How much uncertainty is too much and how do we know? A case example of the assessment of ozone monitor network options

Risk Analysis

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 1109-1120

  Stahl, Cynthia H ^a   Cimorelli, Alan J ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental decision making; Policy analysis; Precautionary principle; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; OPTIMIZATION; RISK MANAGEMENT; TOXICITY; UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS;

ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING; POLICY ANALYSIS; PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE; UNCERTAINTY;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

OZONE;

DECISION MAKING; OZONE; PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

AIR MONITORING; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 28144444100     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00666.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Charnley, G. (2000). Democratic Science: Enhancing the Role of Science in Stakeholder-Based Risk Management Decision-Making. Washington, DC: HealthRisk Strategies.
2. Cranor, C. F. (1997). The normative nature of risk assessment: Features and possibilities. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 8, 123.
3. Finger, M., & Verlaan, P. (1995). Learning our way out: A conceptual framework for social-environmental learning. World Development, 23, 503-513.
4. Gerrard, S. (2000). Environmental risk management. In T. O'Riordan (Ed.), Environmental Science for Environmental Management (pp. 435-468). Norwich, UK: Prentice Hall.
5. Harremoes, P., Gee, D., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Keys, J., Wynne, B., & Sofia, G. V. (2001). Twelve late lessons. In P. Harremoes, D. Gee, M. MacGarvin, A. Stirling, B. Wynne, & S. G. Vaz (Eds.), Late Lessons from Early Warning: The Precautionary Principle 1896-2000 (pp. 168-194). Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency.
6. Hisschemoller, M., & Hoppe, R. (2001). Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. In M. Hisschemoller, R. Hoppe, W. N. Dunn, & J. R. Ravetz (Eds.), Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis (pp. 47-72). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
7. Innes de Neufville, J., & Christensen, K. S. (1980). Is optimizing really best? Policy Studies Journal, 8, 1053-1060.
8. Krimsky, S., & Plough, A. (1988). Plant closure: The ASARCO Tacoma copper smelter. In S. Krimsky & A. Plough (Eds.), Environmental Hazards: Communicating Risks as a Social Process (pp. 180-238). Dover, MA: Auburn House Publishing Company.
9. Lee, K. N. (1993). Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
10. Lynn, F. M. (1990). Public participation in risk management decisions: The right to define, the right to know, and the right to act. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 1, 95.
11. Schon, D. A. (1971). Beyond the Stable State. New York: Random House.
12. Stahl, C. H. (2003). Multi-Criteria Integrated Resource Assessment (MIRA): A New Decision Analytic Approach to Inform Environmental Policy Analysis. University of Delaware. For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
13. Stahl, C. H., Fernandez, C., & Cimorelli, A. J. (2004). Technical Support Document for the Region 1118-Hour Ozone Designations II-Factor Analysis. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III.
14. Thompson, K. H. (1983). Comment: On public acceptance of regulatory decisions involving technology-based health risks. In J. D. Nyhart & M. M. Carrow (Eds.), Law and Science in Collaboration: Resolving Regulatory Issues of Science and Technology (pp. 155-163). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
15. U.S. Department of Energy. (2004). Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides, Federal Guidance Report No. 13. EPA 402-R-99-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Emission, Monitoring and Analysis Division, Clean Air Markets Division. (2005). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule. EPA 452/R-05-002. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (2004). Air quality designations and classifications for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards; Early action compact areas with deferred effective dates. Federal Register, 69, 23858-23951.
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. (1998). Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Professional Fabricare Processes. EPA 744-B-98-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. (2003). Multimedia, Multipathway, and Multireceptor Risk Assessment (3MRA) Modeling System, Volume IV: Evaluating Uncertainty and Sensitivity. EPA 530-D-03-001d. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, STAPPA-ALAPCO, and PM2.5 Committee Emission Inventory Improvement Program. (1999). Getting Started: Emission Inventory Methods for PM2.5; Volume IX, Chapter 1. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
22. Van Groenendaal, W. J. H. (2003). Group decision support for public policy planning. Information and Management, 40, 371-380.