nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

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

verfasst von : Florence Metz

Erschienen in: From Network Structure to Policy Design in Water Protection

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

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.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Introduction

Nächstes Kapitel Water Policy Networks—The Structural Perspective

Despite its focus on the policy content dimension, the present work also considers both the polity and the politics dimensions to explain policy variations across four countries: The polity dimension is crucial as the four countries under study display different political systems, which provide for different formal rules about decision-making processes and power relations, and thereby structure policy networks. Policymaking processes, i.e., the politics or procedural dimension of policy, are incorporated into the present work through the study of policy network structures, which reflect the aggregated result of multi-actor interactions in the policymaking process over time.

The differentiation between first-,second-, and third-generation policy scholars is ideal-typical since all three streams of literature built on each other, and therefore, second-generation scholars also do research about what I labeled first-generation topics; third-generation literature includes what I labeled first- and second-generation topics. Even though these literatures overlap, their distinction is nevertheless helpful here to illustrate how the research discipline evolved over time in a simplified way.

When two policy designs perform equally, this can be due same scores for different composite indicators. If the aim was to categorize policy design, this would clearly be a problem. But, the aim here is to evaluate performance. Two equal scores reflect that policies can be designed very differently and still address the policy problem equally well.

An alternative approach would be to look into the indicators proposed by other policy indices. To my best present knowledge, there is currently no other index measuring the general ability of policy designs to comprehensively address a societal issue. Existing indices are specifically designed for measuring defined problems such as corruption (Corruption Perceptions Index), economic uncertainty (Economic Uncertainty Index), migrant integration (Migrant Integration Policy Index), or environmental sustainability (Environmental Sustainability Index, State of the Nation’s Ecosystems, Ecological Indicators for the Nation, Environmental Policy Stringency, Index of Environmental Regulations, Climate Laws, Institutions and Measures Index, Environmental Regulatory Regime Index). In absence of an exemplary index, the theory-guided approach to select indicators, chosen here, seems to be the most appropriate one to establish a first index proposal.

As mentioned above, comprehensive emphasizes that a policy design has to be effective, efficient, and compelling. These criteria apply to the overall index, but not each indicator. The indicators composing the index can fulfill one or two out of the three criteria, because through the addition of the composite indicators the final index fulfills all three criteria.

Note that the problem scale of the pollution considered in the policy design is contrasted to its solution level. What is not considered here are the types of pollution that may occur, but that are not taken into consideration in the policy design.

Some streams of literature highlight self-regulation (Howlett 2004, p. 6) or adjustment flexibility, defined as the possibility to adapt regulations to local circumstances or new developments (Knill and Lenschow 2003, p. 8). Note that these concepts do not necessarily contradict a direct policy design. For example, a community that self-regulates its matters may adopt direct—as defined here—policy designs when it decides, finances, and self-implements its own policies.

Also note that directness is not in opposition to privatization. A policy design can be direct—as defined here—even if a private actor is entrusted with the implementation of a public policy, under the condition that correct implementation is supervised by the entity that adopted the policy.

Some policy design features put forward by previous scholars, such as visibility or political risk (Linder and Peters 1989; Salamon 2002), have deliberately not been included in the index. Rather than providing information about the comprehensiveness of a policy design, these factors help to explain why one instrument is chosen over another.

Since the present study relies on only four cases, it was not possible to test for correlation between indicators (Hajkowicz 2006). Researchers working with the index should test for redundancy and feel free to drop certain indicators.

The performance levels of all six indicators are already scaled between 0 and 1. Therefore, it was not necessary to transform units by means of the transformation function.

Note that the assignment of policy instrument types to different performance levels is meant as a guideline for analysts. However, the overarching logic, which should finally guide analysts’ decision on how to assign scores, is the likelihood that target groups take action. A policy instrument mix that relies on economic incentives at most could theoretically attain a complete level of performance if economic incentives were high enough to oblige target groups to take action. A hypothetical example would be if fuel taxes were constantly increased, so eventually no one would be able to use cars as a means of transportation anymore.

ICPR Web site: http://www.iksr.org/index.php?id=32&L=3 (last access 20.7.12).

Mandate for the MIKRO project group of the ICPR, see: http://www.iksr.org/index.php?id=317&L=3 (last access 13.9.15).

This research focuses on country-level policies, because the EU-level regulation is neither encompassing nor satisfactory in addressing Rhine-specific pollution problems. In fact, a comparison between the ICPR’s so-called Rhine 2020 list of substances and the priority substances under the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) shows that many Rhine-relevant substances are not subject to EU legislation (see also Sacher et al. 2008; Müller 2011). The WFD requires member states to define river basin-specific substances at the national level to complement the EU legislation (WFD Art. 2 (18), Annex VIII). Hence, the WFD constitutes a baseline that ensures water protection with regard to the most crucial common problems, while detailed provisions must be adopted by the EU member states.

Luxembourg was excluded from analysis, because preliminary interviews with the director of the Luxembourg Administration for Water Management of the Ministry of Interior (November 19, 2011) and with two scientists from the Research Centre Henri Tudor (May 11, 2012) revealed that the problem of aquatic micropollutants was known in Luxembourg, but not yet on the political agenda.

EU Directive concerning the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control.

EU Directive concerning the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals.

See ‘Summaries of EU legislation’ Web site of the European Commission: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/water_protection_management/l28180_en.htm (last access May 2012).

See Web site of the European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-dangersub/lib_pri_substances.htm#prop_2011_docs (last access May 2012).

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-dangersub/ (last access 15.10.2014).

www.fischnetz.ch (last access November 13, 2013).

http://www.nrp50.ch (last access November 13, 2013).

Source: Liste der Adressaten der Anhörung, GSchV; SR 814.201.

Source: Liste der Adressaten der Vernehmlassung, GSchG; 814.20.

See Web site of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment: http://www.bafu.admin.ch/gewaesserschutz/03716/index.html?lang=de (last access May 2012).

The following Web site states that a total of 12 indicator substances will have to be determined: https://www.micropoll.ch/faq/ (last access 16.8.15). The exact number of indicator substances to finally enter into the Waters Protection Ordinance remains, however, a matter of political debate.

The federal state had the right to enact framework directives (Rahmengesetzgebungskompetenz des Bundes), i.e., the Water Resource Act (WHG). Bound by this framework, the Länder adopted their own state-level water legislation.

Water legislation today follows the ‘competition principle’ (konkurrierende Gesetzgebungskompetenz des Bundes) according to which the Länder adopt their own water laws until the federal state enacts a nationwide and uniform legislation overruling the state-level.

See Web site of the Environmental Minister Conference: http://www.umweltministerkonferenz.de/Dokumente-UMK-Dokumente.html (last access May 2012).

Source: Schreiben an die Verbände from August 16, 2010.

Research funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research: http://www.riskwa.de/de/94.php; research funded by Federal Ministry of the Environment: http://www.bmu.de/forschung/ufoplan/doc/40881.php; research funded by NRW: http://spurenstoffe.net/index.php/de/projekte (last access May 2012).

See Web site of the Ministry of the Environment of NRW: http://www.umwelt.nrw.de/umwelt/wasser/abwasser/mikroschadstoffe/index.php (last access May 2012).

See Web site of the French National Environmental Ministry: http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-micropolluants-dans-les.html (last access May 2012).

The Dutch administration was restructured in 2010, which lead to the dissolution and merger of several ministries and agencies. Hence, several Dutch actors, which participated in the policy process on pharmaceutical micropollutants, did not exist anymore at the time of data gathering. They obtained the prefix ‘former’ or ‘ex’ in their acronym.

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).

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

BAFU. (2012). Verursachergerechte Finanzierung der Elimination von Spurenstoffen im Abwasser—Änderung des Gewässerschutzgesetzes. Auswertung der Vernehmlassung von April–August 2012. Bern: Bundesamt für Umwelt.

Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–1074.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Birkland, T. (2010). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (3rd ed.). Armonk NY: M.E. Sharpe.

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.

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.

Bressers, H., & O’Toole, L. (1998). The selection of policy instruments: A network-based perspective. Journal of Public Policy, 18(3), 213–239.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRef

Christopoulos, D., & Ingold, K. (2015). Exceptional or just well connected? Political entrepreneurs and brokers in policy making. European Political Science Review, 7, 475–498.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Crawford, S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Dahl, R., & Lindblom, C. (1953). Politics, Economics and Welfare. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Doern, B., & Phidd, R. (1983). Canadian public policy: Ideas, structure, process (2nd ed.). Michigan: University of Michigan.

Doern, B., & Wilks, S. (1998). Changing regulatory institutions in Britain and North America. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Dye, T. (1976). Policy analysis: What governments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.

Edelenbos, J., Van Schie, N., & Gerrits, L. (2010). Organizing interfaces between government institutions and interactive governance. Policy Sciences, 43(1), 73–94.CrossRef

EEA. (2011). Hazardous substances in Europe’s fresh and marine waters. European Environmental Agency: An overview.

Eliadis, P., Hill, M., & Howlett, M. (2005). Designing government. From instruments to governance. Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Esmark, A. (2009). The functional differentiation of governance: Public governance beyond hierarchy, market, and networks. Public Administration, 87(2), 351–370.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Fischer, M. (2012). Entscheidungsstrukturen in der Schweizer Politik zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts. Glarus, Chur: Rüegger.

Foster, C., & Plowden, F. (1996). The state under stress: Can the hollow state be good government?. Berkshire: Open University Press.

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.

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.CrossRef

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.

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

Grabosky, P. (1995). Counterproductive regulation. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 23, 347–369.CrossRef

Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart regulation: Designing environmental policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1991). Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law and Policy, 21(1), 49–76.CrossRef

Gunningham, N., & Young, M. (1997). Toward optimal environmental policy: The case of biodiversity conservation. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24, 243–298.

Hajkowicz, S. (2006). Multi-attributed environmental index construction. Ecological Economics, 57(1), 122–139.CrossRef

Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2009). Implementing public policy: An introduction to the study of operational governance. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

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.CrossRef

Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers.

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.CrossRef

Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1–21.CrossRef

Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the “hollow state”: Procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), 412–431.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRef

Howlett, M. (2011a). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. New York: Routledge.

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.

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

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.

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Toronto, New York: Oxford University Press.

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009a). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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.CrossRef

Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Hupe, P. (2011). The thesis of incongruent implementation: Revisiting Pressman and Wildavsky. Public Policy and Administration, 26(1), 63–80.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

IAWR. (2007). Position der IAWR und IAWD zu spurenstoffen in den gewässern. International Association of Water Works in the Rhine Basin.

ICPR. (2003). Upstream. Outcome of the Rhine action programme. Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.

ICPR. (2010a). Evaluation report for medicinal products for human use (Vol. Report number 182e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.

ICPR. (2010b). Evaluation report for odoriferous substances (Vol. Report number 194e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.

ICPR. (2010c). Evaluation report on biocidal products and anti-corrosive agents (Vol. Report number 183e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.

ICPR. (2010d). Evaluation report radiocontrast agents. (Vol. Report number 187e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.

ICPR. (2010e). Our common objective: Living waters in the Rhine catchment. Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.

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.

ICPR. (2011a). Evaluation report estrogens (Vol. Report number 186e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.

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.

ICPR. (2012a). Evaluation report complexing agents (Vol. Report number 196e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.

ICPR. (2012b). Evaluation report on industrial chemicals (Vol. Report number 202e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.

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.

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.

Ingold, K. (2008). Analyse des mécanismes de décision: Le cas de la politique climatique suisse. Zürich and Chur: Rüeggger Verlag.

Ingold, K. (2011). Network Structures within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage. Swiss Climate Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 435–459.

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.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Kingdon, J., & Thurber, J. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Longman.

Knill, C. (2006). Implementation. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union: Power and policy-making (pp. 351–376). London, New York: Routledge.

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.

Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012). Public policy: A new introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

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.

Lasswell, H. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. College Park: University of Maryland Press.

Lasswell, H. (1958). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. With postscript (1958). New York: Meridian Books.

Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), 297–325.CrossRef

Linder, S., & Peters, G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237–259.CrossRef

Linder, S., & Peters, G. (1989). Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 35–58.CrossRef

Lockwood, B. (2004). How robust is the Kearney/Foreign policy globalisation index? World Economy, 27(4), 507–523.CrossRef

Lowi, T. (1964). American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16(04), 677–715.CrossRef

Lowi, T. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRef

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.

Niemeijer, D. (2002). Developing indicators for environmental policy: Data-driven and theory-driven approaches examined by example. Environmental Science & Policy, 5(2), 91–103.CrossRef

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective actors. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Ostrom, E. (2009). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.

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.

Peters, G. (2013). American public policy: Promise and performance (9th ed.). Thousand Oaks: CQ Press.

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.

Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, J., & Smullen, A. (2006). Agencies: How governments do things through semi-autonomous organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pressman, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (3rd ed.). Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Provan, K., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

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.CrossRef

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.

Rüthers, B., Fischer, C., & Birk, A. (2011). Rechtstheorie mit Juristischer Methodenlehre (6th ed.). München: C.H. Beck.

Sabatier, P. (2007). Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview Press.

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.CrossRef

Sager, F. (2009). Governance and Coercion. Political Studies, 57(3), 537–558.CrossRef

Salamon, L. (2000). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28(5), 1611–1674.

Salamon, L. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1988). Systematically pinching ideas: A comparative approach to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 8(1), 61–80.CrossRef

Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347.CrossRef

Schneider, V., & Janning, F. (2006). Politikfeldanalyse: Akteure, Diskurse und Netzwerke in der öffentlichen Politik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Sedlak, D., Gray, J., & Pinkston, K. (2000). Peer reviewed: Understanding microcontaminants in recycled water. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(23), 508A–515A.CrossRef

Shelton, D. (2006). Normative hierarchy in international law. The American Journal of International Law, 100(2), 291–323.

Smith, K. (2002). Typologies, taxonomies, and the benefits of policy classification. Policy Studies Journal, 30(3), 379–395.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

UBA (2014). Antibiotika und Antiparasitika im Grundwasser unter Standorten mit hoher Viehbesatzdichte (Vol. Report number 27, March 2014). Dessau-Rosslau: Umweltbundesamt.

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.CrossRef

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.

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.

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

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.CrossRef

WHO. (2008). Guidelines for drinking-water quality. World Health Organization.

WHO. (2012). Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disruptors. World Health Organization.

Wilson, J. (1974). Political organizations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wilson, J. (1986). American government: Institutions and policies (3rd ed.). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Titel: Comparing Policy Designs in Water Protection: Micropollutants Policies in the Rhine River Riparian States
verfasst von: Florence Metz
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: From Network Structure to Policy Design in Water Protection
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55692-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-55693-2

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55693-2_2