Comparing Policy Designs in Water Protection: Micropollutants Policies in the Rhine River Riparian States

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Springer Water book series (SPWA)

Abstract

This chapter compares water policies for the reduction of micropollutants in the four Rhine riparian states: Switzerland, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. To evaluate the performance of policies from a problem-solving perspective, the policy comprehensiveness index is introduced here as a new analytical tool. Based on lessons from existing policy instrument literature, six indicators feed into the proposed index. This chapter addresses the methodological questions of index construction and thereby explains how the index can be employed to assess the performance of policies. Finally, micropollutants policies of the four Rhine River riparian states are evaluated and compared by means of the introduced index. Toward this goal, this chapter highlights the broader context: the degree to which micropollutants are of particular concern in the Rhine River, the EU legislative framework on water protection, and the policy processes that led to the adoption of the micropollutants policies in the four countries. The final assessment of policies for the reduction of micropollutants in water reveals that Germany, France, and the Netherlands lag behind the policy innovator of Switzerland. This dichotomy represents a reflection of Swiss policy design effectively contributing to the reduction of micropollutants in surface waters, and therefore, the country’s policy can be considered comprehensive.

Keywords

Policy instruments Policy instrument literature Policy design Index construction Policy comprehensiveness index Policy performance EU water protection policy Micropollutants policies Rhine River riparian states Swiss micropollutants policy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abegglen, C., & Siegrist, H. (2012). Mikroverunreinigungen aus kommunalem Abwasser. Verfahren zur weitergehenden Elimination auf Kläranlagen. Umwelt-Wissen (Vol. 1214, pp. 210). Bern: Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU).Google Scholar
  2. Altmann, D., Schaar, H., Bartel, C., Schorkopf, D. L., Miller, I., Kreuzinger, N., et al. (2012). Impact of ozonation on ecotoxicity and endocrine activity of tertiary treated wastewater effluent. Water Research, 46(11), 3693–3702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arellano-Gault, D., & Vera-Cortés, G. (2005). Institutional design and organisation of the civil protection national system in Mexico: The case for a decentralised and participative policy network. Public Administration and Development, 25(3), 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach, M., & Frede, H.-G. (2012). Trend of herbicide loads in the river Rhine and its tributaries. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 8(3), 543–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BAFU. (2012). Verursachergerechte Finanzierung der Elimination von Spurenstoffen im Abwasser—Änderung des Gewässerschutzgesetzes. Auswertung der Vernehmlassung von April–August 2012. Bern: Bundesamt für Umwelt.Google Scholar
  6. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bercu, J., Parke, N., Fiori, J., & Meyerhoff, R. (2008). Human health risk assessments for three neuropharmaceutical compounds in surface waters. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 50(3), 420–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birkland, T. (2010). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (3rd ed.). Armonk NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  9. Bressers, H. (2004). Implementing sustainable development: How to know what works, where, when and how. In W. Lafferty (Ed.), Governance for sustainable development: The challenge of adapting form to function. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  10. Bressers, H., & Huitema, D. (2000). What the doctor should know: Politicians are special patients. The impact of the policy-making process on the design of economic instruments. In M. S. Andersen, & R.-U. Sprenger (Eds.), Market-based instruments for environmental management (pp. 67–88). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  11. Bressers, H., & O’Toole, L. (1998). The selection of policy instruments: A network-based perspective. Journal of Public Policy, 18(3), 213–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bressers, H., & O’Toole, L. (2005). Instrument selection and implementation in a networked context. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 132–153). Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christopoulos, D., & Ingold, K. (2015). Exceptional or just well connected? Political entrepreneurs and brokers in policy making. European Political Science Review, 7, 475–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke, B., & Smith, S. (2011). Review of ‘emerging’ organic contaminants in biosolids and assessment of international research priorities for the agricultural use of biosolids. Environment International, 37(1), 226–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crawford, S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cunningham, V., Perino, C., D’Aco, V., Hartmann, A., & Bechter, R. (2010). Human health risk assessment of carbamazepine in surface waters of North America and Europe. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 56(3), 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dahl, R., & Lindblom, C. (1953). Politics, Economics and Welfare. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Doern, B., & Phidd, R. (1983). Canadian public policy: Ideas, structure, process (2nd ed.). Michigan: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  20. Doern, B., & Wilks, S. (1998). Changing regulatory institutions in Britain and North America. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dye, T. (1976). Policy analysis: What governments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  22. Edelenbos, J., Van Schie, N., & Gerrits, L. (2010). Organizing interfaces between government institutions and interactive governance. Policy Sciences, 43(1), 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. EEA. (2011). Hazardous substances in Europe’s fresh and marine waters. European Environmental Agency: An overview.Google Scholar
  24. Eliadis, P., Hill, M., & Howlett, M. (2005). Designing government. From instruments to governance. Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Esmark, A. (2009). The functional differentiation of governance: Public governance beyond hierarchy, market, and networks. Public Administration, 87(2), 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M., & Leiber, S. (2005). Complying with Europe: EU Harmonisation and Soft Law in the Member States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fischer, M. (2012). Entscheidungsstrukturen in der Schweizer Politik zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts. Glarus, Chur: Rüegger.Google Scholar
  28. Foster, C., & Plowden, F. (1996). The state under stress: Can the hollow state be good government?. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gälli, R., Ort, C., & Schärer, M. (2009). Mikroverunreinigungen in den Gewässern. Bewertung und Reduktion der Schadstoffbelastung aus der Siedlungsentwässerung. Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 0917. Bern: Bundesamt für Umwelt.Google Scholar
  30. Gibbs, D., Jonas, A., & While, A. (2002). Changing governance structures and the environment: Economy–environment relations at the local and regional scales. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 4(2), 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Götz, C., Abegglen, C., McArdell, C., Koller, M., Siegrist, H., Hollender, J., et al. (2010a). Mikroverunreinigungen. Beurteilung weitergehender Abwasserreinigungsverfahren anhand von Indikatorsubstanzen. GWA Gas, Wasser, Abwasser, 90(4), 325–333.Google Scholar
  32. Götz, C., Kase, R., & Hollender, J. (2010b). Mikroverunreinigungen - Beurteilungskonzept für organische Spurenstoffe aus kommunalem Abwasser. Studie im Autrag des BAFU. Dübendorf: Eawag.Google Scholar
  33. Grabosky, P. (1995). Counterproductive regulation. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 23, 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart regulation: Designing environmental policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1991). Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law and Policy, 21(1), 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gunningham, N., & Young, M. (1997). Toward optimal environmental policy: The case of biodiversity conservation. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24, 243–298.Google Scholar
  37. Hajkowicz, S. (2006). Multi-attributed environmental index construction. Ecological Economics, 57(1), 122–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2009). Implementing public policy: An introduction to the study of operational governance. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance-an International Journal of Policy and Administration, 20(1), 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the “hollow state”: Procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), 412–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Howlett, M. (2004). Beyond good and evil in policy implementation: Instrument mixes, implementation styles, and second generation theories of policy instrument choice. Policy and Society, 23(2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Howlett, M. (2005). What is a policy instrument? Tool, mixes, and implementation styles. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government. from instruments to governance (pp. 31–49). Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Howlett, M. (2011a). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Howlett, M. (2011b). Revisiting policy design: The rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design studies. Paper Presented at the General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), Reykjavik, Iceland, July, 11.Google Scholar
  49. Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Howlett, M., & Giest, S. (2012). The policy-making process. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 17–28). Oxon: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  51. Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Toronto, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009a). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2006). Convergence and divergence in ‘new governance’ arrangements: Evidence from European integrated natural resource strategies. Journal of Public Policy, 26(2), 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Howlett, M., Rayner, J., & Tollefson, C. (2009b). From government to governance in forest planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest initiative. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(5–6), 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hupe, P. (2011). The thesis of incongruent implementation: Revisiting Pressman and Wildavsky. Public Policy and Administration, 26(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hysing, E. (2009). From government to governance? A comparison of environmental governing in swedish forestry and transport. Governance-an International Journal of Policy and Administration, 22(4), 647–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. IAWR. (2007). Position der IAWR und IAWD zu spurenstoffen in den gewässern. International Association of Water Works in the Rhine Basin.Google Scholar
  60. ICPR. (2003). Upstream. Outcome of the Rhine action programme. Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.Google Scholar
  61. ICPR. (2010a). Evaluation report for medicinal products for human use (Vol. Report number 182e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.Google Scholar
  62. ICPR. (2010b). Evaluation report for odoriferous substances (Vol. Report number 194e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.Google Scholar
  63. ICPR. (2010c). Evaluation report on biocidal products and anti-corrosive agents (Vol. Report number 183e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.Google Scholar
  64. ICPR. (2010d). Evaluation report radiocontrast agents. (Vol. Report number 187e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.Google Scholar
  65. ICPR. (2010e). Our common objective: Living waters in the Rhine catchment. Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.Google Scholar
  66. ICPR. (2010f). Strategy for micro-pollutants—Strategy for municipal and industrial wastewater (Vol. Report number 181e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.Google Scholar
  67. ICPR. (2011a). Evaluation report estrogens (Vol. Report number 186e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.Google Scholar
  68. ICPR. (2011b). Report on contamination of fish with pollutants in the catchment area of the rhine ongoing and completed studies in the Rhine states (2000–2010) (Vol. Report number 195e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.Google Scholar
  69. ICPR. (2012a). Evaluation report complexing agents (Vol. Report number 196e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.Google Scholar
  70. ICPR. (2012b). Evaluation report on industrial chemicals (Vol. Report number 202e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.Google Scholar
  71. ICPR. (2012c). Strategy for micro-pollutants integrated assessment of micro-pollutants and measures aimed at reducing inputs of urban and industrial wastewater (Vol. Report number 201e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.Google Scholar
  72. Ingold, K. (2007). The influence of actors’ coalition on policy choice: The case of the Swiss Climate Policy. In T. Friemel (Ed.), Applications of social network analysis. UVK: Constance.Google Scholar
  73. Ingold, K. (2008). Analyse des mécanismes de décision: Le cas de la politique climatique suisse. Zürich and Chur: Rüeggger Verlag.Google Scholar
  74. Ingold, K. (2011). Network Structures within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage. Swiss Climate Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 435–459.Google Scholar
  75. Ingold, K. (2014). How involved are they really? A comparative network analysis of the institutional drivers of local actor inclusion. Land Use Policy, 39, 376–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2014). Phasenmodelle und Politikprozesse: Der Policy-Cycle. In K. Schubert & N. Bandelow (Eds.), Lehrbuch der Politikfeldanalyse (pp. 97–132). München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
  77. Johnson, A., Jürgens, M., Williams, R., Kümmerer, K., Kortenkamp, A., & Sumpter, J. (2008). Do cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs discharged into rivers pose a risk to the environment and human health? An overview and UK case study. Journal of Hydrology, 348(1–2), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., & Zito, A. (2003). Comparative conclusions—’New’ environmental policy instruments: An evolution or a revolution in environmental policy? Environmental Politics, 12(1), 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., & Zito, A. (2005). The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in comparative perspective: Has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies, 53(3), 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., & Zito, A. (2013). Still the century of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments? Exploring patterns of innovation and continuity. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kingdon, J., & Thurber, J. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  83. Knill, C. (2006). Implementation. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union: Power and policy-making (pp. 351–376). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Knill, C., & Lenschow, A. (2003). Modes of regulation in the governance of the European Union: Towards a comprehensive evaluation. European Integration Online Papers, 7(1), 4–15.Google Scholar
  85. Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012). Public policy: A new introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kortenkamp, A., Faust, M., Scholze, M., & Backhaus, T. (2007). Low-level exposure to multiple chemicals: Reason for human health concerns? Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(S-1), 106–114.Google Scholar
  87. Lasswell, H. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. College Park: University of Maryland Press.Google Scholar
  88. Lasswell, H. (1958). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. With postscript (1958). New York: Meridian Books.Google Scholar
  89. Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), 297–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Linder, S., & Peters, G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Linder, S., & Peters, G. (1989). Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lockwood, B. (2004). How robust is the Kearney/Foreign policy globalisation index? World Economy, 27(4), 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Lowi, T. (1964). American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16(04), 677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Lowi, T. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Mayntz, R., & Scharpf, F. (1995). Gesellschaftliche Selbstregulierung und politische Steuerung (Vol. 23, Schriften des Max-Planck-Instituts für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln). Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  96. McGonigle, D., Harris, R. C., McCamphill, C., Kirk, S., Dils, R., Macdonald, J., et al. (2012). Towards a more strategic approach to research to support catchment-based policy approaches to mitigate agricultural water pollution: A UK case-study. Environmental Science & Policy, 24, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 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.Google Scholar
  98. Mostafa, F., & Helling, C. (2002). Impact of four pesticides on the growth and metabolic activities of two photosynthetic algae. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B, 37(5), 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 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
  100. Niemeijer, D. (2002). Developing indicators for environmental policy: Data-driven and theory-driven approaches examined by example. Environmental Science & Policy, 5(2), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective actors. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Ostrom, E. (2009). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Pape, J. (2009). Domestic driving factors of environmental performance: The role of regulatory styles in the case of water protection policy in France and the Netherlands. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
  104. Peters, G. (2013). American public policy: Promise and performance (9th ed.). Thousand Oaks: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  105. Peters, G., & Hoornbeek, J. (2005). The problem of policy problems. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government. Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, J., & Smullen, A. (2006). Agencies: How governments do things through semi-autonomous organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  107. Pressman, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (3rd ed.). Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  108. Provan, K., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Reungoat, J., Escher, B., Macova, M., & Keller, J. (2011). Biofiltration of wastewater treatment plant effluent: Effective removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products and reduction of toxicity. Water Research, 45(9), 2751–2762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Richardson, S., & Ternes, T. (2011). Water analysis: Emerging contaminants and current issues. Analytical Chemistry, 83(12), 4614–4648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Rowney, N., Johnson, A., & Williams, R. (2009). Cytotoxic drugs in drinking water: A prediction and risk assessment exercise for the thames catchment in the United Kingdom. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 28(12), 2733–2743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. RÜS. (2010). Rheinüberwachungs-Station Weil am Rhein. Jahresbericht 2010. Weil am Rhein: Monitoring Station Weil am Rhine, Umweltministerium Baden-Württemberg, Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU, Amt für Umwelt und Energie Basel-Stadt.Google Scholar
  113. Rüthers, B., Fischer, C., & Birk, A. (2011). Rechtstheorie mit Juristischer Methodenlehre (6th ed.). München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  114. Sabatier, P. (2007). Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  115. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  116. Sacher, F., Ehmann, M., Gabriel, S., Graf, C., & Brauch, H.-J. (2008). Pharmaceutical residues in the river Rhine-results of a one-decade monitoring programme. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 10(5), 664–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Sager, F. (2009). Governance and Coercion. Political Studies, 57(3), 537–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Salamon, L. (2000). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28(5), 1611–1674.Google Scholar
  119. Salamon, L. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1988). Systematically pinching ideas: A comparative approach to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 8(1), 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Schneider, V., & Janning, F. (2006). Politikfeldanalyse: Akteure, Diskurse und Netzwerke in der öffentlichen Politik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  123. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Sciarini, P., Fischer, A., & Nicolet, S. (2004). How Europe hits home: Evidence from the Swiss case. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 353–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Sedlak, D., Gray, J., & Pinkston, K. (2000). Peer reviewed: Understanding microcontaminants in recycled water. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(23), 508A–515A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Shelton, D. (2006). Normative hierarchy in international law. The American Journal of International Law, 100(2), 291–323.Google Scholar
  127. Smith, K. (2002). Typologies, taxonomies, and the benefits of policy classification. Policy Studies Journal, 30(3), 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Touraud, E., Roig, B., Sumpter, J., & Coetsier, C. (2011). Drug residues and endocrine disruptors in drinking water: Risk for humans? International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 214(6), 437–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. UBA (2014). Antibiotika und Antiparasitika im Grundwasser unter Standorten mit hoher Viehbesatzdichte (Vol. Report number 27, March 2014). Dessau-Rosslau: Umweltbundesamt.Google Scholar
  130. Valiente Moro, C., Bricheux, G., Portelli, C., & Bohatier, J. (2012). Comparative effects of the herbicides chlortoluron and mesotrione on freshwater microalgae. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 31(4), 778–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Varone, F. (1998). Le choix des instruments des politiques publiques. Une analyse comparée des politiques d’efficience énergétique du Canada, du Danemark, des Etats-Unis, de la Suède et de la Suisse. Bern: Paul Haupt Verlag.Google Scholar
  132. Vedung, E. (1998). Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories. In M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks & sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (pp. 21–58). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publisher.Google Scholar
  133. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  134. Weible, C. (2007). An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: Understanding the political context of California marine protected area policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. WHO. (2008). Guidelines for drinking-water quality. World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  136. WHO. (2012). Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disruptors. World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  137. Wilson, J. (1974). Political organizations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  138. Wilson, J. (1986). American government: Institutions and policies (3rd ed.). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations