Discourse coalitions in Swiss waste management: gridlock or winds of change?

As a complex socio-technical system, waste management is crucially important for the sustainable management of material and energy flows. Transition to better performing waste management systems requires not only determining what needs to be changed but also finding out how this change can be realized. Without understanding the political context, insights from decision support tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA) are likely to be lost in translation to decision and policy making. This study strives to provide a first insight into the political context and address the opportunities and barriers pertinent to initiating a change in Swiss waste management. For this purpose, the discourses around a major policy process are analysed to uncover the policy beliefs and preferences of actors. Discourse coalitions are delineated by referring to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier, 1998) and using the Discourse Network Analysis (Leifeld and Haunss, 2012) method. The results display an incoherent regime (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014) with divergent belief clusters on core issues in waste management. Yet, some actors holding different beliefs appear to have overlapping interests on secondary issues such as the treatment of biogenic waste or plastics. Although the current political context hinders a system-wide disruptive change, transitions can be initiated at local or regional scale by utilizing the shared interest across different discourse coalitions.

[1]  Julia A. Stegemann,et al.  Limitations of the waste hierarchy for achieving absolute reductions in material throughput , 2016 .

[2]  K. Ingold.  Network Structures within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy , 2011 .

[3]  Dana R. Fisher,et al.  Where Does Political Polarization Come From? Locating Polarization Within the U.S. Climate Change Debate , 2013 .

[4]  F. Geels.  From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory , 2004 .

[5]  Sebastian Haunss,et al.  Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe , 2012 .

[6]  F. Geels.  The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms , 2011 .

[7]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Understanding System Innovations: A Critical Literature Review and a Conceptual Synthesis , 2004 .

[8]  Manuel Fischer,et al.  Coalition Structures and Policy Change in a Consensus Democracy , 2014 .

[9]  C. Weible,et al.  The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Approach for the Comparative Analysis of Contentious Policy Issues , 2016 .

[10]  Roland W. Scholz,et al.  Identifying Stakeholders' Views on Sustainable Urban Transition: Desirability, Utility and Probability Assessments of Scenarios , 2012 .

[11]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[12]  N. Frantzeskaki,et al.  Discursive regime dynamics in the Dutch energy transition , 2014 .

[13]  Ulrich Kral,et al.  Sustainable resource use requires “clean cycles” and safe “final sinks” , 2013, The Science of the total environment.

[14]  Kim,et al.  Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement , 1986 .

[15]  C. Rammer,et al.  Determinants of Eco-innovations by Type of Environmental Impact: The Role of Regulatory Push/Pull, Technology Push and Market Pull , 2011 .

[16]  J. Meadowcroft.  Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions , 2011 .

[17]  Paul A. Sabatier,et al.  The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe , 1998 .

[18]  M. Rosano,et al.  The role of policy labels, keywords and framing in transitioning waste policy , 2016 .

[19]  Bernhard Truffer,et al.  The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory , 2014 .

[20]  Maarten A. Hajer,et al.  The Politics of Environmental Discourse , 1997 .

[21]  Thomas H Christensen,et al.  Environmental evaluation of municipal waste prevention. , 2011, Waste management.

[22]  Sean F. Everton.  Disrupting Dark Networks , 2012 .

[23]  B. Truffer,et al.  Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects , 2012 .

[24]  David Lazarevic,et al.  Plastic waste management in the context of a European recycling society: Comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle perspective , 2010 .

[25]  Simin Davoudi.  Planning for Waste Management: Changing Discourses and Institutional Relationships , 2000 .

[26]  Andy Spoerri,et al.  Technological change in Swiss thermal waste treatment: an expert-based socio-technical analysis. , 2010, Waste management.

[27]  Janet G. Hering,et al.  An End to Waste? , 2012, Science.

[28]  Frédéric Varone,et al.  Treating Policy Brokers Seriously: Evidence from the Climate Policy , 2012 .

[29]  S. Hellweg,et al.  Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment , 2014, Science.

[30]  F. Schmidt‐bleek,et al.  Factor 10: The future of stuff , 2008 .

[31]  Grégoire Meylan,et al.  Identifying Stakeholders’ Views on the Eco‐efficiency Assessment of a Municipal Solid Waste Management System , 2015 .

[32]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Assessing the Eco‐efficiency of End‐of‐Pipe Technologies with the Environmental Cost Efficiency Indicator , 2005 .

[33]  Ernst Worrell,et al.  Definitions and Terminology , 2014 .

[34]  F. Geels,et al.  Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways , 2007 .

[35]  Raimo Lilja,et al.  From waste prevention to promotion of material efficiency: change of discourse in the waste policy of Finland , 2009 .

[36]  A J Morrissey,et al.  Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management. , 2004, Waste management.

[37]  S. Hellweg,et al.  Do We Have the Right Performance Indicators for the Circular Economy?: Insight into the Swiss Waste Management System , 2017 .

[38]  G. Nemet.  Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change , 2009 .

[39]  E. Worrell,et al.  Chapter 13 – Plastic Recycling , 2014 .

[40]  Organizational infrastructure and community capacity: The role of broker organizations , 2001 .

[41]  Lars Coenen,et al.  Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources , 2012 .

[42]  Dave Huitema,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Realizing Water Transitions: The Role of Policy Entrepreneurs in Water Policy Change Policy Entrepreneurs and Change Strategies: Lessons from Sixteen Case Studies of Water Transitions around the Globe , 2010 .

[43]  Niki Frantzeskaki,et al.  A Transition Research Perspective on Governance for Sustainability , 2011 .

[44]  Frans Berkhout,et al.  Normative expectations in systems innovation , 2006, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[45]  P. Leifeld,et al.  Reconceptualizing Major Policy Change in the Advocacy Coalition Framework: A Discourse Network Analysis of German Pension Politics , 2013 .

[46]  Ni-Bin Chang,et al.  Solid waste management in European countries: a review of systems analysis techniques. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[47]  M. Kerkhof,et al.  Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability: Methodological considerations , 2005 .

[48]  K. Ingold,et al.  Socio-Technical Transitions and Policy Change - Advocacy Coalitions in Swiss Energy Policy , 2016 .