Addressing the temporal fit of institutions: The regulation of endocrinedisrupting chemicals in europe

Ecology and Society

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2014, Pages

  Rosenschöld, Johan Munckaf ^a   Honkela, Nina ^a   Hukkinen, Janne I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Endocrine disrupting chemicals; Institutional fit; REACH; Temporal fit; Time; Timescape

Indexed keywords

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; EUROPEAN UNION; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK;

EUROPE;

EID: 84924426451     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17083087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5751/ES-07033-190430     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Adam, B. 1998. Timescapes of modernity: the environment and invisible hazards. Routledge, London, UK.
2. Adam, B. 2000. The temporal gaze: the challenge for social theory in the context of GM food. British Journal of Sociology 51 (1):125-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00125.x
3. Adam, B 2004. Time. Polity, Cambridge, UK.
4. Ahtiainen, J., and E. Väänänen. 2012. Regulatory safety assessment of nanomaterials: Are we facing the same challenges as the regulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals? TemaNord 2012:515. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark. [online] URL: http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:701594/FULLTEXT01.pdf
5. Ancona, D., and C. Chong. 1996. Entrainment: pace, cycle, and rhythm in organizational behavior. Pages 251-284 in B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings, editors. Research in organizational behavior. Vol 18. JAI Press, Greenwhich, Connecticut, USA.
6. Brewer, P. R., and B. L. Ley. 2014. Contested evidence: exposure to competing scientific claims and public support for banning bisphenol A. Public Understanding of Science 23(4):395-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662512449993
7. Brown, V A., J. A. Harris, and J. Y. Russell. 2010. Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan, London, UK.
8. Colborn, T., D. Dumanoski, and J. P. Myers. 1996. Our stolen future: are we threatening our fertility, intelligence, and survival? A scientific detective story. Little, Brown and Company, London, UK.
9. Council of the European Union. 2009. Council conclusions on combination effects of chemicals. 2988th ENVIRONMENT Council meeting. Council of the European Union, Brussels, Belgium. [online] URL: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/envir/112043.pdf
10. Danish Ministry of the Environment. 2011. Establishment of criteria for endocrine disruptors and options for regulation. J.nr. MST-621-00011, 17 May 2011.
11. Danish Ministry of the Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark. [online] URL: http://mst.dk/media/mst/9106718/danskeforslag.pdf
12. DE-UK. 2011. Joint DE-UK position paper. Regulatory definition of an endocrine disrupter in relation to potential threat to human health. Bundesinstitut for Risikobewertung, Berlin, Germany. [online] URL: http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/343/regulatory_definition_of_an_endocrine_disrupter_in_relation_to_potential_threat_to_human_health.pdf
13. European Commission (EC). 1999. Community strategy for endocrine disruptors-a range of substances suspected of interfering with the hormone systems of humans and wildlife. COM(1999)706. [online] URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:51999DC0706&from=EN
14. European Union (EU). 2006. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). EU, Brussels, Belgium. [online] URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:396:0001:0849:EN:PDF
15. European Union (EU). 2009. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. EU, Brussels, Belgium. [online] URL: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:309:0001:0050:EN:PDF
16. Farrell, K. N., and A. Thiel, editors. 2014. Nudging evolution? Critical exploration of the potential and limitations of the concept of institutional fit for the study and adaptive management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society Special Feature 70. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/view.php?sf=70
17. Folke, C, L. Pritchard Jr., F. Berkes, J. Colding, and U. Svedin. 2007. The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecology and Society 12(1): 30. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art30/
18. Frodeman, R. 2011. Interdisciplinary research and academic sustainability: managing knowledge in an age of accountability. Environmental Conservation 38(2):105-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000038
19. Galaz, V, P. Olsson, T. Hahn, C. Folke, and U. Svedin. 2008. The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: insights and emerging challenges. Pages 147-186 in O. Young, L. A. King, and H. Schroeder, editors. Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262240574.003.0005
20. Hansen, S F., L. Carlsen, and J. A. Tickner. 2007. Chemicals regulation and precaution: does REACH really incorporate the precautionary principle. Environmental Science & Policy 10 (5):395-404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.01.001
21. Hecker, M, and H. Hollert. 2011. Endocrine disruptor screening: regulatory perspectives and needs. Environmental Sciences Europe 23:15. [online] URL: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2190-4715-23-15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-23-15
22. Held, M 2001. Sustainable development from a temporal perspective. Time & Society 10(2/3):351-366.
23. Honkela, N, A. Toikka, J. Hukkinen, and T. Honkela. 2014. Coming to grips with scientific ignorance in the governance of endocrine disrupting chemicals and nanoparticles. Environmental Science & Policy 38:154-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.11.006
24. Hukkinen, J 2008. Sustainability networks: cognitive tools from expert collaboration in social-ecological systems. Routledge, London, UK.
25. Hukkinen, J., E. Roe, and G. I. Rochlin. 1990. A salt on the land: a narrative analysis of the controversy over irrigation-related salinity and toxicity in California’s San Joaquin valley. Policy Sciences 23(4):307-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00141324
26. Huutoniemi, K, and P. Tapio, editors. 2014. Transdisciplinary sustainability studies: a heuristic approach. Routledge, London, UK.
27. Hyötyläinen, T., and M.-L. Riekkola. 2007. Potential of effectual extraction techniques and novel analytical systems in profiling of marine environment. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 26 (8):788-808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2007.06.007
28. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). 1999. Principles of environmental impact assessment best practice. IAIA, Fargo, North Dakota, USA. [online] URL: http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/Principles%20of%20IA_web.pdf
29. International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 2002. Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disruptors. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland [online] URL: http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/new_issues/endocrine_disruptors/en/
30. Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
31. Jay, S., C. Jones, P. Slinn, and C. Wood. 2007. Environmental impact assessment: retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27(4):287-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.001
32. Kortenkamp, A, O. Martin, M. Faust, R. Evans, R. McKinlay, F. Orton, and E. Rosivatz. 2011. State of the art assessment of endocrine disrupters: final report. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. [online] URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/endocrine/pdf/sota_edc_final_report.pdf
33. Krimsky, S. 2000. Hormonal chaos: the scientific and social origins of the environmental endocrine hypothesis. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
34. Krysiak-Baltyn, K., J. Toppari, N. E. Skakkebaek, T. S. Jensen, H. E. Virtanen, K.-W. Schramm, H. Shen, T. Vartiainen, H. Kiviranta, O. Taboureau, K. Audouze, S. Brunak, and K. M. Main. 2012. Association between chemical pattern in breast milk and congenital cryptorchidism: modelling of complex human exposures. International Journal of Andrology 35(3):294-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2012.01268.x
35. Martín de la Torre, V. 2014. S&Ds strongly criticise the Commission for delaying action on endocrine disruptors. Socialists & Democrats, 23 January. [online] URL: http://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/sds-strongly-criticise-commissiondelaying-action-endocrine-disruptors
36. Ostrom, E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(39):15181-15187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104
37. Paavola, J, A. Gouldson, and T. Kluvánková-Oravská. 2009. Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Governance 19(3):148-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eet.505
38. Pérez-Nordtvedt, L., G. T. Payne, J. C. Short, and B. L. Kedia. 2008. An entrainment-based model of temporal organizational fit, misfit, and performance. Organization Science 19(5):785-801. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0330
39. Renn, O 2008. Risk governance. Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, London, UK.
40. Rittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2):155-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
41. Rozema, J G., A. J. Bond, M. Cashmore, and J. Chilvers. 2012. An investigation of environmental and sustainability discourses associated with the substantive purposes of environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 33 (1):80-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.11.003
42. Runhaar, H, P. R. Runhaar, and T. Oegema. 2010. Food for thought: conditions for discourse reflection in the light of environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30(6):339-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.12.001
43. Saarikoski, H 2000. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as collaborative learning process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20(6):681-700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00) 00059-7
44. Scheffer, M, F. Westley, and W. Brock. 2003. Slow response of societies to new problems: causes and costs. Ecosystems 6 (5):493-502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/PL00021504
45. Scott, W R. 2001. Institutions and organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
46. Silverman, D. 2004. Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. Sage, London, UK.
47. Soto, A. M., B. S. Rubin, and C. Sonnenschein. 2009. Interpreting endocrine disruption from an integrative biology perspective. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 304(1-2):3-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2009.02.020
48. Stirling, A, and D. Gee. 2002. Science, precaution and practice. Public Health Reports 117(6):521-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3549(04)50197-8
49. Tørsløv, J, T. Slothus, and S. Christiansen. 2011a. Endocrine disrupters-developing criteria. TemaNord 2011:536. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark. [online] URL: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:701544/FULLTEXT01.pdf
50. Tørsløv, J., T. Slothus, and S. Christiansen. 2011b. Endocrine disrupters-combination effects. TemaNord 2011:537. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark. [online] URL: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:701545/FULLTEXT01.pdf
51. Vogel, J. M. 2004. Tunnel vision: the regulation of endocrine disrupters. Policy Sciences 37(3-4):277-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-005-1764-0
52. Wandel, J, and G. P. Marchildon. 2010. Institutional fit and interplay in a dryland agricultural social-ecological system in Alberta, Canada. Pages 179-195 in D. Armitage and R. Plummer, editors. Adaptive capacity and environmental governance. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12194-4_9
53. Wilkins, H 2003. The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23(4):401-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00044-1
54. Young, O R. 2008. Institutions and environmental change: the scientific legacy of a decade of IDGEC research. Pages 3-45 in O. Young, L. A. King, and H. Schroeder, editors. Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262240574.003.0001
55. Young, O, and A. Underdal. 1997. Institutional dimensions of global change. IHDP Scoping Report, International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, Bonn, Germany.