IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v35y2015i1d10.1007_s10669-015-9539-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supporting decision-making for sustainable nanotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Ineke Malsch

    (Malsch TechnoValuation)

  • Vrishali Subramanian

    (Ca’ Foscari University)

  • Elena Semenzin

    (Ca’ Foscari University)

  • Danail Hristozov

    (Ca’ Foscari University)

  • Antonio Marcomini

    (Ca’ Foscari University)

Abstract

Understanding how stakeholders manage risks associated with nanomaterials is a key input to the design of strategies and tools to achieve safe and sustainable nanomanufacturing. The paper presents some results of a study aiming firstly to inform the development of a software decision support tool. Further, we seek also to understand existing tools used by stakeholders as a source of capabilities and potential adaptation into decision support framework and tools. Central research questions of this study are: How is collective decision-making on risk management and sustainable nanomaterials organised? Which aspects are taken into account in this collective decision-making? And what role can a decision support tool play in such decision-making? The paper analyses 13 responses to a questionnaire survey held among participants in a meeting in October 2013 and a series of 27 semi-structured telephone interviews conducted from January until April 2014 with decision-makers from mainly European industry and regulators involved in risk management and sustainable manufacturing of nanomaterials. Findings from the study on the social organisation of collective decision-making, aspects taken into account in decisions and potential role of decision support tools are presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Ineke Malsch & Vrishali Subramanian & Elena Semenzin & Danail Hristozov & Antonio Marcomini, 2015. "Supporting decision-making for sustainable nanotechnology," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 54-75, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:35:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-015-9539-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-015-9539-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-015-9539-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-015-9539-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Todd S. Bridges & Daniel Kovacs & Matthew D. Wood & Kelsie Baker & Gordon Butte & Sarah Thorne & Igor Linkov, 2013. "Climate change risk management: a Mental Modeling application," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 376-390, September.
    2. Rajive Dhingra & Sasikumar Naidu & Girish Upreti & Rapinder Sawhney, 2010. "Sustainable Nanotechnology: Through Green Methods and Life-Cycle Thinking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(10), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Eisenman, D.P. & Cordasco, K.M. & Asch, S. & Golden, J.F. & Glik, D., 2007. "Disaster planning and risk communication with vulnerable communities: lessons from Hurricane Katrina," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 97(S1), pages 109-115.
    4. Ruud E. Smits & Stefan Kuhlmann & Phillip Shapira (ed.), 2010. "The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4181.
    5. Christian E H Beaudrie & Terre Satterfield & Milind Kandlikar & Barbara H Harthorn, 2014. "Scientists versus Regulators: Precaution, Novelty & Regulatory Oversight as Predictors of Perceived Risks of Engineered Nanomaterials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-13, September.
    6. Kara Morgan, 2005. "Development of a Preliminary Framework for Informing the Risk Analysis and Risk Management of Nanoparticles," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1621-1635, December.
    7. Igor Linkov & Elke Anklam & Zachary A. Collier & Daniel DiMase & Ortwin Renn, 2014. "Risk-based standards: integrating top–down and bottom–up approaches," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 134-137, 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. Igor Linkov & Margaret H. Kurth & Danail Hristozov & Jeffrey M. Keisler, 2015. "Nanotechnology: promoting innovation through analysis and governance," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 22-23, March.
    2. Vrishali Subramanian & Elena Semenzin & Danail Hristozov & Esther Zondervan-van den Beuken & Igor Linkov & Antonio Marcomini, 2015. "Review of decision analytic tools for sustainable nanotechnology," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 29-41, March.

    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. Oliver Falck & Anita Fichtl & Tobias Lohse & Friederike Welter & Heike Belitz & Cedric von der Hellen & Carsten Dreher & Carsten Schwäbe & Dietmar Harhoff & Monika Schnitzer & Uschi Backes-Gellner & C, 2019. "Steuerliche Forschungsförderung: Wichtiger Impuls für FuE-Aktivitäten oder zu wenig zielgerichtet?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 72(09), pages 03-25, May.
    2. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    3. Sharon M. Friedman & Brenda P. Egolf, 2011. "A Longitudinal Study of Newspaper and Wire Service Coverage of Nanotechnology Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1701-1717, November.
    4. Bazhal, Iurii, 2014. "Industrial policy under Neo-Schumpeterian concept of structural technological dynamics: Case of Ukraine," MPRA Paper 67434, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 Oct 2015.
    5. Pim den Hertog & Luis Rubalcaba, 2010. "Policy Frameworks for Service Innovation: A Menu-Approach," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Faridah Djellal (ed.), The Handbook of Innovation and Services, chapter 26, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Paul Jackson & Reza Kiani Mavi & Yuliani Suseno & Craig Standing, 2018. "University–industry collaboration within the triple helix of innovation: The importance of mutuality," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 553-564.
    7. Laura Siebeneck & Ronald Schumann & Britt-Janet Kuenanz & Seungyoon Lee & Bailey C. Benedict & Caitlyn M. Jarvis & Satish V. Ukkusuri, 2020. "Returning home after Superstorm Sandy: phases in the return-entry process," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 101(1), pages 195-215, March.
    8. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    9. Fagerberg, Jan, 2018. "Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1568-1576.
    10. Masahiro Shoji & Yoko Takafuji & Tetsuya Harada, 2020. "Formal education and disaster response of children: evidence from coastal villages in Indonesia," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 2183-2205, September.
    11. Matthew D. Wood & Kenton Plourde & Sabrina Larkin & Peter P. Egeghy & Antony J. Williams & Valerie Zemba & Igor Linkov & Daniel A. Vallero, 2020. "Advances on a Decision Analytic Approach to Exposure‐Based Chemical Prioritization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(1), pages 83-96, January.
    12. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    13. Mafini Dosso & Fernando Hervas & Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello, 2015. "5th European Conference on Corporate R&D and Innovation CONCORDi 2015. Industrial Research and Innovation: Evidence for Policy – Background Note," JRC Research Reports JRC97469, Joint Research Centre.
    14. D. J. Rasmussen & Scott Kulp & Robert E. Kopp & Michael Oppenheimer & Benjamin H. Strauss, 2022. "Popular extreme sea level metrics can better communicate impacts," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Sophie Urmetzer & Michael P. Schlaile & Kristina B. Bogner & Matthias Mueller & Andreas Pyka, 2018. "Exploring the Dedicated Knowledge Base of a Transformation towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    16. Anugerah Yuka Asmara, 2020. "Innovation in Delivering Public Health Service: Practice In Banyuwangi Regency � Indonesia," GATR Journals gjbssr552, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    17. Joanna Stryjek, 2021. "Counteracting the COVID-19 Crisis with Innovation Policy Tools: A Case Study of the EU’s Supranational Innovation Policy," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 450-468.
    18. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Andersen, Per Dannemand, 2014. "Innovation system foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 276-286.
    19. Klochikhin, Evgeny A., 2012. "Russia's innovation policy: Stubborn path-dependencies and new approaches," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1620-1630.
    20. Henning Wigger & Till Zimmermann & Christian Pade, 2015. "Broadening our view on nanomaterials: highlighting potentials to contribute to a sustainable materials management in preliminary assessments," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 110-128, March.

    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:spr:envsyd:v:35:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-015-9539-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.