The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 37, No.

3, 2009

Surfing for Problems: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S.

Forestry Policy psj_321 415..434

Jessica E. Boscarino

John Kingdon sets out a multiple streams approach to policymaking, whereby problems, solutions, and
politics develop independently of one another. Kingdon’s work suggests that advocates with pet policies
may continually search the problem stream, looking for prominent issues to attach to their preferred
solutions. I call this process “problem surfing.” This paper provides an empirical test of problem surfing
through the use of a case study of environmental advocacy. The paper examines Wilderness Society and
Sierra Club advocacy for sustainable forestry practices from 1971 to 1994 through an analysis of
articles in member magazines and interview data. Problem surfing is revealed to be a complex strategic
process. I find evidence that advocacy groups adjust the problems they associate their solutions with
over time to take advantage of salient issues. However, problem surfing appears to be influenced by
more than just problem salience.
KEY WORDS: agenda setting, environmental policy, sustainable forestry, problem surfing

Introduction

In 1991, speaking of the Sierra Club’s campaign for sustainable forestry in the
nation’s forests, former Club official Michael Vickerman asserted, “if we lead with
our economic arguments . . . and then build our environmental case upon that foun-
dation, we would multiply our effectiveness with both legislators and voters” (Sierra
Club, 1991, p. 24, emphasis added). To many observers, this statement might have
come as somewhat of a surprise. Though select environmental organizations, such as
the Environmental Defense Fund and Resources for the Future, have long shown a
willingness to engage in market-based argumentation and approaches to environ-
mental protection (Livesey, 1999; McCloskey, 1992, p. 79; Shaiko, 1999, pp. 81–85),
the Sierra Club and many other conservation organizations have not always been
so welcome to discussing environmental issues in monetary terms (Kelman, 1981;
Rosenbaum, 2002, pp. 160–62). Therefore, the Club’s deliberate use of economic
arguments represents a significant change in organizational advocacy strategy.
The adoption of economic lines of reasoning is not the only shift in the content
of environmental advocacy for sustainable forestry over the last several decades. At
different points in time, different issues related to forestry—including the loss of

415
0190-292X © 2009 Policy Studies Organization
Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ.
416 Policy Studies Journal, 37:3

scenic and recreation areas, threats to endangered species, and water quality degra-
dation, among others—have been linked to advocacy campaigns endorsing sustain-
able forestry practices. In short, environmental advocates have long argued for the
same solution (i.e., sustainable forestry), but they have done so by referencing differ-
ent problems over time. What might explain such change? John Kingdon’s model of
agenda setting offers a suggestion.
In Kingdon’s conception of the policy process, solutions may predate problems
in cases where advocacy groups develop proposals and then go in search of a
problem to which the proposal can be advanced as a policy alternative (Kingdon,
1995). The linkage of policy solutions to problems is a strategic process whereby
advocates seek to connect their solution to a highly salient problem in order to
increase its chances of making it onto the governmental agenda. One interest group
analyst suggests that this process can be likened to surfing, as policy entrepreneurs
paddle out into the sea of potential issues in the hopes of “catching a problem wave”
and riding their solution in to shore (Kingdon, 1995, p. 165).
The number of large problem waves floating by at any given time is limited by
the carrying capacities of governmental arenas. These carrying capacities are deter-
mined by the available time, financial resources, political capital, and what Stephen
Hilgartner and Charles Bosk (1988, pp. 59–60) term “surplus compassion” that
policymakers possess. Every society therefore restricts the number of social prob-
lems it recognizes at any given time to a “normal quota” (Mauss, 1975); if additional
problems arise, others are displaced (Zhu, 1992). Therefore, Timothy Cook (1989)
asserts that attention (specifically, media coverage) to various issues has “an almost
natural rise and decline” (p. 127). Anthony Downs (1972) details this cyclical pattern,
arguing that attention to most issues progresses through five distinct stages, moving
from lack of awareness to problem recognition and enthusiasm for policy action,
realization of the costs of such action followed by declining interest, and a return to
“prolonged limbo.”
Given that public and governmental attention to any particular policy issue
waxes and wanes over time, it may be in the interest of policy entrepreneurs to attach
their solution to different problems at different points in time. Therefore, we would
expect advocates that push a policy solution for a long period of time to continuously
search the problem stream—a process that I call “problem surfing”—in pursuit of
the next big wave.
Agenda setting literature has done much to illuminate the actions of policy
advocates attempting to influence governmental agendas through problem defini-
tion (see Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Rochefort & Cobb, 1994; Stone, 1989). The
strategic use of problem surfing has been left relatively unexplored, however.
Kingdon (1995, p. 173) provides a single narrative account of problem surfing, but
the process has never been systematically studied. Therefore, this paper asks the
following question: Do advocacy groups engage in strategic problem surfing?
The paper begins with a discussion of problem-solution linkages and their
relationship to agenda access. Building on Kingdon’s model, I develop a theory of
advocacy behavior that explains framing decisions based upon strategic problem
surfing, and, from it, derive several broad expectations regarding group behavior.
Boscarino: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S. Forestry Policy 417

The second half of the paper presents an analysis of Wilderness Society and Sierra
Club advocacy. Utilizing the case of sustainable forestry advocacy from 1971 to 1994,
I present empirical evidence of problem surfing activity and provide a more complex
theoretical treatment of the factors driving advocacy decision making. I examine
the promotion of sustainable forestry initiatives in magazines distributed to group
members. Specifically, I assess the amount of attention given to five problems dis-
cussed in connection with sustainable forestry policy: threats to wildlife and habitat,
scenic and recreation loss, degradation of water quality and fisheries resources,
economic inefficiencies related to logging practices, and climate change. I then
compare the discussion of these problems in advocacy materials to national media
coverage of the same problems. Lee Epstein and Jeffrey Segal (2000) argue that
national media coverage provides a proxy measure for issue salience. Therefore, if
groups are problem surfing on the basis of issue salience, they should incorporate
those issues that receive the greatest media coverage into their advocacy campaigns.
Finally, I supplement this evidence with data from interviews with leaders at the
Wilderness Society and Sierra Club.

Agenda Setting and Problem Surfing

Research on agenda setting has revealed the significant amount of political

influence that actors with “gatekeeping” powers can wield over the policy process
(Cobb & Elder, 1972). Much of this work has focused on the way that problems get
defined and the subsequent impact of this definition on agenda access (e.g., Cobb &
Elder, 1972; Rochefort & Cobb, 1994; Stone, 1989). Roger Cobb and Charles Elder
(1972, pp. 96–97) identify five dimensions of issue definition: degree of specificity,
scope of social significance, extent of temporal relevance, degree of complexity, and
degree of categorical precedence. Problems that are severe, frequent, proximate, and
novel have a greater chance of earning a spot on the agenda (Rochefort & Cobb,
1994). Thus, Deborah Stone (1989, p. 282) concludes, political actors may “use nar-
rative story lines and symbolic devices to manipulate so-called issue characteristics”
in order to encourage (or discourage) governmental attention to and action around
an issue.
This research is very closely related to work on issue framing, which refers to the
process through which an issue is placed into a given context by highlighting (or
suppressing) various attributes (Entman, 1993). Media scholars have found that
changing the perspective from which an issue is viewed or focusing on different
values can have a significant effect on people’s perception of the problem, in terms of
its importance (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987), root cause and responsible actors (Iyengar,
1991), and preferred action choice (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). As a result, issue
frames affect the likelihood that policymakers will accept an issue onto the agenda,
as well as influence the policy solution that is deemed most appropriate.
In all of this work, the focus remains solidly rooted on policy problems, while
comparatively little attention has been focused on the strategic promotion of policy
solutions. Though solutions most often emerge in response to problems, Kingdon’s
(1995) multiple streams model of policymaking suggests they do not always do so. In
418 Policy Studies Journal, 37:3

some cases, advocates may develop a preferred policy proposal without reference to
a specific public issue. Alternatively, policy entrepreneurs may connect a solution to
a policy problem initially, but detach the solution from the problem as the issue fades
from view or is resolved by other means. In both instances, however, policy entre-
preneurs continue to advocate for the same basic policy solution over time, though
the details of that proposal may evolve somewhat.
Rather than a stepwise progression of problem recognition, policy formulation,
and adoption, then, solutions may “float around in and near government, searching
for problems to which to become attached or political events that increase their
likelihood of adoption” (Kingdon, 1995, p. 172). If there is no current problem for
which a solution seems an appropriate remedy, policy entrepreneurs simply lie in
wait. As Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones (1993) point out, “the trick for a policy
entrepreneur is to ensure that the solution he or she favors is adopted once a given
problem has emerged on the national agenda” (p. 29).
This is precisely what Kingdon suggests the mass transit lobby did during the
1970s and 1980s. Originally, proponents of mass transit endorsed the technology as
a means of reducing traffic. However, this rationale fell flat in government, and
advocates began surfing for other salient problems to which mass transit could serve
as a solution. Pollution was a strong concern for many Americans at this time, so the
transit lobby next pushed its solution as a way to improve air quality. After environ-
mental concern peaked, the lobby moved on to energy issues in the wake of the
oil crises of 1973 and 1979. One advocate characterized this continuous shifting of
problem-solution linkages in the following way: “The underlying goals exist and
continue along . . . you ask, ‘What will work this year? What’s hot this year that I can
hang this on?’ ” (quoted in Kingdon, 1995, p. 173).
Wilkerson, Feeley, Schiereck, and Sue (2002, p. 253) argue that during the 1960s,
universal health care was a similar “solution looking for a problem.” After unsuc-
cessful efforts to enact such a program during the Eisenhower and Kennedy admin-
istrations, policy advocates were able to seize upon the increasing visibility of the
problem of seniors living in poverty to enact Medicare in the mid-1960s. Health
policy analysts saw Medicare directed toward the elderly as a way to “soften up”
Congress to the idea of providing coverage to all Americans. In this way, “Medicare
was an attempt to get an old solution’s nose under the tent rather than a new policy
developed in response to a newly perceived problem” (Wilkerson et al., 2002,
p. 253).
Though instructive, neither of these narrative accounts of problem surfing
provide empirical evidence to support claims of such behavior. To address this gap,
I analyze the case of advocacy for sustainable forestry practices in the national
forests. U.S. forestry is a policy area ripe with opportunity for problem surfing. Paul
Ellefson (1992) asserts that sustainable forestry proposals have maintained a place on
the agenda because of their association with various high-profile problems, which
provides advocates with several potential problem-solution linkages. The case study
below examines the efforts of environmental organizations to promote sustainable
forestry, looking at whether these organizations choose to problem surf among
issues over time.
Boscarino: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S. Forestry Policy 419

The Case of Sustainable Forestry Advocacy

Forest Policymaking through the Years

Throughout most of the early history of the U.S. national forest system, the
relationship between conservation groups and the Forest Service was characterized
by mutual respect and cooperation (Schrepfer, 1997). Conservationists saw Forest
Service employees as professional stewards of the land, and the Forest Service
viewed citizens’ groups as valuable allies in their ongoing effort to retain control of
public lands and increase federal funding for the agency (Schrepfer, 1997). As a
result, advocacy groups were welcomed into the forest policymaking process.
Members of the Sierra Club, for example, regularly served on Forest Service advisory
boards, and Forest Service employees held honorary leadership positions in the Club
(Schrepfer, 1997).
This partnership dissolved after World War II, however, when the Service
increased timber harvests to meet high demand resulting from the postwar housing
boom (Pralle, 2006) and began to utilize even-age management (clear-cutting) tech-
niques. Conservation groups perceived a shift in the focus of the Forest Service from
custodial management to commodity production (Bolle, 1997), and the relation-
ship between conservationists and policymakers was increasingly characterized by
antagonism. Both the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club criticized the Forest
Service for allowing timber production to dominate forest planning (Pralle, 2006,
p. 142). By the 1950s, they were largely excluded from the policymaking process,
sitting on the outside of an iron triangle made up of the Forest Service, timber
industry, and related congressional committees (Hoberg, 1997).
By the dawning of the environmental era in the 1970s, these groups were frus-
trated with a lack of progress in the legislative arena and soon turned to the courts
(Hirt, 1994; Hoberg, 1997). The passage of the National Environmental Policy Act
(1969) and National Forest Management Act (1976) allowed environmental organiza-
tions new access to the judiciary, and they took advantage, more than doubling the
number of appeals filed to challenge forest plans during the 1980s (Pralle, 2006, p. 146).
Environmental group success in the courts was perhaps most visible in the case of the
northern spotted owl. In the late 1980s, after the Fish and Wildlife Service declined
to list the owl under the Endangered Species Act, the Sierra Club Legal Defense
Fund appealed the decision. In 1990, as a result of these efforts, the owl was listed as
threatened, which eventually led to a 1991 court injunction banning logging in the
Pacific Northwest until plans to protect the species were approved (Kline, 1997).
More recently, environmental groups have also turned to nonregulatory strate-
gies, including advocating for voluntary certification programs, such as the Forest
Stewardship Council and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (Sasser & Cashore, 2004).
Though these compliance programs were designed for private forest lands, they may
soon expand to public lands as well. In 2007, the Forest Service conducted a prelimi-
nary study assessing the applicability of such programs for national forest lands,
indicating that it is considering undergoing the certification process (Sample, Price,
Donnay, & Mater, 2007).
420 Policy Studies Journal, 37:3

Clearly, environmental group involvement in forest policy has been lengthy and
varied. At different points in time, these groups have faced both opportunities and
constraints in their efforts to ensure sustainable management of the national forests.
Given the long history of such campaigns and the changes in political climate
throughout, there would appear to be numerous possibilities for these groups to
problem surf. Did they engage in such behavior?

Methodology

For this case study, I analyzed the advocacy activities of two prominent envi-
ronmental organizations—the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club—between
1971 and 1994.1 Both of these groups have engaged the forestry issue since their
inception (the Sierra Club was formed in 1892, the Wilderness Society in 1935). The
size and longevity of these two groups, along with their long-standing interest in
promoting sustainable forestry, makes them a useful set of organizations to examine
for the use of problem surfing.
Both the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club pursued advocacy at many
levels and through many venues during these years. For this study, I analyzed
articles published in organizational magazines distributed to members.2 These pub-
lications are released regularly (monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly) and include orga-
nization news, updates on relevant political battles and decisions, and articles on
environmental issues. This literature is a useful source of information on an organi-
zation’s position on specific issues. As opposed to press coverage, which may ignore
important policy statements or place comments out of context, group publica-
tions offer a glimpse into the unmediated viewpoints and policy goals of the
organizations.3
To examine sustainable forestry advocacy, I read through all volumes of Wilder-
ness Society and Sierra Club publications (Wilderness and Sierra, respectively) to
identify articles addressing forestry policy in U.S. national forests.4 I then performed
a content analysis on these articles (see Appendix for details). In total, I analyzed 183
articles; 112 articles addressing forestry appeared in Wilderness Society publications
(approximately 8 percent of all articles) and 71 articles appeared in Sierra Club
magazines (approximately 2 percent of all articles).
The articles were first coded for length. The amount of space that an organization
devotes to reporting on or discussing a policy issue is one indicator of the impor-
tance they place on that issue. Simply counting the number of articles published on
an issue does not account for often significant differences in article length. Therefore,
it is necessary to incorporate length into the coding scheme to capture this measure
of relative importance.
Next, I identified all references to five categories of problems that the organiza-
tions claimed could be alleviated by sustainable forestry practices: (i) threats to
wildlife through habitat and food source destruction; (ii) damage to scenery and
recreation; (iii) degradation of water quality and fisheries resources; (iv) economic
inefficiency and losses; and (v) climate change.5,6 For each article, I coded the promi-
nence of each of the above problems as discussed in relation to sustainable forestry.
Boscarino: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S. Forestry Policy 421

Specifically, I coded each of the five problem categories as a dominant theme, sec-
ondary theme, minor theme, or absent based upon the number of statements
addressing the problem as a proportion of the article as a whole.7 I then created a
variable that combines article length and problem prominence to measure overall
attention given to the various problems. In this scheme, those problems that are the
dominant focus of a long article receive the highest attention score, and those that are
merely mentioned as a minor theme in a short article receive the lowest.
Given the fact that the group magazines are published on a limited (though
regular) basis, the number of articles published on a policy issue in any given year
is likely to be relatively small. To smooth out short-term fluctuations in order to
reveal longer-term trends, I employed a three-year moving average technique.8 This
method involves averaging the results of the prior year, year in question, and future
year. For example, to calculate the attention devoted to a specific problem in 1990, I
averaged the attention allocated to that problem in 1989, 1990, and 1991.
If advocacy groups do engage in problem surfing, they should attach their
preferred policy solution to whatever problem(s) are salient at the time. Epstein
and Segal (2000) assert that media coverage—specifically, New York Times
reporting—provides a measure of the salience of an issue to elites and the public.
Therefore, to assess the relative salience of public issues over time, I recorded New
York Times attention to the five categories of problems, as reflected in the number of
articles published on that problem per year. In order to remain consistent with the
data gathered on advocacy groups, I also employed a three-year moving average
technique when recording media coverage, as described above. To assess whether or
not sustainable forestry advocacy is associated with media attention, I performed a
series of Pearson’s correlation analyses. For each problem category, I tested for a
relationship between New York Times coverage of the issue and attention to the
problem within environmental advocacy materials.
It is important to note that I measured New York Times attention to these prob-
lems as general issues, not only instances when they were discussed in relation to
forestry. In other words, my search was designed to include articles that addressed
threats to endangered species on forest and nonforest lands, water quality concerns
emerging from timber production, as well as hydroelectric dams and pollution, and
the loss of recreation areas due to clear-cutting, as well as commercial and residential
development, for example. By examining media attention to these problems in their
broader sense, I identified opportunities for advocacy groups to connect them to
sustainable forestry where they might not have been in the past. In addition, this
method reduces the risk of reverse causality; that is, that media outlets might be
responding to advocacy group discussion of an issue rather than vice versa. Because
I measured media attention to broad issues (e.g., water quality), it is unlikely that
significant increases in media coverage reflect an increase in environmental group
attention to a narrow aspect of that issue (e.g., stream siltation from clear-cutting).
Finally, to gain greater insight into the organizational drivers influencing advo-
cacy decision making, I conducted interviews with Wilderness Society and Sierra
Club staff members that work on policy development, lobbying, and public affairs.
These individuals were selected by referencing organizational materials, including
422 Policy Studies Journal, 37:3

group magazines, press releases, reports, and additional publications and identify-
ing staff members that are mentioned in connection with work on forestry issues.
During interviews with these key individuals, I asked them to suggest additional
staffers that could offer valuable insight. In total, I interviewed three employees from
the Wilderness Society (two in person and one over the phone) and one former and
one current representative of the Sierra Club (both by telephone). I utilized an
open-ended interview technique, asking each interviewee about their position in the
organization and job responsibilities, as well as how the organization decides what
environmental issues to adopt, how they attempt to sustain outside interest in those
issues over long periods of time, and how they decide what line of argumentation to
take with any given issue. Lastly, I inquired about their perceptions of the identity of
the organization, where they see their group’s position within the environmental
advocacy community, and the nature of organizational relations with members as
well as other outside actors.

Propositions

If advocacy groups do engage in problem surfing, they should attach their

preferred policy solution to whatever problem(s) are salient at the time.
Figure 1a illustrates that economic issues received the highest levels of media
coverage of all of the problem categories. In comparison, the other categories appear
to be rather minor concerns and to retain relatively even coverage throughout the
timeframe. However, the scale of this graph masks some of the intricacies of cover-
age of noneconomic issues. To illustrate the nuances in attention to these issues,
Figure 1b graphs the same New York Times data, but excludes articles on economic
problems.
Figure 1b shows that while some issues, such as recreation and scenic concerns,
received constant low levels of media coverage, others, such as wildlife problems,
grew steadily in coverage. Still others, including climate change, experienced rapid
increases—“punctuations”9—in media reporting during certain time periods. Those
issues that are covered in major newspapers to a greater extent than others have the
advantage of being most visible to the public, and, therefore, they may generate calls
for government action. However, it is important to recognize that issues that receive
a lower absolute amount of newspaper coverage but experience sudden spikes in
reporting provide other opportunities for policy advocates. The public may be espe-
cially attentive and even attach greater importance to issues that generate rapid
attention. These punctuations in issue coverage get policy problems on the public’s
radar screen and can serve as a new vehicle to which policy advocates can attach
their solution. Taking into account both absolute and relative media coverage, I
generated expectations for problem surfing activity across time, which are summa-
rized in Table 1 below. First, I outline more general propositions for advocacy group
behavior, and then, in subpropositions, apply them to the case of sustainable forestry.
First, I expect that discussion of economic inefficiency problems related to for-
estry practices will always figure prominently in advocacy group efforts to promote
sustainable forestry policy (proposition 1a). As shown in Figure 1a, general concerns
Boscarino: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S. Forestry Policy 423

a
1,000
900
(3-Year Moving Average) 800
Number of Articles

700 Wildlife
600 Recreation
500
400 Water and Fish
300 Economics
200 Climate Change
100
0

Year

b
180
160
(3-Year Moving Average)

140
Number of Articles

120 Wildlife
100 Recreation
80
60 Water and Fish
40 Climate Change
20
0

Year

Figure 1. (a) New York Times Coverage of Policy Problems. (b) New York Times Coverage of
Noneconomic Policy Problems.

about economic deficits and losses consistently receive more media attention than
the other issues in this study. The constant visibility of the issue in major media
outlets suggests that groups would try to benefit from its prominence by promoting
their solution in relation to economic concerns.
I also expect advocacy groups to respond to several punctuations in issue cov-
erage throughout the time period. Specifically, I expect that economic problems will
be especially prominent in advocacy efforts from 1980 to 1984, when New York Times
coverage of economic issues rapidly increased (proposition 2a). In 1979, the New York
Times published 453 articles on economic concerns; in 1980, this jumped to 809, and
two years later, 1,102 articles appeared in the paper. Similarly, I expect that advocacy
group efforts will link sustainable forestry to water quality and fisheries resource
problems most often during the 1980s, when coverage of the issue more than
doubled from previous years (proposition 2b). Finally, in the later years of the
timeframe (1987–91), I expect that threats of climate change will be referenced as a
major problem to be addressed by sustainable forestry legislation (proposition 2c).
424 Policy Studies Journal, 37:3

Table 1. Propositions Regarding Problem-Surfing Activity

Proposition Problem-Surfing Behavior

Proposition 1 Advocacy groups will consistently attach their solutions to those problems that
receive the highest level of overall attention.
Proposition 1a Economic arguments will figure prominently in sustainable forestry advocacy
throughout the timeframe.
Proposition 2 Advocacy groups will react to punctuations in issue attention, incorporating those
problems that experience rapid increases in media coverage into their policy
arguments.
Proposition 2a The connection of economic issues to sustainable forestry will be especially
prominent in advocacy efforts from 1980 to 1984.
Proposition 2b Water quality problems will most often be linked to sustainable forestry in
advocacy materials during the 1980s.
Proposition 2c Advocacy groups will link climate change to sustainable forestry advocacy most
often between 1987 and 1991.
Proposition 3 When policy problems experience modest but steady growth in attention, advocacy
group discussion of those issues will also increase at the same rate.
Proposition 3a References to problems related to wildlife habitat and species destruction will
increase steadily in sustainable forestry advocacy throughout the timeframe.
Proposition 4 Advocacy groups will rarely if ever connect their policy solution to problems that
receive little to no attention.
Proposition 4a Problems related to the loss of recreation and scenic areas will not figure
prominently in advocacy group arguments for sustainable forestry.

New York Times coverage of climate change jumped from an average of only 20
articles per year prior to 1990 to 159 in that year alone. In contrast, media coverage
of threats posed to wildlife grew modestly but steadily throughout the timeframe,
and, therefore, I would expect advocacy group usage of these problems to do the
same (proposition 3a).
Finally, I expect that the connection of sustainable forestry policy with issues of
recreation and scenic resources will not figure as prominently in advocacy efforts as
other problems (proposition 4a). These issues never achieved a level of media vis-
ibility on par with that of water quality or economic issues (averaging just over three
articles per year), nor did they experience any sharp punctuations of media coverage
that would provide a short-term opportunity for policy advocates. Therefore, policy
advocates are likely to see such problems as politically ineffective and avoid linking
them to their solution.

Problem Surfing: Evidence and Limitations

The content analysis demonstrates that both groups utilized several lines of
argument in their advocacy material. Figures 2 and 3 detail the percentage of overall
attention that the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club, respectively, paid to each
problem category as part of their sustainable forestry advocacy, as well as the level of
New York Times coverage of the same problems.
The graphs themselves are very instructive in their visual representation of the
association between media coverage and advocacy discussion. However, to provide
Boscarino: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S. Forestry Policy 425

Wildlife Recreation Water Quality

70% 70 100% 10 35% 200
% of Advocacy Attention

% of Advocacy Attention

% of Advocacy Attention
New York Times Articles
New York Times Articles

New York Times Articles

60% 60 30%
80% 8 150
50% 50 25%
40% 40 60% 6 20%
100
30% 30 40% 4 15%
20% 20 10% 50
Wilderness Society 20% 2
10% 10 5%
New York Times
0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year Year Year
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.734; Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.688; Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.661;
Sig. (two-tailed) = 0.000** Sig. (two-tailed) = 0.001** Sig. (two-tailed) = 0.001**

Economics Climate Change

50% 1000
New York Times Articles

New York Times Articles

12% 200
% of Advocacy Attention

% of Advocacy Attention
40% 800 10%
150
30% 600 8%

20% 400 6% 100

4%
10% 200 50
2%
0% 0 0% 0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year Year
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.663; Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = -0.300;
Sig. (two-tailed) = 0.001** Sig. (two-tailed) = 0.186

Figure 2. Wilderness Society Attention by Problem Category.

Note: * indicates significance at the 0.05 level; ** indicates significance at the 0.01 level.

Wildlife Recreation Water Quality

80% 70 60% 200
% of Advocacy Attention

% of Advocacy Attention
40% 10
New York Times Articles

New York Times Articles

New York Times Articles

% of Advocacy Attention

60 50%
60% 30% 8 150
50 40%
40 6
40% 20% 30% 100
30 4
20 20%
20% Sierra Club 10% 2 50
New York Times 10 10%
0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year Year Year
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.382; Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.657; Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = -0.104;
Sig. (two-tailed) = 0.097 Sig. (two-tailed) = 0.002** Sig. (two-tailed) = 0.661

Economics Climate Change

100% 200
% of Advocacy Attention

% of Advocacy Attention
New York Times Articles

New York Times Articles

60% 1000
50% 800 80%
150
40% 60%
600
30% 100
400 40%
20%
200 20% 50
10%
0% 0 0% 0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year Year
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.495;
Sig. (two-tailed) = 0.026*

Figure 3. Sierra Club Attention by Problem Category.

Note: * indicates significance at the 0.05 level; ** indicates significance at the 0.01 level.

a more precise measurement, I performed a series of Pearson’s correlation analyses

to test for a statistically significant relationship between New York Times attention
and environmental advocacy content.10 These results are displayed below each of the
graphs in Figures 2 and 3.
Taken together, the data reveal several interesting trends in sustainable forestry
advocacy throughout the second half of the twentieth century. First, the findings
provide empirical evidence to suggest that advocacy groups do engage in problem
426 Policy Studies Journal, 37:3

surfing. The Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club connected their solution of
sustainable forestry to different policy problems at different times. Moreover, many
of these shifts in advocacy attention to various problems coincide with changes in
media coverage of the same issues. For example, as media attention to wildlife
concerns grew throughout the timeframe, Wilderness Society attention to this
problem increased. In 1971, the Society allocated roughly 13 percent of its discussion
of sustainable forestry to wildlife issues; by 1994, these problems accounted for more
than 55 percent of all discussion. Correlation analysis confirms a significant relation-
ship between media coverage of wildlife issues and Wilderness Society advocacy.
As expected, the groups did appear to react to short-term punctuations in media
coverage of specific issues. As shown in Figure 1a, New York Times coverage of
economic issues exploded in the early 1980s, and advocacy group materials reflect
the same trend. By 1985, the amount of Sierra Club attention devoted to economic
concerns increased to more than 48 percent, up from 6 percent just three years
earlier. The Wilderness Society incorporated economic issues into its advocacy even
earlier, allocating 45 percent of its attention to such concerns by 1980, and sustaining
that level for several years. Figures 2 and 3 present the results of correlation analysis,
which reveals a highly significant relationship between New York Times reporting on
economic issues and Wilderness Society and Sierra Club advocacy content.
It appears that the Wilderness Society also adjusted the content of its advocacy
materials following a punctuation in media attention to water quality concerns in the
1980s. By 1989, 25 percent of Wilderness Society discussion involved issues related to
water quality, and correlation analysis illustrates the significant relationship between
media coverage and Society attention to the issue. The Sierra Club reveals a longer
lag time between the increase in New York Times coverage of water problems and the
subsequent rise in references to such issues in their advocacy materials. However,
once Sierra Club attention to water quality began to increase, it grew to a much
higher level than that of the Wilderness Society, garnering nearly 50 percent of
overall attention by 1987. This lag time may explain the lack of a significant relation-
ship revealed in correlation analysis.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Wilderness Society and Sierra Club
attention to scenic and recreational concerns declined significantly over time. Media
coverage of these issues was consistently the lowest of all problem categories, and
continued to shrink throughout this period. At the beginning of the timeframe,
nearly 80 percent of Wilderness Society and 36 percent of Sierra Club attention was
dedicated to recreation issues. However, both groups consistently decreased the
amount of attention devoted to recreation issues throughout the timeframe, and, as
shown in Figures 2 and 3, there is a significant relationship between media attention
and advocacy group discussion of recreation concerns for both the Wilderness
Society and Sierra Club. This gradual decrease in references to scenic concerns may
reflect a growing realization on the part of the organizations that such issues were
not as politically salient, and, therefore, did not increase their chances of policy
success.
At the same time, these data reveal that advocacy groups do not always react
purely to changes in media coverage. I expected the organizations to promote sus-
Boscarino: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S. Forestry Policy 427

tainable forestry as a solution to growing concerns over climate change, as reflected

in the sharp increase in New York Times coverage of the issue from 1987 to 1991,
climbing from less than 20 articles per year on the topic before this period to nearly
160 by 1990. While the Wilderness Society did incorporate climate change into its
discussion of forestry, it did so earlier in the timeframe; specifically, from 1978 to
1980. From 1988 through 1994, the Society did not discuss climate change in its
sustainable forestry advocacy materials at all, and correlation analysis illustrates the
lack of a significant relationship between media coverage and advocacy group
discussion of the issue. Even more surprisingly, the Sierra Club left climate change
out of its forestry advocacy throughout the entire timeframe.
Furthermore, both groups referred to economic concerns at a much lower overall
rate than expected. Because economic problems received the highest level of media
attention, I proposed that the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club would con-
sistently include discussion of such issues in their sustainable forestry advocacy.
However, these groups largely ignored economic arguments until the punctuation in
media coverage of the topic in the early 1980s. Following this peak in media interest,
the groups quickly decreased the amount of attention they dedicated to economic
concerns. Throughout the timeframe, economic issues comprised an average of only
10 percent of Sierra Club attention and approximately 19 percent of Wilderness
Society attention.
Finally, these results illustrate that the groups engaged in problem surfing at
different rates. Table 2 summarizes the propositions set out earlier, and indicates
whether or not they are supported by each organization’s advocacy behavior.
While my expectations regarding problem surfing behavior were largely met
for the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club advocacy materials revealed a much lower

Table 2. Summary: Support for Problem Surfing Activity

Proposition Wilderness Sierra Club

Society
Proposition 1a Economic arguments will figure prominently in Not supported Not supported
sustainable forestry advocacy throughout the
timeframe.
Proposition 2a The connection of economic issues to sustainable Supported Supported
forestry will be especially prominent in advocacy
efforts from 1980 to 1984.
Proposition 2b Water quality problems will most often be linked to Supported Mixed
sustainable forestry in advocacy materials during
the 1980s.
Proposition 2c Advocacy groups will link climate change to Not supported Not supported
sustainable forestry advocacy most often between
1987 and 1991.
Proposition 3a References to problems related to wildlife habitat Supported Mixed
and species destruction will increase steadily in
sustainable forestry advocacy throughout the
timeframe.
Proposition 4a Problems related to the loss of recreation and scenic Mixed Mixed
areas will not figure prominently in advocacy
group arguments for sustainable forestry.
428 Policy Studies Journal, 37:3

degree of problem surfing. Three out of six propositions regarding Wilderness

Society advocacy behavior were upheld, and one received mixed support. In con-
trast, Sierra Club data strongly confirmed only one proposition, and provided mixed
support for an additional three.
Interview data further confirms this distinction between the two organizations.
When asked how the Wilderness Society decides upon an advocacy strategy for
promoting sustainable forest practices, Michael Anderson, the group’s Senior
Resource Analyst, noted, “We do keep our wits about us about what are the social
and political priorities of the day” (Anderson, personal interview, 2008). This was
especially true during the mid-1980s, when concerns about government spending
peaked under the Reagan administration. As a result, the Society found that “the
low-cost timber sale issue resonated with the public, the politicians, the more con-
servative members of Congress . . . so that became a major focus in terms of forest
conservation work” (Anderson, personal interview, 2008). Though the timeframe in
this study ends too early to capture the similar impact of the rise of climate change
as “the big social, political issue of our current time” (Anderson, personal interview,
2008), the organization’s chief lobbyist, Michael Francis, agrees that the problem now
“impacts practically everything we do” (Francis, personal interview, 2008).
Additionally, Senior Editor of Wilderness Ben Beach described another potential
impetus for incorporating problem surfing into advocacy behavior: the group’s
challenge in convincing the media that public lands protection holds benefits other
than recreation opportunities. This perception has led to seasonal coverage of the
organization’s work, clustered around the summer months. To contest this, Beach
explained, “I’m always looking for ways to make the point that, yes, recreation is a
wonderful benefit of land protection but there are many other benefits: water quality,
air quality. I like to talk about these places as natural laboratories where people are
discovering tomorrow’s medicines . . . that’s another benefit of protecting places”
(Beach, personal interview, 2008).
In comparison, the Sierra Club appears to adhere to a different advocacy strat-
egy. When opposing logging in a specific area, for example, the organization’s
former National Forest Policy Specialist Sean Cosgrove remarked that “if you’re
talking about an individual timber sale and wanted to stop a timber sale, you would
clearly list all the different impacts [of the sale]; . . . you want to get them all out
there” (Cosgrove, personal interview, 2008). Rather than jumping on the salient
issues of the day, this implies a line of argumentation that connects the policy
solution to all possible problems, which might explain the mixed results of Sierra
Club advocacy. Cosgrove recognizes that there is a danger in repeating the same
rationales over and over, but argues that the “fact is a lot of these issues are not that
new; they go back a hundred years. They may have been referred to with a different
understanding—scientific or cultural—and may have been on a different scale, but a
lot of the same issues . . . go back to Teddy Roosevelt and before. The challenge is
to point out the importance of that, not necessarily the fact that it’s happening”
(Cosgrove, personal interview, 2008).
Perhaps even more significant is the impact of group structure and culture
on advocacy behavior. Sierra Club leaders noted over and over the importance of
Boscarino: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S. Forestry Policy 429

the group’s chapter-based structure, which allows for maximum input from
interested members. Cosgrove explicitly contrasted this “small-d” democratic
organization with that of the Wilderness Society, where, he contends, member
participation is not sought, leading to a much less active constituency (Cosgrove,
personal interview, 2008). Wilderness Society leaders confirmed this, commenting
that there is “not much effort to seek out views of rank and file” members
(Anderson, personal interview, 2008). Rather, the group focuses more time and
attention seeking to understand the opinion of the general public, conducting
regular polls and focus groups. The general public may be less interested in envi-
ronmental issues than self-selected advocacy group members, and, therefore, the
Wilderness Society may engage in more opportunistic problem surfing than the
Sierra Club in order to appeal to the different—and less stable—concerns of
average citizens.

Conclusion

John Kingdon details an intriguing agenda-setting strategy whereby policy

entrepreneurs attempt to advance a preferred policy solution by linking it to various
policy problems over time, a process that I refer to as “problem surfing.” By associ-
ating their policy proposal with the high-profile issues of the day, policy advocates
stand to benefit from increased attention to—and, as a result, energy for action
on—that policy solution. Problem surfing behavior is therefore important to under-
stand, because it has a potentially significant role to play in the policymaking
process. It suggests a way that advocates can sustain attention to a policy proposal
over a long period of time, when public and official interest might naturally wane, by
continually reinventing the proposal as the solution to new problems. In doing so,
advocates earn many more chances to achieve agenda access and policy adoption,
which might contribute to policy change.
Despite Kingdon’s interest in this strategy, agenda-setting scholars have focused
almost exclusively on problem-focused advocacy, at the expense of learning more
about the challenges and opportunities facing individuals and groups promoting
a policy solution. The few attempts to explore problem-surfing behavior have been
largely anecdotal. This paper, however, provides empirical evidence to suggest that
advocacy groups do employ problem-surfing strategies. These groups are sensitive
to the salience of various problems, selecting the issues they connect to their solution
at least in part based upon their prominence to citizens and policymakers. In the
words of one environmental lobbyist: “Part of the job of being a political strategist
is being an opportunist . . . All of sudden, an opportunity presents itself over here
that’s going to get you to the same goal . . . and you seize that opportunity” (Francis,
personal interview, 2008).
This study also reveals that advocacy decision making is more complicated than
Kingdon’s work implies. Groups do not engage in problem surfing at the same rates.
Organizational culture and structure appear to impact policy advocates’ willingness
to utilize problem-surfing strategies. Organizations that are structured to facilitate
strong member involvement and direction are perhaps less likely to utilize problem-
430 Policy Studies Journal, 37:3

surfing tactics. The choice to join an environmental group signals that an individual
has a strong interest in natural resource issues and is more likely to consistently rank
environmental concerns as a high priority. In contrast, average citizens may have less
stable opinions about the importance of environmental issues, and their views on the
prioritization of such concerns may depend more on what other issues are prominent
at the time. Therefore, groups that are appealing to the general public may be more
successful if they problem surf among salient issues to take advantage of citizen
interest in the “hot topics” of the day, whereas member-driven organizations may
win more support by advocating for their solution on the basis of a consistent set of
environmentally based issues.
This indicates that group advocacy decisions are clearly influenced by more than
just problem salience. Future research might examine additional factors that affect
policy advocates’ agenda-setting strategies. For example, a group’s “issue niche”
(Bosso, 2005) may influence the direction and extent to which it chooses to problem
surf, making the organization less willing to address problems that fall outside of
their niche (or to abandon issues that are within the niche) for fear of confusing
supporters who associate the group’s organizational identity with that niche
(Browne, 1990; Gray & Lowery, 1996). Additionally, a group’s ideological niche may
limit the problems that the organization is willing to surf among. For example, a
group that is opposed to the use of cost-benefit analysis as a way to value environ-
mental goods (see Kelman, 1981) may be averse to utilizing economic arguments in
their advocacy.
It is also possible that problems that are not especially salient may nonetheless
provide greater chances for policy action than those that are receiving the most
attention. Problems that are regulated under an existing policy (e.g., water pollution
under the Clean Water Act) might provide a more useful tool for policy advocates to
justify additional governmental action than problems that are not regulated (e.g.,
greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change). Alternatively, problems
for which new scientific research is emerging may signal future salience, and groups
may incorporate those issues into their advocacy materials even before they reach
the public’s radar screen.
These propositions require testing, and much remains to be explored regarding
problem surfing. For example, do certain substantive policy areas provide more
fertile ground for problem surfing than others? Is problem surfing associated with
other agenda-setting activities, such as venue shopping? Investigating these and
other questions would greatly improve our understanding of both the drivers and
consequences of problem surfing as an advocacy strategy.

Jessica E. Boscarino is a doctoral candidate in the Political Science Department at the

Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.

Notes

1. I collected data on these organizations from 1970 to 1995 in order to capture advocacy behavior during
several decades when sustainable forestry advocates faced differing opportunities and constraints. In
Boscarino: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S. Forestry Policy 431

1994, the spotted owl controversy was arguably resolved with the passage of the Northwest Forest
Plan, which represents an ideal end point for this study. In addition, there exists a two-year gap in the
availability of Wilderness Society data in 1996 and 1997, when Wilderness magazine transitioned into
an annual—rather than quarterly—publication. To avoid the difficulties associated with such a gap, the
study concludes before these years. As will be explained below, I employed a moving average data
analysis technique, which involved averaging data from the prior year, year in question, and future
year. This meant that I had to eliminate the first and last years from my timeframe, as I did not have
prior year data for 1970 or future year data for 1995. Therefore, the study covers the time period from
1971 to 1994.
2. The Sierra Club published the Sierra Club Bulletin until 1979, when it became known as Sierra. The
Wilderness Society magazine was published as The Living Wilderness through 1982; thereafter, it was
replaced by Wilderness. For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to these publications as Sierra and
Wilderness, respectively, for all of the years in the case study.
3. One potential limitation of this study is the use of organizational literature to measure policy advo-
cacy. The audience to whom the magazines are directed is very specialized: namely, the organization
members. These members are likely predisposed to certain opinions. As such, the magazines may be
designed less to persuade members about specific issues, and more to convince individuals that their
support (through membership contributions) is vital to protecting natural resources. One way to build
membership support, however, is to show members that the organization is actively working on
current issues. Therefore, these advocacy messages are likely to be very similar to those directed at
broader audiences. Future research might compare advocacy through group magazines to other
forums, such as congressional hearing testimony, public speeches, or editorials to assess what differ-
ences (if any) exist between the forms.
4. Between 1970 and 1995, the Wilderness Society published a total of 1,348 articles in 103 issues of
Wilderness magazine. Sierra published 3,305 articles in 189 issues during this period.
5. Wildlife destruction and biodiversity loss issues have perhaps the most obvious connection to for-
estry. Logging removes trees and understory that provide crucial habitat for animals. Nonsustainable
logging, such as clear-cutting, also devastates recreational opportunities and scenic beauty. Water
quality is also affected by logging practices because tree removal encourages soil erosion and siltation,
which clogs waterways and disrupts fish habitat. Additionally, forestry practices may contribute to
global climate change by removing trees, which serve as carbon sinks and remove excess carbon
dioxide from the environment. Finally, there is an economic aspect to forest management, as studies
have shown that clear-cutting forestry methods are heavily subsidized, and timber is often sold
below-cost, leading to economic losses of up to $100 million a year for logging in Southern Alaska
alone (Wilderness Society, 1984). It is important to acknowledge that the implementation of sustain-
able forestry practices would not necessarily make logging any more cost-effective. In this sense,
sustainable forestry cannot “solve” economic problems in the same way that it arguably can mitigate
the other problems listed above. Nonetheless, economic concerns such as the need to cut waste and
reduce budget deficits were a salient frame being used in government during this time period, and
one that environmental groups picked up on and incorporated into their advocacy materials. There-
fore, I included it in this study.
6. I employed an inductive methodology in identifying the problem categories. While examining litera-
ture on forestry advocacy, I noted the most common problem-solution linkages in articles dedicated
to sustainable forestry. The only category that was not identified through this technique was climate
change. I included climate change because the science linking deforestation to global climate change
emerged during the 1990s. Although the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club rarely (if ever) connected
sustainable forestry with climate change, I felt that the absence of such a linkage was an important
aspect of the organizations’ advocacy behavior to capture.
7. Cohen’s kappa intercoder reliability value of 0.71, p < 0.001 (see Appendix).
8. For a detailed description of this technique, see McNabb (2004).
9. Punctuations in media coverage discussed in this paper should not be confused with those conceived
by Baumgartner and Jones (1993) in their Punctuated Equilibrium Model.
10. Correlation analysis was not conducted to test for a relationship between media coverage of climate
change and Sierra Club discussion of this issue because the group did not mention climate change in
any of its sustainable forestry advocacy materials during this timeframe.
432 Policy Studies Journal, 37:3

References

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bolle, Arnold W. 1997. “The Bitterroot Revisited: ‘A University [Re]view of the Forest Service.” In
American Forests: Nature, Culture, and Politics, ed. Char Miller. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press,
163–176.
Bosso, Christopher J. 2005. Environment, Inc.: From Grassroots to Beltway. Lawrence: University of Kansas
Press.
Browne, William P. 1990. “Organized Interests and Their Issue Niches: A Search for Pluralism in a Policy
Domain.” Journal of Politics 52: 477–509.
Cobb, Roger W., and Charles D. Elder. 1972. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-
Building. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Cook, Timothy E. 1989. Making Laws and Making News: Media Strategies in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Downs, Anthony. 1972. “Up and Down with Ecology: The ‘Issue Attention’ Cycle.” The Public Interest 28:
38–50.
Ellefson, Paul V. 1992. Forest Resources Policy: Process, Participants, and Programs. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Entman, Robert M. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communi-
cation 43 (4): 51–58.
Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 44
(1): 66–83.
Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery. 1996. “A Niche Theory of Interest Representation.” Journal of Politics 58
(1): 91–111.
Hilgartner, Stephen, and Charles S. Bosk. 1988. “The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas
Model.” American Journal of Sociology 94 (1): 53–78.
Hirt, Paul W. 1994. A Conspiracy of Optimism: Management of the National Forests since World War Two.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Hoberg, Paul. 1997. “From Localism To Legalism: The Transformation of Federal Forest Policy.” In Western
Public Lands and Environmental Politics, ed. Charles Davis. Boulder, CO: Westview, 47–73.
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Kelman, Steven. 1981. “Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Ethical Critique.” Regulation 10: 33–40.
Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd edn. New York: Harper Collins.
Kline, Benjamin. 1997. First Along the River: A Brief History of the U.S. Environmental Movement. San
Francisco: Acada Books.
Livesey, Sharon M. 1999. “McDonald’s and the Environmental Defense Fund: A Case Study of a Green
Alliance.” Journal of Business Communication 36 (1): 5–39.
Mauss, Armand L. 1975. Social Problems as Social Movements. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.
McCloskey, Michael. 1992. “Twenty Years of Change in the Environmental Movement: An Insider’s
View.” In American Environmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970–90, ed. Riley E. Dunlap
and Angela G. Mertig. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis, 77–88.
McNabb, David E. 2004. Research Methods for Political Science: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 291, 294–95.
Pralle, Sarah B. 2006. Branching Out, Digging In: Environmental Advocacy and Agenda Setting. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Rochefort, David A., and Roger W. Cobb. 1994. The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda.
Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
Boscarino: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S. Forestry Policy 433

Rosenbaum, Walter, ed. 2002. Environmental Politics and Policy, 5th edn. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Sample, V. Alaric, Will Price, Jacob S. Donnay, and Catherine M. Mater. 2007. “National Forest System
(NFS) Certification Study: An Evaluation of the Application of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Standards on Five National Forest System Management Units.”
October 22. http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/forestcertification/full-report.pdf. Accessed April 28,
2008.
Sasser, Erika N., and Benjamin Cashore. 2004. “Advocacy Groups as Drivers of Participation in Private
Governance Regimes: The Influence of Directed Targeting on Organizational Behavior.” Presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Schrepfer, Susan R. 1997. “Establishing Administrative ‘Standing’: The Sierra Club and the Forest Service,
1897–1956.” In American Forests: Nature, Culture, and Politics, ed. Char Miller. Lawrence: University of
Kansas Press, 125–42.
Shaiko, Ronald G. 1999. Voices and Echoes for the Environment: Public Interest Representation in the 1990s and
Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sierra Club. 1991. “Losing the Initiative?” Sierra 76 (3): 20–24.
Stone, Deborah A. 1989. “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas.” Political Science Quarterly
104 (2): 281–300.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.”
Science 211 (4481): 453–58.
Wilderness Society. 1984. “Mandate for Oblivion: Saying Goodbye to the Rain Forest—and Paying for the
Privilege.” Wilderness 47 (164): 25–34.
Wilkerson, John D., T. Jens Feeley, Nicole S. Schiereck, and Christina Sue. 2002. “Using Bills and Hearings
to Trace Attention in Congress.” In Policy Dynamics, ed. Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 250–69.
Zhu, Jian-Hua. 1992. “Issue Competition and Attention Distraction: A Zero-Sum Theory of Agenda
Setting.” Journalism Quarterly 69: 825–36.

Appendix

New York Times Search

New York Times articles were identified using the search engine LexisNexis. For
wildlife habitat and endangered species, I searched using the following terms:
[“wildlife habitat” or “endangered species” or biodiversity] AND [loss or extinct! or
destruction or destroy! or threaten!]. For aesthetics and recreation issues, I used the
following search terms: [“natural beauty” or aesthetic or scenic or “outdoor recre-
ation”] AND [loss or destruction or destroy! or spoil!]. For water quality and fisheries
resource problems, I used the following search terms: [“water quality” or fisheries]
AND [pollution or loss]. For problems related to economic inefficiency, I used the
following search terms: [econom**] AND [deficit or inefficien** or loss]. Finally, for
climate change, I searched using the following terms: [“climate change” or “global
warming”] AND [environment].
The number of articles on each of these topics identified during the time period
under investigation was very large, which made it impractical to read every single
article to assess its applicability. Therefore, to ensure that the search returned articles
that were pertinent to the study, I conducted several pilot searches, reading ran-
domly selected articles and continually refining the search to eliminate unrelated
topics. I am thus confident that the vast majority of articles returned by the search
434 Policy Studies Journal, 37:3

were relevant, and that any inapplicable articles included in the results are likely to
be randomly distributed throughout the timeframe, and will therefore not affect the
trends in media coverage that I am interested in.

Coding Scheme

Article length was coded as short (under 700 words), medium (between 700 and
1,500 words), or long (more than 1,500 words). Short articles were assigned a value
of 1, medium articles were assigned a value of 2, and long articles were assigned a
value of 3. Articles were then coded for the prominence of five categories of public
problems: wildlife and habitat destruction, damage to aesthetics and recreation
opportunities, water quality and fisheries degradation, economic inefficiency and
loss, and climate change.
Prominence was determined by a content analysis of each article that assessed
the number of statements devoted to each problem category. If a problem was the
dominant theme of an article (i.e., the majority of statements within the article
discussed the problem), that problem category was assigned a value of 3. Problems
that served as the secondary theme of an article (i.e., the problem was explained or
discussed in detail, but did not occupy a majority of the article) were coded for a
value of 2. Problems that were only a minor theme (i.e., the problem was briefly
mentioned in relation to sustainable forestry, but was not explained or discussed and
only occupied one to two statements within the article) were assigned a value of 1.
Problems that were not mentioned at all received a 0. The Cohen’s kappa value of
intercoder reliability for this coding scheme is 0.71, p < 0.001. This value was calcu-
lated based on a randomly selected 10 percent sample of the full set of documents,
with two coders, including the researcher.
Article length was multiplied by problem prominence to provide a measure of
relative attention to the various problem categories. For example, a medium length
article (value = 2) that discusses wildlife habitat destruction as its dominant theme
(value = 3), receives an attention score of 6 for wildlife habitat destruction. The same
article that briefly mentions water quality (value = 1) results in an attention score of
2 for the degradation of water quality and fisheries resources. Attention scores thus
ranged from 0 to 9. To display this information in Figures 2 and 3, these attention
scores were then converted into percentages by adding all of the attention scores for
a given year and dividing the attention to each specific problem by the total.