Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Generally, when specii c cases are studied in qualitative research, there
is a problem about generalizing the results and assuming they will apply
in all cases. Even though results may be reliable for a particular case,
they cannot always be extended to others. Moreover, no matter how well
a study of ef ectiveness is designed and carried out, its relative outcome
depends heavily on the initial dei nition of ef ectiveness, and the criteria
used to assess it.
Quantitative approaches
A discussion of the main quantitative
approaches in the study of environmental regime ef ectiveness is given
below. Some of them are described briel y, whereas others are given in
more detail due to their complex statistical nature. One of the most well-
known options in empirical research for measuring regime ef ectiveness is
the so-called Oslo-Potsdam solution. This is an 'umbrella term' referring
to two closely interlinked approaches, that of Underdal (1992, 2002) and
that of Helm and Sprinz (2000).
Underdal (1992, 2002, pp.5-6) focuses on the relationship between
the regime's output - the institution established as a new set of rules and
regulations; its outcome - the change in the behaviour of states; and its
impact - the actual change in the state of the biophysical environment. He
suggests that regime ef ectiveness has two components: changes in human
behaviour and changes in the state of the biophysical environment itself.
Moreover, he asks some critical questions. First, what is the object to be
evaluated, because it makes a vast dif erence whether the evaluation con-
cerns only the regime, or whether it concerns the whole problem-solving
ef ort that might include various kinds of costs or positive side-ef ects
associated with the process of its establishment and maintenance. Second,
he discusses the standard against which this should be evaluated, stressing
however, that ef ectiveness is only a relative term and should be dei ned in
each regime independently. The issue he raises about standards is impor-
tant since environmental scientists and activists on one hand and regime
theorists on the other, could have diverse opinions about the nature of
standards against which they measure ef ectiveness. Third, he raises the
issue of methodology in order to measure the object of evaluation against
the standard. Methodologically, Miles and Underdal use counterfactual
analysis against certain behavioural and technical optima by comparing
the actual regime versus no-regime and the regime versus the collective
optimum (Miles et al., 2002, ch. 2). They use qualitative case studies (for
example, the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol, the International
Whaling Commission, inter alia) to assess ef ectiveness on a 0-4 scale for
behavioural change and on a 1-3 scale for environmental improvement.
They then normalize the scales to range from 0 to 1 in order to make
