Download Free Comparing Risks And Setting Environmental Priorities Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Comparing Risks And Setting Environmental Priorities and write the review.

The budgetary squeeze of the 1990s has made it obvious that the government cannot address every possible environmental problem. Comparative risk assessment (CRA) is increasingly advanced as the means for setting realistic priorities. RFF's Center for Risk Management commissioned background papers from leading experts on CRA for a meeting with federal regulatory officials. Comparing Environmental Risks presents the revised papers of this workshop. Representing the state of the art on programmatic CRA, its methodological analyses and practical recommendations will be invaluable to government officials, independent analysts, and anyone studying environmental policy.
For any government agency, the distribution of available resources among problems or programs is crucially important. Agencies, however, typically lack a self-conscious process for examining priorities, much less an explicit method for defining what priorities should be. Worst Things First? illustrates the controversy that ensues when previously implicit administrative processes are made explicit and subjected to critical examination. It reveals surprising limitations to quantitative risk assessment as an instrument for precise tuning of policy judgments. The book also demonstrates the strength of political and social forces opposing the exclusive use of risk assessment in setting environmental priorities.
In 1998, a National Academy of Sciences panel called for an integrated, risk-based food safety system. This goal is widely embraced, but there has been little advance in thinking about how to integrate knowledge about food safety risks into a system- wide risk analysis framework. Such a framework is the essential scientific basis for better priority setting and resource allocation to improve food safety. Sandra Hoffmann and Michael Taylor bring together leading scientists, risk analysts, and economists, as well as experienced regulators and policy analysts, to better define the priority setting problem and focus on the scientific and intellectual resources available to construct a risk analysis framework for improving food safety. Toward Safer Food provides a common starting point for discussions about how to construct this framework. The book includes a multi-disciplinary introduction to the existing data, research, and methodological and conceptual approaches on which a system-wide risk analysis framework must draw. It also recognizes that efforts to improve food safety will be influenced by the current institutional context, and provides an overview of the ways in which food safety law and administration affect priority setting. Hoffman and Taylor intend their book to be accessible to people from a wide variety of backgrounds. At the same time, they retain the core conceptual sophistication needed to understand the challenges that are inherent in improving food safety. The editors hope that this book will help the U.S. move beyond a call for an integrated, risk-based system toward its actual construction.
The articles collected here are foundational contributions to integrating behavioural research and risk analysis. They include seminal articles on three essential challenges. One is ensuring effective two-way communication between technical experts and the lay public, so that risk analyses address lay concerns and provide useful information to people who need it. The second is ensuring that analyses make realistic assumptions about human behaviours that affect risk levels (e.g., how people use pharmaceuticals, operate equipment, or respond to evacuation orders). The third is ensuring that analyses recognize the strengths and weaknesses of experts’ understanding, using experts’ knowledge, while understanding its limits. The articles include overviews of the science, essays on the role of risk in society, and applications to domains as diverse as environment, medicine, terrorism, human rights, chemicals, pandemics, vaccination, HIV/AIDS, xenotransplantation, sexual assault, energy, and climate change. The work involves collaborations among scientists from many disciplines, working with practitioners to produce and convey the knowledge needed help people make better risk decisions.
Decision making in environmental projects is typically a complex and confusing process characterized by trade-offs between socio-political, environmental, and economic impacts. Comparative Risk Assessment (CRA) is a methodology applied to facilitate decision making when various activities compete for limited resources. CRA has become an increasingly accepted research tool and has helped to characterize environmental profiles and priorities on the regional and national level. CRA may be considered as part of the more general but as yet quite academic field of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Considerable research in the area of MCDA has made available methods for applying scientific decision theoretical approaches to multi-criteria problems, but its applications, especially in environmental areas, are still limited. The papers show that the use of comparative risk assessment can provide the scientific basis for environmentally sound and cost-efficient policies, strategies, and solutions to our environmental challenges.
Risk assessments are often used by the federal government to estimate the risk the public may face from such things as exposure to a chemical or the potential failure of an engineered structure, and they underlie many regulatory decisions. Last January, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a draft bulletin for all federal agencies, which included a new definition of risk assessment and proposed standards aimed at improving federal risk assessments. This National Research Council report, written at the request of OMB, evaluates the draft bulletin and supports its overall goals of improving the quality of risk assessments. However, the report concludes that the draft bulletin is "fundamentally flawed" from a scientific and technical standpoint and should be withdrawn. Problems include an overly broad definition of risk assessment in conflict with long-established concepts and practices, and an overly narrow definition of adverse health effects-one that considers only clinically apparent effects to be adverse, ignoring other biological changes that could lead to health effects. The report also criticizes the draft bulletin for focusing mainly on human health risk assessments while neglecting assessments of technology and engineered structures.