IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i11p2318-2339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Setting Air Quality Standards for PM2.5: A Role for Subjective Uncertainty in NAAQS Quantitative Risk Assessments?

Author

Listed:
  • Anne E. Smith

Abstract

The U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set and periodically review national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. Because NAAQS must be set without balancing health risks against cost, Administrators look for where health risk tapers off. For some pollutants, however, no evidence exists of such a diminishment. The Administrator must instead evaluate how the strength of evidence for the scientific validity of risk estimates weakens for exposure levels below the central mass of observations indicating a pollutant–health risk relationship. Such an evaluation requires judgments about uncertainties that are inherently subjective. The risk assessments the Agency prepares during NAAQS reviews provide a natural platform for quantitatively characterizing these subjective uncertainty judgments, but the Agency is no longer making use of this opportunity. This article describes EPA's early development of methods to quantitatively characterize subjective uncertainty in NAAQS risk assessments, then traces the progressive elimination of such uncertainty analysis in the risk assessments for the three past NAAQS reviews for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), even while judgments about this uncertainty were becoming increasingly central to Administrators’ NAAQS decisions. As a result, the risk assessments now lack relevance to NAAQS decision making. To reestablish a meaningful decision‐support role for NAAQS risk assessments, this article suggests alterations to the process of preparing them. Taking no position on the scientific or legal appropriateness of past NAAQS decisions, the suggested process is intended to better synthesize the scientific evidence to better inform (without constraining) the Administrator's policy decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne E. Smith, 2018. "Setting Air Quality Standards for PM2.5: A Role for Subjective Uncertainty in NAAQS Quantitative Risk Assessments?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2318-2339, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:11:p:2318-2339
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13174
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13174
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13174?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. M. Granger Morgan, 2015. "Our Knowledge of the World is Often Not Simple: Policymakers Should Not Duck that Fact, But Should Deal with It," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 19-20, January.
    3. Robert L. Winkler*, 2015. "Equal Versus Differential Weighting in Combining Forecasts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 16-18, January.
    4. Roger O. McClellan, 2016. "Providing Context for Ambient Particulate Matter and Estimates of Attributable Mortality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(9), pages 1755-1765, September.
    5. M. Brauer & J. Brumm & S. Vedal & A. J. Petkau, 2002. "Exposure Misclassification and Threshold Concentrations in Time Series Analyses of Air Pollution Health Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1183-1193, December.
    6. Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2015. "The Aggregation of Expert Judgment: Do Good Things Come to Those Who Weight?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 5-11, January.
    7. Art Fraas & Randall Lutter, 2013. "Uncertain Benefits Estimates for Reductions in Fine Particle Concentrations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(3), pages 434-449, March.
    8. D. Warner North, 2016. "Introduction to Special Issue on Air Pollution Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(9), pages 1688-1692, September.
    9. Anne E. Smith & Will Gans, 2015. "Enhancing the Characterization of Epistemic Uncertainties in PM2.5 Risk Analyses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 361-378, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anne E. Smith, 2020. "Using Uncertainty Analysis to Improve Consistency in Regulatory Assessments of Criteria Pollutant Standards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 442-449, March.

    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. Anca M. Hanea & Marissa F. McBride & Mark A. Burgman & Bonnie C. Wintle, 2018. "The Value of Performance Weights and Discussion in Aggregated Expert Judgments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1781-1794, September.
    2. Gregory F. Nemet & Laura Diaz Anadon & Elena Verdolini, 2017. "Quantifying the Effects of Expert Selection and Elicitation Design on Experts’ Confidence in Their Judgments About Future Energy Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 315-330, February.
    3. Anne E. Smith & Garrett Glasgow, 2018. "Integrated Uncertainty Analysis for Ambient Pollutant Health Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Ozone Mortality Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 163-176, January.
    4. Terje Aven, 2018. "An Emerging New Risk Analysis Science: Foundations and Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 876-888, May.
    5. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    6. Chen Li & Ning Liu, 2021. "What to tell? Wise communication and wise crowd," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 279-299, March.
    7. Cameron J. Williams & Kevin J. Wilson & Nina Wilson, 2021. "A comparison of prior elicitation aggregation using the classical method and SHELF," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 920-940, July.
    8. Michael Greenberg & Anthony Cox & Vicki Bier & Jim Lambert & Karen Lowrie & Warner North & Michael Siegrist & Felicia Wu, 2020. "Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2113-2127, November.
    9. Garrett Glasgow & Bharat Ramkrishnan & Anne E Smith, 2022. "A simulation-based assessment of the ability to detect thresholds in chronic risk concentration-response functions in the presence of exposure measurement error," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Michael R. Greenberg & Karen Lowrie, 2016. "Elizabeth Anderson: Cancer Risk Assessment Pioneer," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 646-649, April.
    11. Lin Dong & Jiazi Li & Yingjun Xu & Youtian Yang & Xuemin Li & Hua Zhang, 2021. "Study on the Spatial Classification of Construction Land Types in Chinese Cities: A Case Study in Zhejiang Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, May.
    12. Neal Fann & Amy D. Lamson & Susan C. Anenberg & Bryan J. Hubbell, 2013. "Letter in Response to Fraas & Lutter Article: “Uncertain Benefits Estimates for Reductions in Fine Particle Concentrations”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 755-756, May.
    13. Anne E. Smith & Will Gans, 2015. "Enhancing the Characterization of Epistemic Uncertainties in PM2.5 Risk Analyses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 361-378, March.
    14. Pita Spruijt & Anne B. Knol & Arthur C. Petersen & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Expert Views on Their Role as Policy Advisor: Pilot Study for the Cases of Electromagnetic Fields, Particulate Matter, and Antimicrobial Resistance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 968-974, May.
    15. Anne E. Smith, 2020. "Using Uncertainty Analysis to Improve Consistency in Regulatory Assessments of Criteria Pollutant Standards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 442-449, March.
    16. Suresh H. Moolgavkar & Ellen T. Chang & Heather N. Watson & Edmund C. Lau, 2018. "An Assessment of the Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model for Epidemiologic Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 777-794, April.
    17. Satopää, Ville A., 2021. "Improving the wisdom of crowds with analysis of variance of predictions of related outcomes," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1728-1747.
    18. 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.
    19. Robert L. Winkler, 2015. "The Importance of Communicating Uncertainties in Forecasts: Overestimating the Risks from Winter Storm Juno," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 349-353, March.
    20. Anne E. Smith, 2015. "Response to Commentary by Fann et al. on “Enhancing the Characterization of Epistemic Uncertainties in PM2.5 Risk Analyses”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 381-384, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:11:p:2318-2339. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.