The Informal European Parliamentary Working Group on Risk-History, Remit, and Future Plans: A Personal View
In: Risk analysis: an international journal, Band 33, Heft 7, S. 1182-1187
ISSN: 1539-6924
15 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Risk analysis: an international journal, Band 33, Heft 7, S. 1182-1187
ISSN: 1539-6924
In: European journal of risk regulation: EJRR ; at the intersection of global law, science and policy, Band 2, Heft 2, S. 149-168
ISSN: 2190-8249
In Europe, debate as to whether one should regulate chemicals based on intrinsic hazard or assessment of risk, or possibly a combination of both, has been gaining momentum. This article first provides a brief history of this risk versus hazard debate. Secondly, it examines how European regulators are currently handling the regulation of two chemical compounds, namely Bisphenol A and Deca BDE (a brominated flame retardant), based on forty-five expert interviews with regulators, policy makers and industry representatives in eight Member States, as well as with European Commission officials. The paper shows that there is no clear consensus as to when risk or hazard considerations should be the basis for regulatory decision-making, with wide discrepancies between Member States (e.g. the UK is overall more risk based than Sweden) and between regulatory agencies within Member States. The penultimate section puts forward a series of recommendations to help regulators and policy makers develop more consistent and science based regulations for Europe.
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Band 13, Heft 1, S. 87-109
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Band 10, Heft 4, S. 423-447
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Band 9, Heft 8, S. 869-890
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Risk analysis, Band 23, Heft 2, S. 411-421
ISSN: 0272-4332
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Band 1, Heft 4, S. 255-255
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Band 1, Heft 1, S. 1-2
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Earthscan Risk in Society
Social trust is a crucial issue to many aspects of modern society. Policy makers continually aspire to winning it and corporations frequently run the risk of losing it. The 'trust deficit' raises vital questions and problems to which until recently there have been few answers or solutions.Experts from both sides of the Atlantic explore the importance for trust of various influences, from individual perceptions to organizational systems, and consider the conditions involved in building or undermining trust. Several authors examine practical hazard management issues, including medical vaccinatio
In: European journal of risk regulation: EJRR ; at the intersection of global law, science and policy, Band 1, Heft 2, S. 159-162
ISSN: 2190-8249
This section discusses issues related to risk communication across a range of publicly perceived high-risk industries (such as pharmaceuticals, nuclear, oil, etc.). It reports critically and provides analysis on risk communication as an outcome of risk research within these industries. Contributions are intended to include methods working towards the advancement of risk perception research and describe any lessons learned for successfully communicating to the public about risk.
In: Risk analysis, Band 21, Heft 3, S. 399-405
ISSN: 0272-4332
In: Risk analysis: an international journal, Band 22, Heft 5, S. 879-894
ISSN: 1539-6924
Quantitative risk assessment (RA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) are both analytical tools used to support decision making in environmental management. They have been developed and used by largely separate groups of specialists, and it is worth considering whether there is a common research agenda that may increase the relevance of these tools in decision‐making processes. The validity of drawing comparisons between use of the tools is established through examining key aspects of the two approaches for their similarities and differences, including the nature of each approach and contextual and methodological aspects. Six case studies involving use of each approach in public decision making are described and used to draw out concerns about using RA and LCA in this context. The following categories of concern can be distinguished: philosophical approach of the tools; quantitative versus qualitative assessment; stakeholder participation; the nature of the results; and the usefulness of the results in relation to time and financial resource requirements. These can be distilled into a common policy research agenda focusing on: the legitimacy of using tools built on a particular perspective in decision making; recognition and role of value judgments in RA and LCA; treatment of uncertainty and variability; the influence of analytical tools in focusing attention on particular aspects of a decision‐making situation; and understandability of the results for nonspecialists. It is concluded that it is time to bring together the experiences of RA and LCA specialists and benefit from cross‐fertilization of ideas.
In: Risk analysis, Band 22, Heft 5, S. 879-894
ISSN: 0272-4332
In: Environmental politics, Band 11, Heft 1, S. 216-217
ISSN: 0964-4016