Environmental regulation in transition: Policy officials’ views of regulatory instruments and their mapping to environmental risks

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Taylor, Christopher
dc.contributor.author Gallagher, Elaine
dc.contributor.author Pollard, Simon J. T.
dc.contributor.author Rocks, Sophie A.
dc.contributor.author Smith, Heather
dc.contributor.author Leinster, Paul
dc.contributor.author Angus, Andrew
dc.date.accessioned 2018-08-07T13:18:00Z
dc.date.available 2018-08-07T13:18:00Z
dc.date.issued 2018-07-29
dc.identifier.citation Taylor CM, Gallagher EA, Pollard SJT, et al., (2019) Environmental regulation in transition: Policy officials' views of regulatory instruments and their mapping to environmental risks. Science of The Total Environment, Volume 646, January 2019, pp. 811-820 en_UK
dc.identifier.issn 0048-9697
dc.identifier.uri https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.217
dc.identifier.uri http://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/13387
dc.description.abstract This study re-analysed 14 semi-structured interviews with policy officials from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to explore the use of a variety of regulatory instruments and different levels of risk across 14 policy domains and 18 separately named risks. Interviews took place within a policy environment of a better regulation agenda and of broader regulatory reform. Of 619 (n) coded references to 5 categories of regulatory instrument, ‘command and control’ regulation (n = 257) and support mechanisms (n = 118) dominated the discussions, with a preference for ‘command and control’ cited in 8 of the policy domains. A framing analysis revealed officials' views on instrument effectiveness, including for sub-categories of the 5 key instruments. Views were mixed, though notably positive for economic instruments including taxation, fiscal instruments and information provision. An overlap analysis explored officials' mapping of public environmental risks to instrument types suited to their management. While officials frequently cite risk concepts generally within discussions, the extent of overlap for risks of specific significance was low across all risks. Only ‘command and control’ was mapped to risks of moderate significance in likelihood and impact severity. These results show that policy makers still prefer ‘command and control’ approaches when a certainty of outcome is sought and that alternative means are sought for lower risk situations. The detailed reasons for selection, including the mapping of certain instruments to specific risk characteristics, is still developing. en_UK
dc.language.iso en en_UK
dc.publisher Elsevier en_UK
dc.rights Attribution 4.0 International *
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ *
dc.subject Risk en_UK
dc.subject Regulation en_UK
dc.subject Policy en_UK
dc.subject Design en_UK
dc.subject Environment en_UK
dc.subject Instrument en_UK
dc.title Environmental regulation in transition: Policy officials’ views of regulatory instruments and their mapping to environmental risks en_UK
dc.type Article en_UK
dc.identifier.cris 21168421

Files in this item

The following license files are associated with this item:

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 4.0 International

Search CERES


My Account