Building coalitions in a nascent subsystem: Investigating beliefs and policy preferences in Ugandan pesticide policy
Corresponding Author
Ruth Wiedemann
Environmental Social Sciences, Dübendorf, Switzerland
Institute for Political Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Correspondence
Ruth Wiedemann, Institute of Political Science, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorKarin Ingold
Environmental Social Sciences, Dübendorf, Switzerland
Institute for Political Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Ruth Wiedemann
Environmental Social Sciences, Dübendorf, Switzerland
Institute for Political Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Correspondence
Ruth Wiedemann, Institute of Political Science, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorKarin Ingold
Environmental Social Sciences, Dübendorf, Switzerland
Institute for Political Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
enMany political actors lack the power or competencies to impact policy outputs and outcomes on their own. This is why they join forces to multiply their impact. Following the advocacy coalition framework, they do so based on joint beliefs and shared policy preferences. Therefore, to understand cooperation or conflict among political actors, including the potential for policy compromises or stalemates, it seems crucial to know the allies and opponents in a political subsystem. Although many studies have investigated advocacy coalitions of like-minded actors in various political subsystems and policy fields around the globe, not much is known about the dynamics at the origin of joint belief or common preference building. In this context, we ask: How and when do actors develop similar beliefs and joint policy preferences with others in a political subsystem? To answer this question, we investigate the early stage of policy making—a so-called nascent subsystem—when a new issue arrives on the political agenda. We argue that it is at this stage that actors start developing joint beliefs and identifying their allies. We use expert interviews and survey data to investigate pesticide regulation, a new topic on Uganda's political agenda. We conducted a three-step approach and selected the types of beliefs and preferences that mattered in a nascent policy setting. We then presented an extensive list of possible regulatory instruments to the stakeholders and selected those evaluated as the most relevant or conflictive. Based on this selection, we calculated belief and preference similarity and clustering to identify groups of like-minded actors. Finally, via regression analysis, we show that joint beliefs are the result of either trust or a similar problem perception, depending on whether the actor is part of a more or less developed belief cluster.
Resumen
esMuchos actores políticos carecen del poder o las competencias para impactar los productos y resultados de las políticas por sí mismos. Por eso unen fuerzas para multiplicar su impacto. Siguiendo el marco de la coalición de defensa, lo hacen sobre la base de creencias conjuntas y preferencias políticas compartidas. Por lo tanto, para comprender la cooperación o el conflicto entre los actores políticos, incluido el potencial de compromisos políticos o estancamientos, parece crucial conocer a los aliados y oponentes en un subsistema político. Aunque muchos estudios han investigado coaliciones de defensa de actores con ideas afines en varios subsistemas políticos y campos de políticas en todo el mundo, no se sabe mucho sobre la dinámica en el origen de la construcción de creencias conjuntas o preferencias comunes. En este contexto, nos preguntamos: ¿Cómo y cuándo desarrollan los actores creencias similares y preferencias políticas conjuntas con otros en un subsistema político? Para responder a esta pregunta, investigamos la etapa inicial de la formulación de políticas, el llamado subsistema naciente, cuando llega un nuevo tema a la agenda política. Argumentamos que es en esta etapa que los actores comienzan a desarrollar creencias conjuntas e identifican a sus aliados. Usamos entrevistas a expertos y datos de encuestas para investigar la regulación de pesticidas, un tema nuevo en la agenda política de Uganda. Llevamos a cabo un enfoque de tres pasos y seleccionamos los tipos de creencias y preferencias que importaban en un entorno de política incipiente. Luego presentamos una extensa lista de posibles instrumentos regulatorios a las partes interesadas y seleccionamos aquellos evaluados como los más relevantes o conflictivos. Con base en esta selección, calculamos la similitud y el agrupamiento de creencias y preferencias para identificar grupos de actores con ideas afines. Finalmente, a través del análisis de regresión, mostramos que las creencias conjuntas son el resultado de la confianza o de una percepción similar del problema, dependiendo de si el actor es parte de un grupo de creencias más o menos desarrollado.
摘要
zh许多政治行动者缺乏用于影响政策产出和结果的权力或能力。这解释了为何其联手以扩大影响力。根据倡导联盟框架，政治行动者基于共同的信念和政策偏好加以联手。因此，为了理解政治行动者之间的合作或冲突(包括政策妥协或僵局的可能性)，了解政治子系统中的盟友和对手一事似乎至关重要。尽管许多研究调查了全球不同政治子系统和政策领域中由志同道合的行动者组成的倡导联盟，但研究不足的是，共同信念或共同偏好建立的来源动态。我们在该情境下提出一个问题:行动者如何以及何时与政治子系统中的其他行动者发展相似的信念和共同的政策偏好?为回答这一问题，我们调查了政策制定的早期阶段(所谓的新生子系统)，即当一个新问题出现在政治议程的阶段。我们论证认为，行动者在该阶段开始形成共同的信念并确定其盟友。我们使用专家访谈和调查数据来研究农药监管，这是乌干达政治议程中的一个新话题。我们采用了由三步骤组成的方法，并选择了在新生政策背景中具有重要性的信念和偏好类型。我们随后向利益攸关方展示了一份广泛的监管工具清单，并选择了那些被评估为最相关或最具冲突性的监管工具。基于这一选择，我们计算了信念和偏好的相似性和聚类，以识别志同道合的行动者团体。最后，通过回归分析，我们表明，共同信念是信任或类似问题感知的结果，这取决于行动者是否属于有一定发展程度的信念群集的一部分。.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| ropr12540-sup-0001-Supinfo.docxWord 2007 document , 380.3 KB |
Data S1 |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
-
Adam, S., & Kriesi, H. (2019). The network approach . In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 129–154). Routledge.
10.4324/9780367274689-5 Google Scholar
- Andersson, E., & Isgren, E. (2021). Gambling in the garden: Pesticide use and risk exposure in Ugandan smallholder farming. Journal of Rural Studies, 82, 76–86.
-
Atuhaire, A., Kaye, E., Mutambuze, I. L., Matthews, G., Friedrich, T., & Jørs, E. (2017). Assessment of dithiocarbamate residues on tomatoes conventionally grown in Uganda and the effect of simple washing to reduce exposure risk to consumers. Environmental Health Insights, 11, 1–8.
10.1177/1178630217712218 Google Scholar
- Bell, R. G., & Russell, C. (2002). Environmental policy for developing countries. Issues in Science and Technology, 18(3), 63–70.
- Bendjebbar, P., & Fouilleux, E. (2022). Exploring national trajectories of organic agriculture in Africa. Comparing Benin and Uganda. Journal of Rural Studies, 89, 110–121.
- Berardo, R., & Lubell, M. (2016). Understanding what shapes a polycentric governance system. Public Administration Review, 76(5), 738–751.
- Berardo, R., & Scholz, J. T. (2010). Self-organizing policy networks: Risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 632–649.
- Berthet, A., Vincent, A., & Fleury, P. (2021). Water quality issues and agriculture: An international review of innovative policy schemes. Land Use Policy, 109, 105654.
- Beverwijk, J., Goedegebuure, L., & Huisman, J. (2008). Policy change in nascent subsystems: Mozambican higher education policy 1993–2003. Policy Sciences, 41(4), 357–377.
-
Birkland, T. A. (2015). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making ( 4th ed.). Routledge.
10.4324/9781315717371 Google Scholar
- Brandenberger, L., Ingold, K., Fischer, M., Schläpfer, I., & Leifeld, P. (2022). Boundary spanning through engagement of policy actors in multiple issues. Policy Studies Journal, 50(1), 35–64.
- Cairney, P., Fischer, M., & Ingold, K. (2018). Fracking in the UK and Switzerland: Why differences in policymaking systems don't always produce different outputs and outcomes. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 125–147.
- Calanni, J. C., Siddiki, S. N., Weible, C. M., & Leach, W. D. (2015). Explaining coordination in collaborative partnerships and clarifying the scope of the belief homophily hypothesis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(3), 901–927.
- Cameron, J., & Abouchar, J. (1991). The precautionary principle: A fundamental principle of law and policy for the protection of the global environment. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 14, 1.
- Crona, B., & Bodin, Ö. (2006). What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 7.
- EU P&C (European Parliament and Council of the European Union). (2009). Directive 2009/128/EC of The European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. EU, Brussels.
- Falconer, K. E. (1998). Managing diffuse environmental contamination from agricultural pesticides: An economic perspective on issues and policy options, with particular reference to Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 69(1), 37–54.
- FAO & WHO. (2014). International code of conduct on pesticide management. FAO conference, Rome.
- Fidelman, P., Evans, L. S., Foale, S., Weible, C., Von Heland, F., & Elgin, D. (2014). Coalition cohesion for regional marine governance: A stakeholder analysis of the coral triangle initiative. Ocean & Coastal Management, 95, 117–128.
- Fischer, M. (2014). Coalition structures and policy change in a consensus democracy. Policy Studies Journal, 42(3), 344–366.
- Fischer, M., & Leifeld, P. (2015). Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for? Policy Sciences, 48(3), 363–382.
-
Gerlak, A. K., Heikkila, T., & Lubell, M. (2013). The promise and performance of collaborative governance . In M. E. Kraft & S. Kamieniecki (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of U.S. environmental policy. Oxford Academic.
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744671.013.0019 Google Scholar
- Handford, C. E., Elliott, C. T., & Campbell, K. (2015). A review of the global pesticide legislation and the scale of challenge in reaching the global harmonization of food safety standards. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 11(4), 525–536.
- Hatmaker, D. M., & Rethemeyer, R. K. (2008). Mobile trust, enacted relationships: Social capital in a state-level policy network. International Public Management Journal, 11(4), 426–462.
- Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484–512.
- Henning, C. H. (2009). Networks of power in the CAP system of the EU-15 and EU-27. Journal of Public Policy, 29(2), 153–177.
- Henry, A. D. (2011). Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 361–383.
- Herzog, L. M., & Ingold, K. (2019). Threats to common-pool resources and the importance of forums: On the emergence of cooperation in CPR problem settings. Policy Studies Journal, 47(1), 77–113.
- Hill, M. J., & Varone, F. (2017). The public policy process ( 7th ed.). Routledge Taylor & Francis.
- Ingold, K. (2011). Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 435–459.
- Ingold, K., Fischer, M., & Cairney, P. (2017). Drivers for policy agreement in nascent subsystems: An application of the advocacy coalition framework to fracking policy in Switzerland and the UK. Policy Studies Journal, 45(3), 442–463.
- Ingold, K., & Varone, F. (2012). Treating policy brokers seriously: Evidence from the climate policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 319–346.
- Ingold, K., Varone, F., Kammerer, M., Metz, F., Kammermann, L., & Strotz, C. (2020). Are responses to official consultations and stakeholder surveys reliable guides to policy actors' positions? Policy & Politics, 48(2), 193–222.
- Isgren, E. (2018). If the change is going to happen it's not by us': Exploring the role of NGOs in the politicization of Ugandan agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies, 63, 180–189.
- Isgren, E., & Andersson, E. (2021). An environmental justice perspective on smallholder pesticide use in sub-Saharan Africa. The Journal of Environment & Development, 30(1), 68–97.
-
Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Ingold, K. (2018). The advocacy coalition framework: An overview of the research program . In C. M. Weible & P. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process ( 4th ed., pp. 135–171). Westview press.
10.4324/9780429494284-5 Google Scholar
- Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., Gupta, K., & Ripberger, J. T. (2014). Belief system continuity and change in policy advocacy coalitions: Using cultural theory to specify belief systems, coalitions, and sources of change. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 484–508.
- Kammermann, L., & Dermont, C. (2018). How beliefs of the political elite and citizens on climate change influence support for Swiss energy transition policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 43, 48–60.
- Kansiime, M., Mulema, J., Karanja, D., Romney, D., & Day, R. (2017). Crop pests and disease management in Uganda: Status and investment needs. PARM/IFAD.
-
Karungi, J., Kyamanywa, S., Adipala, E., & Erbaugh, M. (2011). Pesticide utilisation, regulation and future prospects in small scale horticultural crop production systems in a developing country . In Chapter, pesticide utilisation, regulation and future prospects in small scale horticultural crop production Systems in a Developing Country (Vol. 2). InTech.
10.5772/17170 Google Scholar
- Kateregga, E. (2012). Economic analysis of strengthening the governance of pesticide management in Uganda's agriculture sector. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 1(2), 527–544.
-
Kaufmann-Hayoz, R., Defila, R., Di Giulio, A., Flury-Kleubler, P., Friederich, U., Garbely, M., Gutscher, H., Jegen, M., Mosler, H. J., North, N., Ulli-Beer, S., & Wichtermann, J. (2001). A typology of tools for building sustainability strategies . In Changing things—Moving people (pp. 33–107). Springer Science & Business Media.
10.1007/978-3-0348-8314-6_3 Google Scholar
-
Kautto, P., & Similä, J. (2005). Recently introduced policy instruments and intervention theories. Evaluation, 11(1), 55–68.
10.1177/1356389005053191 Google Scholar
-
Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012). Public policy: A new introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
10.1007/978-1-137-00800-8 Google Scholar
-
Knoke, D. (1994). Networks of elite structure and decision making. In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis (pp. 274–294). Sage.
10.4135/9781452243528.n11 Google Scholar
-
Knoke, D., Pappi, F. U., Broadbent, J., & Tsujinaka, Y. (1996). Comparing policy networks: Labor politics in the US, Germany, and Japan. Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9781139174497 Google Scholar
- Le Goff, U., Sander, A., Lagana, M. H., Barjolle, D., Phillips, S., & Six, J. (2022). Raising up to the climate challenge-understanding and assessing farmers' strategies to build their resilience. A comparative analysis between Ugandan and Swiss farmers. Journal of Rural Studies, 89, 1–12.
- Lee, R., den Uyl, R., & Runhaar, H. (2019). Assessment of policy instruments for pesticide use reduction in Europe: Learning from a systematic literature review. Crop Protection, 126, 104929.
- Leifeld, P., & Schneider, V. (2012). Information exchange in policy networks. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 731–744.
- Li, Z., & Fantke, P. (2022). Toward harmonizing global pesticide regulations for surface freshwaters in support of protecting human health. Journal of Environmental Management, 301, 113909.
- Martiniello, G. (2015). Food sovereignty as praxis: Rethinking the food question in Uganda. Third World Quarterly, 36(3), 508–525.
- Matti, S., & Sandström, A. (2011). The rationale determining advocacy coalitions: Examining coordination networks and corresponding beliefs. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 385–410.
- Metz, F., & Ingold, K. (2014). Sustainable wastewater management: Is it possible to regulate micropollution in the future by learning from the past? A policy analysis. Sustainability, 6(4), 1992–2012.
- Metz, F., & Ingold, K. (2017). Politics of the precautionary principle: Assessing actors' preferences in water protection policy. Policy Sciences, 50(4), 721–743.
-
Metz, F., & Leifeld, P. (2018). Governing water with market-based instruments: Preferences and skepticism in Switzerland . In A critical approach to international water management trends (pp. 147–176). Palgrave Macmillan.
10.1057/978-1-137-60086-8_7 Google Scholar
- Metz, F., Lieberherr, E., Schmucki, A., & Huber, R. (2021). Policy change through negotiated agreements: The case of greening Swiss agricultural policy. Policy Studies Journal, 49(3), 731–756.
- Newig, J., Challies, E., Jager, N. W., Kochskaemper, E., & Adzersen, A. (2018). The environmental performance of participatory and collaborative governance: A framework of causal mechanisms. Policy Studies Journal, 46(2), 269–297.
- Nohrstedt, D. (2011). Shifting resources and venues producing policy change in contested subsystems: A case study of Swedish signals intelligence policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 461–484.
-
Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C., Ingold, K., & Henry, A. (2020). Comparing policy processes: Insights and lessons from the advocacy coalition framework research program . In G. Peters & G. Fontaine (Eds.), Handbook of research methods and applications in comparative policy analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
10.4337/9781788111195.00011 Google Scholar
-
OECD. (2012). OECD policy instruments and mixes addressing water quality issues in agriculture. In Water quality and agriculture: Meeting the policy challenge. OECD Publishing.
10.1787/9789264168060-7-en Google Scholar
- Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.
- Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press.
- Pedersen, A. B., & Nielsen, H. Ø. (2017). Effectiveness of pesticide policies: Experiences from Danish pesticide regulation 1986–2015 (pp. 267–324). John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
- Pedersen, A. B., Nielsen, H. Ø., Christensen, T., & Hasler, B. (2012). Optimising the effect of policy instruments: A study of farmers' decision rationales and how they match the incentives in Danish pesticide policy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(8), 1094–1110.
- Pierce, J. J., Peterson, H. L., & Hicks, K. C. (2020). Policy change: An advocacy coalition framework perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 48(1), 64–86.
- Pierce, J. J., Peterson, H. L., Jones, M. D., Garrard, S. P., & Vu, T. (2017). There and back again: A tale of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 45(S1), S13–S46.
- Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414–423.
- R Development Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.0.3 ed.). R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
- Rethemeyer, R. K. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring collaborative networks. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 117–121.
- Rodenburg, J., Johnson, J. M., Dieng, I., Senthilkumar, K., Vandamme, E., Akakpo, C., Allarangaye, M. D., Baggie, I., Bakare, S. O., Bam, R. K., Bassoro, I., Abera, B. B., Cisse, M., Dogbe, W., Gbakatchétché, H., Jaiteh, F., Kajiru, G J., Kalisa, A., Kamissoko, N., … Saito, K. (2019). Status quo of chemical weed control in rice in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Security, 11(1), 69–92.
- Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H.-C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press.
- Sabatier, P., & Weible, C. (2007). Theories of the policy process. Westview Press.
- Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130.
- Schaub, S., & Braunbeck, T. (2020). Transition towards sustainable pharmacy? The influence of public debates on policy responses to pharmaceutical contaminants in water. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1), 1–19.
- Scholz, J. T., Berardo, R., & Kile, B. (2008). Do networks solve collective action problems? Credibility, search, and collaboration. The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 393–406.
- Seifert, C., Krannich, T., & Guenther, E. (2019). Gearing up sustainability thinking and reducing the bystander effect–A case study of wastewater treatment plants. Journal of Environmental Management, 231, 155–165.
- Sekabojja, D., Atuhaire, A., Nabankema, V., Sekimpi, D., & Jors, E. (2021). Consumer risk perception towards pesticide stained tomatoes in Uganda. bioRxiv. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.15.431249v2
-
Shao, D., & Edward, S. (2014). Combating fake agro-inputs products in Tanzania using mobile phones. International Journal of Computer Applications, 97(17), 21–25.
10.5120/17099-7681 Google Scholar
- Smith, J. M., Halgin, D., Kidwell-Lopez, V., Labianca, G., Brass, D., & Borgatti, S. P. (2014). Power in politically charged networks. Social Networks, 36, 162–176.
- Staudacher, P., Brugger, C., Winkler, M. S., Stamm, C., Farnham, A., Mubeezi, R., Eggen, R. I. L., & Günther, I. (2021). What agro-input dealers know, sell and say to smallholder farmers about pesticides: A mystery shopping and KAP analysis in Uganda. Environmental Health, 20(1), 1–19.
-
Stein, S., & Luna, J. (2021). Toxic sensorium: Agrochemicals in the African anthropocene. Environment and Society, 12(1), 87–107.
10.3167/ares.2021.120106 Google Scholar
- Stritch, A. (2015). The advocacy coalition framework and nascent subsystems: Trade union disclosure policy in Canada. Policy Studies Journal, 43(4), 437–455.
- Tindall, D. B., Stoddart, M. C., & Howe, A. C. (2020). Social networks and climate change policy preferences: Structural location and policy actor support for fossil fuel production. Society & Natural Resources, 33(11), 1359–1379.
- Tosun, J., Schaub, S., & Fleig, A. (2020). What determines regulatory preferences? Insights from micropollutants in surface waters. Environmental Science & Policy, 106, 136–144.
- Vedung, E., Rist, R. C., & Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L. (1998). Carrots, sticks & sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. Transaction Publishers.
- Vogeler, C. S., & Bandelow, N. C. (2018). Mutual and self perceptions of opposing advocacy coalitions: Devil shift and angel shift in a German policy subsystem. Review of Policy Research, 35(5), 717–732.
- Weible, C. M. (2005). Beliefs and perceived influence in a natural resource conflict: An advocacy coalition approach to policy networks. Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 461–475.
- Weible, C. M., & Heikkila, T. (2016). Comparing the politics of hydraulic fracturing in New York, Colorado, and Texas. Review of Policy Research, 33(3), 232–250.
- Weible, C. M., & Ingold, K. (2018). Why advocacy coalitions matter and practical insights about them. Policy & Politics, 46(2), 325–343.
- Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Comparing policy networks: Marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), 181–201.
- Wiedemann, R. (2022). To intervene or not to intervene: Potential for targeted pesticide policy in Uganda. Environmental Science & Policy, 129, 168–178.
- Wiedemann, R., & Ingold, K. (2021). Solving cross-sectoral policy problems: Adding a cross-sectoral dimension to assess policy performance. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 24(5), 526–539.
- Wiedemann, R., Stamm, C., & Staudacher, P. (2022). Participatory knowledge integration to promote safe pesticide use in Uganda. Environmental Science & Policy, 128, 154–164.
- Winkler, M., Atuhaire, A., Fuhrimann, S., Mora, A. M., Niwagaba, C., Oltramare, C., Ramirez, F., Staudacher, P., Weiss, F., Wiedemann, R., Eggen, R., Ingold, K., and Stamm, C. (2019). Working paper: Environmental exposures, health effects and institutional determinants of pesticide use in two tropical settings . Published under https://snis.ch/publications/
- Xanthos, D., & Walker, T. R. (2017). International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 118(1–2), 17–26.
- Xie, J., & Saltzman, S. (2000). Environmental policy analysis: An environmental computable general-equilibrium approach for developing countries. Journal of Policy Modeling, 22(4), 453–489.
- Yami, M., van Asten, P., Hauser, M., Schut, M., & Pali, P. (2019). Participation without negotiating: Influence of stakeholder power imbalances and engagement models on agricultural policy development in Uganda. Rural Sociology, 84(2), 390–415.
