Integrated Analysis: Combining Risk and Economic Assessments While Preserving the Separation of Powers

This article presents a process for an integrated policy analysis that combines risk assessment and benefit-cost analysis. This concept, which explicitly combines the two types of related analyses, seems to contradict the long-accepted risk analysis paradigm of separating risk assessment and risk management since benefit-cost analysis is generally considered to be a part of risk management. Yet that separation has become a problem because benefit-cost analysis uses risk assessment results as a starting point and considerable debate over the last several years focused on the incompatibility of the use of upper bounds or "safe" point estimates in many risk assessments with benefit-cost analysis. The problem with these risk assessments is that they ignore probabilistic information. As advanced probabilistic techniques for risk assessment emerge and economic analysts receive distributions of risks instead of point estimates, the artificial separation between risk analysts and the economic/decision analysts complicates the overall analysis. In addition, recent developments in countervailing risk theory suggest that combining the risk and benefit-cost analyses is required to fully understand the complexity of choices and tradeoffs faced by the decisionmaker. This article also argues that the separation of analysis and management is important, but that benefit-cost analysis has been wrongly classified into the risk management category and that the analytical effort associated with understanding the economic impacts of risk reduction actions need to be part of a broader risk assessment process.     

Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments

Contaminated sediments and other sites present a difficult challenge for environmental decisionmakers. They are typically slow to recover or attenuate naturally, may involve multiple regulatory agencies and stakeholder groups, and engender multiple toxicological and ecotoxicological risks. While environmental decision-making strategies over the last several decades have evolved into increasingly more sophisticated, information-intensive, and complex approaches, there remains considerable dissatisfaction among business, industry, and the public with existing management strategies. Consequently, contaminated sediments and materials are the subject of intense technology development, such as beneficial reuse or in situ treatment. However, current decision analysis approaches, such as comparative risk assessment, benefit-cost analysis, and life cycle assessment, do not offer a comprehensive approach for incorporating the varied types of information and multiple stakeholder and public views that must typically be brought to bear when new technologies are under consideration. Alternatively, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) offers a scientifically sound decision framework for management of contaminated materials or sites where stakeholder participation is of crucial concern and criteria such as economics, environmental impacts, safety, and risk cannot be easily condensed into simple monetary expressions. This article brings together a multidisciplinary review of existing decision-making approaches at regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe and synthesizes state-of-the-art research in MCDA methods applicable to the assessment of contaminated sediment management technologies. Additionally, it tests an MCDA approach for coupling expert judgment and stakeholder values in a hypothetical contaminated sediments management case study wherein MCDA is used as a tool for testing stakeholder responses to and improving expert assessment of innovative contaminated sediments technologies.     

What to Do at Low Doses: A Bounding Approach for Economic Analysis

To quantify the health benefits of environmental policies, economists generally require estimates of the reduced probability of illness or death. For policies that reduce exposure to carcinogenic substances, these estimates traditionally have been obtained through the linear extrapolation of experimental dose-response data to low-exposure scenarios as described in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (1986). In response to evolving scientific knowledge, EPA proposed revisions to the guidelines in 1996. Under the proposed revisions, dose-response relationships would not be estimated for carcinogens thought to exhibit nonlinear modes of action. Such a change in cancer-risk assessment methods and outputs will likely have serious consequences for how benefit-cost analyses of policies aimed at reducing cancer risks are conducted. Any tendency for reduced quantification of effects in environmental risk assessments, such as those contemplated in the revisions to EPA's cancer-risk assessment guidelines, impedes the ability of economic analysts to respond to increasing calls for benefit-cost analysis. This article examines the implications for benefit-cost analysis of carcinogenic exposures of the proposed changes to the 1986 Guidelines and proposes an approach for bounding dose-response relationships when no biologically based models are available. In spite of the more limited quantitative information provided in a carcinogen risk assessment under the proposed revisions to the guidelines, we argue that reasonable bounds on dose-response relationships can be estimated for low-level exposures to nonlinear carcinogens. This approach yields estimates of reduced illness for use in a benefit-cost analysis while incorporating evidence of nonlinearities in the dose-response relationship. As an illustration, the bounding approach is applied to the case of chloroform exposure.     

Incorporating Risk Assessment and Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental Management1

Using data from interviews with a key set of individuals at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, this study examines intraagency views about the incorporation of risk assessment and benefit-cost analysis in environment management.     

Risk Analysis for Critical Asset Protection

This article proposes a quantitative risk assessment and management framework that supports strategic asset-level resource allocation decision making for critical infrastructure and key resource protection. The proposed framework consists of five phases: scenario identification, consequence and criticality assessment, security vulnerability assessment, threat likelihood assessment, and benefit-cost analysis. Key innovations in this methodology include its initial focus on fundamental asset characteristics to generate an exhaustive set of plausible threat scenarios based on a target susceptibility matrix (which we refer to as asset-driven analysis) and an approach to threat likelihood assessment that captures adversary tendencies to shift their preferences in response to security investments based on the expected utilities of alternative attack profiles assessed from the adversary perspective. A notional example is provided to demonstrate an application of the proposed framework. Extensions of this model to support strategic portfolio-level analysis and tactical risk analysis are suggested.     

Variability and Uncertainty Meet Risk Management and Risk Communication

In the past decade, the use of probabilistic risk analysis techniques to quantitatively address variability and uncertainty in risks increased in popularity as recommended by the 1994 National Research Council that wrote Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, for example, the U.S. EPA supported the development of tools that produce distributions of risk demonstrating the variability and/or uncertainty in the results. This paradigm shift away from the use of point estimates creates new challenges for risk managers, who now struggle with decisions about how to use distributions in decision making. The challenges for risk communication, however, have only been minimally explored. This presentation uses the case studies of variability in the risks of dying on the ground from a crashing airplane and from the deployment of motor vehicle airbags to demonstrate how better characterization of variability and uncertainty in the risk assessment lead to better risk communication. Analogies to food safety and environmental risks are also discussed. This presentation demonstrates that probabilistic risk assessment has an impact on both risk management and risk communication, and highlights remaining research issues associated with using improved sensitivity and uncertainty analyses in risk assessment.     

What Should Be the Implications of Uncertainty,Variability, and Inherent “Biases”/“Conservatism” for Risk Management Decision-Making?

This paper is a challenge from a pair of lifelong technical specialists in risk assessment for the risk-management community to better define social decision criteria for risk acceptance vs. risk control in relation to the issues of variability and uncertainty. To stimulate discussion, we offer a variety of straw man proposals about where we think variability and uncertainty are likely to matter for different types of social policy considerations in the context of a few different kinds of decisions. In particular, we draw on recent presentations of uncertainty and variability data that have been offered by EPA in the context of the consideration of revised ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act.     

Cooperation Versus Confrontation: A Comparison of Approaches to Environmental Risk Management in Japan and the United States1

This paper compares approaches to environmental risk management in Japan and the United States. The paper includes an historical examination of two case studies of environmental risk management: synthetic detergents and lead in gasoline. In addition, the paper discusses several important differences between Japan and the United States, including (a) different attitudes toward separating environmental risk management from environmental risk assessment, and (b) different approaches toward environmental risk management. Specifically, the Japanese approach is based largely on a cooperative model of risk management, with a strong emphasis on negotiation and consensus-building, while the U.S. approach is based largely on a confrontational model of risk management, with a strong emphasis on rigorous scientific analysis and open adverserial processes.     

Plurality of Worlds, Plurality of Risks

Risk management decisions are not made only on the basis of expert risk assessment. In numerous instances, public controversy erupts, questioning the results of previous risk assessment procedures and shaping the development of risk management episodes. This article presents a case study of risk management in the context of a 1980s controversy over aerial spraying against a spruce budworm epidemic in Quebec and draws some general conclusions concerning the relationship between risk analysis and public controversies. Actors in public controversies define risks more broadly than risk assessment experts. Moreover, public controversies only partly concern issues of risk. They are first and foremost debates about social choices in which actors carry with them a multidimensional social experience of technology, trust, credibility and decision-making institutions. This experience contributes to the construction of a plurality of emergent representations of what is at stake in a controversy, referred to in this paper as "worlds of relevance." Analysis shows that in any given public controversy, there are not just two parties arguing against each other. Rather, several "worlds of relevance" can be found that link, in a variety of ways, a variety of entities not necessarily shared by all these worlds. Each "world of relevance" presents a different definition of what the issues and the stakes of the controversy are. Risks are only part of the picture, and they are embedded in "worlds of relevance" from which they take their significance. The successful management of a controversy entails the association of entities from different worlds.     

Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment: The CRAM Perspective

In 1989, a Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology (CRAM) was convened by the National Research Council (NRC) to identify and investigate important scientific issues in risk assessment. One of the first issues considered by the committee was the development of a conceptual framework for ecological risk assessment, defined as "the characterization of the adverse ecological effects of environmental exposures to hazards imposed by human activities." Adverse ecological effects include all biological and nonbiological environmental changes that society perceives as undesirable. The committee's opinion was that a general framework is needed to define the relationship of ecological risk assessment to environmental management and to facilitate the development of uniform technical guidelines. The framework for human health risk assessment proposed by the NRC in 1983 was adopted as a starting point for discussion. CRAM concluded that, although ecological risk assessment and human health risk assessment differ substantially in terms of scientific disciplines and technical problems, the underlying decision process is the same for both. Therefore, CRAM recommended that the 1983 risk assessment framework be modified to accommodate both human health and ecological risk assessment. CRAM defined an integrated health/ ecological risk assessment framework consisting of the four components: Hazard Identification, Exposure Assessment, Exposure-Response Assessment, and Risk Characterization. CRAM further provided recommendations on the scope of issues to be addressed in ecological risk assessment, critical research needs, and mechanisms for providing more detailed guidance on the scientific content of ecological risk assessments.     

An Integrated Methodology for Assessment and Selection of the Project Risk Response Actions

In a systematic process of project risk management, after risk assessment is implemented, the risk analysts encounter the phase of assessment and selection of the project risk response actions (RA). As indicated by many researchers, there are less systematic and well-developed solutions in the area of risk response assessment and selection. The present article introduces a methodology including a modeling approach with the objective of selecting a set of RA that minimizes the undesirable deviation from achieving the project scope. The developed objective function comprises the three key success criteria of a project, namely, time, quality, and cost. Our model integrates overall project management into the project risk response planning (P2RP). Furthermore, the proposed model stresses on an equivalent importance for both "risk" and "response." We believe that applying the proposed model helps the project risk analyst in most effective and efficient manner dealing with his or her complicated RA selection problems. The application of the proposed model was implemented in projects in the construction industry in which it showed tremendous time, cost, and quality improvements.     

An Effective Statistical Approach for Comparative Risk Assessment1

Comparative risk assessment is an evaluation process designed to rank environmental problems based on the severity of potential hazards. The purpose of this paper is to provide an effective statistical approach to analyze perceived environmental risks. Environmental problems, evaluative criteria, and other potential moderator variables need to be determined first, and then the risk perception data collected. Repeated measures analysis is used to first test for interactions between environmental problems and potential moderator variables. If there are no significant interactions, then the risk difference among environmental problems is tested unconditionally; otherwise the risk difference is tested conditionally. Cluster analysis for environmental problems is performed only when the risk difference is significant. The clustering results can be objectively determined by using the simultaneous T² confidence intervals. Risk-based priority setting is made according to the clusters obtained. To illustrate this approach, an empirical study of comparative socioeconomic risks in Taiwan was conducted. Socioeconomic impacts areas including social security, quality of life, production cost, investment willingness, and economic resources are used as evaluative criteria. Results indicate that selected impact areas do affect relative risk differences among 24 environmental problems, and the difference is significant for each area. Therefore, cluster analysis is conducted separately for each impact area. Risk-based priority settings for clusters of environmental problems are reported.     

Ecological Risk Assessment,Prediction, and Assessing Risk Predictions

Ecological risk assessment embodied in an adaptive management framework is becoming the global standard approach for formally assessing and managing the ecological risks of technology and development. Ensuring the continual improvement of ecological risk assessment approaches is partly achieved through the dissemination of not only the types of risk assessment approaches used, but also their efficacy. While there is an increasing body of literature describing the results of general comparisons between alternate risk assessment methods and models, there is a paucity of literature that post hoc assesses the performance of specific predictions based on an assessment of risk and the effectiveness of the particular model used to predict the risk. This is especially the case where risk assessments have been used to grant consent or approval for the construction of major infrastructure projects. While postconstruction environmental monitoring is increasingly commonplace, it is not common for a postconstruction assessment of the accuracy and performance of the ecological risk assessment and underpinning model to be undertaken. Without this “assessment of the assessment,” it is difficult for other practitioners to gain insight into the performance of the approach and models used and therefore, as argued here, this limits the rate of improvement of risk assessment approaches.     

Comparative Risk and Policy Analysis in Environmental Health

There is increasing interest in the integration of quantitative risk analysis with benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness methods to evaluate environmental health policy making and perform comparative analyses. However, the combined use of these methods has revealed deficiencies in the available methods, and the lack of useful analytical frameworks currently constrains the utility of comparative risk and policy analyses. A principal issue in integrating risk and economic analysis is the lack of common performance metrics, particularly when conducting comparative analyses of regulations with disparate health endpoints (e.g., cancer and noncancer effects or risk-benefit analysis) and quantitative estimation of cumulative risk, whether from exposure to single agents with multiple health impacts or from exposure to mixtures. We propose a general quantitative framework and examine assumptions required for performing analyses of health risks and policies. We review existing and proposed risk and health-impact metrics for evaluating policies designed to protect public health from environmental exposures, and identify their strengths and weaknesses with respect to their use in a general comparative risk and policy analysis framework. Case studies are presented to demonstrate applications of this framework with risk-benefit and air pollution risk analyses. Through this analysis, we hope to generate discussions regarding the data requirements, analytical approaches, and assumptions required for general models to be used in comparative risk and policy analysis.     

Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling,Planning, Assessment,Management, and Communication

This article is grounded on the premise that the complex process of risk assessment, management, and communication, when applied to systems of systems, should be guided by universal systems‐based principles. It is written from the perspective of systems engineering with the hope and expectation that the principles introduced here will be supplemented and complemented by principles from the perspectives of other disciplines. Indeed, there is no claim that the following 10 guiding principles constitute a complete set; rather, the intent is to initiate a discussion on this important subject that will incrementally lead us to a more complete set of guiding principles. The 10 principles are as follows: First Principle: Holism is the common denominator that bridges risk analysis and systems engineering. Second Principle: The process of risk modeling, assessment, management, and communication must be systemic and integrated. Third Principle: Models and state variables are central to quantitative risk analysis. Fourth Principle: Multiple models are required to represent the essence of the multiple perspectives of complex systems of systems. Fifth Principle: Meta‐modeling and subsystems integration must be derived from the intrinsic states of the system of systems. Sixth Principle: Multiple conflicting and competing objectives are inherent in risk management. Seventh Principle: Risk analysis must account for epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. Eighth Principle: Risk analysis must account for risks of low probability with extreme consequences. Ninth Principle: The time frame is central to quantitative risk analysis. Tenth Principle: Risk analysis must be holistic, adaptive, incremental, and sustainable, and it must be supported with appropriate data collection, metrics with which to measure efficacious progress, and criteria on the basis of which to act. The relevance and efficacy of each guiding principle is demonstrated by applying it to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration complex Next Generation (NextGen) system of systems.     

Sensitivity Analysis of a Two‐Dimensional Quantitative Microbiological Risk Assessment: Keeping Variability and Uncertainty Separated

The aim of quantitative microbiological risk assessment is to estimate the risk of illness caused by the presence of a pathogen in a food type, and to study the impact of interventions. Because of inherent variability and uncertainty, risk assessments are generally conducted stochastically, and if possible it is advised to characterize variability separately from uncertainty. Sensitivity analysis allows to indicate to which of the input variables the outcome of a quantitative microbiological risk assessment is most sensitive. Although a number of methods exist to apply sensitivity analysis to a risk assessment with probabilistic input variables (such as contamination, storage temperature, storage duration, etc.), it is challenging to perform sensitivity analysis in the case where a risk assessment includes a separate characterization of variability and uncertainty of input variables. A procedure is proposed that focuses on the relation between risk estimates obtained by Monte Carlo simulation and the location of pseudo‐randomly sampled input variables within the uncertainty and variability distributions. Within this procedure, two methods are used—that is, an ANOVA‐like model and Sobol sensitivity indices—to obtain and compare the impact of variability and of uncertainty of all input variables, and of model uncertainty and scenario uncertainty. As a case study, this methodology is applied to a risk assessment to estimate the risk of contracting listeriosis due to consumption of deli meats.     

Trust,Emotion, Sex,Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield

Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and conflict have become pervasive. Research has begun to provide a new perspective on this problem by demonstrating the complexity of the concept risk and the inadequacies of the traditional view of risk assessment as a purely scientific enterprise. This paper argues that danger is real, but risk is socially constructed. Risk assessment is inherently subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment with important psychological, social, cultural, and political factors. In addition, our social and democratic institutions, remarkable as they are in many respects, breed distrust in the risk arena. Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics and other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power. Scientific literacy and public education are important, but they are not central to risk controversies. The public is not irrational. Their judgments about risk are influenced by emotion and affect in a way that is both simple and sophisticated. The same holds true for scientists. Public views are also influenced by worldviews, ideologies, and values; so are scientists' views, particularly when they are working at the limits of their expertise. The limitations of risk science, the importance and difficulty of maintaining trust, and the complex, sociopolitical nature of risk point to the need for a new approach—one that focuses upon introducing more public participation into both risk assessment and risk decision making in order to make the decision process more democratic, improve the relevance and quality of technical analysis, and increase the legitimacy and public acceptance of the resulting decisions.     

Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions

Laypeople's perceptions of health and safety risks have been widely studied, but only a few studies have addressed perceptions of ecological hazards. We assembled a list of 39 attributes of ecological hazards from the literatures on comparative risk assessment, ecological health, environmental conservation and management, environmental psychology, and risk perception. In Study 1, 125 laypeople evaluated 83 hazards on subsets of this attribute set. Factor analysis of attribute ratings (averaged over participants) revealed six oblique factors: ecological impacts, human impacts, human benefits, aesthetic impacts, scientific understanding, and controllability. These factors predicted mean judgments of overall riskiness, ecological riskiness, acceptability, and regulatory strictness. In Study 2, 30 laypeople each evaluated 34 hazards on 17 attributes and 3 dependent variables. Aggregate-level factor analysis of these data replicated the appropriate portion of the factor solution and yielded similar regression results. Parallel analyses at the individual-participant level yielded factors that explained less variance in judgments of overall riskiness, ecological riskiness, and acceptability. However, the decrease in explanatory power was much less than is often reported for disaggregate-level analyses of psychometric data. This discrepancy illustrates the importance of distinguishing between the level of analysis (aggregate versus disaggregate) and the focus of analysis (distinctions among hazards versus distinctions among participants). In a hybrid analysis, aggregate-level factor scores predicted individual participants' riskiness judgments reasonably well. Psychometric studies such as these provide a sound empirical basis for selecting attributes of ecological hazards for use in comparative risk assessment.     

Project risk management using multiple criteria decision-making technique and decision tree analysis: a case study of Indian oil refinery

This study proposes an integrated analytical framework for effective management of project risks using combined multiple criteria decision-making technique and decision tree analysis. First, a conceptual risk management model was developed through thorough literature review. The model was then applied through action research on a petroleum oil refinery construction project in the Central part of India in order to demonstrate its effectiveness. Oil refinery construction projects are risky because of technical complexity, resource unavailability, involvement of many stakeholders and strict environmental requirements. Although project risk management has been researched extensively, practical and easily adoptable framework is missing. In the proposed framework, risks are identified using cause and effect diagram, analysed using the analytic hierarchy process and responses are developed using the risk map. Additionally, decision tree analysis allows modelling various options for risk response development and optimises selection of risk mitigating strategy. The proposed risk management framework could be easily adopted and applied in any project and integrated with other project management knowledge areas.     

A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies.

Our concept of nine risk evaluation criteria, six risk classes, a decision tree, and three management categories was developed to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and political feasibility of risk management procedures. The main task of risk evaluation and management is to develop adequate tools for dealing with the problems of complexity, uncertainty. and ambiguity. Based on the characteristics of different risk types and these three major problems, we distinguished three types of management--risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. The risk-based strategy--is the common solution to risk problems. Once the probabilities and their corresponding damage potentials are calculated, risk managers are required to set priorities according to the severity of the risk, which may be operationalized as a linear combination of damage and probability or as a weighted combination thereof. Within our new risk classification, the two central components have been augmented with other physical and social criteria that still demand risk-based strategies as long as uncertainty is low and ambiguity absent. Risk-based strategies are best solutions to problems of complexity and some components of uncertainty, for example, variation among individuals. If the two most important risk criteria, probability of occurrence and extent of damage, are relatively well known and little uncertainty is left, the traditional risk-based approach seems reasonable. If uncertainty plays a large role, in particular, indeterminacy or lack of knowledge, the risk-based approach becomes counterproductive. Judging the relative severity of risks on the basis of uncertain parameters does not make much sense. Under these circumstances, management strategies belonging to the precautionary management style are required. The precautionary approach has been the basis for much of the European environmental and health protection legislation and regulation. Our own approach to risk management has been guided by the proposition that any conceptualization of the precautionary principle should be (1) in line with established methods of scientific risk assessments, (2) consistent and discriminatory (avoiding arbitrary results) when it comes to prioritization, and (3) at the same time, specific with respect to precautionary measures, such as ALARA or BACT, or the strategy of containing risks in time and space. This suggestion does, however, entail a major problem: looking only to the uncertainties does not provide risk managers with a clue about where to set priorities for risk reduction. Risks vary in their degree of remaining uncertainties. How can one judge the severity of a situation when the potential damage and its probability are unknown or contested? In this dilemma, we advise risk managers to use additional criteria of hazardousness, such as "ubiquity versibility," and "pervasiveness over time," as proxies for judging severity. Our approach also distinguishes clearly between uncertainty and ambiguity. Uncertainty refers to a situation of being unclear about factual statements; ambiguity to a situation of contested views about the desirability or severity of a given hazard. Uncertainty can be resolved in principle by more cognitive advances (with the exception of indeterminacy). ambiguity only by discourse. Discursive procedures include legal deliberations as well as novel participatory approaches. In addition, discursive methods of planning and conflict resolution can be used. If ambiguities are associated with a risk problem, it is not enough to demonstrate that risk regulators are open to public concerns and address the issues that many people wish them to take care ot The process of risk evaluation itself needs to be open to public input and new forms of deliberation. We have recommended a tested set of deliberative processes that are, at least in principle, capable of resolving ambiguities in risk debates (for a review, see Renn, Webler, & Wiedemaun. 1995). Deliberative processes are needed, however, for ail three types of management. Risk-based management relies on epistemiological, uncertainty-based management on reflective, and discourse-based management on participatory discourse forms. These three types of discourse could be labeled as an analytic-deliberative procedure for risk evaluation and management. We see the advantage of a deliberative style of regulation and management in a dynamic balance between procedure and outcome. Procedure should not have priority over the outcome; outcome should not have priority over the procedure. An intelligent combination of both can elaborate the required prerequisites of democratic deliberation and its substantial outcomes to enhance the legitimacy of political decisions (Guttman & Thompson, 1996; Bohman, 1997. 1998).