IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v13y2010i3p319-335.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A meta-level analysis of major trends in environmental health risk governance

Author

Listed:
  • Hens A.C. Runhaar
  • P.P.J. Driessen
  • L. van Bree
  • J.P. van der Sluijs

Abstract

Internationally but also within countries, large differences exist regarding how environmental health risks (EHRs) are governed. Despite these differences, at a meta-level some general trends can be discerned that may point to a convergence of EHR governance regimes. One, EHR governance regimes are increasingly taking into account cost-benefit considerations, sectoral goals outside the health risk domain, public concerns and stakeholder interests in early stages of decision-making. Two, EHR objectives are increasingly integrated in other, sectoral policies such as land use planning. Three, an increased differentiation of EHR standards is observed (partly as a consequence of the former characteristic). Still little systematic empirical research has been conducted on the dynamics in EHR governance regimes and their causes, on what EHR governance regimes have produced in terms of (perceived) risk reduction and on how these results can be explained. This paper proposes a systematic framework for analysing, explaining and evaluating shifts in EHR governance regimes. The framework in turn is applied to examine and understand the shift towards more integrated and differentiated EHR governance regimes.

Suggested Citation

  • Hens A.C. Runhaar & P.P.J. Driessen & L. van Bree & J.P. van der Sluijs, 2010. "A meta-level analysis of major trends in environmental health risk governance," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 319-335, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:13:y:2010:i:3:p:319-335
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870903139070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870903139070
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870903139070?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. Sunstein,Cass R., 2002. "Risk and Reason," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521791991, September.
    2. Hood, Christopher & Rothstein, Henry & Baldwin, Robert, 2004. "The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199270019.
    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. Huizer, Yvonne L. & Kraaij-Dirkzwager, Marleen M. & Timen, Aura & Schuitmaker, Tjerk Jan & Steenbergen, Jim E. van, 2015. "Context analysis for epidemic control in the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 66-73.
    2. Roel Plant & Spike Boydell & Jason Prior & Joanne Chong & Aleta Lederwasch, 2017. "From liability to opportunity: An institutional approach towards value-based land remediation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 197-220, 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. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.
    2. Shumei Chen, 2009. "Sham or shame: Rethinking the China's milk powder scandal from a legal perspective," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(6), pages 725-747, September.
    3. Henry Rothstein & Olivier Borraz & Michael Huber, 2013. "Risk and the limits of governance: Exploring varied patterns of risk‐based governance across Europe," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 215-235, June.
    4. Julien Etienne, 2015. "Different ways of blowing the whistle: Explaining variations in decentralized enforcement in the UK and France," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 309-324, December.
    5. Donald Macrae, 2011. "Standards for risk assessment of standards: how the international community is starting to address the risk of the wrong standards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(8), pages 933-942, September.
    6. Neelke Doorn, 2015. "The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 354-360, March.
    7. Jeroen van der Heijden & Jitske de Jong, 2009. "Towards a Better Understanding of Building Regulation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(6), pages 1038-1052, December.
    8. Anaïs Valiquette L’Heureux, 2022. "The Case Study of Los Angeles City & County Fraud, Embezzlement and Corruption Safeguards during times of pandemic," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 593-610, September.
    9. Tian Sang & Peng Liu & Liang Zhao, 2022. "Judicial Response to Ecological Environment Risk in China—From the Perspective of Social Systems Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    10. Mathias Ericson, 2018. "“Sweden Has Been Naïve”: Nationalism, Protectionism and Securitisation in Response to the Refugee Crisis of 2015," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 95-102.
    11. Damian Tago & Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Pesticides and Health: A Review of Evidence on Health Effects, Valuation of Risks, and Benefit-Cost Analysis," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 203-295, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    12. Rudolf URBAN, & Roman URBAN, & Lukáš ŠTĚPà NEK, 2016. "A New Approach To Risk Assessment Based On The Semantic Value Of Expressions," EcoForum, "Stefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Romania, Faculty of Economics and Public Administration - Economy, Business Administration and Tourism Department., vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, January.
    13. Peter Taylor-Gooby, 2008. "Sociological approaches to risk: strong in analysis but weak in policy influence in recent UK developments," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 863-876, October.
    14. Alexandra P. Bocharova, 2020. "Network Analysis Of The Chinese Media On The Evidence From The Hong Kong Protest Movement," HSE Working papers WP BRP 76/PS/2020, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    15. Paul Dolan & Daniel Kahneman, 2008. "Interpretations Of Utility And Their Implications For The Valuation Of Health," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 215-234, January.
    16. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    17. David Demeritt & Henry Rothstein & Anne-Laure Beaussier & Michael Howard, 2015. "Mobilizing Risk: Explaining Policy Transfer in Food and Occupational Safety Regulation in the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(2), pages 373-391, February.
    18. 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.
    19. Kristian Kallenberg, 2009. "Corporate risk management of chemicals: a stakeholder approach to the brominated flame retardants," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 75-89, January.
    20. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2021. "The Coming of Age of Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 544-557, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jriskr:v:13:y:2010:i:3:p:319-335. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.