4.7 Article

Better by design: Rethinking interventions for better environmental regulation

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 447, Issue -, Pages 488-499

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.12.073

Keywords

Environment; Regulation; Risk; Instrument selection; Policy innovation

Funding

  1. Defra's Better Regulation Team [BR0101]
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
  3. Defra
  4. EPSRC
  5. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
  6. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) [EP/G022682/1]
  7. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/G022682/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. EPSRC [EP/G022682/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Better regulation seeks to extend existing policy and regulatory outcomes at less burden for the actors involved. No single intervention will deliver all environmental outcomes. There is a paucity of evidence on what works why, when and with whom. We examine how a sample (n=33) of policy makers select policy and regulatory instruments, through a case study of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), UK. Policy makers have a wide range of instruments at their disposal and are seeking ways to harness the influence of non-governmental resources to encourage good environmental behaviour. The relevance of each influence varies as risk and industry characteristics vary between policy areas. A recent typology of policy and regulatory instruments has been refined. Direct regulation is considered necessary in many areas, to reduce environmental risks with confidence and to tackle poor environmental performance. Co-regulatory approaches may provide important advantages to help accommodate uncertainty for emerging policy problems, providing a mechanism to develop trusted evidence and to refine objectives as problems are better understood. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available