Evaluating environmental policy instruments mixes; a methodology illustrated by noise policy in the Netherlands

Abstract

Environmental policy is characterised by complexity, in causes and effects, resulting in various combinations of policy instruments. However, evaluating these policy instrument mixes and assessing their effectiveness is difficult because of a lack of methodological approaches. This paper therefore proposes a methodology which comprises: (a) describing the underlying policy theory; (b) describing the policy instruments; (c) analysing goal attainment; and (d) evaluating effectiveness, focusing on coverage of points of intervention, steering power of policy instruments and coherence of the policy instruments mix. The methodology is illustrated with an evaluation of noise policy in the Netherlands – a typical complex policy domain in which a mix of policy instruments has been in place for decades, and thus provides a good empirical case.

Keywords:

• policy instruments
• effectiveness
• evaluation methodology
• environmental policy

Notes

1. Most literature on policy instruments focuses on ex ante evaluations of policy instruments to be implemented in a specific policy subsystem (e.g. Hellegers and van Ierland 2003 on agricultural groundwater extraction; Cubbage, Harou, and Sills 2007, and van Gossum, Arts, and Verheyen 2012 on forest policy; Stavins 1997, and Grazi and van den Bergh 2008 on climate change adaptation). These studies assess the (expected) effectiveness through comparison of single instruments. However, an evaluation of the (presumed or, in the case of ex post evaluations, realised) effectiveness of the combined instruments, is uncommon.

2. Immission level is the level of noise at the receiver.

3. Lden stands for average sound pressure levels over all days, evenings and nights in a year.

4. Emission is the noise level at the noise source.