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

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, Christopher
dc.contributor.authorGallagher, Elaine
dc.contributor.authorPollard, Simon J. T.
dc.contributor.authorRocks, Sophie A.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Heather M.
dc.contributor.authorLeinster, Paul
dc.contributor.authorAngus, Andrew
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-07T13:18:00Z
dc.date.available2018-08-07T13:18:00Z
dc.date.issued2018-07-29
dc.description.abstractThis 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.identifier.citationTaylor 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. 811-820en_UK
dc.identifier.cris21168421
dc.identifier.issn0048-9697
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.217
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/13387
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherElsevieren_UK
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectRisken_UK
dc.subjectRegulationen_UK
dc.subjectPolicyen_UK
dc.subjectDesignen_UK
dc.subjectEnvironmenten_UK
dc.subjectInstrumenten_UK
dc.titleEnvironmental regulation in transition: Policy officials’ views of regulatory instruments and their mapping to environmental risksen_UK
dc.typeArticleen_UK

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Environmental_regulation_in_transition-2018.pdf
Size:
1.57 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.63 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Staff publications (SWEE)
Load more