 |
| HomeAbout SRAMembershipEventsNewsletterJournalOpportunitiesResourcesContact |
| Back to 2007 Meeting Main Page |
Society For Risk Analysis Annual Meeting 2007
Risk 007: Agents of Analysis
Session Schedule & Abstracts
* Disclaimer: All presentations represent the views of the authors, and not the organizations that support their research. Please apply the standard disclaimer that any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in abstracts, posters, and presentations at the meeting are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization or agency. Meeting attendees and authors should be aware that this disclaimer is intended to apply to all abstracts contained in this document. Authors who wish to emphasize this disclaimer should do so in their presentation or poster. In an effort to make the abstracts as concise as possible and easy for meeting participants to read, the abstracts have been formatted such that they exclude references to papers, affiliations, and/or funding sources. Authors who wish to provide attendees with this information should do so in their presentation or poster.
Common abbreviations
T2-B |
| Chair(s): John Graham |
|
T2-B.1 10:30 Distinguishing legimate risk-risk tradeoffs from straw men. Finkel AM*; Princeton University/UMDNJ School of Public Health afinkel@princeton.edu Abstract: In theory, any risk-reducing intervention can “backfire” and exacerbate an existing risk, create a new risk, or transfer risk from one subpopulation to another. Pioneers in the “risk versus risk” literature, notably Wiener, Graham, Sunstein, and others, have made compelling arguments that to properly estimate the benefits of regulatory and other interventions one must “add back” the offsetting risks to any reductions achieved in the target risk. Increasingly, oversight of federal and state agency action has required “risk versus risk” analysis, and has served to deter agencies from policies whose net risk reduction arguably fails a benefit-cost test. In this presentation, I will argue that the time has come to take a hard look at risk-tradeoff analysis, by asking two fundamental questions about whether and how this theoretical phenomenon in fact exists outside the proverbial laboratory: (1) have previous claims of substantial offsetting risks been borne out empirically with the passage of time?; and (2) if such cases exist, do they argue for less aggressive intervention against target risks, or perhaps for more aggressive intervention against offsetting risks? I will examine three different risk-risk tradeoffs that were invoked during OSHA’s attempt to reduce methylene chloride levels in the workplace, and offer general lessons from my observation that two of the three untoward outcomes apparently never materialized. I will also discuss a broader array of cases, including purported tradeoffs between reduction in consumption of mercury-contaminated fish and exacerbation of heart disease, increased fuel economy standards and motor vehicle safety, and spermicidal condoms and HIV transmission. Common patterns among these and other cases will lead to a set of proposed refinements to risk-tradeoff analysis that may reduce confusion, posturing, and misplaced suspicion of a valuable tool for improving risk management. |
|
T2-B.2 10:45 Risk equity: A new proposal. Adler MD*; University of Pennsylvania Law School madler@law.upenn.edu Abstract: This Article proposes a rigorous framework for analyzing the distributive implications of risk regulation policies. This framework, which I term "probabilistic population profile analysis" (PPPA), is novel, yet firmly grounded in the social-welfare-function tradition in welfare economics. The PPPA framework conceptualizes the status quo and each possible policy as probability distributions across population profiles--where each population profile, in turn, is a concatenation of lifetime health-longevity-income histories, one for each member of the population. A utility function transforms each such profile into a utility vector. An equity-regarding social welfare function is specified. Policy analysts can employ the equity-regarding social welfare function (1) to determine how policies compare purely as a matter of equality; and (2) to determine how they compare all-things-considered, considering both equality and overall welfare. The Article presents and defends PPPA, and also criticizes alternative approaches to risk equity that have been presented in the scholarly literature: the "environmental justice" conception of risk equity; "individual risk" approaches; QALY-based equity analysis; incidence analysis; and cost-benefit analysis with distributive weights. |
|
T2-B.3 11:10 Variation and meaning of expert views on multiple risks and uncertainties: Insights from EU work on integrated risk assessment. Assmuth T*, Hilden M, Lyytimaki J, Renn O; Finnish Environment Institute timo.assmuth@ymparisto.fi Abstract: We solicited views on complex risks and uncertainties in management context from experts, stakeholders and other actors in chemicals control. Within the EU project NoMiracle (Novel Methods for Integrated Risk Assessment of Cumulative Stressors in Europe) we used a web survey combining likert-type questions with novel approaches that charted the importance of various types of information for their use in regulatory treatment and public discussion, and evaluations of maps of separate and cumulative risks. The survey was e-mailed to 952 persons in most EU and some other countries, mainly USA. The 247 replies suffice for explorative analyses of views. In addition we examined integrated treatment of risks and uncertainty in other R&D projects and in the development of EU’s chemicals policy and related strategies. We focus on inclusiveness with regard to risks and of expertise in communication on complex and uncertain risks involving chemicals and other stressors in EU governance. A key finding of the survey was the variability of views on risks and the use of information, only partly explained by background factors and co-variations. The views on the importance of information reflect its use contexts. The importance but also the limits of integrated assessment were commonly expressed. The claims regarding risks prompted a mix of agreement and divided opinions, some correlated with affiliation or field, but without simple patterns. Differences in general attitudes to broad participation were discernible. The variability in views of risks and uncertainty is to be taken into account in policy formulation but also in developing and applying assessment methods. They cannot deliver universally valid results; interpretation is necessary, and assessments should be transparent with respect to assumptions and values. Identification and resolution of issues thus need to include participatory elements. A sensible level of inclusiveness is found by attention to the context of assessment and information in an open social learning process. |
|
T2-B.4 11:30 Cumulative Impacts Assessment in California: A Process for the Development of Guidance. Faust JB*; Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Cal/EPA jfaust@oehha.ca.gov Abstract: The California Environmental Protection Agency is implementing a process to develop guidance on the assessment of cumulative impacts in the environmental justice context. Under a definition adopted by the Agency, cumulative impact means exposures, public health or environmental effects from the combined emissions and discharges in a geographic area, including environmental pollution from all sources, whether single or multi-media, routinely, accidentally, or otherwise released. Impacts will also take into account sensitive populations and socio-economic factors, where applicable and to the extent data are available. The Agency is building a consultative process to facilitate incorporation of external stakeholder input. Among the key areas of work are the development of better analytical tools to measure cumulative impacts on a geographic basis and the identification of opportunities to use cumulative impacts analyses to make better decisions regarding existing or potential sources of environmental pollution. These decisions may include many types, such as land use and zoning, permitting, or prioritization of clean-up. Further, authority to make such decisions crosses different levels of government (local, state, or federal). The results of the consultative process are used to focus the project’s emphasis and direction to achieve the greatest community-level benefits. |
[back to schedule]