Advertisement

Prioritizing Environmental Risks to Health

Chapter
  • 939 Downloads
Part of the Environmental Science and Technology Library book series (ENST, volume 24)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Comparative 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 

References

  1. 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
  2. Commonwealth of Australia. 1999. National Environmental Health Strategy. Publication number 2592. Melbourne: enHealth. http://enhealth.nphp.gov.au/strategy/nehs/index.htm.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Fischhoff, B. 1995. Ranking risks. Risk – Health Safety and Environment 6: 189–200.Google Scholar
  7. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein. 1982. Lay foibles and expert fables in judgments about risk. The American Statistician 36(3): 240–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Florig, H.K., M.G. Morgan, K.M. Morgan, K.E. Jenni, B. Fischhoff, P.S. Fischbeck, and M.L. DeKay. 2001. A deliberative method for ranking risks (1): Overview and test bed development. Risk Analysis 21(5): 913–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Keeney, R.L., and H. Raiffa. 1993. Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lichtenstein, S., P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, M. Layman, and B. Combs. 1978. Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 4(6): 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Long, J., and B. Fischhoff. 2000. Setting risk priorities: A formal model. Risk Analysis 20: 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Morgan, M.G., H.K. Florig, M.L. DeKay, and P.S. Fischbeck. 2000. Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Analysis 20: 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morgan, K.M., M.L. DeKay, P.S. Fischbeck, M.G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, and H.K. Florig. 2001. A deliberative method for ranking risks (II): Evaluation of validity and agreement among risk managers. Risk Analysis 21(5): 923–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. National Academy of Sciences. 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. National Research Council. 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Smith, K.R., C.F. Corvalán, and T. Kjellstrom. 1999. How much global ill health is attributable to environmental factors? Epidemiology 10(5): 573–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Willis, H.H., M.L. DeKay, M.G. Morgan, H.K. Florig, and P.S. Fischbeck. 2004. Ecological risk ranking: Development and evaluation of a method for improving public participation in environmental decision making. Risk Analysis 24: 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gillings School of Global Public HealthUniversity of North Carolina–Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Environment Agency–Abu DhabiAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates
  3. 3.Health Authority–Abu DhabiAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations