Comparative risk assessment: Where does the public fit in?

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 221-241

  Perhac Jr , Ralph M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032385802     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/016224399802300204     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Amhart, L. 1987. Political questions: Political philosophy from Plato to Rawls. New York: Macmillan.
2. Arizona Comparative Environmental Risk Project. 1995. Executive summary. Phoenix: State of Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
3. California Comparative Risk Project. 1994. Toward the 21st century: Planning for the protection of California's environment. Berkeley: California Public Health Foundation.
4. Colorado Environment 2000. 1993. Progress report Colorado environment 2000. Denver: Colorado Department of Transportation.
5. Davies, Clarence, ed. 1996. Comparing environmental risks. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
6. Feldman, D., R. Perhac, and R. A. Hanahan. 1996. Environmental priority-setting in U.S. states and communities: A comparative analysis. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Waste Management Research and Education Institute Report.
7. _. 1997. Improving environmental priority-setting: An analysis of the risk management phase of comparative risk projects. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Waste Management Research and Education Institute Report.
8. Finkel, Adam. 1989. Is risk assessment really too conservative? Revising the revisionists. Columbia Journal of Law 14:427-67.
9. _. 1996. Comparing risks thoughtfully. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment 7 (4): 349.
10. Finkel, A., and D. Golding, eds. 1994. Worst things first? The debate over risk-based national environmental priorities. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
11. Fiorino, Daniel J. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 15:226-43.
12. Fischoff, B., S. Watson, and C. Hope. 1984. Defining risks. Policy Sciences 17:123-39.
13. Florida Center for Public Management. 1995. Comparing Florida's environmental risks. Tallahassee.
14. Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy. 1996. The comparative risk bulletin. Montpelier.
15. Kasper, R. 1980. Perceptions of risk and their effects on decision making. In Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough?, edited by R. Schwing and W. Albers, 71-80. New York: Plenum.
16. The Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet. 1995. Kentucky outlook 2000: A strategy for Kentucky's third century. Frankfurt.
17. Louisiana Public Advisory and Steering Committees. 1991. Louisiana's environmental action plan. Baton Rouge: Department of Environmental Quality.
18. Macaulay, H., and B. Yandle. 1977. Environmental use and the market. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
19. MacLean, Douglass. 1996. Environmental ethics and human values. In Handbook for environmental risk decision making: Values, perceptions, and ethics, edited by C. Richard Cothern, 177-94. New York: Lewis.
20. McDonald, Scott, and Curtina Moreland-Young. 1994. Comparative risk and environmental justice: The case of Jackson, Mississippi. Paper presented at Urban Affairs Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans.
21. Michigan's Relative Risk Analysis Project. 1992. Michigan's environment and relative risk. Lansing: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
22. Mill, J. S. 1873. Considerations on representative government. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
23. Minard, Richard A. Jr. 1996. Comparative risk and the states. Resources. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
24. Minard, R., and K. Jones, with C. Paterson. 1993. State comparative risk projects: A force for change. South Royalton, VT: Northeast Center for Comparative Risk.
25. New Hampshire Comparative Risk Project. 1996. New Hampshire risk project overview, status, and future work. Concord: New Hampshire Charitable Foundation.
26. Nichols, Albert, and Richard Zeckhauser. 1986. The dangers of caution: Conservatism in assessment and the mismanagement of risk. In Advances in applied micro-economics, 55-82. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
27. Ohio Comparative Risk Project. 1995. A guide to comparative risk. Columbus: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
28. Paterson, C., and R. Andrews. 1995. Procedural and substantive fairness in risk decisions: Comparative risk assessment procedures. Policy Studies Journal 23:85-95.
29. Perhac, R. 1996. Defining risk: Normative considerations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2:381-92.
30. Renn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann. 1996. A need for discourse on citizen participation. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, edited by O. Renn, T Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 1-15. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
31. Rousseau, J. J. [1762] 1968. The social contract. Translated by Maurice Cranston. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
32. Stern, P., and H. Fineberg, eds. 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33. Texas Environmental Priorities Project. 1996. State of Texas environmental priorities project draft report. Austin: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission.
34. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Unfinished business: A comparative assessment of environmental problems. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
35. _. 1990. Reducing risk. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
36. _. 1993. A guidebook to comparing risks and setting environmental priorities. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
37. Utah Comparative Risk Project. 1995. Utah's environment: The twenty-first century, executive summary overview. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
38. Vermont Public Advisory Committee. 1991. Environment 1991: Risks to Vermont and Vermonters. Waterbury: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.
39. Washington Environment 2010.1989. The state of the environment report. Olympia: Washington Department of Ecology.
40. Webler, T. 1996. "Right" discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, edited by O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 35-77. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
41. Webler, T., and O. Renn. 1996. A brief primer on participation: Philosophy and practice. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse, edited by O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, 17-33. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
42. Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making. 1997. Public involvement in comparative risk projects: Principles and best practices. Boulder, CO: Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making.
43. Whittemore, Alice S. 1983. Facts and values in risk analysis for environmental toxicants. Risk Analysis 3:23-33.