IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04523440.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The methodology of quantitative risk assessment studies

Author

Listed:
  • Maxime Rigaud

    (UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes)

  • Jurgen Buekers

    (VITO - Flemish Institute for Technological Research)

  • Jos Bessems

    (VITO - Flemish Institute for Technological Research)

  • Xavier Basagaña

    (ISGlobal - Instituto de Salud Global - Institute For Global Health [Barcelona], UPF - Universitat Pompeu Fabra [Barcelona], CIBERESP - Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública = Consortium for Biomedical Research of Epidemiology and Public Health)

  • Sandrine Mathy

    (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble INP - Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes)

  • Mark Nieuwenhuijsen

    (ISGlobal - Instituto de Salud Global - Institute For Global Health [Barcelona], UPF - Universitat Pompeu Fabra [Barcelona], CIBERESP - Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública = Consortium for Biomedical Research of Epidemiology and Public Health)

  • Rémy Slama

    (UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes)

Abstract

Once an external factor has been deemed likely to influence human health and a dose response function is available, an assessment of its health impact or that of policies aimed at influencing this and possibly other factors in a specific population can be obtained through a quantitative risk assessment, or health impact assessment (HIA) study. The health impact is usually expressed as a number of disease cases or disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) attributable to or expected from the exposure or policy. We review the methodology of quantitative risk assessment studies based on human data. The main steps of such studies include definition of counterfactual scenarios related to the exposure or policy, exposure(s) assessment, quantification of risks (usually relying on literature-based dose response functions), possibly economic assessment, followed by uncertainty analyses. We discuss issues and make recommendations relative to the accuracy and geographic scale at which factors are assessed, which can strongly influence the study results. If several factors are considered simultaneously, then correlation, mutual influences and possibly synergy between them should be taken into account. Gaps or issues in the methodology of quantitative risk assessment studies include 1) proposing a formal approach to the quantitative handling of the level of evidence regarding each exposure-health pair (essential to consider emerging factors); 2) contrasting risk assessment based on human dose–response functions with that relying on toxicological data; 3) clarification of terminology of health impact assessment and human-based risk assessment studies, which are actually very similar, and 4) other technical issues related to the simultaneous consideration of several factors, in particular when they are causally linked.

Suggested Citation

  • Maxime Rigaud & Jurgen Buekers & Jos Bessems & Xavier Basagaña & Sandrine Mathy & Mark Nieuwenhuijsen & Rémy Slama, 2024. "The methodology of quantitative risk assessment studies," Post-Print hal-04523440, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04523440
    DOI: 10.1186/s12940-023-01039-x
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04523440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04523440/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s12940-023-01039-x?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. Maureen Cropper & James K. Hammitt & Lisa A. Robinson, 2011. "Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions: Progress and Challenges," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 313-336, October.
    2. David E. Burmaster & Paul D. Anderson, 1994. "Principles of Good Practice for the Use of Monte Carlo Techniques in Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 477-481, August.
    3. Thijs Dekker & Roy Brouwer & Marjan Hofkes & Klaus Moeltner, 2011. "The Effect of Risk Context on the Value of a Statistical Life: a Bayesian Meta-model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 597-624, August.
    4. Steffen Foss Hansen & Martin P. Krayer von Krauss & Joel A. Tickner, 2007. "Categorizing Mistaken False Positives in Regulation of Human and Environmental Health," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 255-269, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lisa A. Robinson & James K. Hammitt, 2016. "Valuing Reductions in Fatal Illness Risks: Implications of Recent Research," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 1039-1052, August.
    2. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth & Gregory S. Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2020. "Altruistic and Private Values For Saving Lives With an Oyster Consumption Safety Program," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2413-2426, November.
    3. Olivier Chanel, 2022. "Impact of COVID‑19 Activity Restrictions on Air Pollution: Methodological Considerations in the Economic Valuation of the Long‑Term Effects on Mortality [Impact sur la pollution de l’air des restri," Working Papers hal-03778336, HAL.
    4. Brown, David P. & Muehlenbachs, Lucija, 2023. "The Value of Electricity Reliability: Evidence from Battery Adoption," Working Papers 2023-5, University of Alberta, Department of Economics, revised 26 Jul 2024.
    5. Waldhoff, Stephanie & Anthoff, David & Rose, Steven K. & Tol, Richard S. J., 2014. "The marginal damage costs of different greenhouse gases: An application of FUND," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 8, pages 1-33.
    6. Janssen, Hans, 2013. "Monte-Carlo based uncertainty analysis: Sampling efficiency and sampling convergence," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 123-132.
    7. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan, 2018. "The benefits of avoiding cancer (or dying from cancer): Evidence from a four- country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 249-262.
    8. Bishop, Kelly C. & Kuminoff, Nicolai V. & Mathes, Sophie M. & Murphy, Alvin D., 2024. "The marginal cost of mortality risk reduction: Evidence from housing markets," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    9. Timothy M. Barry, 1996. "Recommendations on the Testing and Use of Pseudo‐Random Number Generators Used in Monte Carlo Analysis for Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 93-105, February.
    10. Howley, Peter, 2017. "Less money or better health? Evaluating individual’s willingness to make trade-offs using life satisfaction data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 53-65.
    11. Olivier Chanel, 2022. "Impact of COVID-19 Activity Restrictions on Air Pollution: Methodological Considerations in the Economic Valuation of the Long-Term Effects on Mortality," Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE), issue 534-35, pages 103-118.
    12. Marcela V. Parada‐Contzen, 2019. "The Value of a Statistical Life for Risk‐Averse and Risk‐Seeking Individuals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2369-2390, November.
    13. Gregory Ponthiere, 2016. "The contribution of improved joint survival conditions to living standards: an equivalent consumption approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(2), pages 407-449, February.
    14. Frédéric Dor & Pascal Empereur‐Bissonnet & Denis Zmirou & Vincent Nedellec & Jean‐Marie Haguenoer & Frans Jongeneelen & Alain Person & William Dab & Colin Ferguson, 2003. "Validation of Multimedia Models Assessing Exposure to PAHs—The SOLEX Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 1047-1057, October.
    15. Doucouliagos, Chris & Stanley, T.D. & Giles, Margaret, 2012. "Are estimates of the value of a statistical life exaggerated?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 197-206.
    16. Maria F. Poças & Jorge C. Oliveira & Rainer Brandsch & Timothy Hogg, 2010. "Feasibility Study on the Use of Probabilistic Migration Modeling in Support of Exposure Assessment from Food Contact Materials," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1052-1061, July.
    17. Harry M. Marks & Margaret E. Coleman & C.‐T. Jordan Lin & Tanya Roberts, 1998. "Topics in Microbial Risk Assessment: Dynamic Flow Tree Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 309-328, June.
    18. Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Schläpfer, Felix & Lobsiger, Michael, 2018. "A novel approach to estimating the demand value of public safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 285-305.
    19. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    20. Anna Alberini, 2017. "Measuring the economic value of the effects of chemicals on ecological systems and human health," OECD Environment Working Papers 116, OECD Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dose-response; Environment; Hazard; Health impact; Policy; Risk;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-04523440. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.