IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Court Decisions, NIMBY Claims, and the Siting of Unwanted Facilities: Policy Frames and the Impact of Judicialization in Locating a Landfill for Toronto's Solid Waste


  • Greg Flynn


This article examines the use of litigation by political actors to contest unwanted environmental policy options on the basis of NIMBY claims. It analyzes the discursive frames employed by policy actors to explain how one community in Northern Ontario could reject a facility to receive Toronto's waste while another in Michigan could not. The article employs a case study approach to trace the process of judicial and tribunal decisions about these two potential landfill sites. The research found that the judicial policy frames can serve as a determinative of outcomes of siting decisions in subsequent institutional settings and that such precedents could be overcome only when opponents reframed the issues to align with the interests of all parties. The article concludes that the specific characteristics of each institutional setting in which policy disputes take place are an important factor to explaining policy change or stability.

Suggested Citation

  • Greg Flynn, 2011. "Court Decisions, NIMBY Claims, and the Siting of Unwanted Facilities: Policy Frames and the Impact of Judicialization in Locating a Landfill for Toronto's Solid Waste," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 37(3), pages 381-393, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpp:issued:v:37:y:2011:i:3:p:381-393

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: access restricted to subscribers

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpp:issued:v:37:y:2011:i:3:p:381-393. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Prof. Werner Antweiler). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.