Search

Strategic risk appraisal (SRA) has been applied to compare diverse policy level risks to and from the environment in England and Wales. Its application has relied on expert-informed assessments of the potential consequences from residual risks that attract policy attention at the national scale. Here we compare consequence assessments, across environmental, economic and social impact categories that draw on ‘expert’- and ‘literature-based’ analyses of the evidence for 12 public risks appraised by Government. For environmental consequences there is reasonable agreement between the two sources of assessment, with expert-informed assessments providing a narrower dispersion of impact severity and with median values similar in scale to those produced by an analysis of the literature. The situation is more complex for economic consequences, with a greater spread in the median values, less consistency between the two assessment types and a shift toward higher severity values across the risk portfolio. For social consequences, the spread of severity values is greater still, with no consistent trend between the severities of impact expressed by the two types of assessment. For the latter, the findings suggest the need for a fuller representation of socioeconomic expertise in SRA and the workshops that inform SRA output. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Government institutions have responsibilities to distribute risk management funds meaningfully and to be accountable for their choices. We took a macro-level sociological approach to understanding the role of government in managing environmental risks, and insights from micro-level psychology to examine individual-level risk-related perceptions and beliefs. Survey data from 2,068 U.K. citizens showed that lay people's funding preferences were associated positively with beliefs about responsibility and trust, yet associations with perception varied depending on risk type. Moreover, there were risk-specific differences in the funding preferences of the lay sample and 29 policymakers. A laboratory-based study of 109 participants examined funding allocation in more detail through iterative presentation of expert information. Quantitative and qualitative data revealed a meso-level framework comprising three types of decisionmakers who varied in their willingness to change funding allocation preferences following expert information: adaptors, responders, and resistors. This research highlights the relevance of integrated theoretical approaches to understanding the policy process, and the benefits of reflexive dialogue to managing environmental risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT There is a lack of evidence on regulatory effectiveness available to support policy makers with the selection of appropriate instruments to deliver better environmental regulation. We identify the types of evidence required to enable regulatory reform, characterize evidence gaps, and explore how these may be filled through future research. A typology of regulatory instruments is presented, and evidence of what has worked when and why is examined, drawing on international experience and recent cases from the United Kingdom (UK). Evidence of the capabilities of good environmental regulators for regulatory effectiveness is lacking, and it is proposed that ethnographic research that captures the nuances of regulatory practice will prove necessary to address this. This paper is of value to policy makers and regulators around the world considering the selection and deployment of the full range of environmental regulatory instruments to respond to environmental risks and in support of economic growth. It can inform the selection of suitable approaches and the design of institutions capable of delivering them. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image Highlights • 14 interviews with policy officials re-analysed instrument selection and environmental risk. • Positive, negative and neutral framings illustrated how instruments were perceived. • Low overlap between instrument category and risk significance suggests other influences in play. • Improved knowledge exchange is recommended for risk analysis and policy communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]