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. Charles N. Haas, 1997. "Importance of Distributional Form in Characterizing Inputs to Monte Carlo Risk Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 107-113, February.
    6. Adler, Matthew, 2020. "What should we spend to save lives in a pandemic? A critique of the value of statistical life," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105283, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. Stephen C. Newbold, 2011. "Valuing Health Risk Changes Using a Life-Cycle Consumption Framework," NCEE Working Paper Series 201103, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Apr 2011.
    13. 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.
    14. Hoffmann, Sandra & Ahn, Jae-Wan, 2021. "Updating Economic Burden of Foodborne Diseases Estimates for Inflation and Income Growth," USDA Miscellaneous 316343, United States Department of Agriculture.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    18. 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.
    19. David Anthoff & Richard Tol, 2013. "The uncertainty about the social cost of carbon: A decomposition analysis using fund," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 515-530, April.
    20. Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Schläpfer, Felix & Lobsiger, Michael, 2017. "A Novel Approach to Estimating the Demand Value of Road Safety," ETA: Economic Theory and Applications 254045, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).

    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.