IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v35y2015i12p2137-2151.html

Decisions, Science, and Values: Crafting Regulatory Alternatives Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy Malloy
  • Ann Blake
  • Igor Linkov
  • Peter Sinsheimer

Abstract

Emerging “prevention‐based” approaches to chemical regulation seek to minimize the use of toxic chemicals by mandating or directly incentivizing the adoption of viable safer alternative chemicals or processes. California and Maine are beginning to implement such programs, requiring manufacturers of consumer products containing certain chemicals of concern to identify and evaluate potential safer alternatives. In the European Union, the REACH program imposes similar obligations on manufacturers of certain substances of very high concern. Effective prevention‐based regulation requires regulatory alternatives analysis (RAA), a methodology for comparing and evaluating the regulated chemical or process and its alternatives across a range of relevant criteria. RAA has both public and private dimensions. To a significant degree, alternatives analysis is an aspect of product design; that is, the process by which private industry designs the goods it sells. Accordingly, an RAA method should reflect the attributes of well‐crafted product design tools used by businesses. But RAA adds health and environmental objectives to the mix of concerns taken into account by the product designer. Moreover, as part of a prevention‐based regulatory regime, it implicates important public values such as legitimacy, equity, public engagement, and accountability. Thus, an RAA should reflect both private standards and public values, and be evaluated against them. This article adopts that perspective, identifying an integrated set of design principles for RAA, and illustrating the application of those principles.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:12:p:2137-2151
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12466
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12466
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12466?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. Ragnar Lofstedt, 2014. "The substitution principle in chemical regulation: a constructive critique," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 543-564, May.
    2. Adam D.K. Abelkop & John D. Graham, 2014. "Principles and tools of chemical regulation: a comment on 'the substitution principle in chemical regulation: a constructive critique'," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 581-586, May.
    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.
    4. Matthew Adler, "undated". "Against 'Individual Risk': A Sympathetic Critique of Risk Assessment," Scholarship at Penn Law upenn_wps-1013, University of Pennsylvania Law School.
    5. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2011. "An experimental study of the effect of uncertainty representation on decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(2), pages 380-392, October.
    6. Ascough, J.C. & Maier, H.R. & Ravalico, J.K. & Strudley, M.W., 2008. "Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 383-399.
    7. Christina H. Drew & Timothy L. Nyerges, 2004. "Transparency of environmental decision making: a case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 33-71, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Seidl, Rupert & Fernandes, Paulo M. & Fonseca, Teresa F. & Gillet, François & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Merganičová, Katarína & Netherer, Sigrid & Arpaci, Alexander & Bontemps, Jean-Daniel & Bugmann, Hara, 2011. "Modelling natural disturbances in forest ecosystems: a review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(4), pages 903-924.
    2. Ezbakhe, Fatine & Pérez-Foguet, Agustí, 2021. "Decision analysis for sustainable development: The case of renewable energy planning under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 601-613.
    3. J. J. Warmink & M. Brugnach & J. Vinke-de Kruijf & R. M. J. Schielen & D. C. M. Augustijn, 2017. "Coping with Uncertainty in River Management: Challenges and Ways Forward," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(14), pages 4587-4600, November.
    4. Vanwindekens, Frédéric M. & Stilmant, Didier & Baret, Philippe V., 2013. "Development of a broadened cognitive mapping approach for analysing systems of practices in social–ecological systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 352-362.
    5. Hidayatno, Akhmad & Jafino, Bramka Arga & Setiawan, Andri D. & Purwanto, Widodo Wahyu, 2020. "When and why does transition fail? A model-based identification of adoption barriers and policy vulnerabilities for transition to natural gas vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    6. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "A comparison of simplified value function approaches for treating uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 456-464.
    7. 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.
    8. Calder, Ryan S.D. & Shi, Congjie & Mason, Sara A. & Olander, Lydia P. & Borsuk, Mark E., 2019. "Forecasting ecosystem services to guide coastal wetland rehabilitation decisions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    9. Haddad, M. & Sanders, D. & Tewkesbury, G., 2020. "Selecting a discrete multiple criteria decision making method for Boeing to rank four global market regions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.
    10. Torres, Cati & Faccioli, Michela & Riera Font, Antoni, 2017. "Waiting or acting now? The effect on willingness-to-pay of delivering inherent uncertainty information in choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 231-240.
    11. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Unveiling Variability and Uncertainty for Better Science and Decisions on Cancer Risks from Environmental Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1795-1806, October.
    12. Xavier Romão & Esmeralda Paupério, 2016. "A framework to assess quality and uncertainty in disaster loss data," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 83(2), pages 1077-1102, September.
    13. Linda Lilburne & Melissa Robson-Williams & Ned Norton, 2022. "Improving Understanding and Management of Uncertainty in Science-Informed Collaborative Policy Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-23, May.
    14. Schiffels, Sebastian & Jost, Christian, 2026. "The role of scarcity behavior in inventory management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 328(1), pages 78-90.
    15. Marcot, Bruce G., 2012. "Metrics for evaluating performance and uncertainty of Bayesian network models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 50-62.
    16. 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.
    17. Smajgl, Alex & House, Alan P.N. & Butler, James R.A., 2011. "Implications of ecological data constraints for integrated policy and livelihoods modelling: An example from East Kalimantan, Indonesia," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(3), pages 888-896.
    18. Stelzenmüller, Vanessa & Vega Fernández, Tomás & Cronin, Katherine & Röckmann, Christine & Pantazi, Maria & Vanaverbeke, Jan & Stamford, Tammy & Hostens, Kris & Pecceu, Ellen & Degraer, Steven & Buhl-, 2015. "Assessing uncertainty associated with the monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 151-162.
    19. Stefania Santoro & Pasquale Balena & Domenico Camarda, 2020. "Knowledge Models for Spatial Planning: Ecosystem Services Awareness in the New Plan of Bari (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, February.
    20. 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.

    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:35:y:2015:i:12:p:2137-2151. 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.