Environmental priority-setting through comparative risk assessment

Environmental Management

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 483-493

  Feldman, David Lewis ^a   Hanahan, Ruth Anne ^a   Perhac, Ralph ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Frugality; Poland; Pollution prevention; Resource conservation; Source reduction

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY SETTING;

LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC POLICY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; METHODOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; EVALUATION; GOVERNMENT; POLICY; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION PROCESS;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0032930681     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s002679900203     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Berman, P. 1995. Perspective: A revolution against the environment. The George Washington School of Public Management Network March:6, 8.
2. Bullard, R. D. 1994. Unequal Environmental Protection: Incorporating Environmental Justice in Decision Making. Pages 237-266 in A. M. Finkel and D. Golding (eds.), Worst things first? The debate over risk-based environmental priorities. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
3. Burke, T. A., N. M. Shalauta, and N. L. Tran. 1995. Strengthening the role of public health in environmental policy. Policy Studies Journal 23(1):76-84.
4. Center for Risk Analysis. 1995. Reform of risk regulation: Achieving more protection at less cost. Harvard University School of Public Health, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
5. Clarke, D. 1995. The elusive middle ground in environmental policy. Issues in Science and Technology 11(3):63-70.
6. Clinton, W., and A. Gore, Jr. 1995. Reinventing environmental regulation. The White House, Washington, DC, 61 pp.
7. Davies, T. 1994. Uses and abuses of risk assessment. Risk Policy Report October 14:25.
8. Elizabeth River. 1996. Elizabeth River restoration: A watershed action plan, leadership review draft. Elizabeth River Project, Norfolk, Virginia.
9. Finkel, A. M. 1994. Should we - and can we - reduce the worst risks first? Pages 3-20 m A. M. Finkel and D. Golding (eds.), Worst things first? The debate over risk-based environmental priorities. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
10. Graham, J. D., and M. Sadowitz. 1994. Superfund reform: Reducing risk through community choice. Issues in Science and Technology 10(4):35-40.
11. Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy. 1996. New England environmental goals and indicators project, final report. September 10. Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy, Montpelier, Vermont, 34 pp.
12. Jones, K. 1996. End of an era: Five years and ready for more. The Comparative Risk Bulletin 6(3 and 4):1.
13. Jones, K. 1997. A retrospective on ten years of comparative risk. Prepared for the American Industrial Health Council. January 24. Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy, Montpelier, Vermont.
14. Kadvany, J. 1995. From comparative risk to decision analysis: Ranking solutions to multiple-value environmental problems. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment Fall:333-358.
15. "Lessons From the Tortoise and the Hare: MEPP Crosses Another Finish Line." 1997. Synergy: The Newsletter for Positive Change in Environmental Management 2(3):1-3.
16. Miller, W. H. 1994. Risky business - debate over risk assessment comes to a head in Congress. Industry Week July 18:55-56, 62-63.
17. Minard, R. A., Jr. 1996. Comparative risk and the states. Resources Winter:6-10.
18. Minard, R., K. Jones, and C. Paterson. 1993. State comparative risk projects: A force for change, State reports. March 15. Northeast Center for Comparative Risk, Montpelier, Vermont, 83 pp.
19. NAPA (National Academy of Public Administration Report to Congress). 1995. Setting priorities, getting results: A new direction for the Environmental Protection Agency, summary report. NAPA, Silver Spring, Maryland, 175 pp.
20. NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1996a. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academy of Sciences Press, Washington, DC, 264 pp.
21. NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1996b. Linking science and technology to society's environmental goals. Policy Division, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 530 pp.
22. Paterson, C. J., and R. Andrews. 1995. Procedural and substantive fairness in risk decisions: Comparative risk assessment procedures. Policy Studies Journal 23(1):85-95.
23. Robbins, N. 1997. Regional environmental priorities project (northeast Ohio, seven counties). Presentation slides for "Environmental management in the nineties: Using the right tools." San Antonio, Texas.
24. Russell, M. 1995. Environmental policy's great dilemma. Environment 37(2):13-14.
25. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Unfinished business: A comparative assessment of environmental problems. EPA, Office of Policy Analysis, Washington, DC, 100 pp.
26. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Reducing risk: Setting priorities and strategies for environmental protection. Science Advisory Board A-101. SAB-EC-90-021. EPA, Washington, DC, 26 pp.
27. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. A guidebook to comparing risks and setting environmental priorities. EPA 230-B-93-003. EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC.
28. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. EPA's comparative risk projects: EPA's national environmental goals project. September. Regional and State Planning Division, Washington, DC.
29. US GAO (US Congress, General Accounting Office). 1995. Environmental protection: Current environmental challenges require new approaches. GAO/T-RCED-95-190. GAO, Washington, DC, 9 pp.
30. US Public Health Service. 1989. Promoting health/ preventing disease: Year 2000 health objectives for the nation, draft. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 484 pp.
31. Wernick, I. K. (ed.). 1995. Community risk profiles: Summary report. Pages 3-24 in Community risk profiles: A tool to improve environment and community health. Program for the Human Environment, The Rockefeller University, New York.