hh.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 7 of 7
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the 'Create feeds' function.
  • 1.
    Hunka, Agnieszka D.
    et al.
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark & Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Department of Philosophy, 3TU.Ethics Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
    Meli, Mattia
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Palmqvist, Annemette
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Thorbek, Pernille
    Syngenta Jealott's Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell, United Kingdom .
    Forbes, Valery E
    School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, United States.
    Ecological risk assessment of pesticides in the EU: What factors and groups influence policy changes?2015In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461, Vol. 18, no 9, 1165-1183 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    For the last couple of years, European environmental risk assessment (ERA) regulations have undergone significant changes. The new 1107/2009 directive which came into effect in 2011 has triggered an on-going debate on defining specific protection goals for ERA. During this period, we conducted a study on policy change among the most influential ERA stakeholders from Europe. We interviewed 43, purposively sampled, participants from the European safety authorities, plant protection product industry and academia. Transcribed interviews underwent thematic analysis conducted separately by two coders. As we followed the advocacy coalition framework, our findings focus on stakeholders processes, interrelations and values behind the ERA policy change. The main challenges emerging from our analysis turned out to be the slow uptake of scientific developments into ERA and very broadly defined protection goals. The use of safety factors and cut-off criteria left risk assessors with many uncertainties. With ERA in its current form it turned out to be impossible to determine whether the current scheme is over- or under-protective. Still, the study shows that the problem of over- or under-protectiveness lies deep in the perception of stakeholders and depends greatly on their priorities. Academics strive for better ecological relevance as a priority. They have concerns that ERA is oversimplified. Regulators worry that ERA relies too much on risk mitigation and is possibly not protective enough, but at the same time, the majority believes that the assessment is well established and straightforward to follow. Industry representatives would like to see ERA based more on probabilistic risk assessment. Recent changes, according to risk assessment and management practitioners have led to an inevitable increase in complexity, which is not perceived as a positive thing, and does not necessarily translate into better risk assessment. © 2014 Taylor & Francis.

  • 2.
    Hunka, Agnieszka D.
    et al.
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Meli, Mattia
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Thit, Amalie
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Palmqvist, Annemette
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Thorbek, Pernille
    Syngenta, Jealott's Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell, Berkshire, United Kingdom.
    Forbes, Valery E
    School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska Lincoln, United States.
    Stakeholders' Perspective on Ecological Modeling in Environmental Risk Assessment of Pesticides: Challenges and Opportunities2013In: Risk Analysis, ISSN 0272-4332, E-ISSN 1539-6924, Vol. 33, no 1, 68-79 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The article closely examines the role of mechanistic effect models (e.g., population models) in the European environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides. We studied perspectives of three stakeholder groups on population modeling in ERA of pesticides. Forty-three in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders from regulatory authorities, industry, and academia all over Europe. The key informant approach was employed in recruiting our participants. They were first identified as key stakeholders in the field and then sampled by means of a purposive sampling, where each stakeholder identified as important by others was interviewed and asked to suggest another potential participant for our study. Our results show that participants, although having different institutional backgrounds often presented similar perspectives and concerns about modeling. Analysis of repeating ideas and keywords revealed that all stakeholders had very high and often contradicting expectations from models. Still, all three groups expected effect models to become integrated in future ERA of pesticides. Main hopes associated with effect models were to reduce the amount of expensive and complex testing and field monitoring, both at the product development stage, and as an aid to develop mitigation measures. Our analysis suggests that, although the needs of stakeholders often overlapped, subtle differences and lack of trust hinder the process of introducing mechanistic effect models into ERA. © 2012 Society for Risk Analysis.

  • 3.
    Hunka, Agnieszka D.
    et al.
    University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands .
    Palmqvist, Annemette
    Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Forbes, Valery E
    University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, United States .
    Effective environmental risk communication—Success stories or urban legends?2015In: Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, ISSN 1551-3777, E-ISSN 1551-3793, Vol. 11, no 1, 173-174 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 4.
    Hunka, Agnieszka D.
    et al.
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Palmqvist, Annemette
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Thorbek, Pernille
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Forbes, Valery E
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Risk communication discourse among ecological risk assessment professionals and its implications for communication with nonexperts2013In: Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, ISSN 1551-3777, E-ISSN 1551-3793, Vol. 9, no 4, 616-622 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Risk communication, especially to the general public and end users of plant protection products, is an important challenge. Currently, much of the risk communication the general public receives is via the popular press, and risk managers face the challenge of presenting their decisions and their scientific basis to the general public in an understandable way. Therefore, we decided to explore the obstacles in risk communication, as done by expert risk assessors and managers. Using the discourse analysis framework and readability tests, we studied perspectives of 3 stakeholder groups-regulators, industry representatives, and academics across Europe. We conducted 30 confidential interviews (10 participants in each group), with part of the interview guide focused on communication of pesticide risk to the general public and the ideas experts in the field of risk assessment and management hold of the public perception of pesticides. We used the key informant approach in recruiting our participants. They were first identified as key stakeholders in ecological risk assessment of pesticides and then sampled by means of a snowball sampling technique. In the analysis, first we identified main motifs (themes) in each group, and then we moved to studying length of the sentences and grammar and to uncovering discoursespresent in the text data. We also used the Flesch Reading Ease test to determine the comprehension difficulty of transcribed interviews. The test is commonly used as a standard for estimating the readability of technical documents. Our results highlight 3 main obstacles standing in the way of effective communication with wider audiences. First of all, ecological risk assessment as a highly technical procedure uses the specific language of ecological risk assessment, which is also highly specialized and might be difficult to comprehend by nonexperts. Second, the idea of existing "expert-lay discrepancy," a phenomenon described in risk perception studies is visibly present in the experts' opinions. Finally, the communicationflow among stakeholders was perceived as flawed, e.g., our participants did not consider themselves fully included in the communication process, despite taking part in many networks. Interestingly, both studies on the role of trust in risk perception, and research on links between daily choices and perceived risk, show that the public is more likely to rely on experts they can trust, than the experts in our study were inclined to think. © 2013 SETAC

  • 5.
    Mälgand, Miina
    et al.
    Roskilde University, Department of Environmental Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde, Denmark .
    Bay-Mortensen, Nikolai
    Roskilde University, Department of Environmental Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde, Denmark .
    Bedkowska, Beata
    Roskilde University.
    Hansen, Frederik
    Roskilde University, Department of Environmental Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde, Denmark .
    Schow, Marco
    Roskilde University, Department of Environmental Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde, Denmark .
    Thomsen, Amalie
    Roskilde University, Department of Environmental Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde, Denmark .
    Hunka, Agnieszka D.
    Roskilde University, Department of Environmental Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde, Denmark & University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Department of Philosophy, Enschede, Netherlands .
    Environmental awareness, the Transition Movement, and place: Den Selvforsynende Landsby, a Danish Transition initiative2014In: Geoforum, ISSN 0016-7185, E-ISSN 1872-9398, Vol. 57, 40-47 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The Transition Movement, originating in Ireland and the United Kingdom, gathers and supports community-led actions to meet the global challenges of climate change, peak oil and energy descent. In our study we analysed a Transition Network project, a Danish village built from scratch by its inhabitants and named the Self Sufficient Village (SSV). Employing the theories of constructed landscapes and placeattachment, we studied how the Transition Movement ideology shaped the constructed landscape of thevillage and influenced the inhabitants' attachment. The research team, following the grounded theory approach, conducted a field study staying in SSV. We collected data with focus groups, individual interviews and participatory observations, taking part in daily life of the community. The analysis revealed three, intertwined themes which altogether create the constructed landscape of SSV. They were named Community, Ideology, and Individual impact, respectively. Our findings showed that the community and strong social ties were predominant factors in shaping place attachment. Transition ideology and environmental awareness, although less pronounced, still turned out to be vital for the feelings of belongingness and empowerment, resulting in a positive impact of the village on the local scale. Using our case study as an example we discuss the importance of environmental concern and place attachment for similar grass-root initiatives. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  • 6.
    Seiler, Thomas-Benjamin
    et al.
    Aachen University.
    Hunka, Agnieszka D.
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Meli, Mattia
    Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Calow, Peter
    University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
    Bridging the Gap between Risk Perception and Ecotoxicology Research―How Can We Communicate to Improve Our Outreach?2013In: SETAC Globe, ISSN 2310-3086, Vol. 14, no 6Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 7.
    Selck, Henriette
    et al.
    Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Adamsen, Peter B.
    Ramboll Environ, Copenhagen, Denmark.
    Backhaus, Thomas
    University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
    Banta, Gary T.
    Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Bruce, Peter K.H.
    Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Burton Jr., G. Allen
    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
    Butts, Michael B.
    DHI Group, Copenhagen, Denmark.
    Boegh, Eva
    Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Clague, John J.
    Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
    Dinh, Khuong V.
    Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
    Doorn, Neelke
    Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
    Gunnarsson, Jonas S.
    Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Hauggaard-Nielsen, Henrik
    Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Hazlerigg, Charles
    Enviresearch, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    Hunka, Agnieszka D.
    Halmstad University, School of Business, Engineering and Science, The Rydberg Laboratory for Applied Sciences (RLAS).
    Jensen, John
    Aarhus University, Silkeborg, Denmark.
    Lin, Yan
    Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Oslo, Norway.
    Loureiro, Susana
    Department of Biology & CESAM, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.
    Miraglia, Simona
    Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
    Munns Jr., Wayne R.
    US Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA.
    Nadim, Farrokh
    Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway.
    Palmqvist, Annemette
    Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Rämö, Robert A.
    Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Seaby, Lauren P.
    Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Syberg, Kristian
    Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Tangaa, Stine R.
    Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Thit, Amalie
    Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Windfeld, Ronja
    Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Zalewski, Maciej
    European Regional Centre for Ecohydrology (Polish Academy of Sciences), Lodz, Poland.
    Chapman, Peter M.
    Chapema Environmental Strategies, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
    Assessing and managing multiple risks in a changing world – The Roskilde recommendations2017In: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, ISSN 0730-7268, E-ISSN 1552-8618, Vol. 36, no 1, 7-16 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Roskilde University (Denmark) hosted a November 2015 workshop, Environmental Risk—Assessing and Managing Multiple Risks in a Changing World. This Focus article presents the consensus recommendations of 30 attendees from 9 countries regarding implementation of a common currency (ecosystem services) for holistic environmental risk assessment and management; improvements to risk assessment and management in a complex, human-modified, and changing world; appropriate development of protection goals in a 2-stage process; dealing with societal issues; risk-management information needs; conducting risk assessment of risk management; and development of adaptive and flexible regulatory systems. The authors encourage both cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to address their 10 recommendations: 1) adopt ecosystem services as a common currency for risk assessment and management; 2) consider cumulative stressors (chemical and nonchemical) and determine which dominate to best manage and restore ecosystem services; 3) fully integrate risk managers and communities of interest into the risk-assessment process; 4) fully integrate risk assessors and communities of interest into the risk-management process; 5) consider socioeconomics and increased transparency in both risk assessment and risk management; 6) recognize the ethical rights of humans and ecosystems to an adequate level of protection; 7) determine relevant reference conditions and the proper ecological context for assessments in human-modified systems; 8) assess risks and benefits to humans and the ecosystem and consider unintended consequences of management actions; 9) avoid excessive conservatism or possible underprotection resulting from sole reliance on binary, numerical benchmarks; and 10) develop adaptive risk-management and regulatory goals based on ranges of uncertainty. © 2016 SETAC

    The full text will be freely available from 2018-02-28 10:13
1 - 7 of 7
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf