Skip to main content
Log in

Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyzes the prospects for introducing the precautionary principle in water protection policy. In situations where a problem enters the political agenda and scientific uncertainties remain about causes or effects, political actors can justify state intervention based on the precautionary principle. It allows for public action even if risks related to the problem remain unclear. While the precautionary principle is widely applied in health and environmental policy fields all over the world, the mechanisms leading to its adoption are not fully understood. To close this gap, the paper investigates decision-makers preferences for the precautionary principle and further asks: Which factors promote political actors’ preferences for precautionary policy measures? In order to answer this question we study the case of emerging micropollutants—a water quality issue that recently entered political agendas, where many uncertainties remain about sources and effects. We rely on data gathered through a standardized survey among the political elite in Switzerland, which represents one of the first countries that adopted policy measures to reduce micropollutants in water bodies, despite the uncertainties that remain. Results analyzed through a temporal network autocorrelation model reveal that actors embedded in collaborative governance arrangements have the tendency to prefer precautionary action. Certain aspects of policy design, such as problem prioritization and target group membership, also impact the prospects for introducing the precautionary principle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We employ the term “social interactions” as an umbrella term which includes different types of relations between actors such as collaboration, negotiations, advice-seeking, information exchange.

  2. http://www.fischnetz.ch/index_e.htm (last access on August 21, 2017).

  3. http://www.snf.ch/en/researchinFocus/nrp/nrp50-endocrine-disruptors-relevance-to-humans-animals-andecosystems/Pages/default.aspx (last access on August 21, 2017).

  4. Population equivalent of more than 100,000.

  5. Population equivalent of 10,000 to 100,000.

  6. A total of 12 actors reported having a common position or not having participated enough to respond to the survey questions; another six actors (i.e., federal agencies who must formally partake in consultations internal to the government, but who do not necessarily have a stake in the issue of aquatic micropollutants) only partly responded to the survey; three actors did not reply.

References

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, M. S. (2001). Economic instruments and clean water: Why institutions and policy design matter. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in american politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickerstaff, K., & Walker, G. (2001). Public understandings of air pollution: The ‘localisation’ of environmental risk. Global Environmental Change, 11(2), 133–145. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00063-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt-Holm, P., Peter, A., & Segner, H. (2002). Decline of fish catch in Switzerland Project Fishnet: A balance between analysis and synthesis. Aquatic Sciences, 64(1), 36-54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policymaking. London: Palgrave McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, B., Pang, T., Lin, V., Puska, P., Sherman, G., Goddard, M., et al. (2005). Can scientists and policy makers work together? Journal of Epistemic Community and Health, 59, 632–637. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.031765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christoforou, T. (2003). The precautionary principle and democratizing expertise: A European legal perspective. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 205–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christoforou, T. (2004). The regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union: The interplay of science, law and politics. Common Market Law Review, 41(3), 637–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleven, C. D., Howard, A. S., Little, J. L., & Yu, K. (2013). Identifying “known unknowns” in commercial products by mass spectrometry. LCGC Chromatography Online, 31(2), 114–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crona, B., & Parker, J. (2012). Learning in support of governance: Theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culpepper, P. D. (2011). Quiet politics and business power. Corporate control in Europe and Japan (Cambridge studies in comparative politics). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daughton, C. G. (2004). Non-regulated water contaminants: Emerging research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(7–8), 711–732. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dermont, C., Ingold, K., Kammermann, L., & Stadelmann-Steffen, I. (2017). Bringing the policy making perspective in: A political science approach to social acceptance. Energy Policy, 108, 359–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907–1912. doi:10.1126/science.1091015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doris, D. (2007). Voluntary approaches to environmental problems: Exploring the rise of nontraditional public policy. Policy Studies Journal, 35(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC. (2000). Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle COM (2000) 1 final. Brussels: European Commission.

  • Edelenbos, J., van Buuren, A., & van Schie, N. (2011). Co-producing knowledge: Joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 675–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M. (2014). Coalition structures and policy change in a consensus democracy. Policy Studies Journal, 42(3), 344–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M., & Leifeld, P. (2015). Policy forums as intermediary institutions: Why do they exist and what are they good for? Policy Sciences, 48(3), 363–382. doi:10.1007/s11077-015-9224-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. (2002). Precaution, precaution everywhere: Developing a “common understanding” of the precautionary principle in the European Union. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 9(1), 7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzen, A., & Vogl, D. (2013). Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1001–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1993). The emergence of post-normal science. In R. von Schomberg (Ed.), Science, politics and morality: Scientific uncertainty and decision-making. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goggin, M., Bowman, A., Lester, J., & O’Toole, L. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Götz, C., Kase, R., & Hollender, J. (2010). Mikroverunreinigungen—Beurteilungskonzept für organische Spurenstoffe aus kommunalem Abwasser. Studie im Autrag des BAFU. Dübendorf: Eawag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, A. D. (2011). Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollender, J., Singer, H., & McArdell, C. (2008). Polar organic micropollutants in the water cycle. In P. Hlavinek, O. Bonacci, J. Marsalek, & I. Mahrikova (Eds.), Dangerous pollutants (xenobiotics) in urban water cycle (pp. 103–116). Dodrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Science, 42, 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICES. (1993). Report of the working group on methods of fish stock assessment. Copenhagen: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2003). Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue. Deliberative policy analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B., & Baumgartner, F. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. (2001). The precautionary principle in the European Union. In T. O’Riordan, J. Cameron, & A. Jordan (Eds.), Reinterpreting the precautionary principle (pp. 143–162). London: Cameron May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2002). A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Analysis, 22(6), 1071–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoepfel, P., & Bättig, C. (2007). Environmental policy analyses: Learning from the Past for the future—25 Years of research. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D. (1994). Networks of elite structure and decision making. In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 274–295). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D., Pappi, F. U., Broadbent, J., & Tsujinaka, Y. (1996). Comparing policy networks. Labor politics in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koppenjan, J. F. M., & Klijn, E.-H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks: A network approach to problem solving and decision making. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., & Varone, F. (2005). The choice of policy instruments: Confronting the deductive and the interactive approaches. In F. P. Eliadis, M. M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government. From instruments to governance (pp. 106–131). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E., Marsden, P., & Prensky, D. (1983). The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In R. Burt & M. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analysis: A methodological introduction. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, W., Neil, P., & Sabatier, P. (2002). Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied in watershed management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(4), 645–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, W., Weible, C., Vince, S., Siddiki, S., & Calanni, J. (2014). Fostering learning through collaboration: Knowledge acquisition and belief change in marine aquaculture partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 591–622. doi:10.1093/jopart/mut011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leifeld, P., & Cranmer, S. (2016). TNAM: Temporal network autocorrelation models. R Package Version 1.6.2. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tnam/index.html.

  • Lubell, M. (2004). Collaborative environmental institutions: All talk and no action? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3), 549–573. doi:10.1002/pam.20026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manson, N. A. (2002). Formulating the precautionary principle. Environmental Ethics, 24(3), 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R. (1979). Public bureaucracies and policy implementation. International Social Science Journal, 31(4), 633–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz, F., & Fischer, M. (2016). Policy diffusion in the context of international river basin management. Environmental Policy and Governance, 26(4), 257–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, F., & Ingold, K. (2014). Sustainable wastewater management: Is it possible to regulate micropollution in the future by learning from the past? A policy analysis. Sustainability, 6(4), 1992–2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. (2000). Defining the precautionary principle. In J. Morris (Ed.), Rethinking risk and the precautionary principle (pp. 1–21). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, M. S. (2011). Polar organic micro-pollutants in the River Rhine: Multi-compound screening and mass flux studies of selected substances. Berlin: Eawag, Technische Universität Berlin Dübendorf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, N. J., & Raffensperger, C. (2006). Precautionary tools for reshaping environmental policy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. (2004). Policy goals, public rhetoric, and political attitudes. Journal of Politics, 66(2), 581–605. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00165.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, T., & Cameron, J. (1994). Interpreting the precautionary principle. Abingdon-on-Thames: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, L. J. (2000). Research on policy implementation: assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 263–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2013). Global private regimes, domestic public law: ISO 14001 and pollution reduction. Comparative Political Studies, 47(3), 369–394. doi:10.1177/0010414013509573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.1.2 ed.). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2003). Is the precautionary principle unscientific? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 34, 329–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2004). The precautionary principle and medical decision making. Journal of Medicine and Philisophy, 29(3), 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, S., & Ternes, T. (2011). Water analysis: Emerging contaminants and current issues. Analytical Chemistry, 83(12), 4614–4648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. doi:10.1038/461472a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 5(5), 889–907. doi:10.1080/10807039991289185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenbach, R., Escher, B., Fenner, K., Hofstetter, T., Johnson, A., Von Gunten, U., et al. (2006). The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science, 313(5790), 1072–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, T. (2015). Does collaboration make any difference? Linking collaborative governance to environmental outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(3), 537–566. doi:10.1002/pam.21836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J., & Vos, E. (2002). The juridification of uncertainty: Observations on the ambivalence of the precautionary principle within the EU and the WTO. In C. Joerges & R. Dehousse (Eds.), Good governance in Europe’s integrated market (pp. 253–286). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP. (1992). 1992 Rio declaration on environment and development. In U. N. E. Programme (Ed.), UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I). Rio de Janeiro: UNEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Asselt, M., & Vos, E. (2006). The precautionary principle and the uncertainty paradox. Journal of Risk Research, 9(4), 313–336. doi:10.1080/13669870500175063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, J. (2004). Tunnel vision: The regulation of endocrine disruptors. Policy Sciences, 37, 277–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von der Ohe, P. C., Dulio, V., Slobodnik, J., Deckere, E. D., Kühne, R., Ebert, R.-U., et al. (2011). A new risk assessment approach for the prioritization of 500 classical and emerging organic microcontaminants as potential river basin specific pollutants under the European Water Framework Directive. Science of the Total Environment, 409(11), 2064–2077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J.-P., Smith, A., & Grin, J. (2009). Designing long-term policy: Rethinking transition management. Policy Sciences, 42, 275–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2009). Coalitions, science, and belief change: Comparing adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 37(2), 195–212. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00310.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, J., & Rogers, M. (2002). Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of Risk Research Policy, 5(4), 317–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was suppported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The authors would like to thank Laurence Brandenberger for her advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florence Metz.

Appendix: Actor list

Appendix: Actor list

Full name

Type of actor

Swiss Association for Agricultural Development and Rural Areas

Science, laboratories, consulting

Western Swiss Association for Water and Air Protection

Environmental association

Federal Office for the Environment, Department of Air Protection and Chemicals

National-level state actor

Federal Office for the Environment, Department for Water

National-level state actor

Federal Office for Health

National-level state actor

Federal Office for Agriculture

National-level state actor

BMG Engineering AG

Science, laboratories, consulting

Conference of Cantonal Directors of Construction, Planning and Environmental Protection

Cantonal-level state actor

Cercl’eau

Cantonal-level state actor

Christian Democratic People’s Party

Political party

Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology

Science, laboratories, consulting

Economiesuisse

Trade association

Sewage Treatment Plants in Large Cities Initiative

Municipalities, cities, water or wastewater association

Free Democratic Party. The Liberals

Political party

University of Applied Sciences of North-West Switzerland

Science, laboratories, consulting

Swiss Fishery Association

Environmental association

Swiss Green Party

Political party

Western Swiss Group of Sewage Treatment Plants Operators

Municipalities, cities, water or wastewater association.

Basel Chamber of Commerce

Trade association

Hunziker-Betatech

Science, laboratories, consulting

Scienceindustries

Trade association

Consumer Forum

Consumer association

Communal Infrastructure

Municipalities, cities, water or wastewater association

Conference of Heads of Cantonal Offices for Environmental Protection

Cantonal-level state actor

Competence Network of Cantonal Laboratories for Water and Environmental Protection

Cantonal-level state actor

Ecotox Centre

Science, laboratories, consulting

Pro Natura

Environmental association

Swiss Farmers’ Association

Trade association

Swiss Trade Association

Trade association

Swiss Cosmetics and Detergent Association

Trade association

Swiss Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Industry Association

Trade association

Swiss Social Democratic Party

Political party

Swiss Gas and Water Industry Association

Municipalities, cities, water or wastewater association

Swiss People’s Party

Political party

University of Basel

Science, laboratories, consulting

University of Lausanne

Science, laboratories, consulting

National Council’s Committee on the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy

Legislature

Council of State’s Committee on the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy

Legislature

Association of Cantonal Chemists of Switzerland

Cantonal-level state actor

Swiss Water Association

Municipalities, cities, water or wastewater association

World Wide Fund For Nature Switzerland

Environmental association

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Metz, F., Ingold, K. Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy. Policy Sci 50, 721–743 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9295-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9295-z

Keywords

Navigation