Change search
Refine search result
1 - 10 of 10
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)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest 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)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest 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.
    Gilek, Michael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Linke, Sebastian
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Science and Policy in the Governance of Europe’s Marine Environment: The Impact of Europeanization, Regionalization and the Ecosystem Approach to Management2015In: Governing Europe’s Marine Environment: Europeanization of Regional Seas or Regionalization of EU Policies? / [ed] Michael Gilek and Kristine Kern, Farnham: Ashgate, 2015, p. 141-160Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 2.
    Gilek, Michael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Linke, Sebastian
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Lundberg, Cecilia
    Åbo Akademi, Finland.
    Smolarz, Katarzyna
    Södertörn University, Centre for Baltic and East European Studies (CBEES).
    Lemke, Paulina
    Gdansk University, Poland.
    Interactions between risk assessment and risk management for environmental risks in the Baltic Sea: RISKGOV Deliverable 92011Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report has been produced within the interdisciplinary RISKGOV project with the overall aim of comparing risk assessment – risk management interactions connected with five severe Baltic Sea environmental risks (eutrophication, overfishing, invasive species, chemical pollution and oil discharges linked to marine transports).

    Specifically, we compare three major aspects connected with assessment  – management interactions and, based on this analysis, suggest possible routes for improving interaction between science-based advice and environmental (risk) management:

    1. Organisational structure of the risk assessment activities and the generation, selection and implementation of management options.
    2. The management of scientific uncertainties and disagreements.
    3. Implementation of the ecosystem approach to management (EAM) and modes of ‘good governance’.

    In order to understand these aspects we started by describing and analysing the characteristics of the five risk cases. This revealed substantial differences in terms of sources, effects and complexities (in terms of scientific uncertainty and socio-political ambiguity). For example, chemical risks are associated with great uncertainty and oil spill with much lower; fisheries relate to very high socio-political ambiguity, whereas invasive species show the opposite nature and oil spill fit with more traditional risk parameters. Our analysis also revealed a great variation in the societal risk responses, which far from always seems rational in relation to the risk characteristics.

    When it comes to the organisational structures, we can conclude that different forms of institutions and institutional arrangements and relations have evolved over time in the various cases, for instance relatively well-formalised in the overfishing case, and rather informal for combating eutrophication. Similarly, we see different forms of expert dependencies. In the overfishing case there are institutionalised formal links between e.g. ICES and the EU Commission and the historic path-dependency is quite strong, thereby causing institutional inertia, even though the development of Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) such as the Baltic RAC are gradually changing the picture. In relation to many other environmental risk cases (e.g. eutrophication and chemicals) HELCOM provides a regional basis for assessment and management (although implementation of management recommendations have often proved complex). Still, assessment-management interactions seem more developed and better organised in the overfishing case, even though it is obvious that the last link, the political decision-making on quotas, has deviated substantially from the science-based advice, thereby opening for continued overfishing. Similarly, well-developed institutions seem to allow for improved deliberative processes for fisheries, including improved analysis of socio-economic dimensions, which we cannot find to the same extent for e.g. chemicals, eutrophication and invasive species.

    The assessment and management responses we see to the studied risks do not seem to be based on any thorough analysis of the specific risk characteristics, or on the suitability of different overall strategies (e.g. traditional science-based assessment, precautionary, deliberative). Instead, all studied assessment-management interactions can be classified as being built primarily on traditional science-based assessment of risks. Of course, we see elements of for example precaution in e.g. the chemicals case, and deliberation in the fish case, and the inclusion of the EAM as a starting point for assessment exercises and management decisions is becoming more common, but overall this happens only partially and infrequently.

    Thus, to summarise, we conclude that there are substantial differences among environmental risks in relation to, for example, complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity, and we argue that it is important to maintain a balance between ideals of holistic approaches such as EAM and context dependent requirements of various management objectives, environmental risks and sectors. For example, high levels of uncertainty (e.g. chemical pollution) and ambiguity (e.g. overfishing) can be assumed to require assessment-management approaches focussed on precaution and participatory deliberation, respectively.

    Furthermore, our analysis identifies six key issues and challenges that, if adequately addressed, may improve assessment-management interactions and facilitate the implementation of the ecosystem approach to management.

    1. We see a need to further develop the regional and ecosystem basis of assessment-management interactions in terms of addressing prioritised knowledge gaps, as well as developing regional knowledge management and monitoring to strengthen regionally-based scientific advice.

    2. Integration of various forms of scientific knowledge is currently rather undeveloped in assessment and scientific advice, which reduces possibilities of addressing also the social dimension of sustainable development as well as possibilities of identifying and reducing ‘blind spots’.

    3. Stakeholder participation requires more consideration since incorporation of practitioner and local knowledge in risk assessments as well as stakeholder deliberation in risk management often are vital for the successful implementation of the ecosystem approach to management.

    4. We identify substantial room for improvements linked to coping with scientific uncertainty and disagreement in both risk assessment and risk management. We conclude that there in fact are examples of science-based precautionary approaches and methods, but that a comprehensive and coherent strategy for addressing uncertainty is often lacking.

    5. Interdependencies among environmental risk issues need to be more specifically addressed than today. Climate change will, for example, influence both the outcome of risk assessments as well as the possibilities for successful management in all the studied environmental risk cases.

    6. Despite a commonly expressed idea of a clear separation between assessment and management, the studied science-policy interactions are in general rather diffuse and politicised. This lack of transparency about how these interactions evolve and are constructed may mislead political decision makers and the public and thus potentially hamper management progress.

  • 3.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    Governance of Complex Socio-Environmental Risks: The Case of Hazardous Chemicals in the Baltic Sea2011In: Ambio, ISSN 0044-7447, E-ISSN 1654-7209, Vol. 40, no 2, p. 144-157Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Complex socio-environmental risks challenge society. In response to scientific uncertainty and socio-political controversies, environmental governance, precaution, and the ecosystem approach to management are held forward as complements to governmental risk-based sector-restricted regulation. We analyze this development for hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea. Based on interviews and policy analysis, we study informal governance and, in particular, four central EU and international policies, and investigate how present governance relates to risks and objectives at hand. While showing emergence of broader governance approaches, we conclude that central objectives will not likely be met. Furthermore, we question the quest for broad environmental governance and emphasize the value of command and control regulation, if it implements precaution. These findings contribute to the theorizing on environmental (risk) governance. Finally, we provide some ideas that could help development and implementation of risk policies for hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea as well as other complex risks.

  • 4.
    Linke, Sebastian
    et al.
    University of Gothenburg.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Unravelling science-policy interactions in environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea: Comparing fisheries and eutrophication2014In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461, Vol. 17, no 4, p. 505-523Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 5.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science. Linköping University.
    Models of science-policy interaction: Exploring approaches to Bisphenol A management in the EU2014In: Science of the Total Environment, ISSN 0048-9697, E-ISSN 1879-1026, Vol. 485-486, no 1, p. 23-30Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study investigated science-policy interaction models and their limitations under conditions of uncertainty. In detail, it looked at the management of the suspected endocrine-disrupting chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). Despite growing evidence that BPA is hazardous to human and environmental health, the level of scientific uncertainty is still high and, as a result, there is significant disagreement on the actual extent and type of risk. Analysis of decision-making processes at different regulatory levels (EU, Sweden, and the Swedish municipality of Gothenburg) exposed chemicals risk management and associated science-policy interaction under uncertainty. The results of the study show that chemicals management and associated science-policy interaction follow the modern model of science-policy interaction, where science is assumed to 'speak truth to policy' and highlights existing limitations of this model under conditions of uncertainty. The study not only explores alternative models (precautionary, consensus, science-policy demarcation. and extended participation) but also shows their limitations. The study concludes that all models come with their particular underlying assumptions, strengths, and limitations. At the same time, by exposing serious limitations of the modern model, the study calls for a rethinking of the relationship between science, policy, and management.

  • 6.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science. Linköpings universitet, Tema teknik och social förändring.
    Science-policy interaction in the governance of complex socio-ecological risks: The case of chemicals management in the Baltic Sea2014Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In this thesis, I examine knowledge production and science-policy interaction associated with the management of chemical substances in the Baltic Sea under conditions of uncertainty and complexity. The thesis is primarily based on a qualitative analysis of policy documents and reports produced by the European Union (EU), the Helsinki Commission, the Swedish Chemicals Agency, and Gothenburg municipality, as well as 30 semi-structured interviews with scientific experts, policy makers, and government officials with knowledge and working experience in the relevant policy arenas.

    I identify and examine key challenges of science-policy interaction associated with the management of chemical substances in the Baltic Sea, such as lack of data, uncertainty, and complexity (Article I). I further argue that the current model of science-policy interaction fails to adequately handle and account for these challenges (e.g. uncertainty in Article II).

    Scientists and policy makers have made substantial (and sometimes successful) efforts to understand and counteract negative environmental trends in the Baltic Sea. However, on the basis of this empirical analysis, I conclude that the uncertainties tied to the complex chemical risks in the Baltic Sea region are too large and multifaceted to be adequately addressed by the “modern science-policy model” underpinning most contemporary risk assessments. Linked to this analysis, I identify several possible ways to improve the situation, for example new tools and methods for handling uncertainty as well as alternative models for science-policy interaction.

    As a consequence, I explore the potential of alternative models of science-policy interaction, giving particular attention to the participatory model and the associated idea of post-normal science. The results highlight the substantial amount of rhetoric in EU sources about recommending wider public involvement in policies, but also reveal that there is a different situation in practice. The introduction of more radical approaches (such as post-normal science) to knowledge co-production and participation would require epistemological, institutional, and constitutional changes that are not feasible in the foreseeable future – at least for the case of chemical substances (Article III).

    Improvements (methodological, institutional and so on) in the current modern model of science-policy interaction are just as important as the development of alternative modes of science-policy interaction (Article IV). However, the general conclusion of this thesis is that there is a need to rethink current science-policy interaction and in the process “break through” the widespread institutional denial of irreducible uncertainties.

  • 7.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Biology.
    Coping with uncertainties in science-based advice informing environmental management of the Baltic Sea2013In: Environmental Science and Policy, ISSN 1462-9011, E-ISSN 1873-6416, Vol. 29, p. 12-23Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Managing uncertainty is a main challenge for sustainable management of complex socioecological systems, such as marine ecosystems. Today, a growing number of scientific publications address decision-making practices under conditions of high uncertainty. However, very few studies have analyzed how science treats uncertainty before it reaches decision-makers, especially for various marine environmental issues. This study aims to fill these research gaps by identifying the main theoretical approaches to science-based uncertainty management proposed in the scientific literature. Furthermore, by scrutinizing advisory documents, current approaches and methods to assess and treat uncertainty in science-based advice are analyzed and compared for five significant environmental issues in the Baltic Sea (eutrophication, fisheries, invasive species, chemical pollution, and oil spills). Specifically, the study analyzes the types of uncertainties acknowledged, how strategies and practices present and address uncertainties, and whether new theoretical proposals identified in the scientific literature affect existing practices. The study's results reveal that current scientific practices do not adequately address uncertainty in advice formulation. First, no common guideline is in use, resulting in significant differences among studied environmental issues and a common lack of structure, clarity, established terminology, and transparency in the assessment and treatment of uncertainty. Furthermore, new theoretical developments connected with uncertainty appraisal (such as theoretical typologies) and new tools and methods for handling uncertainty (such as precautionary and participatory approaches) are hardly utilized in practice in the management of the Baltic ecosystem. Consequently, although theoretical approaches for coping with uncertainty in complex socio-ecological systems are ample, the challenge for the future is to implement these approaches more effectively in assessment and management frameworks. The study discusses possible improvements to current practices in environmental management of large-scale socio-ecological systems such as the Baltic Sea and other regional seas, acknowledging that these measures will not reduce all existing uncertainty but rather contribute to a more comprehensive treatment of uncertainties.

  • 8.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science. Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Participation and post-normal science in practice?: Reality check for hazardous chemicals management in the European marine environment2014In: Futures: The journal of policy, planning and futures studies, ISSN 0016-3287, E-ISSN 1873-6378, Vol. 63, p. 15-25Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study analyses whether science-policy interactions linked to the management of hazardous chemicals in the European marine environment have developed in accordance with general theories on public involvement in policymaking in general and post-normal science (PNS) in particular. Special attention is given to a comparison between key EU policy frameworks, namely the "polluter-oriented" registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) and the "environment-oriented" Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), based on in-depth analysis of key policy-related documents and interviews with scientists and policy actors. The results outline that in spite of a substantial amount of rhetoric in EU sources about recommending wide and ambitious public involvement, current participation and deliberation practices are rather undeveloped in the studied EU policy frameworks. Furthermore, it can be concluded that the introduction of more radical approaches to knowledge co-production and participation (like PNS) would require epistemological, institutional and constitutional changes that are not feasible in the foreseeable future, at least not in respect to chemicals management. This study generates empirical data with regard to the management of chemicals in the European marine environment, specifically data on participation, the role of science, and uncertainty treatment at the science-policy interface. These data provide empirical information that can be used by environmental managers involved in the development of EU marine policy. At the same time, the results can be used theoretically to reflect on and problematise the current state of wider public participation in EU environmental policies and PNS development in particular cases.

  • 9.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Hedren, Johan
    Linköping University.
    Utopian ideas about sustainability?: the case of chemical management in the EU2014In: International Journal of Sustainability Policy and Practice, ISSN 2325-1182, Vol. 9, no 3, p. 47-56Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study examines EU chemical management regimes with a focus on the treatment of uncertainty. Referring to current discourses on sustainability, the study criticizes existing practices and discusses alternative approaches to chemical management. In addition to highly discussed options for management under conditions of uncertainty (e.g., precautionary management and adaptive management), we argue that chemical management might also benefit from introducing the "sufficiency" concept into the production context. More generally, this would entail a shift in seeing quality of life as based on a sufficiency rather than an abundance of chemicals. The article concludes that, although these chemical management ideas might be very problematic, more integrated and holistic visions of future chemical and environmental policies might emerge from considering new sustainability ideas in various branches of the current economic system.

  • 10.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Rabilloud, Louise
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Hazardous substances: a case study of environmental risk governance in the Baltic Sea region2010Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report aims to describe and analyse the structures and processes that shape risk governance of hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea area and, based on this, discuss conditions and opportunities that could improve chemical risk governance. With this purpose in mind we have analysed the risk governance of hazardous chemicals along three dimensions and Work Packages (WP): governance structures (WP 1), risk assessment-risk management interactions (WP 2) and stakeholder communication (WP 3). The report is an initial outcome of the RISKGOV project, in which risk governance in various areas eventually will be compared in order to gain new insights on environmental risk governance and to extract policy-relevant advise on how to better deal with environmental risks in the Baltic Sea context.

     

    The report is based on a study of key documents treating policies and risks, 22 semi-structured in-depth interviews with stakeholders conducted in the period February–October 2010, as well as participatory observations at scientific conferences and stakeholder meetings.

    WP 1 identifies the most important risk governance structures, and maps actors and regulations. In particular, it is concluded that development at the EU and HELCOM level are of main importance for the management of chemicals in the Baltic Sea region. Thus, actors within the EU and HELCOM, as well as regulations within EU – most notably the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and the REACH regulation – and regulations and recommendations dealt with by HELCOM – in particular the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) – were identified as crucial for further analyses in WP 2 and WP 3. Although we recognise the importance and the substantial improvements that have been made in chemical regulation within the EU and HELCOM, these developments are not sufficient in order to meet key objective at hand, nor do they adequately manage relations with Russia. WP 1 concludes that, although there are numerous of national and international regulations creating a massive web of regulations, existing chemical regulation and informal governance structures are very far from covering all existing chemical risks (especially new chemicals and mixtures of chemicals) and to allow for a sufficient extent of safety. Care must be taken in the development of new regulations to promote synergies and data exchange rather than causing further barriers, overlaps and conflicts that could reduce the efficiency. Innovative policy developments, as well as improved international collaboration, are therefore needed, which will be placed in focus in further studies within the RISKGOV project.

    WP 2 focuses on an in-depth understanding of the interactions between risk assessment and risk management of chemicals. The main assessment and management activities in the Baltic Sea region are identified and analysed. It is concluded that assessments commonly are based on a rather technocratic separation of assessment and management activities (with often unclear strategies for bringing these activities together in decision-making). Assessments also generally suffer from lack of data, insufficient harmonisation of methodology, as well as unclear strategies for assessing uncertainties and adjusted communication of assessment results. Consequently, assessments would benefit greatly from more harmonised assessment methodologies, not least for chemical mixtures, ecological effects as well as methods for integrating various lines of evidence. Both assessment and management might benefit from increased stakeholder participation. Furthermore, we have analysed risk assessment and management interactions through the prisms of uncertainty and the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM). These aspects have become top challenges for the assessment and management of chemical risks as well as for coping with science-policy interactions connected with the governance of chemical risks. We conclude that the enormous knowledge gap (for most chemicals, for the risks of chemical mixtures, for ecosystem-specific risks etc) need to be addressed by combining increased efforts on data and knowledge production with better ways of assessing, communicating and managing uncertainty. Hence, a main question is how much evidence is needed for motivating decision-making on risk reduction. This is a policy-related issue, not a scientific one. However, science does need to develop and implement improved methodology for assessing and communicating uncertainty to relevant stakeholders. On the management side, the precautionary principle is increasingly stipulated for coping with uncertainty. In spite of that, there is no consensus on the exact implementation of the principle in practice, and regulations such as REACH, the WFD, the MSFD and the BSAP ought to be developed on this point. Risk reduction is needed and motivated even, or even particularly, under uncertainty. Looking at the EAM, the approach is clearly receiving increase attention (e.g. in the BSAP and the MSFD), but only partially in the field of chemical regulation and concrete measures. So far, it is therefore not certain that the EAM will substantially improve risk management in cases of high uncertainty. On the contrary, requirements on implementation of the EAM may stall measures and increase complexity. These initial insights will be further developed in coming RISKGOV publications.

    WP 3 describes and analyses how risks of hazardous chemicals are framed by key actors and stakeholders in the Baltic Sea region, such as governments, agencies, regionally inter-governmental agencies such as HELCOM, economic actors, academia, and civil society. It is shown that different actors have different ways of framing the risk of chemicals in the Baltic Sea. For example, differences were observed along a gradient spanning from framing chemicals and chemical products as basically useful for society, to framing chemicals as substantial threats to the environment and human health. Most interviewed stakeholders could be placed somewhere in the middle of this gradient between benefit and cost. This is reflected in the dominant opinions expressed on required general management approaches, which do not fundamentally question abundant production of chemicals, but rather suggest a focus on managing chemicals with proven hazardous properties, thus tilting towards a market rather than an environmental starting point. This view on chemical risk management is rather surprising given the major uncertainties and lack of data described in WP 2. In light of this we propose that the management of chemicals might benefit from a shift towards seeing quality of life as based on sufficiency of chemicals rather than on (over)-abundance of them. Many of the interviewed stakeholders (e.g. politicians, journalists and NGO staff) also expressed a surprising lack of interest in the environmental risks of hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea region. If concern mostly expressed was health risks of chemicals. It is also clear that besides some NGOs and other stakeholders, quite few have a primary focus on taking initiatives for improving the management of chemicals, something that is a problem given the common political ambitions to increase participation in connection with implementation of the EAM. WP 3 also analyses existing institutional arrangements for and procedures of risk communication at the regional Baltic Sea level. Clearly, communication between the EU and Russia is still in need of improvement, as is two-way communications and cooperation between stakeholders, as well as between actors connected with risk assessment and risk management and the general public. For example, in those (rare) cases when scientific information about chemicals does exist, it is not well communicated among knowledge producers and stakeholders, and current scientific assessment activities seldom relate directly to concerns of stakeholders or the public.

     

    In conclusion our initial analysis and conclusions show that risks of chemicals are rather dealt with by traditional risk-based governmental strategies, than by broad environmental governance, based on precaution and the ecosystem approach to management. Furthermore, there are no clear strategies or guidelines on how to cope with uncertainty in assessment and management. As a result, even though there is a growing scientific capacity to develop new chemicals, there is at present no well functioning system for their safe management. We will address these challenges further in future RISKGOV publications.

1 - 10 of 10
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