Community Mobilization for Environmental Problems: How a Grassro ...

As Tilly wrote, mobilization is not a neat process but a complicated one that involves “changing three primary variables: reducing the competing claims on resources controlled by members, developing a program which corresponds to the perceived interests of members, and building up a group structure which minimizes exit and voice” (1978, p. 72). Community members will obviously not always agree with each other regarding which actions are best for the successful resolution of their problem, but arguably all solutions include in some form organization, leadership, strategies, and goals. Even when initial actions are agreed upon, factions may form, questioning leadership and leading to a different organizational form altogether. By identifying ways that aspects of mobilization are framed, I illustrate how individuals have navigated the complexity of mobilization.

Environmental problems are very difficult to define because they are rooted in uncertainty (Gunter & Kroll-Smith, 2007). Evidence can show that a problem, such as polluted soil, is present—but how that pollution will affect individuals is difficult to assess. Rarely has science conclusively shown a causal relationship between environmental pollution and health risks (Couch & Kroll-Smith, 2000). Though individuals may agree on the physical presence of an environmental problem, interpretations of the problem’s effects may differ. The very issue of mobilization becomes problematic because of varying perceptions of the risk posed by environmental problems. Individuals confront fundamental questions—Should we mobilize? Is this really a problem? How severe is the problem? Without a clear understanding of the problem, individuals who have been traditionally socialized to trust government and media sources of knowledge are confronted with conflicting versions of data, leaving them with a looming sense of uncertainty regarding their basic well-being.

In the study of social movements, researchers have consistently called for additional conceptual frameworks with which to analyze movement emergence and vitality (Benford, 1997; Benford & Snow, 2000) What does