IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rffdps/10474.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparative Risk Projects: A Methodology for Cross-Project Analysis of Human Health Risk Rankings

Author

Listed:
  • Konisky, David M.

Abstract

Public agencies at all levels of government have conducted comparative risk projects to inform environmental priority-setting efforts. Using the analytic policy tool, comparative risk analysis (CRA), most projects have ranked environmental problems in terms of the relative risks they pose to human health and other endpoints. Differences in project design complicate cross-project analysis of the risk ranking results. This paper discusses important project design variations that complicate cross-project analysis and presents a methodology that provides a simple, straightforward approach for comparing risk ranking results that overcomes some of these project-specific idiosyncrasies. The methodology provides a mechanism to help practitioners of CRA determine how their risk ranking results compare with other projects. The paper also illustrates how the methodology can be applied to develop a consolidated ranking of the most often ranked environmental health problems. Thirty-nine completed human health CRAs are analyzed to determine which ten environmental problems have most often been cited in comparative risk projects as posing the most significant threats to human health.

Suggested Citation

  • Konisky, David M., 1999. "Comparative Risk Projects: A Methodology for Cross-Project Analysis of Human Health Risk Rankings," Discussion Papers 10474, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10474
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10474/files/dp990046.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.10474?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul F. Deisler, 1997. "A Score Comparison Method as an Aid to Integrating Separate Comparative Risk Rankings into a Single, Comparative Risk Ranking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 797-806, December.
    2. Daniel J. Fiorino, 1989. "Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 293-299, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bernauer, Thomas & Koubi, Vally, 2009. "Effects of political institutions on air quality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1355-1365, March.
    2. Somlanare Romuald KINDA & Pascale COMBES MOTEL & Jean-Louis COMBES, 2014. "Do Environmental Policies Hurt Trade Performance?," Working Papers 201404, CERDI.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Louis H.J. Goossens, 1991. "Risk Prevention and Policy‐Making in Automatic Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 217-228, June.
    2. Aimee Guglielmo Kinney & Thomas M. Leschine, 2002. "A Procedural Evaluation of an Analytic‐Deliberative Process: The Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 83-100, February.
    3. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    4. Ilyas Baker & Thawatchai Boonchote, 1998. "Sensitizing technical experts to public concerns about industrial hazards using theory, guided imaging and focused group discussion," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 39-45, March.
    5. Konisky, David, 1999. "Comparative Risk Projects: A Methodology for Cross-Project Analysis of Human Health Risk Rankings," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-46, Resources for the Future.
    6. Laura N. Rickard, 2021. "Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 466-479, March.
    7. Christina H. Drew & Timothy L. Nyerges & Thomas M. Leschine, 2004. "Promoting Transparency of Long‐Term Environmental Decisions: The Hanford Decision Mapping System Pilot Project," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1641-1664, December.
    8. William R. Freudenburg & Cynthia‐Lou Coleman & James Gonzales & Catherine Helgeland, 1996. "Media Coverage of Hazard Events: Analyzing the Assumptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 31-42, February.
    9. Katherine E. Rowan, 1994. "Why Rules for Risk Communication Are Not Enough: A Problem‐Solving Approach to Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 365-374, June.
    10. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2002. "A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk‐Based, Precaution‐Based, and Discourse‐Based Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1071-1094, December.
    11. Clinton J. Andrews & David M. Hassenzahl & Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Accommodating Uncertainty in Comparative Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1323-1335, October.
    12. Alfred Moore, 2010. "Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 715-730, October.
    13. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    14. Jennifer Duffield Hamilton, 2003. "Exploring Technical and Cultural Appeals in Strategic Risk Communication: The Fernald Radium Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 291-302, April.
    15. Ortwin Renn & Birgit Blättel‐Mink & Hans Kastenholz, 1997. "Discursive methods in environmental decision making," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(4), pages 218-231, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk and Uncertainty;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10474. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.