Supporting decision-making for sustainable nanotechnology

Environment Systems and Decisions

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 54-75

  Malsch, Ineke ^a   Subramanian, Vrishali ^b   Semenzin, Elena ^b   Hristozov, Danail ^b   Marcomini, Antonio ^b  

^a Malsch TechnoValuation   (Netherlands)

^b CA' FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Decision support; Nanomaterials; Risk management; Sustainable manufacturing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925485434     PISSN: 21945403     EISSN: 21945411     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10669-015-9539-4     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Beaudrie CEH et al (2013) Expert views on regulatory preparedness for managing the risks of nanotechnologies. PLoS ONE 8(11):e80250
2. Beaudrie CEH, Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Harthorn BH (2014) Scientists versus regulators: precaution, novelty & regulatory oversight as predictors of perceived risks of engineered nanomaterials. PLoS ONE 9(9):e106365. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106365
3. Bergeson LL (2013) Sustainable nanomaterials: emerging governance systems. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 1:724–730
4. Besley John C, Kramer Victoria L, Priest Susanna H (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10(4):549–558
5. Black P, Stockton T (2009) Basic steps for the development of decision support systems. In: Marcomini A, Suter GW, Critto A (eds) Decision support systems for risk-based management of contaminated sites (Chapter 1). Springer, New York, pp 1–27
6. Bridges TS, Kovacs D, Wood MD, Baker K, Butte G, Thorne S, Linkov I (2013) Climate change risk management: a mental modeling application. Environ Syst Decis 33:376–390
7. Chandrasekharan S, Tovey M (2012) Sum, quorum, tether: design principles underlying external representations that promote sustainability. Pragmat Cogn 20:447–482
8. Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading US nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11(7):1573–1585
9. Dhingra R, Naidu S, Upreti G, Sawhney R (2010) Sustainable nanotechnology: through green methods and life-cycle thinking. Sustainability 2:3323–3338
10. ECETOC report TR93 (2004) Tiered approach to risk assessment in chemical processes, ECETOC, Brussels. http://www.ecetoc.org/
11. Eisenman DP, Cordasco KM, Asch S, Golden JF, Glik D (2007) Disaster planning and risk communication with vulnerable communities: lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Am J Public Health 97:S109–S115
12. Gavankar S, Suh S, Keller AF (2012) Life cycle assessment at nanoscale: review and recommendations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:295–303
13. Hansen SF, Jensen KA, Baun A (2013) NanoRiskCat: a conceptual tool for categorization and communication of exposure potentials and hazards of nanomaterials in consumer products. J Nanopart Res 16:2195
14. Hischier R, Walser T (2012) Life cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: state of the art and strategies to overcome existing gaps. Sci Total Environ 425:271–282
15. Hollan J, Hutchins E, Kirsh D (2000) Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human–computer interaction research. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 7(2):174–196
16. Hristozov DR, Gottardo S, Critto A, Marcomini A (2012) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicology 6:880–898
17. Hutchins E (1995) How a cockpit remembers its speed. Cogn Sci 19:265–288
18. IRGC (2005) White paper on risk governance, towards and integrative approach, International Risk Governance Council. www.irgc.org
19. IRGC (2006) White paper on nanotechnology risk governance, International Risk Governance Council. http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_white_paper_2_PDF_final_version-2.pdf, p 57
20. Jackson D (2013) What is an innovation ecosystem? National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. http://erc-assoc.org/content/what-innovation-ecosystem
21. Jensen KA, Thoustrup Saber A, Vejen Kristensen H, Liguori B, Kalevi Koponen I, Wallin H (2013) NanoSafer vs. 1.1-nanomaterial risk assessment using first order modeling. In: 6th international symposium on nanotechnology, occupational and environmental health, Japan
22. Jones N, Ross H, Lynam T, Perez P, Leitch A (2011) Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecol Soc 16:46
23. Linkov I, Anklam E, Collier ZA, DiMase D, Renn O (2014) Risk-based standards: integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches. Environ Syst Decis 3(1):134–137. doi:10.1007/s10669-014-9488-3
24. Malsch I (2014) Nano-education from a European perspective: nano-training for non-R&D jobs. Nanotechnol Rev. doi:10.1515/ntrev-2013-0039
25. Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (pending publication) Collective decision making on risk management and sustainable manufacturing of nanomaterials and the role of decision support tools. In: Proceedings 5th STS Italia conference “a matter of design”, 12–14 June 2014, Milan
26. McDaniels T, Chang S, Cole D, Mikawoz J, Longstaff H (2008) Fostering resilience to extreme events within infrastructure systems: characterizing decision contexts for mitigation and adaptation. Glob Environ Change 18:310–318
27. Money ES, Reckhow KH, Wiesner MR (2012) The use of Bayesian networks for nanoparticle risk forecasting: model formulation and baseline evaluation. Sci Total Environ. 426:436–445
28. Morgan K (2005) Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Anal 25:1621–1635
29. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ (2002) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press, Boston
30. Mulvihill MJ, Beach ES, Zimmerman JB, Anastas PT (2011) Green chemistry and green engineering: a framework for sustainable technology development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36:271–293
31. Nanofutures (2012) Integrated research and industry roadmap for european nanotechnology, nanofutures. http://nanofutures.info/documents
32. Nanosafety Cluster (2013) European nanosafety cluster compendium of projects 2013 (online document). http://www.nanosafetycluster.eu/. Last accessed 29 July 2014
33. Nanowerk (2014) Nanotechnology company & research labs directory (online database). http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/research/nanotechnology_links.php. Last accessed 29 July 2014
34. Nersessian NJ, Newstetter WC, Kurz-Milcke E, Davies JA (2003) Mixed-method approach to studying distributed cognition in evolving environments. In: Proceedings of the international conference on learning sciences, pp 307–314. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/aimosaic/faculty/nersessian/
35. ObservatoryNano (2011) European nanotechnology landscape report. ObservatoryNano. http://bwcv.es/assets/2011/11/22/European_Nanotechnology_Landscape_Report.pdf
36. Patenaude J, Legault G-A, Beauvais J, Bernier L, Béland J-P, Boissy P, Chenel V, Daniel C-E, Genest J, Poirier M-S, Tapin D (2014) Framework for the analysis of nanotechnologies’ impacts and ethical acceptability: basis of an interdisciplinary approach to assessing novel technologies. Sci Eng Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9543
37. Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Simon and Schuster, New York
38. Rauscher H, Roebben G (eds) (2014) Towards a review of the EC recommendation for a definition of the term “nanomaterial”. Part 1: compilation of information concerning the experience with the definition. JRC scientific and policy report, Ispra
39. REACH Regulation Annex XI, ECHA website: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/regulations/reach
40. Renn O (2008) Risk governance; coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, London
41. Roncoli C (2006) Ethnographic and participatory approaches to research on farmers’ responses to climate predictions. Clim Res 33:81
42. Saling P, Kicherer A, Dittrich-Krämer B, Wittlinger R, Zombik W, Schmidt I, Schrott W, Schmidt S (2002) Eco-efficiency analysis by BASF: the method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:203–218
43. Schulte PA, McKernan LT, Heidel DS, Okun AH, Dotson GS, Lentz TJ, Geraci CL, Heckel PE, Branche CM (2013) Occupational safety and health, green chemistry, and sustainability: a review of areas of convergence. Environ Health 8:9
44. Smits RE, Kuhlmann S, Shapira P (eds) (2010) The theory and practice of innovation policy: an international research handbook. Edward Elgar, Northampton
45. Sterman JD, Sweeney LB (2007) Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Clim Change 80:213–238
46. Stone-Jovicich SS, Lynam T, Leitch A, Jones NA (2011) Using consensus analysis to assess mental models about water use and management in the Crocodile River catchment, South Africa. Ecol Soc 16:45
47. Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2014a) Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today 9:6–9
48. Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2014b) Review of decision analytic tools for sustainable nanotechnology. Environ Syst Decis. doi:10.1007/s10669-015-9541-x
49. Tervonen T, Linkov I, Figueira J, Steevens J, Chappell M, Merad M (2009) Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 11:757–766
50. Van Duuren-Stuurman B, Vink SR, Verbist KJ, Heussen HG, Brouwer DH, Kroese DE, Tielemans E, Fransman W (2012) Stoffenmanager nano version 1.0: a web-based tool for risk prioritization of airborne manufactured nano objects. Ann Occup Hyg 56(5):525–541
51. Van Veen MP (2001) Consexpo 3, consumer exposure and uptake models. RIVM report, 612810
52. Vermeire T, Jager D, Bussian B, Devillers J, Den Haan K, Hansen B, Lundberg I, Niessen H, Robertson S, Tyle H (1997) European union system for the evaluation of substances (EUSES). Principles and structure. Chemosphere 34:1823–1836
53. Wood MD, Bostrom A, Bridges T, Linkov I (2012a) Cognitive mapping tools: review and risk management needs. Risk Anal 32(8):1333–1348
54. Wood M, Kovacs D, Bostrom A, Bridges T, Linkov I (2012b) Flood risk management: US Army Corps of Engineers and layperson perceptions. Risk Anal 32:1349–1368