Can comparative risk be used to develop better environmental decisions?

Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 33-46

  Jones, Ken ^a,b,c  

^a Gn Mt Inst for Environ Democracy   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031391867     PISSN: 10643958     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. OFFICE OF POLICY ANALYSIS, U.S. ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS (1987); RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE, WORST THINGS FIRST; THE DEBATE OVER RISK-BASED NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES (Adam M. Finkel & Dominic Golding eds., 1994).
2. OFFICE OF POLICY ANALYSIS, U.S. ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS (1987); RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE, WORST THINGS FIRST; THE DEBATE OVER RISK-BASED NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES (Adam M. Finkel & Dominic Golding eds., 1994).
3. S. 110, 103d Cong (1993); H.R. 4306, 103d Cong. (1994); H.R. 3425, 103d Cong. (1993); H.R. 3111, 103d Cong. (1993); H.R. 2910, 103d Cong., (1993).
4. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f - 300j-26 (1994).
5. RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE, COMPARING ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS: TOOLS FOR SETTING GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES (J. Clarence Davies ed., 1996).
6. ST CENTURY: PLANNING FOR THE PROTECTION OF CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENT, FINAL REPORT 50 (1994).
7. PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT 1991: RISKS TO VERMONT AND VERMONTERS (1991).
8. WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENT 2010, TOWARD 2010: AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION AGENDA 2-3, 8 (July 1990).
9. THE CITY OF SEATTLE'S ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION AGENDA, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP IN SEATTLE (October 1992).
10. CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIV. CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PRIORITIES PROJECT, IN OHIO STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORT 407 (1995).
11. THE ELIZABETH RIVER PROJECT, ELIZABETH RIVER RESTORATION, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (1996).
12. See id at 1.
13. At a recent meeting of comparative risk project managers, the issue of priority setting was discussed. This group agreed that priorities as described by shifting resources from one program to another is not the objective of most comparative risk projects. However, this group did identify that comparative risk has been used to focus attention on particular issues - another way of thinking about priorities. JOANNE DEA & SUSAN THOMAS, GREEN MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY, BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR CHANGE: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN STATE COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECTS (1997).
14. See id.
15. ST CENTURY: PLANNING FOR THE PROTECTION OF CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENT, supra note 5; ELIZABETH RIVER RESTORATION, supra note 10; CONSENSUS RANKING OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS FACING MAINE, infra note 15; MICHIGAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND RELATIVE RISK, infra note 16; RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK IN OHIO, infra note 17.
16. ST CENTURY: PLANNING FOR THE PROTECTION OF CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENT, supra note 5; ELIZABETH RIVER RESTORATION, supra note 10; CONSENSUS RANKING OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS FACING MAINE, infra note 15; MICHIGAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND RELATIVE RISK, infra note 16; RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK IN OHIO, infra note 17.
17. ST CENTURY: PLANNING FOR THE PROTECTION OF CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENT, supra note 5; ELIZABETH RIVER RESTORATION, supra note 10; CONSENSUS RANKING OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS FACING MAINE, infra note 15; MICHIGAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND RELATIVE RISK, infra note 16; RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK IN OHIO, infra note 17.
18. ST CENTURY: PLANNING FOR THE PROTECTION OF CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENT, supra note 5; ELIZABETH RIVER RESTORATION, supra note 10; CONSENSUS RANKING OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS FACING MAINE, infra note 15; MICHIGAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND RELATIVE RISK, infra note 16; RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK IN OHIO, infra note 17.
19. ST CENTURY: PLANNING FOR THE PROTECTION OF CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENT, supra note 5; ELIZABETH RIVER RESTORATION, supra note 10; CONSENSUS RANKING OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS FACING MAINE, infra note 15; MICHIGAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND RELATIVE RISK, infra note 16; RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK IN OHIO, infra note 17.
20. MAINE ENVIRONMENT PRIORITIES PROJECT, CONSENSUS RANKING OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS FACING MAINE, REPORT FROM THE STEERING COMMITTEE (JANUARY 1996).
21. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, MICHIGAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND RELATIVE RISK, MICHIGAN RELATIVE RISK ANALYSIS PROJECT 5-8 (JULY 1992).
22. OHIO COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECT, RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK IN OHIO, REPORT FROM PHASE 2 OF THE OHIO COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECT i-ii, 1 (DECEMBER 1995).
23. ST CENTURY: PLANNING FOR THE PROTECTION OF CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENT, supra note 5.
24. See CONSENSUS RANKING OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS FACING MAINE, supra note 15.
25. See generally RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK IN OHIO, supra note 17.
26. OFFICE OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ACTION PLAN (1991); MULTI-MEDIA FOCAL GROUP, COLORADO ENVIRONMENT 2000, PROGRESS REPORT (APRIL 1993).
27. See ELIZABETH RIVER RESTORATION, supra note 10.
28. See THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PRIORITIES PROJECT, supra note 9.
29. See ENVIRONMENT 1991: RISKS TO VERMONT AND VERMONTERS, supra note 6.