Research
Opening the research agenda for selection of hot spots for human biomonitoring research in Belgium: a participatory research project
-
* Corresponding author: Hans Keune hans.keune@ua.ac.be
1 Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, University of Antwerp Belgium
2 Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
3 Environmental Toxicology, Flemish Institute of Technological Research, Mol-Belgium
4 Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp, Belgium
5 Environment and Health, Flemish Government, Environment, Nature and Energy Department, Brussels, Belgium
6 Flemish Agency for Care and Health, Division of Public Health Surveillance, Brussels, Belgium
7 Provincial Institute of Hygiene, Antwerp, Belgium
8 Study Centre for Carcinogenesis and Primary Prevention of Cancer, Department of Radiotherapy, Nuclear Medicine and Experimental Oncology, University of Ghent, Belgium
Environmental Health 2010, 9:33 doi:10.1186/1476-069X-9-33
Published: 6 July 2010Abstract
Background
In order to select priority hotspots for environment and health research in Flanders (Belgium), an open procedure was organized. Environment and health hotspots are strong polluting point sources with possible health effects for residents living in the vicinity of the hot spot. The selection procedure was part of the work of the Flemish Centre of Expertise for Environment and Health, which investigates the relation between environmental pollution and human health. The project is funded and steered by the Flemish government.
Methods
The involvement of other actors than merely experts is inspired by the 'analytical-deliberative' approach of the National Research Council in the United States and the extended peer community approach. These approaches stress the importance of involving different expert- and social perspectives in order to increase the knowledge base on complex issues. In the procedure used in the project a combination of expert and stakeholder input was essential. The final decision was supported by a multi-criteria analysis of expert assessment and stakeholder advice.
Results
The endeavour was challenging from the start because of the complicated ambition of including a diversity of actors, potential hotspots, concerns and assessment criteria, but nevertheless the procedure proved its value in both structuring and informing the decision-making process. Moreover the process gained the support of most actors participating in the process, even though the final selection could not satisfy all preferences.
Conclusions
Opening the research agenda exemplifies the value of inter- and transdisciplinary cooperation as well as the need for a well-structured and negotiated procedure that combines relevant factors and actors with pragmatism. The value of such a process also needs to prove itself in practice after the procedure has been completed: the tension between an ambition of openness on the one hand and a more closed attitude amongst experts on the other will continue to play a role even after closure.