Prioritizing Environmental Risks to Health
- 939 Downloads
This chapter discusses in detail the process we used to engage stakeholders in further refining the scope of issues to consider in this environmental burden of disease assessment. First, we provide background on innate human cognitive biases that affect our perceptions of risk and how these biases pose challenges to rational priority setting. Then, we describe previous international experiences in prioritizing environmental risks to health for policymaking. Next, we describe the systematic approach used here to prioritize environmental risk factors—an approach that compensates for cognitive biases, incorporates scientific information, systematically involves multiple stakeholders, and builds on international experiences. Finally, we describe how we implemented this ranking process and how the results led to the eight environmental risk factor categories that are the subjects of the remaining chapters of this book: outdoor air pollution, indoor air pollution, occupational exposures, climate change, drinking water contamination, coastal water pollution, soil and groundwater contamination, and produce and seafood contamination.
KeywordsComparative risk assessment Risk summary sheets Categorizing environmental health risks Environmental and public health stakeholders Deliberative approach for ranking risks Risk analysis research Setting priorities for environmental health risk management Cognitive biases in risk perception
- Briggs, D.J., R. Stern, and T.L. Tinker. 1999. Environmental health for all: Risk assessment and risk communication for national environmental health action plans. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Commonwealth of Australia. 1999. National Environmental Health Strategy. Publication number 2592. Melbourne: enHealth. http://enhealth.nphp.gov.au/strategy/nehs/index.htm.
- Commonwealth of Australia. 2007. National Environmental Health Strategy 2007–2012. Publication number P3-2333. Melbourne: enHealth. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/ohp-environ-envstrat.htm.
- Davies, J.C. 1996. Comparative risk analysis in the 1990s: The state of the art. In Comparing environmental risks: Tools for setting government priorities, ed. J.C. Davies. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
- DeKay, M.L., H.K. Florig, P.S. Fischbeck, M.G. Morgan, K.M. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, and K.E. Jenni. 2001. The use of public risk ranking in regulatory development. In Improving regulation: Cases in environment, health, and safety, ed. P.S. Fischbeck and R.S. Farrow, 208–230. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
- Fischhoff, B. 1995. Ranking risks. Risk – Health Safety and Environment 6: 189–200.Google Scholar
- Hastie, R., and R. Dawes. 2001. Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Keeney, R.L., and H. Raiffa. 1993. Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Morgan, M.G., B. Fischhoff, L. Lave, and P. Fischbeck. 1996. A proposal for ranking risk within federal agencies. Chapter 6. In Comparing environmental risks: Tools for setting government priorities, ed. J.C. Davies. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
- Morgan, K.M., M.L. DeKay, and P.S. Fischbeck. 1999. A multi-attribute approach to risk prioritization. Risk Policy Report 6(6): 38–40.Google Scholar
- National Academy of Sciences. 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Ramaswami, A., J.B. Milford, and M.J. Small. 2005. Integrated environmental modeling: Pollutant fate, transport, and risk in the environment. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1980. Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough, ed. R. Schwing and W. Albers Jr.. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Risk-informed decision framework appendix, draft. Louisiana coastal protection and restoration technical report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, Mississippi Valley Division. http://lacpr.usace.army.mil/\Report\Draft Appendices\Risk Informed Decision Framework Appendix.pdf. February.Google Scholar
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. Unfinished business: A comparative assessment of environmental problems. EPA Number: 230287025a. NTIS PB88-127048. Alexandria, Va.: National Technical Information Service.Google Scholar
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board. 1990. Reducing risk: setting priorities and strategies for environmental protection. Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Committee. Report SAB-EC-90-021. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.Google Scholar
- Webster, K.D., C.G. Jardine, L. McMullen, and SB. Cash. 2008. Risk ranking: Investigation expert and public differences in evaluating food safety risks. Project Report. Research Project Number CMD-08-02. Edmonton: University of Alberta, Department of Rural Economy.Google Scholar