Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T02:19:27.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extended Peer Evaluation of an Analytical Deliberative Decision Support Procedure in Environmental Health Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Hans Keune ,
Gudrun Koppen ,
Bert Morrens ,
Ann Colles ,
Johan Springael ,
Ilse Loots ,
Caroline Teughels ,
Hana Chovanova  and
Karen Van Campenhout
Hans Keune
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium
Gudrun Koppen
Affiliation:
Environmental Toxicology, Flemish Institute of Technological Research, Mol, Belgium
Bert Morrens
Affiliation:
Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Ann Colles
Affiliation:
Environmental Toxicology, Flemish Institute of Technological Research, Mol, Belgium
Johan Springael
Affiliation:
Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Ilse Loots
Affiliation:
Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Caroline Teughels
Affiliation:
Envrionment & Health, Felmish Government, Environment, Nature and Energy Department
Hana Chovanova
Affiliation:
Flemish Agency for Care and Health, Division of Public Health Surveillance
Karen Van Campenhout
Affiliation:
Envrionment & Health, Felmish Government, Environment, Nature and Energy Department
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How can we assess the quality of an analytical deliberative decision support procedure in environmental health practice? Objectifying quality criteria is difficult for several reasons. Opening up evaluation to a diversity of critics is one approach to take into account different actor perspectives and complexity. We describe how social scientists organized extended peer evaluation of a participatory multi-criteria procedure that was applied in Flemish environmental health practice. International peer review was combined with local extended peer evaluation. Social scientists collaborated closely with natural scientists and policy representatives in designing several evaluative activities and in interpreting the results.We discuss how these different perspectives came to reach conclusions, with a special focus on methodological decision-making. A process of learning by doing and negotiating, finding a methodological path amidst practicalities, complexity and ambition.

Type
Symposium on the use of Social Sciences in Risk Assessment and Risk Management Organisations in Europe and North America
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 25 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lindblom, C. E. and Cohen, D. K., Usable Knowledge: SocialScience and Social Problem Solving (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Rosenhead, J. (ed.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity,Uncertainty and Conflict (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 1989)Google Scholar; Weiss, C. H., “Policy Research: Data, Ideas, or Arguments?” In: Wagner, P., Weiss, C. H., Wittrock, B., Wollmann, H. (eds.), Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiments and Theoretical Crossroads (Cambridge: CUP, 1991), pp. 307–332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marakas, G. M., Decision Support Systems in the 21st Century (New Jersey: Prentice Hall Pearson Education, 1999)Google Scholar; Belton, V. and Stewart, T., Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Wang, J., Jing, Y., Zhang, C., Zhao, J., “Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making”, 13 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2009), pp. 2263–2278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at <doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021> (last accessed on 16 January 2014).

3 Funtowicz, S.O., Martinez-Aler, J., Munda, G. and Ravetz, J.R., “Information Tools for Environmental Policy under Conditions of Complexity”, 9 Environmental Issues Series (1999), European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.Google Scholar

4 P. Cilliers, “Knowledge, limits and boundaries”, 37 Futures (2005), pp.605–613.

5 Stern, P.C. and Fineberg, H.V. (eds.), Understanding Risk: Information Decisions in a Democratic Society (Washington DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1995).Google Scholar

6 Renn, O., “Participatory processes for designing environmental policies”, 23 Land use Policy (2006), pp. 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Renn, O., “Social amplification of risk in participation: two case studies”, in Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R.E. and Slovic, P. (eds.) TheSocial Amplification of Risk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Renn, O., “Participatory processes for designing environmental policies”, 23 Land use Policy (2006), pp. 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Funtowicz, S.O., Martinez-Aler, J., Munda, G. and Ravetz, J.R. (1999) Information Tools for Environmental Policy under Conditions of Complexity, Environmental Issues Series 9, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen; Pereira G. and Funtowicz S. O.: Knowledge representation and mediation for transdisciplinary frameworks: tools to inform debates, dialogues & deliberations. International Journal of Transdisciplinary Research 2006, Vol. 1, No. 1, Pages 34–50.

9 Schoeters, G., Den Hond, E., Colles, A., Loots, I. et al., “Concept of the Flemish human biomonitoring programme”, 215 International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health (2012), pp. 102–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10 Bilau, M., Matthys, C., Baeyens, W., et al., on behalf of the Flemish Center of Expertise for Environment and Health (2008), “Dietary exposure to dioxin-like compounds in three age groups. Results from the Flemish Environment and Health study”, 70(4) Chemosphere (2008), pp. 584–592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schroijen, C., Baeyens, W., Schoeters, G. et al., “Internal exposure to pollutants measured in blood and urine of Flemish adolescents in function of area of residence”, 71(7) Chemosphere (2009), p.1317–1325 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11 Keune, H., Loots, I., Bruckers, L., et al., “Monitoring environment, health and perception: an experimental survey on health and environment in Flanders, Belgium”, 8(1/2) International journal of global environmental issues (2008), pp. 90–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Schoeters, G., Den Hond, E., Colles, A., et al,”Concept of the Flemish human biomonitoring programme”, 215 InternationalJournal of Hygiene and Environmental Health (2012), pp. 102–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13 Koppen, G., Keune H., H. and Casteleyn, L., Action plan Biomonitoring results (Centre of Expertise for Environment and Health, 2005) (in Dutch).Google Scholar

14 Keune H., H., Morrens B., B., Springael J., J. et al., “Policy interpretation of human biomonitoring research results in Belgium; priorities and complexity, politics and science”, 19 Env. Pol. Gov. (2009), pp. 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Keune, H., Koppen, G., Morrens, B. et al., Proces-evaluaie faseplanmilieu & gezondheid (Antwerp, 2010) (In Dutch).Google Scholar

16 Keune H., H., Morrens B., B., Springael J., J. et al., “Policy interpretation of human biomonitoring research results in Belgium; priorities and complexity, politics and science”, 19 Env. Pol. Gov. (2009), pp. 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Keune, H., Loots, I., Bruckers, L., et al., “Monitoring environment, health and perception: an experimental survey on health and environment in Flanders, Belgium”, 8(1/2) International journal of global environmental issues (2008), pp. 90–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Keune, H., Morrens, B., Croes, K. et al., “Open the research agenda: participatory selection of hot spots for human biomonitoring research in Belgium”, 9 Environmental Health (2010), p. 33 et sqq, doi:10.1186/1476-069X-9-33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

19 Normally a Delphi round consists of minimally two rounds: allowing the feedback of a synthesis of individual inputs to the group, and thus allowing both social learning and potentially richer and more consensual outcomes; see e.g. Slocum, N. Participatory Methods Toolkit, A practitioner's manual (Burssels: viWTA and King Baudouin Foundation Belgium, 2003).Google Scholar

20 Keune, H., Morrens, B., Croes, K. et al., “Open the research agenda: participatory selection of hot spots for human biomonitoring research in Belgium”, 9 Environmental Health (2010), p. 33 et sqq, doi:10.1186/1476-069X-9-33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

21 Renn, O. and Schweizer, P., “Inclusive risk governance: concepts and application to environmental policy making”, 19(3) Environmental Policy and Governance (2009), pp. 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Rowe, G., Marsh, R., Frewer, L.J., “Evaluation of a deliberative conference”, 29(1) Science, Technology, and Human Values (2004), pp. 88–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Rauschmayer, F., Berghöfer, A., Omann, I. and Zikos, D., “Examining processes or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources”, 19(3) Environmental Policy and Governance (2009), pp. 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Cullen, A.E., Coryn, C.L.S., “Forms and Functions of Participatory Evaluation in International Development: A Review of the Empirical and Theoretical Literature”, 7(16) Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation (2011), pp. 32–47.Google Scholar

25 Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. and Dillon, L., Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. A Quality Framework (London: Cabinet Office, National Centre for Social Research, UK Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, 2003).Google Scholar