IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v59y2016icp44-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in views of experts about their role in particulate matter policy advice: Empirical evidence from an international expert consultation

Author

Listed:
  • Spruijt, Pita
  • Knol, Anne B.
  • Petersen, Arthur C.
  • Lebret, Erik

Abstract

There is ample scientific evidence of adverse health effects of air pollution at exposure levels that are common among the general population. Some points of uncertainty remain, however. Several theories exist regarding the various roles that experts may play when they offer policy advice on uncertain issues such as particulate matter (PM). Roles may vary according to e.g. the views of the expert on the science-policy interface or the extent to which she/he involves stakeholders. Empirical underpinning of these theories, however, does not exist. We therefore conducted a consultation with experts on the following research question: What are PM experts’ views on their roles when providing policy advice? Q methodology was used to empirically test theoretical notions concerning the existence of differences in views on expert roles. Experts were selected based on a structured nominee process. In total, 31 international PM experts participated. Responses were examined via Principal Component Analysis, and for the open-ended questions, we used Atlas.ti software. Four different expert roles were identified among the participating experts. Main differences were found with respect to views on the need for precautionary measures and on the experts positioning within the science-policy interface. There was consensus on certain issues such as the need for transparency, general disagreement with current policies and general agreement on key scientific issues. This empirical study shows that while most PM experts consider their views on the risks of PM to be in line with those of their colleagues, four distinct expert roles were observed. This provides support for thus far largely theoretical debates on the existence of different roles of experts when they provide policy advice.

Suggested Citation

  • Spruijt, Pita & Knol, Anne B. & Petersen, Arthur C. & Lebret, Erik, 2016. "Differences in views of experts about their role in particulate matter policy advice: Empirical evidence from an international expert consultation," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 44-52.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:59:y:2016:i:c:p:44-52
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116300272
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hyunji Lee & Insu Chang & Brian H. S. Kim, 2019. "Specialist perception on particulate matter policy in Korea: causal relationship analysis with Q-methodology and system thinking," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 63(2), pages 341-373, October.
    2. Díaz, Paula & Adler, Carolina & Patt, Anthony, 2017. "Do stakeholders’ perspectives on renewable energy infrastructure pose a risk to energy policy implementation? A case of a hydropower plant in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-28.
    3. K. L. Akerlof & Alessandro Allegra & Selena Nelson & Cameryn Gonnella & Carla Washbourne & Chris Tyler, 2022. "Global perspectives on scientists’ roles in legislative policymaking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 351-367, June.
    4. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    5. Bauer, Anja & Kastenhofer, Karen, 2019. "Policy advice in technology assessment: Shifting roles, principles and boundaries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 32-41.
    6. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Werner Marx, 2016. "Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1477-1495, December.
    7. Iofrida, Nathalie & De Luca, Anna Irene & Gulisano, Giovanni & Strano, Alfio, 2018. "An application of Q-methodology to Mediterranean olive production – stakeholders' understanding of sustainability issues," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 46-55.
    8. Sanaz Honarmand Ebrahimi & Marinus Ossewaarde, 2019. "Not a Security Issue: How Policy Experts De-Politicize the Climate Change–Migration Nexus," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    9. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin, 2019. "Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    11. Pita Spruijt & Anne B. Knol & Arthur C. Petersen & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Expert Views on Their Role as Policy Advisor: Pilot Study for the Cases of Electromagnetic Fields, Particulate Matter, and Antimicrobial Resistance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 968-974, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:59:y:2016:i:c:p:44-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.