Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective. Issue 2 (15th August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Clahsen, Sander C. S.; van Kamp, Irene; Hakkert, Betty C.; Vermeire, Theo G.; Piersma, Aldert H.; Lebret, Erik
• Is Part Of: Risk analysis. Volume 39:Issue 2(2019)
• Page Start: 439
• Page End: 461
• Publication Date: 2018-08-15
• Subjects: International differences in environmental health risk management -- review of conceptual frameworks -- science–policy interface; Technology -- Risk assessment -- Periodicals; 658.403
• DOI: 10.1111/risa.13165
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0272-4332

Abstract

Abstract: Why do countries regulate, or prefer to regulate, environmental health risks such as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and endocrine disruptors differently? A wide variety of theories, models, and frameworks can be used to help answer this question, though the resulting answer will strongly depend on the theoretical perspective that is applied. In this theoretical review, we will explore eight conceptual frameworks, from different areas of science, which will offer eight different potential explanations as to why international differences occur in environmental health risk management. We are particularly interested in frameworks that could shed light on the role of scientific expertise within risk management processes. The frameworks included in this review are the Risk Assessment Paradigm, research into the roles of experts as policy advisors, the Psychometric Paradigm, the Cultural Theory of Risk, participatory approaches to risk assessment and risk management, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Social Amplification of Risk Framework, and Hofstede's Model of National Cultures. We drew from our knowledge and experiences regarding a diverse set of academic disciplines to pragmatically assemble a multidisciplinary set of frameworks. From the ideas and concepts offered by the eight frameworks, we derive pertinent questions to be used in further empirical work and we present an overarching framework to depict the various links that could be drawn between the frameworks.