IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i7p4200-d785095.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practical Opportunities to Improve the Impact of Health Risk Assessment on Environmental and Public Health Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Tine Bizjak

    (Department of Environmental Sciences, Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamova cesta 39, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
    Jožef Stefan International Postgraduate School, Jamova cesta 39, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Davor Kontić

    (Department of Environmental Sciences, Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamova cesta 39, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Branko Kontić

    (Jožef Stefan International Postgraduate School, Jamova cesta 39, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Abstract

Following alerts about the diminishing role of health risk assessment (HRA) in informing public health decisions, this study examines specific HRA topics with the aim of identifying possible solutions for addressing this compelling situation. The study administered a survey among different groups of stakeholders involved in HRA or decision-making, or both. The responses show various understandings of HRA in the decision-making context—including confusion with the health impact assessment (HIA)—and confirm recurring foundational issues within the risk analysis field that contribute to the growth of inconsistency in the HRA praxis. This inconsistency lowers the effectiveness of HRA to perform its primary purpose of informing public health decisions. Opportunities for improving this situation come at the beginning of the assessment process, where greater attention should be given to defining the assessment and decision-making contexts. Both must reflect the concerns and expectations of the stakeholders regarding the needs and purpose of an HRA on one side, and the methodological and procedural topics relevant for the decision case at hand on the other. The HRA process should end with a decision follow-up step with targeted auditing and the participation of stakeholders to measure its success.

Suggested Citation

  • Tine Bizjak & Davor Kontić & Branko Kontić, 2022. "Practical Opportunities to Improve the Impact of Health Risk Assessment on Environmental and Public Health Decisions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:4200-:d:785095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4200/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4200/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gwinn, M.R. & Axelrad, D.A. & Bahadori, T. & Bussard, D. & Cascio, W.E. & Deener, K. & Dix, D. & Thomas, R.S. & Kavlock, R.J. & Burke, T.A., 2017. "Chemical risk assessment: Traditional vs public health perspectives," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 107(7), pages 1032-1039.
    2. Terje Aven & Frederic Bouder, 2020. "The COVID-19 pandemic: how can risk science help?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7-8), pages 849-854, August.
    3. Elizabeth L. Anderson & Gilbert S. Omenn & Paul Turnham, 2020. "Improving Health Risk Assessment as a Basis for Public Health Decisions in the 21st Century," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2272-2299, November.
    4. repec:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2017.303771_3 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    6. Terje Aven & Enrico Zio, 2014. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1164-1172, July.
    7. Michael Greenberg & Bernard D. Goldstein & Elizabeth Anderson & Michael Dourson & Wayne Landis & D. Warner North, 2015. "Whither Risk Assessment: New Challenges and Opportunities a Third of a Century After the Red Book," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 1959-1968, November.
    8. George M. Gray & Joshua T. Cohen, 2012. "Rethink chemical risk assessments," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7414), pages 27-28, September.
    9. Tine Bizjak & Rok Novak & Marko Vudrag & Andreja Kukec & Branko Kontić, 2020. "Evaluating the success of Slovenia’s policy on the health of children and adolescents: results of an audit," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 65(8), pages 1225-1234, November.
    10. Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2020. "Foundational Challenges for Advancing the Field and Discipline of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2128-2136, November.
    11. Catherine Mei Ling Wong & Olivia Jensen, 2020. "The paradox of trust: perceived risk and public compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7-8), pages 1021-1030, August.
    12. Vicki M. Bier & Simon French, 2020. "From the Editors: Decision Analysis Focus and Trends," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 1-8, March.
    13. Tine Bizjak & Branko Kontić, 2019. "Auditing in addition to compliance monitoring: a way to improve public health," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 64(9), pages 1259-1260, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tine Bizjak & Marco Capodiferro & Deepika Deepika & Öykü Dinçkol & Vazha Dzhedzheia & Lorena Lopez-Suarez & Ioannis Petridis & Agneta A. Runkel & Dayna R. Schultz & Branko Kontić, 2022. "Human Biomonitoring Data in Health Risk Assessments Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals between 2016 and 2021: Confronting Reality after a Preliminary Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    3. Martínez-Galán Fernández, Pablo & Guillén López, Antonio J. & Márquez, Adolfo Crespo & Gomez Fernández, Juan Fco. & Marcos, Jose Antonio, 2022. "Dynamic Risk Assessment for CBM-based adaptation of maintenance planning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    4. Hamed Taherdoost, 2021. "A Review on Risk Management in Information Systems: Risk Policy, Control and Fraud Detection," Post-Print hal-03741848, HAL.
    5. Bożena Babiarz, 2018. "Aspects of Heat Supply Security Management Using Elements of Decision Theory," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Isadora Antoniano‐Villalobos & Emanuele Borgonovo & Sumeda Siriwardena, 2018. "Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2459-2477, November.
    7. P. Pablo Poveda-Orjuela & J. Carlos García-Díaz & Alexander Pulido-Rojano & Germán Cañón-Zabala, 2020. "Parameterization, Analysis, and Risk Management in a Comprehensive Management System with Emphasis on Energy and Performance (ISO 50001: 2018)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-43, October.
    8. Ali Zackery & Joseph Amankwah-Amoah & Zahra Heidari Darani & Shiva Ghasemi, 2022. "COVID-19 Research in Business and Management: A Review and Future Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-32, August.
    9. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    10. Daicia Price & Tore Bonsaksen & Mary Ruffolo & Janni Leung & Vivian Chiu & Hilde Thygesen & Mariyana Schoultz & Amy Ostertun Geirdal, 2021. "Perceived Trust in Public Authorities Nine Months after the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Cross-National Study," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, September.
    11. repec:arp:tjssrr:2019:p:69-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Mussard, Stéphane & Pi Alperin, María Noel, 2021. "Accounting for risk factors on health outcomes: The case of Luxembourg," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(3), pages 1180-1197.
    13. Costa-Font, Joan & Vilaplana-Prieto, Cristina, 2023. "Health System Trust and Compliance with COVID-19 Restrictions," IZA Discussion Papers 15961, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Mangirdas Morkunas & Gintaras Cernius & Gintare Giriuniene, 2019. "Assessing Business Risks of Natural Gas Trading Companies: Evidence from GET Baltic," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-14, July.
    15. Luca Allodi & Fabio Massacci, 2017. "Security Events and Vulnerability Data for Cybersecurity Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1606-1627, August.
    16. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
    17. Dr Jason Mwanza & Nothando Tshuma, 2023. "Mitigating Business Risk in Manufacturing SMEs: A nexus between informal and formal business risk management: A case of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(1), pages 1107-1138, January.
    18. Don Pagach & Monika Wieczorek-Kosmala, 2020. "The Challenges and Opportunities for ERM Post-COVID-19: Agendas for Future Research," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-10, December.
    19. KeumJi Kim & SeongHwan Yoon, 2018. "Assessment of Building Damage Risk by Natural Disasters in South Korea Using Decision Tree Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    20. Grzegorz Drozdowski & Joanna Rogozińska-Mitrut & Jacek Stasiak, 2021. "The Empirical Analysis of the Core Competencies of the Company’s Resource Management Risk. Preliminary Study," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.
    21. Catherine Mei Ling Wong, 2015. "The Mutable Nature of Risk and Acceptability: A Hybrid Risk Governance Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 1969-1982, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:4200-:d:785095. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.