Fine Particles: From Scientific Uncertainty to Policy Strategy
- 14 February 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A
- Vol. 70 (3-4) , 365-368
- https://doi.org/10.1080/15287390600885054
Abstract
Gaps in our knowledge should not be a reason for not making policy decisions. How can we define robust policy strategies, given the various uncertainties in the sources, exposure, and causes of health effects? Which uncertainties are most important? What are its policy implications? This contribution will describe policy strategies for particulate matter (PM) abatement that are consistent with certain sets of assumptions, as well as the risks that are associated with such strategies. What is an optimal strategy assuming that the fine particles (PM2.5) are the main cause of health effects? And what would be the “mistake” of such a strategy, if “in the end” PM10 or carbonaceous particles prove to be the “real” cause? How can we make the policy strategy more robust and minimise its financial risks and health risks? This contribution describes a systematic way of dealing with the knowledge gaps in the policy process.Keywords
This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit:
- Atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: size distribution, estimation of their risk and their depositions to the human respiratory tractScience of The Total Environment, 2005
- Should Socioeconomic Health Effects be Includedin Risk Assessments?Environmental Sciences, 2004
- Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air PollutionJAMA, 2002
- The association between noise exposure and blood pressure and ischemic heart disease: a meta-analysis.Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002
- Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysisKnowledge and Policy, 1995