, fraternal clubs tend to use the strategy of exclusively grass-roots influence more often as compared to social services, environmental, religious and professional nonprofits. Table for nonprofits without direct contact with public agencies also shows that religious, fraternal, social services and environmental nonprofits are less likely as compared to professional nonprofits to use exclusive management level strategies. Moreover, other than fraternal NPOs all others types of NPOs also do not prefer grass-roots strategies. Religious, social services and environmental NPOs are negative on both grass-roots and management level strategies, implying that these types of nonprofits are more inclined to use both management level and grass-roots level strategies. Table below summarizes these findings. TABLE 38: KINDS OF STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION MOST AND LEAST- LIKELY TO BE USED BY DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WITHOUT DIRECT CONTACT WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES: Type of Nonprofit Strategies Most Likely to Use Strategies Least Likely to Use 2 - Environmental 1 - combination of both management level and grass-roots level influence 1 - exclusively grass-roots level, 2 - exclusively management level 244 TABLE 38: CONTINUED … Type of Nonprofit Strategies Most Likely to Use Strategies Least Likely to Use 5 - Fraternal Club 1 - exclusively grass-roots level 1 - exclusively management level, 2 - combination of both management level and grass- roots level influence 4 - Professional 1 - exclusively management level, 2 -combination of both management level and grass-roots level influence 1 - exclusively grass-roots level influence 3 - Religious 1 - combination of both management level and grass-roots level influence 1 - exclusively grass-roots level, 2 - exclusively management level 1 - Social Services 1 - combination of both management level and grass-roots level influence 1 - exclusively grass-roots level, 2 - exclusively management level Table for nonprofits without direct contact with public agencies provides yet another structured way of conceptualizing the strategies of influence used by nonprofit organizations. Nonprofits with Direct Contact with Public Agencies: Lastly, we have to see the patterns of strategies that nonprofits which are in direct contact with public agencies to look for similarities and differences with the aforementioned two groups of nonprofits. 67% of nonprofits interviewed reported having direct contact with one or more than one public agencies. Out of those nonprofits having direct contact with public agencies, 5% used exclusively management level strategies, 54% used exclusively grass-roots level strategies and 41% used both strategies. 245 FIGURE 10: NONPROFITS’ STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION BY LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES HAVING DIRECT CONTACT WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: Non-Profits' Strategies of Influencing Policy Implementation by Public Agencies, Having Direct Contact with Public Agencies 5% 54% 41% Exclusively Management Level Influence Exclusively Grass-Roots Level Influence Both Management and Grass-Roots Influence Levels of Local Bureaucracy Non-Profits Attempt to Influence Percentage of Non-Profits The next question that was needed to be asked was about the distribution of strategies of action according to different types of nonprofit organizations. Table below describes the percentages of different types of nonprofits using each kind of strategy: TABLE 39: NONPROFITS’ STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION BY HAVING DIRECT CONTACT WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES, BY TYPE OF NONPROFITS: Environmental Fraternal Club Professional Religious Social Services Exclusively Management Level Influence 0 0 14% 0 0 Exclusively Grass-Roots Level Influence 50% 62% 41% 71% 61% Both Management and Grass-Roots Influence 50% 38% 45% 29% 39% For detailed descriptive statistics of this interview data including values for means and standard deviations please see appendix “G”. The table above shows that again only professional nonprofits use the strategy of exclusively management level influence; all other types of nonprofits use all three kinds of strategies on influence. 246 In order to see whether different types of nonprofits which have direct contact with public agencies differ in any meaningful way in their strategies if influencing policy implementation among each other according to the type of nonprofits a discriminant analysis was conducted. FIGURE 11: CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT FUNCTIONS CHART FOR NONPROFITS’ STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION BY LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES HAVING DIRECT CONTACT WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES, BY TYPE OF NONPROFITS: Again, as was the case with the previous two groups of nonprofits the groups centroids are closely packed together indicating predominantly similar trend in strategies used by all kinds of nonprofits. However, differences were observed in strategies of influencing policy implementation used by nonprofit organizations of different types. 247 TABLE 40: DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS - FUNCTIONS AT GROUP CENTROIDS ACCORDING TO TYPES OF NONPROFITS, FOR NONPROFITS HAVING DIRECT CONTACT WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES: Functions at Group Centroids Type of Nonprofit Function 1 - Exclusively Management Level Influence 2 - Exclusively Grass-Roots Level Influence 1 – Environmental -0.020 -0.407 2 – Fraternal -0.240 -0.056 3 – Professional 0.457 0.071 4 – Religious -0.501 0.358 5 – Social Services -0.248 -0.044 The table above shows that professional nonprofits differ from all other types of nonprofits in that they tend to use the exclusively management level strategy of influence more often then other types of nonprofits. This table also shows that social services, fraternal and environmental nonprofits tend to use the strategy of exclusively grass-roots influence less often as compared to religious and professional nonprofits. Since social services, fraternal and environmental nonprofits also tend to use the exclusively management level influence strategies less often too, this implies that these types of nonprofits tend to use a combination of both management level and grass-roots level strategies more often. Religious nonprofits tend to use the exclusively grass-roots strategies more than any other kind of strategy. Professional NPOs seem to prefer both exclusive management level and exclusive grass-roots level strategies over both. The table below summarizes the pattern of strategies used by each type of nonprofits: 248 TABLE 41: KINDS OF STRATEGIES OF INFLUENCING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION MOST AND LEAST LIKELY TO BE USED BY DIFFERENT TYPES OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS HAVING DIRECT CONTACT WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES: Type of Nonprofit Strategies Most Likely to Use Strategies Least Likely to Use 1 - Environmental 1 - combination of both management level and grass-roots level influence 1 - exclusively grass-roots level, 2 - exclusively management level 2 - Fraternal Club 1 - combination of both management level and grass-roots level influence 1 - exclusively grass-roots level, 2 - exclusively management level 3 - Professional 1 - exclusively management level, 2 - exclusively grass-roots level 1 - combination of both management level and grass-roots level influence 4 - Religious 1 - exclusively grass-roots level 1 - exclusively management level, 2 - combination of both management level and grass-roots level influence 5 - Social Services 1 - combination of both management level and grass-roots level influence 1 - exclusively grass-roots level, 2 - exclusively management level 249 APPENDIX “I”: PERMISSION FROM DR. MCKECHNIE TO USE ERI (ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE INVENTORY) SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND RESPONSE FROM PROFESSOR KENNETH CRAIK from George McKechnie <George@axiomhometheater.com> to Amna Imam <amna.imam@gmail.com> cc kcraik@berkeley.edu date Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:06 PM subject RE: Thank you and Web Based ERI Amna: I was able to talk with Ken Craik yesterday about your proposed use of the ERI in your dissertation research. Some additional issues arose out of that conversation. They include the following: 1. I would like to be assured that the ERI questions cannot be downloaded and used by unauthorized users from the web-site which will host your research. Perhaps you can give me contact information at the site which will be hosting your research, so that I can discuss safeguards with him. 2. In talking with Ken, I was reminded of past experience I’ve had with non-psychologists (and even some psychologists) unfamiliar with the theory of test construction and practice of psychological testing, who have altered individual items, used some of the items instead of the whole test, or who made inferences in their findings with regard to individual items or hand-picked clusters of items rather than from the test scales. If you read the Manual for the ERI, you will note that the entire focus of the Inventory is on the scales that have been derived as a result of a long and careful process of conceptualization, factor analysis, item expansion, re-empirical analysis, scaling, and validation. The items themselves are not the focus of the ERI—it is the scales and the empirical validation behind the scales. All the inferential power of the test resides in the scales and the psychological concepts they represent. Because of these past difficulties, I think it important that someone with expertise on psychological test construction and application be in a position to guide that part of your research and review your work. I understand that Dr. Craik is unable to travel down to USC for meetings but could be available by video conferencing. It, for some reason, Dr. Craik is unable to serve on your dissertation committee, my permission to use the ERI in your research would be contingent upon having access to a committee member (or a consultant) who has expertise in psychological test construction and application. I don’t wish to be difficult. I simply want to protect the ERI from unauthorized use and assure that it will be employed in your research in a manner that is in accordance with contemporary thinking with regard to the use of psychological tests and variables in empirical research. Sincerely, George McKechnie 250

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation breaks new grounds by investigating the role of different types of nonprofits in influencing the environmental policy outcomes. It explores the role of environmental ethics of nonprofits in their influence on environmental policy outcomes. Using Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) survey instrument (McKechnie, 1974), it empirically approximates the values for the environmental ethics of five types of nonprofits (environmental, fraternal, professional, religious and social services). It shows that social services nonprofits which are slightly more ecocentric than other types of nonprofits are significantly related to reduced levels of air pollution over time at the local level. The efforts of environmental NPOs at the state and federal levels seem to support and are supported by the implementation efforts of social services NPOs at the local level to improve environmental quality.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Looking to the stars: perceptions of celebrity influence in the nonprofit sector

PDF

Institutional contestation, network legitimacy and organizational heterogeneity: interactions between government and environmental nonprofits in South Korea

PDF

The functions of the middleman: how intermediary nonprofit organizations support the sector and society

PDF

The institutionalization of nonprofit management: emergence, development, and legitimization

PDF

Why go green? Cities' adoption of local renewable energy policies and urban sustainability certifications

PDF

Institutional analysis of stakeholder collaboration in freight movement at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach

PDF

The impact of social capital: a case study on the role of social capital in the restoration and recovery of communities after disasters

PDF

The role of CALGreen codes and sustainable rating systems in practicing sustainability

PDF

Strategy and ideology in nonprofit advocacy organizations

PDF

Structure, agency, and the Kuznets Curve: observations and implications for sustainability planning in U.S. cities

PDF

How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea

PDF

Civic associations, local governance and conflict prevention in Indonesia

PDF

A study of Chinese environmental NGOs: policy advocacy, managerial networking, and leadership succession

PDF

Environmental justice in real estate, public services, and policy

PDF

Processes, effects, and the implementation of market-based environmental policy: southern California's experiences with emissions trading

PDF

Using innovative field model and competency-based student learning outcomes to level the playing field in social work distance learning education

PDF

Beyond the limits to planning for equity: the emergence of community benefits agreements as empowerment models in participatory processes

PDF

Place production in globalizing middle eastern cities: a study of Cairo and Dubai

PDF

Linking participation, program design and outcomes; voluntary air quality programs at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach

PDF

Foreign-related activities of the Chinese local governments and agents of globalization: a case study of 31 provinces in mainland China

Asset Metadata

Creator Imam, Amna (author)

Core Title Nonprofit organizations and the environmental policy outcomes: a systematic inquiry into the role of different types of nonprofits to influence the processes and outcomes of the environmental policy

School School of Policy, Planning, and Development

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 08/10/2009

Defense Date 05/19/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag environment,nonprofit,OAI-PMH Harvest,policy,policy implementation,policy outcomes

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Banerjee, Tridib (committee chair), Craik, Kenneth (committee member), Mazmanian, Daniel A. (committee member), Meshkati, Najmedin (committee member)

Creator Email amna.imam@gmail.com,amnaimampk@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2539

Unique identifier UC1131135

Identifier etd-Imam-3021 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-177959 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2539 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Imam-3021.pdf

Dmrecord 177959

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Imam, Amna

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu