IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v33y2013i10p1844-1857.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Different Roles and Viewpoints of Scientific Experts in Advising on Environmental Health Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Pita Spruijt
  • Anne B. Knol
  • René Torenvlied
  • Erik Lebret

Abstract

Environmental health risks are often complex, largescale, and uncertain. The uncertainties inherent in these problems permit differences among experts in the appraisal of risks. This raises the question of whether different expert roles exist and, if so, how this affects the policy advice that is given. Here, we present a pilot study of the different roles and viewpoints that can be discerned among scientific experts in the Netherlands. Q methodology was used to empirically explore existing theoretical treatises on different expert roles. In total, 26 electromag­netic field (EMF) experts and 21 particulate matter (PM) experts participated. The responses were analyzed separately for EMF and PM respondents using Q factor analysis. In both the EMF and PM domain, three different expert roles were identified. This suggests that particular expert roles depend on the specific environmental health risk. The results indicate that different expert roles exist among scientists who provide policy advice on environmental health risks. This empirical study adds new data and insights to the literature on expert roles. The results of this study are relevant for the selection and composition of expert committees and the interpretation of expert advice.

Suggested Citation

  • Pita Spruijt & Anne B. Knol & René Torenvlied & Erik Lebret, 2013. "Different Roles and Viewpoints of Scientific Experts in Advising on Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1844-1857, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:10:p:1844-1857
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12020
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12020?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kurt Marti & Yuri Ermoliev & Marek Makowski & Georg Pflug, 2006. "Coping with Uncertainty," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, number 978-3-540-35262-4, December.
    2. C. Weiss, 2006. "Precaution: The Willingness to Accept Costs to Avert Uncertain Danger," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Coping with Uncertainty, pages 315-330, Springer.
    3. Leeka Kheifets & John Swanson & Shaiela Kandel & Timothy F. Malloy, 2010. "Risk Governance for Mobile Phones, Power Lines, and Other EMF Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1481-1494, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Roberto Barraza & Gilberto Velazquez-Angulo & Edith Flores-Tavizón & Jaime Romero-González & José Ignacio Huertas-Cardozo, 2016. "The Role of Science in Advising the Decision Making Process: A Pathway for Building Effective Climate Change Mitigation Policies in Mexico at the Local Level," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, April.
    2. Hong Yao & Weixin Li & Xin Qian, 2015. "Identification of Major Risk Sources for Surface Water Pollution by Risk Indexes (RI) in the Multi-Provincial Boundary Region of the Taihu Basin, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    3. 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).
    4. Chuanshen Qin & Jianhua Xu & Gabrielle Wong‐Parodi & Lan Xue, 2020. "Change in Public Concern and Responsive Behaviors Toward Air Pollution Under the Dome," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1983-2001, October.
    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. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jarry T. Porsius & Liesbeth Claassen & Fred Woudenberg & Tjabe Smid & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2017. "“These Power Lines Make Me Ill”: A Typology of Residents’ Health Responses to a New High‐Voltage Power Line," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2276-2288, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Roh, Seungkook & Lee, Jin Won, 2018. "Differentiated effects of risk perception dimensions on nuclear power acceptance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 727-735.
    4. Seungkook Roh & Jin Won Lee & Qingchang Li, 2019. "Effects of Rank-Ordered Feature Perceptions of Energy Sources on the Choice of the Most Acceptable Power Plant for a Neighborhood: An Investigation Using a South Korean Nationwide Sample," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Jo-Ting Huang-Lachmann & Edeltraud Guenther, 2020. "From Dichotomy to an Integrated Approach: Cities’ Benefits of Integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-17, September.
    6. Rojalin Pradhan & Mahim Sagar & Tushar Pandey & Ishwar Prasad, 2019. "Consumer health risk awareness model of RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones and base stations: An exploratory study," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 16(1), pages 125-145, March.
    7. Emilio L. Cano & Javier M. Moguerza & Tatiana Ermolieva & Yurii Yermoliev, 2017. "A strategic decision support system framework for energy-efficient technology investments," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 25(2), pages 249-270, July.
    8. Joost Berkhout & Bernd Heidergott & Jennifer Sommer & Hans Daduna, 2019. "Robustness analysis of generalized Jackson network," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 697-714, October.
    9. Timothy Malloy & Ann Blake & Igor Linkov & Peter Sinsheimer, 2015. "Decisions, Science, and Values: Crafting Regulatory Alternatives Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(12), pages 2137-2151, December.
    10. Tatiana Ermolieva & Petr Havlik & Yuri Ermoliev & Nikolay Khabarov & Michael Obersteiner, 2021. "Robust Management of Systemic Risks and Food-Water-Energy-Environmental Security: Two-Stage Strategic-Adaptive GLOBIOM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:10:p:1844-1857. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.