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

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 decisionmaking. 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.

Towards a Conceptual Framework for The Study of Shifts in Modes of Environmental Governance – Experiences From The Netherlands

“…In addition, norm setting was driven by an equal protection for all rationales, implying uniform goals (Runhaar et al, 2010). In addition, norm setting was driven by an equal protection for all rationales, implying uniform goals (Runhaar et al, 2010).…”

“…Municipalities were mainly in charge of policy implementation and responsible for meeting predefined objectives. Hence, the predominant policy level at which key actors operated was the state level (Runhaar et al, 2010). The position of other stakeholders was determined by the central government, although industry and other stakeholders were actively lobbying.…”

“…Concerning policy content, the goals pursued were driven by environmental and health protection. In addition, norm setting was driven by an equal protection for all rationales, implying uniform goals (Runhaar et al, 2010). The predominant policy instruments used for implementation are typical of centralized governance, namely environmental impact assessments, permits, zoning and physical measures, complemented with state subsidies for cleaning up polluted soil and for insulating houses.…”

Explaining Trends in Risk Governance: How Problem Definitions Underpin Risk Regimes

“…For a general critique of the reductionist approach of U.S. environmental regulation, see Heinzerling (). In a study of 10 countries, Runhaar, Driessen, Van Bree, and Van der Sluijs () found a partial and not fully consolidated trend in environmental health regimes from specialized regimes to more differentiated and integrated regimes. Collier and Lazer () examine the way that population‐level thinking and the recognition of the interconnectedness of systems led to the idea of “vital systems security” in civil defense planning, which eventually spread to other domains, such as pandemic planning and natural disaster planning.…”

Sensitizing events as trigger for discursive renewal and institutional change in Flanders’ environmental health approach, 1970s-1990s

“…Second, the approach examines the content as well as the organizational structure, which both influence institutional stability or change. An alternative analytical framework would have been the framework developed by Runhaar et al [36,37] for characterizing, explaining, and evaluating environmental health risk governance regimes. The latter emphasizes the judicial approach, primarily focusing on the rules of the game and on procedures.…”