IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i12p1534-d122442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rapid Assessment of Stakeholder Concerns about Public Health. An Introduction to a Fast and Inexpensive Approach Applied on Health Concerns about Intensive Animal Production Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Marleen Kraaij-Dirkzwager

    (Department for Environmental Health, Aftercare and Security, Centre for Environmental Safety and Security (VLH), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Postbus 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)

  • Joost Van der Ree

    (Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health (DMG) National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Postbus 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)

  • Erik Lebret

    (Chief Science Officer Integrated Risk Assessment, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Postbus 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Institute of Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 2, 3584 CM Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

To effectively manage environmental health risks, stakeholders often need to act collectively. Stakeholders vary in their desire to act due to many factors, such as knowledge, risk perception, interests, and worldviews. Understanding their perceptions of the issues at stake is crucial to support the risk governance process. Even though concern assessment is a pivotal element of risk governance, few tools for rapid assessment are reported in the literature. We tested a rapid and relatively cheap approach, taking the Dutch debate on Intensive Animal Production Systems (IAPS) and health as an example. Dutch policy-oriented publications on IAPS and health and ten semi-structured in-depth interviews with a variety of stakeholders were analyzed to identify stakeholders and concerns involved in the Dutch debate about IAPS and health. Concerns were mapped and a stakeholder network was derived. Three classes of concerns were recognized in the discussions about IAPS and health: concerns related to health risks, concerns regarding the activity causing the risks (IAPS), and concerns about the process to control the risks. The notions of ‘trust’ and ‘scientific uncertainty’ appeared as important themes in the discussions. Argumentation based on concerns directly related to health risks, the activity causing the risk (IAPS), and its risk management can easily become muddled up in a societal debate, limiting the development of effective action perspectives. Acknowledging these multiple stakeholder concerns can clarify the positions taken by stakeholders and allow for more and other action perspectives to develop.

Suggested Citation

  • Marleen Kraaij-Dirkzwager & Joost Van der Ree & Erik Lebret, 2017. "Rapid Assessment of Stakeholder Concerns about Public Health. An Introduction to a Fast and Inexpensive Approach Applied on Health Concerns about Intensive Animal Production Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:12:p:1534-:d:122442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1534/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1534/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    2. J.C.M. Roodenrijs & M.M. Kraaij-Dirkzwager & J.H.T.C. van den Kerkhof & H.A.C. Runhaar, 2014. "Risk governance for infectious diseases: exploring the feasibility and added value of the IRGC-framework for Dutch infectious disease control," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1161-1182, October.
    3. Wolff, Jonathan, 2006. "Risk, Fear, Blame, Shame And The Regulation Of Public Safety," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 409-427, November.
    4. Charles Weiss, 2003. "Scientific Uncertainty and Science-Based Precaution," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 137-166, June.
    5. John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Valérie Eijrond & Liesbeth Claassen & Joke van der Giessen & Danielle Timmermans, 2019. "Intensive Livestock Farming and Residential Health: Experts’ Views," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-16, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Díaz, Paula & Adler, Carolina & Patt, Anthony, 2017. "Do stakeholders’ perspectives on renewable energy infrastructure pose a risk to energy policy implementation? A case of a hydropower plant in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-28.
    2. Martin Luštický & Martin Musil, 2016. "Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Tourism Policy Priorities: The Case of the South Bohemian Region," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2016(3), pages 3-23.
    3. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    4. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    5. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    6. Antonio Lopolito & Edgardo Sica, 2022. "Designing Policy Mixes to Address the World’s Worst Devastation of a Rural Landscape Caused by Xylella Epidemic," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, May.
    7. Ogunlowo, Olufemi O. & Bristow, Abigail L. & Sohail, M., 2017. "A stakeholder analysis of the automotive industry's use of compressed natural gas in Nigeria," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 58-69.
    8. Austen Agata, 2012. "Stakeholders management in public hospitals in the context of resources," Management, Sciendo, vol. 16(2), pages 217-230, December.
    9. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    10. Maciej Dobrzyñski & Krzysztof Dziekoñski & Arkadiusz Jurczuk, 2015. "Stakeholders Mapping - A Case Of International Logistics Project," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 11(2), pages 17-26, June.
    11. Szymaniec-Mlicka Karolina, 2016. "Impact of strategic orientation adopted by an organisation on its performance, as shown on the example of public healthcare entities," Management, Sciendo, vol. 20(2), pages 278-290, December.
    12. Tsoutsos, Theocharis & Drandaki, Maria & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Iosifidis, Eleftherios & Kiosses, Ioannis, 2009. "Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1587-1600, May.
    13. B Glumac & Q Han & W Schaefer, 2018. "A negotiation decision model for public–private partnerships in brownfield redevelopment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 45(1), pages 145-160, January.
    14. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    15. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Werner Marx, 2016. "Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1477-1495, December.
    16. Robert H. W. Boyer & Nicole D. Peterson & Poonam Arora & Kevin Caldwell, 2016. "Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-18, September.
    17. François Maon & Adam Lindgreen & Valérie Swaen, 2009. "Designing and Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility: An Integrative Framework Grounded in Theory and Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 71-89, April.
    18. John Wood & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi & Timothy Eveleigh, 2013. "A framework for capturing the hidden stakeholder system," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 251-266, September.
    19. Min-Ta Chuang, 2019. "Multi-Conflicts between the Government, the Non-Profit Organisation and the People after a Serious Landslide Disaster Based Upon Qualitative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-12, April.
    20. Colin Eden & Fran Ackermann, 2021. "Modelling Stakeholder Dynamics for Supporting Group Decision and Negotiation: Theory to Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1001-1025, October.

    Corrections

    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:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:12:p:1534-:d:122442. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.