Health Exposure Risk from Playing on Rubber Granulate

(1)

Health Exposure Risk from Playing on Rubber Granulate

A Case Study of The Netherlands

Final Thesis

MSC in Crisis and Security Management

Leiden University

June 2018

Author: Bart Bedet

Student number: S1891685

February 2017 Stream

Capstone – Crisis Management

Word count: 31.622 words

First Reader: M. Dückers

Second Reader: S. Kuipers

(2)

1. Introduction

Before elaborating on the public health risk posed by rubber granulate in the Netherlands, it is important to understand the complexity of contemporary crises. Crisis management is changing in frequency, nature and consequences, where new threats are posing challenges to national and international communities. Due to technological advancements and globalization, contemporary threats evolve into crises that crosses borders, functional boundaries, and traditional time boundaries (Boin A. , 2009). The complexity of contemporary threats and crises is a characteristic of wicked problems. A wicked problem is defined as ‘’a problem whose social complexity means that it has no determinable stopping point’’ (Tonkinwise, 2015). Wicked problems rely on the interdependence of stakeholders who solve segments of the problem. Health care crises often includes a complex system of multiple stakeholders, financial concerns, clinical protocols, public relations and government regulations (Fraser, 2009). Public health risks pose a serious challenge, where each risk has its own characteristics and should be dealt with in its own unique way. In the search for solutions, policy makers frequently turn to science to provide expert-knowledge regarding the specific issue. Within this science-policy interface, experts often fill this knowledge gap, where the level of uncertainty and ambiguity is high in relation to the health risk (Devilee, et al., 2014). Within the expert-knowledge domain, empirical evidence seems to be lacking according to scholars (Spruijt, 2016).

This research will highlight a contemporary crisis that resides within the public health domain. To be more specific, this thesis will elucidate how the use of rubber granulate as infill on artificial grass has evolved into a public health crisis in the Netherlands. This single case study applies three theoretical lenses to thoroughly assess of the crisis within the Netherlands: the role of the media in amplifying the risk, the role of the Dutch government in dealing with the risk, and the utilization of expert knowledge in the decision-making process. This will help to comprehend how the risk has evolved into a crisis and caused a large public debate where various stakeholders played a significant role in.

(5)

1.1 Research Question

Before highlighting the research question, a quick review will be given of the case itself. In 2016, the Dutch TV program Zembla linked rubber granulate to possible health risks as humans are exposed to these by playing on the rubber surface. Zembla underlined the lack of research around the possible risks related to the rubber particles. This knowledge vacuum increased the level of uncertainty and fueled the public, political and expert discussion. New research was conducted and aligned with previous research that concluded that the health exposure risk from rubber granulate is negligible and it is safe to play on the rubber infill. With over 2000 turfs that make use of the rubber granulate (Zembla, 2016), such conclusions should diminish the overall debate. Interestingly enough, this debate continued due to continuous dispute amongst stakeholders due to a continuous flow of risk information presented through the media. Such information flow produced two narratives: one that assesses the risk as negligible, and the other that assesses the risk is harmful to human health. Continuous debate has unfolded after rubber granulate has been given the label of being controversial. No research seems to be all-inclusive, aiding the concern that rubber granulate will affect the health of the Dutch society. In order to understand why this public health risk continuous to be of concern for the public, even after it has been labelled as negligible, the following research question has been formulated:

‘’Using different theories applied to the case of rubber granulate in the Netherlands, A: what are the main actors in filling the knowledge vacuum?

B: what was their role in dealing with this problem?

C: why did the case receive high level of attention whilst research indicates that there is a low risk to health?’’

This explanatory research question will focus on how the overall debate remained on the public and political agenda by mainly looking at the role of the media. In this sense, it seems relevant to understand what actors have played a significant role throughout the debate. Furthermore, it seems disproportionate that there is a low risk level present, but the level of attention is high. This makes it interesting to assess why this is the case, in order to understand how it has turned into a public health crisis. The different theories that will be used to analyze the case are found in the science-policy interface and literature regarding media. This will be discussed in the theoretical framework, which brings together the three theoretical lenses. From this, various

(6)

four will discuss how these theories will be tailored to best assess the case study. The factual representation of the case will be highlighted in chapter five, along with the identification of the complex system of stakeholders. Chapter six will entail the analysis, where the three operationalized theories will be applied to the case. Chapter seven and eight will form the discussion and conclusion of this thesis, testing the hypotheses and answering the overall research question.

1.2 Relevance

The relevance of this study will demonstrate how this research is useful in two domains: societal and academic relevance. Furthermore, this research also provides relevance for the researcher itself, as the research question posed falls within the domain of crisis management. This subject has been an important aspect of the Crisis and Security Management Master. Societal Relevance elucidates how this research helps to better understand society. Artificial turfs with rubber infill have become the dominant choice for sport clubs and municipalities due to their all-round surface, durability and low costs. In a country like The Netherlands, where space is limited, and the population has been growing annually (Worldometers, 2018), the built environment is visible everywhere. The built environment, including buildings, places, streets and routes can influence health. ‘’The built environment encompasses all buildings, spaces and products that are created or modified by people. It impacts on indoor and outdoor physical environments as well as social environments and subsequently our health and quality of life’’ (Higgins, Jordan, Lavin, & Metcalfe, 2006). Thus, scientific knowledge is used to find remedies for dealing with health risks, where urban planning and the concept of zoning already improved public health exposure (Higgins, Jordan, Lavin, & Metcalfe, 2006). This helps to understand the importance of having a safe environment for society to play sports on, especially in a small country like the Netherlands. Through analyzing this case through three theoretical lenses, the complexity of the health risk is exposed. This aids in understanding the role these actors have played and what position their held within the overall debate. The empirical data collected in this research could provide a base for future research regarding public health crises in The Netherlands. Policymakers could also learn from this research as it helps to understand the complexity of public health issues. This could improve future policy decision-making in regard to public health risks.

(7)

Academic Relevance refers to filling a gap that presents itself within the scientific domain. This case elucidates a complex health crisis within the Netherlands, aiding in the understanding of contemporary crisis management. The application of three theoretical lenses provides an in-depth analysis of the case itself, providing empirical data to assess the usability of these theories within public health issues. Combining these theories in this manner has resulted in the creation of a unique theoretical model that is applied to the case. Furthermore, literature regarding expert roles presented a knowledge gap, where lack of empirical data makes it difficult to assess the usability of these expert roles (Spruijt, 2016). Generalizing in this single case is difficult, but this research can be used as a reference in future research and assist in managing complex health issues in The Netherlands.

1.3 Research Objectives

This section outlines the research objectives, which help to understand the aim of the overall research conducted in this thesis. First of all, the selection and operationalization of the three theoretical lenses will help to produce relevant empirical data to answer the main research question. Second, the hypotheses help to bring more focus to the research, helping to better interpret the data. Third, the theoretical lenses should help to elucidate the role of the media, experts and the Dutch government in relation to the public health crisis around rubber granulate. This research therefore aims to better understand the complexity of the public health crisis, as well as understanding what role each of these three stakeholders have fulfilled throughout the timeline of the crisis.

2. Theoretical Framework

This chapter will elaborate on the three theoretical lenses that will be used to analyze the case study. The three concepts that are linked to the three lenses are media, expert-knowledge and politics. Through assessing what scholars have written about these concepts, three theories will be selected that best suit the analysis of the rubber granulate crisis in The Netherlands. First of all, the relationship between policymaking and expert-knowledge will be discussed. This will reveal two theories that align with the concepts of expert-knowledge and politics.

(8)

The second section will focus on the use of media in contemporary crisis management. This will result in the third theory that is going to be applied in the analysis chapter of this thesis.

2.1 Policy – Science Interface

Before addressing the policy-science interface, it is good to understand what is meant by risk. It is difficult to refer to a central definition, where each definition will affect policy outcomes differently. Furthermore, there is no one definition that is capable of dealing with all issues. As a result, the definition selection is a political one that is dependable on how an individual expresses their view upon different negative outcomes on a specific situation (Hope, Fischhoff, & Watson, 1984). In this respect, the following definition of risk by Rosa (2003) has been chosen for this research: ‘’a situation of an event where something of human value (including humans themselves) is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain’’ (Rosa, 2003). This definition is used due to its reference with uncertainty, which is an important concept within the science-policy interface. The first part will focus on the science, which will result in the first theory. The second part will elaborate on the policy side, which will link to the second theory used in this thesis.

The science-policy interface is defined as ‘’social processes which encompass relations between scientists and other actors in the policy process, and which allow for exchanges, co-evolution, and joint construction of knowledge with the aim of enriching decision-making’’ (Hove, 2007). Within this science-policy interface, which translates science into policy, experts are incorporated when knowledge is incomplete, or the subject is highly uncertain and ambiguous (Devilee, et al., 2014). The relationship between experts and policymakers is not always fruitful, as interaction sometimes causes friction. Policymakers are trying to find certainties and solutions, where scientists provide probabilities, uncertainty, and multiple scenarios. Bringing these together is proven to be difficult, resulting in a science-policy gap (Bradshaw & Borchers, 2000). Others see this as a continuous interaction between science and policy (Wesselink, Buchanan, Georgiadou, & Turnhout, 2013).

The way in which policymakers and experts perceive a risk varies because they have a different aim when dealing with the risk. Risk perception is therefore an important concept to understand. Risk perception is defined as ‘’the subjective judgement that people make about

(9)

characteristics and severity of a risk’’ (Rehani, 2015). As it is a subjective judgement, each stakeholder will assess the risk in a different manner. It becomes more complex, because experts amongst each other also vary in the way the risk is perceived. Spruijt (2016) argues: ‘’stakeholders, policymakers, and particularly scientists are not fully aware of where in the discourse, interpretative ambiguity ends and personal views on roles, attitudes and values begin’’ (Spruijt, 2016). How a risk is perceived by an expert depends on his knowledge at hand about the risk, his role within the policy-science interface, and his personal values and attitudes. Expert perception is shaped by the process of cause-and-effect, where risks are pointers of hazard potentials. It is crucial whether the risk can be assessed with a certain degree of confidence. This confidence is created through scientific evidence. It is equally important for the expert to identify the types of risk which are associated with the situation at hand. There are five basic risk types identified: suspicion of hazard, possibility of an accident, exposure to a pollutant, evidence of damage, occurrence of an accident (Wiedemann, Clauberg, & Schütz, 2003).

The public (laypersons) perception of the risk is formed through a social and relationship-oriented context. Statistical evidence means less for laypersons, where they rely more on ‘’the framework of perception of the routine events of everyday life’’. It bases on influences from the media and their stories include (Wiedemann, Clauberg, & Schütz, 2003):

- What characters are involved? - Objectives and motives (intentions) - Dramatization of the event

- Consequences and formulating a moral of the story - Referring to other examples that show similarities

This means that laypersons look for elements that typically play no part in a scientific risk assessment and would indeed be considered completely unsuitable for scientific discourse. This difference in perception could lead to debate amongst experts and laypersons, where the uncertainty around a risk and altering judgements of what is at stake shape this discussion. Rosa underlines this as the ‘’hierarchical epistemology’’, where ‘’some claims to knowledge are valued more highly than other, but none offers direct access to reality’’ (Rosa, 2003).

(10)

In order to better understand the science-policy interface, scholars have attempted to create expert roles. The selection of experts is generally based on a set of criteria. These include: individual knowledge base (discipline), authority within their discipline, and willingness to share their knowledge with society in an unbiased way (Spruijt, 2016). Weiss (2003) has created a typology of experts, which is based on five positions a scientist can take when addressing uncertainties (Weiss C. , 2003). When addressing uncertainties, science and scientific knowledge are used to provide answers and take away some of the uncertainty. The process of dealing with uncertainty within the policy-science interface often relate to the concept of the precautionary principle. The definition entails: ‘’when human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm’’ (Unesco, 2005). It asserts that one may not argue that a proposed intervention may be dismissed simply because the available evidence is in favor does not meet the normal standards of research science (Weiss C. , 2003). Public health issues and environmental risks are often related to the precautionary principle.

Within the precautionary principle, five roles were given to experts, each of which embodies a different degree of risk acceptance or aversion. Following these roles, further research resulted in a more detailed list of expert roles. Through literature review and expert consultation from various work fields, including the public health sector, Spruijt has improved the expert typologies (Spruijt, 2016). This research entailed a Q methodology, which uses individual views (of experts), in order to identify clusters of shared ways of thinking among groups of people (Maguire & Steelman, 1999). The revisited expert’s typology is presented below, and will be elaborated further on in chapter 3:

- Engaged Expert - Pro-science experts - Regulatory advocate - Humble scientist - Transparent experts - Issue advocate

The role of experts in policymaking has been discussed for some time, where Merton (1945) underlines a lack of empirical data on the actual roles of experts within the policy process (Merton, 1945). More recent scholars also address this knowledge gap, where Spruijt (2016)

(11)

also argues that empirical support seems to be lacking in regard to expert roles (Spruijt, 2016). Others criticize the use of expert knowledge because it is subjective and unrepeatable. On the contrary, expert knowledge is increasingly recognized as a valuable information source when other empirical sources of information are lacking (Walsh, Norton, Storm, Deelen, & Heisey, 2018).

The role of experts addresses only half of the policy-science interface. The other half focuses on the concept of policy-making. Policy-making is the process of formulating policies, which are based on ideas or plans that are then used by an organization or government (Collinsdictionary, 2018). Traditionally, policy making entails a rationalist approach. This approach has a linear structure that starts with problem identification, followed by the analysis of alternatives, resulting in the recommendation of the most suitable policy solution (Etzioni, 1967). This approach lacks the ability to deal with the randomness that often occurs in the policy process. This randomness is affected by external factors like timing, national mood, or political ideologies (Black, 2001). Scholars also argue that policymaking is not always national in its nature (Monaghan, 2011). The ever-changing policy environment contains complex relations between various stakeholders, who often also have competing objectives (Sabatier, 1988); (Hoppe, 2011). Once again, the processes are becoming more complex, asking for alternative measures to deal with this. This also indicates that a rational method might not always be a suitable approach within contemporary policymaking.

A framework that is used to deal with contemporary environments is Kingon’s Multiple Stream Framework (MSF). This framework shows more relevance with the modern world (Pollit, 2008), and the main assumption of this model in regard to policymaking is that ‘’dynamic, irrational and unpredictable, and the surrounding environment is always ambiguous and complex’’ (Chow A. , 2014). The framework elucidates how policy issues move into the policy agenda, where others do not follow this path (Sabatier, 1999). It has an empirical nature, where some elements of rationalism are used, while ignoring the traditional problem-solving models of policy development (Chow R. , 1991). The framework aims to examine three issues:

- How policymaker’s attention is captured - How problems are formed

(12)

The MSF uses three streams to analyze this phenomenon: the problem-, policy-, and politics stream. The problem stream refers essentially to policy problems in society that potentially require attention. The policy stream pertains to the many potential policy solutions that originate with communities of policy makers, experts and lobby groups. Finally, the politics stream refers to factors such as changes in government, legislative turnover and fluctuations in public opinion (Kingdon, 2003).

It offers an alternative that is more relevant to the real world. The main assumption within the model entails that policymaking is ‘’dynamic, irrational and unpredictable, and the surrounding environment is always ambiguous and complex. Three key assumptions (identify these in the policy case of rubber granulate in the Netherlands – context of the political climate around this case in order to justify stream theory as analysis):

- Fluid participation - Problematic preferences - Unclear technology

Critics argue that Kingdon’s model has made no attempt to test it outside the US (Sabatier, 1999). Furthermore, the framework does not address the significant effects that the media has. The media does not represent reality, but filters information to the interest of the audience (Scheufele, 2000). The media could be used by stakeholders as a tool to affect the agenda setting process. The use of media in this manner is referred to an amplification effect, which will be described in the next section of this chapter.

To sum up the policy-science interface, the two concepts of policymaking and use of experts/science comes down to dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty. Where experts and scientific evidence are referred to in times of uncertainty, the MSF deals with the ambiguity within the policymaking process. Ambiguity is defined as ‘’the state of having many ways of thinking about the same problem’’ (Zahariadis, 2003), whereas uncertainty deals with the inability to predict an event accurately (Zahariadis, 2007). Apart from distinguishing the two models from each other through the concepts of ambiguity and uncertainty, they also help to resolve part of the complex puzzle that is posed within the case study of rubber granulate in the Netherlands.

(13)

2.2 Media

Over time, the landscape of the media has altered drastically, where traditional media is now being accompanied by social media. Thus, media consists of both traditional (television, radio, newspapers, magazines, newsletters and other print publications) and social media. Social media is defined as ‘’a new era of web-enabled application that are built around user-generated or user-manipulated content, such as wikis, blogs, podcasts, and social networking sites’’ (Yan, Brooke, & Austin, 2014). In other words, social media are digital tools and applications that expedite communication and information exchange between publics and organizations. It is becoming an integral part within crisis management and communication, where more stakeholders are turning to the internet for information (Coombs, 2014). Any individual with internet access can share their ideas and message for others to see, making it a popular channel for information sharing.

When a crisis occurs, there is often an information vacuum that is created. This vacuum is created due to missing information, which is filled by the news media and social media. As a result, inaccurate information about the crisis will be disseminated to the public. This means that media outlets are becoming more influential purely due to the increase in usage by the public. Social media are versatile communication channels combining rich information, interactive communication and feedback (Strekalova, 2017).

In the context of public health, communication surrounding threats like pandemics present an interesting trade-off for crisis managers. Health consumers need to be updated about the health threat, where the public response to hearing this news will lead to increased anxiety and amplification of risk perceptions. Risk information should therefore not be downplayed or exaggerated (Strekalova, 2017). The general public is not able to fully assess the risk information and rely on shortcuts to assess the level of risk (Fischhoff & Kadvany, 2011). Continuous exposure to media coverage surrounding risks leads to an increase in perception of these risks by the public (despite expert viewpoints or risk assessments). This means that the media is amplifying the risk (Sarathchandra & McCright, 2017).

Kasperson (1988) has proposed a framework to analyze the process of amplification, called the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF). The framework explains how ‘’some

(14)

(risk amplification), where other hazards and events judged as higher risk generate much less social attention (risk attenuation)’’ (Kasperson, Renn, Slovic, Brown, & Emel, 1988). Thus, the process could move in either direction, depending on how the information is understood and reacted to by the public. It starts with seeking and consuming information about a hazardous even or issue (risk event).

Amplification or attenuation starts with an increased awareness of a hazard, where signals are intensified during the transmission process (Kasperson, Kasperson, Pidgeon, & Slovic, 2003). These signals move along various individual and social stations. As a result, individual and group-level behavioral responses could lead to a broader societal impact. This impact spreads to those who are directly influenced (Kasperson, Renn, Slovic, Brown, & Emel, 1988). As individuals and groups continue to experience the broader societal impacts, the effects may spread to distant locations and even future generations (Renn, Burns, Kasperson, Kasperson, & Slovic, 1992).

Within the framework, news media is essential in the process of risk amplification and attenuation. It provides a mental shortcut for individuals that do not contain all the knowledge about the risk (Lee, Lewenstein, & Scheufele, 2005), and it plays a crucial role within communication systems. These process the risk in amplification stations and socially construct the issue (Kasperson, Kasperson, Pidgeon, & Slovic, 2003).

The news media is involved in multiple amplification steps: filtering and decoding of risk signals, processing risk information, and attaching social values to the information (Kasperson, Renn, Slovic, Brown, & Emel, 1988). These in turn affect the risk signals and change the salience of certain aspects of risk messages (Kasperson, Kasperson, Pidgeon, & Slovic, 2003). The transformation of risk signals is done through the following processes:

- Giving disproportionate, long-term attention to some risks while ignoring others - Vocalizing and legitimizing some points of view more or less than others - Dramatizing the nature of some risks but not others

These processes are crucial in shaping the public debate about risks events and hazards. Large volumes of information and repeated stories are common tools for mobilizing fears and serve as risk amplifiers, without taking into account the accuracy of the news itself presented by the news media (Kasperson, Renn, Slovic, Brown, & Emel, 1988). Other important amplifiers are

(15)

the symbols, metaphors, and discourses used to depict and characterize risk in the news (Kasperson, 1996). Kasperson even argues that the use (or no use) of certain cultural symbols is one of the most dominant tool of amplifying or attenuating risks (Kasperson, Renn, Slovic, Brown, & Emel, 1988).

In order to analyze the case as a whole, the framework offers a structured way in which the social relationships with risk are analyzed. Resulting from the amplification or attenuation from a particular risk, the change in collective behavior can be identified. The analysis will be structure through three dimensions that Kasperson has formulated within the framework:

- Signal amplification in communications theory - Structural aspects of social amplification

- Informational mechanisms of social amplification

Critics argue that SARF is not a theory, but a conceptual framework to understand certain phenomenon. As the contextual aspects are mostly looked at within the model, it makes room for integration of other theories in order to produce more holistic interpretations of the case. Kasperson underlines this: ‘’bring competing theories and hypotheses out of their ‘terrain’ and into direct conjunction with each other; to provide an overall framework in which to locate a large array of fragmented empirical findings; and to generate new hypotheses, particularly hypotheses geared to the interconnections and interdependencies among particular concepts or components’’ (Kasperson, Kasperson, Pidgeon, & Slovic, 2003). Other critics state that SARF is oversimplified, where risk communication is seen as one-way transfer of information (Handmer & Penning-Rowsell, 1990). This means that the information only flows through one direction in the framework, which Kasperson argues is not the case in the SARF framework. He states that not only the public and media are the starting point of risk communication problems, but the communicators are also an important factor in the process. in the context of media, this means that extensive media coverage should automatically increase the risk perception (Sjöberg, 1999).

2.3 Conclusion (visualization)

To sum up this chapter, the three theories that have been linked to the three theoretical lenses will be aligned in one visual. The SARF model provides contextual understanding of the case

(16)

and assess whether the media has amplified risk. The MSF model assesses how the issue moved on to the political agenda, helping to understand how politicians deal with complex health issues. The expert typologies help to identify positions of the experts within the overall debate. This visual will serve as a base for the operationalization, where each theory will be tailored to fit the analysis of the case study. Furthermore, this will help to understand the relationship between the SARF model, expert roles and Kingdon’s MSF.

Figure 1 – Visual Representation of Theories

Kasperson underlines that his model allows for other theories to be implemented in order to create more holistic interpretations of a case. The figure shows that the SARF model starts with identifying the risk event. The three dimensions of SARF will assess the contextual characteristics of the case, as well as the role of the media around the topic of rubber granulate. As most risk information has been portrayed in the news media, this is an important aspect of the case study. What role of news programs therefore is an important aspect to focus on in this case study, because of the knowledge vacuum that is present around rubber granulate. In this sense, the role of the media becomes very important for shaping the perception of the risk. The

(17)

public perception also influences this process, where the way in which laypersons (non-experts) perceive the risk differently from experts (scientists) due to their level of knowledge and available sources of information. With the presence of the knowledge vacuum, it can be said that obtaining knowledge regarding rubber granulate creates power within the overall debate.

The mass response to the Zembla episode helped to move the issue onto the political agenda, which will be assessed through the MSF model. The public and expert perception also aids in the agenda setting process, where the expert typology will reveal the dominant roles amongst the expert community. This could elucidate certain decision making within the MSF. Reviewing figure 1, the MSF and expert role theories seem to complement the SARF model by bringing in more indicators to assess the overall case. This will increase the level of rigor in the overall analysis. Bringing the three theories together provides the opportunity to come up with several predictions that will complement the overall research question. These hypotheses will aid in structuring the analysis and focus on finding an answer to the main research question. The hypotheses are presented below:

Hypothesis 1: Influential news programs play a significant role in determining the public agenda

Hypothesis 2: Mediatization amplify the public unrest/perception around the health exposure risk from rubber granulate

Hypothesis 3: The role of experts attenuates the public unrest/perception around the health exposure risk from rubber granulate

Hypothesis 4: Importance of the media has increased with the presence of a knowledge gap in forming the public’s perception

Hypothesis 5: The roles identified by Spruijt are able to be assigned to the rubber granulate crisis

(18)

3. Operationalization

The theoretical framework has brought together three theories that will be used to assess the rubber granulate crisis in the Netherlands. The visualization has already portrayed the overall relationship between these theories, where this chapter will focus on tailoring each theory to measurable indicators. These indicators will act as guidelines for filtering out the relevant data within the case itself, as well as structuring the analysis of this thesis. Each theory will be operationalized individually, where the analysis will reveal whether possible overlap might occur. This will be further discussed in the discussion chapter of this thesis.

3.1 Media – SARF

The theoretical framework has proposed three dimensions within the SARF model. These three dimensions are the starting point for operationalizing this theory. First of all, the risk event will be identified. This is seen as the starting point of the crisis, from where the three dimensions of SARF will assess how the risk has been amplified or attenuated. Each dimension has different characteristics that assess different contextual features of the case. The indicators further specify what is meant by each characteristic. These will be defined at the start of the analysis of the case. The third dimension is of particular importance, as this will focus on the role of the media within this case. The case study analysis will start with the SARF model, as this will provide a base for the other two theories to be implemented in the analysis of the rubber granulate crisis in the Netherlands.

Dimension Characteristics Indicators

Signal

Amplification in communication theory

• Signal Amplification

• Shared construction of the risk event • Repetition of factual statements • Institutional and role complaints

• Mobilization of actors • What has started the

discussion? • Risk Signals Structural aspects of signal amplification • Filtering signals

• Processing of risk information

• Attaching social values to the information

• Awareness of the risk • Risk narratives • Social impacts Informational mechanisms of social amplification

• Dramatization and labile fantasy

• Mobilization of latent fears

• Information flow

• Information about risk and risk events flows through two major communication networks Media Analysis: • Volume of information • Disputed • Dramatization • Symbolic connotation Table 1 – SARF operationalization

(19)

3.2 Expert Roles

The theoretical framework reveals that lack of empirical data surrounding the expert roles. These roles have been proposed by different scholars, who have further specified these roles with characteristics. These characteristics have been taken from the extensive research that Spruijt (2016) has conducted on expert roles within the policy-science interface. The table below represents each expert role and the indicators for each of them.

Role Characteristics Indicator

Engaged

Expert • Evidence-based policy • Dialogue between experts and policymakers • Scientists should not be humble

• Rely on own assumptions • Open communication with

policymakers

• Highly value scientific knowledge

Pro-science expert

• Evidence-based policy

• Working in science is an intellectual challenge

• Knowledge possessed by the general public is less valuable

• No need for additional measures

• Rely on scientific evidence • Monitor risks and

uncertainties

Regulatory advocate

• Manage possible health problems by regulation and legislation

• Scientists should publish in peer-reviewed journals

• Invest in precautionary measures • Small interaction policymakers • Evidence-based policy

• Pro-regulation and legislation • Precautionary measures • Not responsible for

maintaining dialogue with policymakers

Humble scientist

• Scientists should be humble about the role of science in solving issues

• Assessment of scientific output by extended peer community

• Manage possible health problem by regulation and legislation

• Rely on feedback scientific community

• Regulation and legislation

Transparent expert

• Experts should be transparent about methods and assumptions

• Differences of opinion among experts should be made explicit

• Transparency

• Expert discussion possible • Inform policymakers about

science underlying policy

Issue advocate

• No strict separation between scientists and policymakers

• Actively direct policy, recommend best option • No need to invest in precaution or research

• No clear roles and responsibilities • Direct influence on

policymaking

• No precautionary measures or research

Table 2 – Expert roles (Spruijt, 2016)

(20)

themselves in different roles, creating an overlap that could make it difficult to assign a specific role. The following indicators will be focused more on, since these are the most relevant within the case study of rubber granulate in the Netherlands. These will mostly be used to align the experts with the roles from the literature.

- Risk: does the expert acknowledge that there is or is not a health risk residing with rubber granulate?

- Transparency: is the expert transparent within his arguments? Is there room available for discussion amongst experts, and are methods and assumptions openly communicated?

- Relation to policymakers: does the expert have a working relationship with policymakers or influence the policymaking process overall?

- Evidence-based policy: promote policy decisions that are formulated through objective evidence

- Scientific feedback: does the expert rely on feedback from the scientific community - Solutions that range from: regulation/legislation, precautionary principle, monitor risks,

or no additional measurements have to be made. 3.3 Politics – MSF Model

MSF proposes three streams that each deal with a different aspect of agenda setting. Through defining each of the streams, it is possible to allocate indicators for each of the streams. The following table represents this:

Stream Definition Indicator

Problem Stream

• Policy problems in society that potentially require attention

• Refers to issues capture everyone’s attention, including the government

• Feedback from existing programs

• Focusing events

Policy Stream

• Refers to the many potential policy solutions that originate with communities of policy makers, experts and lobby groups

• Can be conceptualized as a policy primeval soup (kingdom 1995) in which policy ideas and solutions are formed, developed, rejected, and selected

• All possible solutions to the problems generated by policy experts

• The most feasible options appear on the agenda • Policy withdrawal? • Policy evaluation • Missed opportunities? • Funds?

(21)

Politics Stream

• Refers to factors such as changes in government, legislative turnover and fluctuations in public opinion

• Public opinion, election results, and demands of interest groups

• National mood

• Administrative or legislative turnover

• Pressure group campaigns

Table 4 – MSF Operationalization

4. Research Methods

Case study research can be defined as ‘’an empirical research method used to investigate a contemporary phenomenon, focusing on the dynamics of the case, within its real-life context’’ (Summers & Teegavarapu, 2008). Thus, a case study helps to understand a certain contextual phenomenon, where data is interpreted through testing theory or formulation hypotheses. Testing hypotheses will be done within this thesis, where different theories provide a starting point for formulating these. Scholars argue that most case studies use the logic of falsification, where the researchers are making an attempt to prove the original hypothesis wrong (Summers & Teegavarapu, 2008). A single case study offers a qualitative research design through studying the case itself, conduct document analysis and conduct individual/group interviews (Summers & Teegavarapu, 2008). Through triangulation of data, it will be possible to collect empirical data from different research methods and interpret the results in order to test the hypotheses.

The literature has labelled public health risks as complex risks that are difficult to resolved for crisis managers. This thesis will assess the public health risk through a holistic single case study that will focus on the rubber granulate case within The Netherlands. The public health issue within this case is a good example of how complex issues pose problems for contemporary crisis managers. The rubber granulate case involves a complex network of stakeholders that have varying perspectives regarding the health exposure risk. Opposing views amongst experts already pose an issue for decision-makers, because no consensus around such public health risks means that the level of uncertainty will remain an influential factor. Within the media, multiple narratives are created which make it difficult for the public to filter out the relevant information. Zembla questioned the reliability of the research (RIVM 2006) the government based their decisions on. Furthermore, the experts are not able to come to a consensus, aiding the complexity of the debate. As the public and government lack knowledge regarding the issue, the discussion remained present.

(22)

The research question is an explanatory research question that will use of several theories to assess the case. More focus will be given through the various hypotheses presented in chapter 2. This research will be a qualitative research, where the research methods will entail document analysis for collecting the theoretical framework and case study. The data will be collected through various electronic databases and using appropriate search terms. The SARF model will mostly focus on media reports from 2016 until 2018. Through using a content analysis, the relevant data will be taken from these reports. The MSF model will mostly rely on official political documentation taken from their public database. The expert roles mostly share their opinion within media reports, research publications and other electronic sources. The snowball effect method will bring forward new sources through reading and following reference lists from found literature.

The data is collected through a document analysis. This data will be collected through various databases, where official political documentation, research publications, news articles and TV programs provide a wide array of data regarding rubber granulate. In this sense, this thesis has a focused research question supported by several hypotheses bringing enough focus to make this research feasible. Sources that are written in Dutch can be incorporated, as I am fluently Dutch. The topic of rubber granulate has been relatively recent, making it possible to track back the discussion that has taken place within politics, the media, and other sources of information. One very useful database for this is Lexis Nexis. The assessment by three theories might pose some struggle, as this will mean triple the work within the analysis. This will be made feasible by making sure the theories do not entail an excessive analytical tool. These will be tailored to the case study of rubber granulate in The Netherlands, which should provide a feasible research method.

In terms of validity, the internal validity will be high, where the external validity is low. The validity is constructed through pulling evidence from multiple sources and research methods and establish a chain of evidence (Summers & Teegavarapu, 2008). Qualitative research methods will be used to assess one case study in-depth. Through this one case a strong internal validity is created, where a systematic data analysis will produce patters and provide explanation for the stated hypotheses and research question. Multiple research methods, relevant information is gathered about this case. By only using one case, it becomes more difficult to generalize about the expert-knowledge concept. This means that there is a low

(23)

external validity within this research. It is difficult to generalize through single case studies (Bryman, 2012). Apart from overall generalization, this case study does provide a base for further research into public health risks in The Netherlands, and it could help crisis managers to deal with future contemporary public health crises. As more case studies will be conducted, comparison of data will be possible, and generalization will become attainable.

Before focusing on the case study design protocol, various critics of case study research will be discussed. Arguments against these critics will be made in order to strengthen the research design. The most common critics of case study design include the following: rigor, time and case study bias (Summers & Teegavarapu, 2008). First, case studies often lack rigor, which means that there is not a structures or systematic way in which the data is collected and analyzed. This means that the researcher does not show thoroughness in their research. The next section will tackle this critic, by providing a case study design protocol that offers a systematic way of presenting the case study itself, including the data analysis. This will provide the structure needed to include rigor in this research. Second, completing a case study takes a long time, due to extensive document analysis and mass data to be collected, coded, and interpreted. The formulation of hypotheses will make sure that this thesis will only focus on the relevant information and help to narrow down the sums of data that are needed to test the hypothesis. Third, case studies are affected by the subjectivity of the researcher making the case study bias. To counter this, the hypotheses offer a form of subjectivity, but also provide the analytical structure of interpreting the data. This does not make the researcher biased but proving a hypothesis right or wrong only furthers the case study research. Overall, single case study design makes it difficult to compare to other cases, but due to the structured research methods provided in this thesis, the overall choice for a single case study design seems justified.

4.1 Case Study Design Protocol

This protocol will provide a structured research design for the case study, as well as it validates certain decisions that are made within this design. Through this protocol, the reliability of the case study design increases (Summers & Teegavarapu, 2008). The protocol entails three phases: define and design, prepare, collect and analyze, and analyze and conclude. The first phase, define and design, involved the actual design of the protocol of the rubber granulate case within the Netherlands. This includes a plan and rationale for research methods and case

(24)

selection. Alongside this, hypotheses, propositions and theories will be justified that will aid in collecting, analyze and interpret the data in the other two phases of the protocol. The second phase highlights the actual case that will be studied within this thesis. This will be worked out within a case study report. The third and final phase mainly involved writing the case study report and draw conclusions from these (Summers & Teegavarapu, 2008). The theories and hypotheses that have been introduced at the start of the protocol will be answered in this phase.

Define and design

The introduction of this thesis has underlined the research puzzle and research question that will be tackled within this thesis. The case study that has been selected has also been justified in the previous section, where the unit of analysis of this thesis is the Rubber Granulate in The Netherlands. The aim of this research to elucidate why the health risk has gained so much attention, even after the RIVM has concluded from their research that this risk is negligible. In order to attain this understanding, the behavior of several stakeholders will be analyzed with the use of the three theoretical lenses. By analyzing their behavior, it will be possible to gain better understanding of how this health exposure risk has become an issue on the public and political agenda.

The TV show by Zembla, and the additional research conducted by the RIVM are seen as the risk event (see visualization), and thus the starting point for this case study. This will also provide a starting point for assessing general case study through the SARF model, narrowing down towards how the media has amplified the health exposure risk. The (social) media have played an important role in moving the issue to the top of the table for the society and politics. Without the Zembla TV episode covering this issue, it would probably not have gained as much attention as it has. Other media outlets have reacted as well, adding to the amplification of the risk itself.

This risk event can also be labeled as the focusing event that is the starting point for Kingdon’s MSF model in order to assess the political agenda setting process. The last theoretical lens that will be used in this thesis flows out of the SARF model, where the amplified health exposure risk is perceived by the public (laypersons) and experts (scientists). These perceptions will be compared to each other and the expert role will be assessed through Pielke’s typology. From these theories, various hypotheses can be formulated that help to narrow down the scope of the research, adding structure, and making the overall research more feasible. Through an

(25)

inductive set up, these hypotheses will be formulated (Prasad, 2001). They are based on the operationalized concepts, which in turn have been derived from different theories. Thus, the inductive approach starts with theory, followed by formulating hypothesis, observations (data collection) and confirmation/falsification of the hypothesis. The hypotheses will align with the separate theories or theories combined in order to find an answer to the research question.

Prepare, collect and analyze

Having explained the core ingredients of the research methods, the second section of the case study protocol will focus on the case study itself. The previous section has already made a selection for conducting a single case study design. Single case studies are useful research methods for studying a specific phenomenon in depth. Scholars argued that single case studies can be conducted with the use of theory building, when the case is ‘’unusually revelatory, or when it is extremely exemplar, or when it offers opportunities for unusual research access’’ (Yin, 2009). The use of theory building might even provide better results through a single case, because researchers can fit their theory exactly to the various details of that one particular case. Through the use of theory building, it is even argued that single case studies provide (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Furthermore, through the application of a theory in the single case study, the case should be selected because it is suitable for analyzing a specific theme. This allows for relations to be established in order to produce theoretical insights (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). One scholar even argues that generalizations taken from a comparative case study are less reliable than generalizations that are taken from a single case study. The reason for this is because the single case study offers a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the phenomena creating more reliability (Stake, 2000).

The case study will start with a short introduction regarding the origins of rubber granulate and artificial grass. This is followed by start of the overall rubber granulate discussion, which started in 2006. This discussion continued until 2014, where the focus mainly relied on the environmental risks. As this thesis focuses on the public health discussion, the risk event that will act as a starting point for this research occurred October 5th_{, 2016. On this date, the first} Zembla episode was aired, resulting in public unrest and disagreement over the possible health risks associated with rubber granulate. The case study report first highlights the relevant stakeholders that present themselves within the overall debate. This section is followed by the Feitenrelaas, which gives a factual representation of events until the current date. Even though

(26)

the discussion has again turned to the environmental risks, new research is still published that is relevant for the public health debate.

Analyze and Conclude

The final section of the case study protocol entails the conclusions taken from the case study report and apply these to the three theories that have been selected in the previous chapter. This will be three separate analysis, where each theory has their own hypotheses to test. This analysis will reveal whether these theories overlap in practice, which will be further discussed in the discussion. As each theory will be analyzed, the various hypotheses will be answered in the discussion as well. The final conclusion will present an answer to the main research question.

5. Case Study – Rubber Granulate the Netherlands

The following section will highlight the case of the rubber granulate crisis that unfolded after Zembla aired an TV episode covering the possible health risks associated with the rubber infill. A chronological representation will be presented below covering the factual events until the current status. Appendix A provides more details regarding the history and background of the case, where the feitenrelaas will highlight the relevant facts of the case. The feitenrelaas is supported with a stakeholder overview, describing the background and role of the involved stakeholders in this complex system of actors. This stakeholder overview already answers part of the overall research question, which asked what actors played an important role in this case.

5.1 Feitenrelaas

This section will give a factual representation of the events that occurred since the risk event on October 5, 2016. This was the day the first Zembla episode was aired and the public, expert and political discussion really took off. Responses from the above-mentioned stakeholders are incorporated to portray an all-inclusive representation of the entire discussion. Some of the arguments will be supported with a date, in order to show when the comments were made. This will help to further understand the development of the overall debate and aid in structuring the analysis in the next chapter.

(27)

On October 5th_{, 2016, an episode was aired by Zembla called ‘’Dangerous Game’’. Within this} episode, a correlation is made between rubber granulate and a higher chance of leukemia amongst children that play on this surface. Furthermore, experts express their concern about the lack of knowledge around the risks associated with rubber granulate. Various interest groups part of the rubber granulates life cycle and their opinion regarding these issues are highlighted. According to Zembla, the government and owners mainly focus on the economic gain made by using rubber granulate. The industry supposedly lobbied in favor of rubber granulate and maintain a market advantage over more expensive alternative materials. Zembla also questions the quality of the research conducted in 2006 on request of the RIVM. The aim of the research was to conclude whether health and environmental risks occur when using rubber granulate. The RIVM concluded that it is safe to play on surfaces that make use of rubber granulate, but the research population only included seven male adult football players (Hofstra, 2007). The episode concludes various requests being made by various stakeholders to implement precautionary measurements on turfs where rubber granulate is made. These should be applied until more research can rule out the health risks in particular.

The ‘’Dangerous Game’’ episode resulted in high commotion amongst the public, politicians, turf owners, sport clubs and the experts. Alongside the unrest, the uncertainty whether the health risk is real or not increased as a result of the argument posed by Zembla. The reaction by Minister Schippers (VWS) was to request new research to be conducted. She appointed the RIVM to conduct this research and find out to what extend it is safe to play on rubber granulate. She acknowledges the uncertainty that has been exposed by the Zembla episode: "Nou ja, dit zijn bewezen kankerverwekkende stoffen, die strooien we uit over de velden. Als je wondjes krijgt, komt dat binnen in je bloed. En als je daar genoeg van binnenkrijgt dan zou je daar theoretisch kanker van kunnen krijgen. Dat is moeilijk te bewijzen. En de vraag is nu: hoe gaan we daarmee om? Willen we dat bewijs zoeken en hiermee doorgaan en dan, net als bij arsenicum en net als bij roken, over zoveel jaar tot de conclusie komen 'dit was verkeerd' of zetten we nu een punt en gaan we de velden afbouwen, we gaan dat risico niet nemen. Dat is de beste keus." (Brink & Meindertsma, 2016).

Schippers requests a ‘’zwart-wit’’ answer, meaning that she wants to see a clear yes or no to the question whether there is a health risk or not. She requests these results to be in by the end of the year (two months). This is a very short time period to conduct an all-inclusive research

(28)

underline that this time period is very short and draw definite conclusions (Zembla, 2017). Additionally, van den Berg underlines that within the field of toxicology, it is difficult to give an all-inclusive answer and label something as completely safe. Safe is a normative concept where scientific evidence is one of the many factors that are used by decision-makers, the public and professionals to judge whether something is safe.

Various questions are asked by different politicians after they have seen the ‘Dangerous Game’ episode. Minister Schippers mainly refers to the fact that the RIVM research should answer most of the questions. This highlights the uncertainty that is also present within the government. Until the RIVM conclusions are presented, the advice entails that all children should not to play on artificial turfs that make use of rubber granulate (07-10). One of the RIVM researchers argues that: ‘’naarmate de blootstelling groter is, is de kans op gezondheidsrisico's ook groter. Zoek de risico's niet op’’ (NOS, 2016). The KNVB announces that various football matches have been cancelled as response to this request (08-10). The NOS argues that 82 clubs have taken precautionary measurements in response to the RIVM advice (11-10). Some clubs only cancel the matches played on turfs with rubber granulate. Other clubs, like Ajax and NEC do not wait for the results to come in and replace all fields that make use of rubber granulate with cork as alternative material (13-10). As the football clubs and municipalities have ownership over these turfs, they have the final decision when it comes to possible measurements to be taken against rubber granulate. The owners vary in their decision making. As the costs for replacing the rubber particles with alternative materials are high, most owners follow the advice of the RIVM and wait for the results to come in before a decision is made.

The public’s main concern focuses on whether it is safe for their children and themselves to play sports on rubber granulate. There are many parents that express their concern regarding the possible health risk. A Facebook group is made called ‘’Kom van dat gras af’’ (KVDGA), who feel that the concern around possible health risk is growing amongst the Dutch population (14-12). This Facebook group has now become an official association, and still aims to remove rubber granulate from artificial turfs. A national petition is started that is called: ‘’stop rubberexperiment met kinderen’’ (Devilee, Kraaij-Dirkzwager, Wijk, & Woudenberg, 2016). Other countries also start to report on the possible health risks related to the rubber granulate. England, France, Austria, Belgium, Germany and Norway all align with the fact that there are

(29)

many knowledge gaps are surrounding the rubber granulate (20-10). The industry also expresses their concern and respond by offering tests to turf owners to measure the level of PAHs in the rubber granulate. The industry aligns with the RIVM advice from 2007 and will act accordingly when the new advice is given (21-10).

One third of the Dutch football clubs have (partly) quit playing on the rubber granulate by December 2017. This aligns with the precautionary measurements that were proposed by various stakeholders in the Zembla episode. Within Europe, synthetic turfs should make use of safe rubber granulate mixtures that align with the norms that are set in the REACH regulation. The RIVM uses the REACH norms in assessing the level of PAHs present in the rubber granulate.

The RIVM research consisted of two parts: a literature review of the existing information around rubber granulate and an assessment of the level of PAHs on 100 randomly selected pitches within the Netherlands. The objectives entailed making an estimate of what substances are found in rubber granulate, estimate how these materials can penetrate into our bodies and whether these substances pose an exposure risk for humans (RIVM, 2017). Furthermore, the relation between rubber granulate and leukemia/lymphoma cancer is investigated. The overall goal is to identify negative health effects through applying common European research methods and norms (Devilee, Kraaij-Dirkzwager, Wijk, & Woudenberg, 2016). Consultation of almost all stakeholders is accomplished through the creation of two focus groups (expert and social). This creates an open and transparent process throughout the RIVM research. The expert focus group contains experts from various fields (toxicology and epidemiology). They critically assess the research methods, data and conclusions. The social focus group includes representatives from the industry and government (ministries of VWS and IenM, NVWA, het Bureau Risico Beoordeling, GGD, VSG, KNVB, VACO and RecyBEM). This focus group summarizes the various opinions from the stakeholders involved in the rubber granulate life cycle (Devilee, Kraaij-Dirkzwager, Wijk, & Woudenberg, 2016).

RIVM has created a communication strategy for disseminating the results of the research: ‘’Ook kiest het RIVM voor snelle, heldere en transparante informatie voorziening richting publiek en professionals’’ (Devilee, Kraaij-Dirkzwager, Wijk, & Woudenberg, 2016). This is accomplished by providing information on their website: FAQ and published minutes of focus

(30)

answer their questions. These minutes have also been published on their website. The GGD will focus on local dissemination of the information and answer questions on a local scale. On December 21, the RIVM publishes their research and their main conclusion stresses that the health exposure risk from playing sports on rubber granulate is negligible. This means that it is safe to play on surfaces that make use of rubber granulate at infill (RIVM, 2017). Apart from this main conclusion, the RIVM advises the European Union to reconsider the norms that are set for rubber granulate. Rubber granulate is placed within the norms for mixtures, where the RIVM advices to move rubber granulate into the norm for consumer product (RIVM, 2017). This would result in stricter regulation regarding rubber granulate and lower the level of PAHs overall. Experts mostly agree with this advice. The norms are divided into the following categories: consumer products and mixtures. PAHs within rubber granulate fall in the category of mixtures. This norm amounts to 100 mg/kg for the benzo(a)pyreen PAH and 1.000 mg/kg for all PAHs together (ECHA, 2017). The norm for consumer products amounts to 1 mg/kg for each PAH. For toys this norm is even more strict, allowing only 0.5 mg/kg per PAH.

Response on the RIVM research is divided amongst stakeholders. Part of the public is satisfactory with the conclusions that it is safe to play on rubber granulate. Others feel that the RIVM advice is not consistent. On one hand they argue that it is safe to be safe to play sports on rubber granulate but recommend the norms to be revisited. On the other hand, the RIVM has applied the old norms in their calculations. Their own calculation does not align with the advice they have provided (Trouw, 2016). Beside this overall debate should focus less on the panic around the health risk, as the results indicate that there is no harm done to human health (lessen van mini crisis). Some concerned parents are still very skeptical of the RIVM research: ‘’het is nog steeds een onveilig gevoel’’ (Parool, 2016). Others still fear the health of their children as ‘’kleintjes rollen erin, ze stoppen het in hun mond, het lift in het huis. Ik geloof het RIVM gewoon niet.’’ (RIVM, 2017). The KVDGA association underlines that the RIVM acknowledges that their research has not been all-inclusive, since not all health risks have been researched. The KVDGA finds it strange that with this knowledge at hand, the RIVM still advices that it is safe to play on rubber granulate (KVDGA, 2017).

The industry was supporting the RIVM conclusions, as this was a confirmation that the product they sell is safe to use. They do feel that the public has been overreacting to the arguments proposed by Zembla. The industry pleats for more specific norms of the controversial rubber

(31)

granulate (FD, 2016). The VSG also is also appraising the RIVM research and would advise the following to municipalities and sport clubs: ‘’Wij gaan tegen de gemeenten zeggen dat er in elk geval geen aanleiding is om acute maatregelen te nemen’’ (Brink R. , 2016). The head of the VSG, De Jeu, is critical on the experts that continue to question the research and the discussion amongst experts: ‘’Er zijn geen feiten gevonden die hun zorgen onderbouwen. Voer die wetenschappelijke discussies, maar stop met de bangmakerij van de samenleving’’ (Brink R. , 2016). The experts do not seem to come to a consensus, especially in relation to the reliability of the research. They argue that it is difficult to draw such all-inclusive conclusions in such short time period. They make a comparison to the ECHA research, which has taken a much longer time period with less definite conclusions. Kleinjans and van den Berg are most prominent critics of these arguments. Interestingly enough, these two experts have been referred to by Zembla and other news outlets to portray a supportive view of Zembla’s arguments.

Some sport clubs state that the RIVM conclusions are ‘’totaal onbevredigend’’. The rubber granulate is not life threatening, but there is definitely something going on. One club states that it ‘’is niet genoeg om te stoppen met die rubbergranulaatkorrels. De discussie gaat dus gewoon verder" (Brink R. , 2016). The main concern in this argument is that they foresee a continuous discussion as long as the health risk remains present. As long as no definite conclusions are found, the uncertainty will maintain present amongst the public. The overall discussion fades out, until accusations are made towards the industry. In February 2017, the industry is accused of not following proper recycling procedures, where the field owners are not aligning with the ‘zorgplicht’. This accusation is directed towards the environmental risks (Zembla, 2017). On February 15th_{, 2017, Zembla airs their second episode called ‘’Dangerous Game} Continued’’. Within this episode, attention is given to new research that is conducted by scientists of the VU in Amsterdam. They started their own research after the first episode, assessing the exposure threat on Zebrafish. They see many embryo’s and young Zebrafish that die by swimming in water that contain PAHs from rubber granulate. They conduct their tests in water that contain dissolved PAHs from rubber granulate. Most/All embryo’s and young Zebrafish die by being exposed to this water (Zembla, 2017). Zebrafish are often used in research for health risks, as they are representative for many other species, including humans (Trouw, 2017). This research has been critiqued, because the conclusions the VU research refer

Health Exposure Risk from Playing on Rubber Granulate