IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i1p163-176.html

Integrated Uncertainty Analysis for Ambient Pollutant Health Risk Assessment: A Case Study of Ozone Mortality Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Anne E. Smith
  • Garrett Glasgow

Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses health risk assessment to help inform its decisions in setting national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA's standard approach is to make epidemiologically‐based risk estimates based on a single statistical model selected from the scientific literature, called the “core” model. The uncertainty presented for “core” risk estimates reflects only the statistical uncertainty associated with that one model's concentration‐response function parameter estimate(s). However, epidemiologically‐based risk estimates are also subject to “model uncertainty,” which is a lack of knowledge about which of many plausible model specifications and data sets best reflects the true relationship between health and ambient pollutant concentrations. In 2002, a National Academies of Sciences (NAS) committee recommended that model uncertainty be integrated into EPA's standard risk analysis approach. This article discusses how model uncertainty can be taken into account with an integrated uncertainty analysis (IUA) of health risk estimates. It provides an illustrative numerical example based on risk of premature death from respiratory mortality due to long‐term exposures to ambient ozone, which is a health risk considered in the 2015 ozone NAAQS decision. This example demonstrates that use of IUA to quantitatively incorporate key model uncertainties into risk estimates produces a substantially altered understanding of the potential public health gain of a NAAQS policy decision, and that IUA can also produce more helpful insights to guide that decision, such as evidence of decreasing incremental health gains from progressive tightening of a NAAQS.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:1:p:163-176
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12828
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12828?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. 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.
    2. Allen C. Miller, III & Thomas R. Rice, 1983. "Discrete Approximations of Probability Distributions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 352-362, March.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Thomas W. Keelin & Bradford W. Powley, 2011. "Quantile-Parameterized Distributions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 206-219, September.
    3. Tanaka, Ken'ichiro & Toda, Alexis Akira, 2015. "Discretizing Distributions with Exact Moments: Error Estimate and Convergence Analysis," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt7g23r5kh, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    4. Robert K. Hammond & J. Eric Bickel, 2013. "Reexamining Discrete Approximations to Continuous Distributions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 6-25, March.
    5. Ravi Kashyap, 2016. "The Perfect Marriage and Much More: Combining Dimension Reduction, Distance Measures and Covariance," Papers 1603.09060, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2019.
    6. Pöstges, Arne & Weber, Christoph, 2019. "Time series aggregation – A new methodological approach using the “peak-load-pricing” model," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Kashyap, Ravi, 2019. "The perfect marriage and much more: Combining dimension reduction, distance measures and covariance," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 536(C).
    8. Abrahams, Nii Adote & Shortle, James S., 1997. "Uncertainty And The Regulation Of Nitrate Pollution From Agriculture," 1997 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Toronto, Canada 21027, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. O., Yugeswar Reddy & J., Jithendranath & Chakraborty, Ajoy Kumar & Guerrero, Josep M., 2022. "Stochastic optimal power flow in islanded DC microgrids with correlated load and solar PV uncertainties," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    10. Wall, A.D. & Worthington, D.J., 2007. "Time-dependent analysis of virtual waiting time behaviour in discrete time queues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 482-499, April.
    11. Afzali, Sayyed Faridoddin & Cotton, James S. & Mahalec, Vladimir, 2020. "Urban community energy systems design under uncertainty for specified levels of carbon dioxide emissions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    12. Konstantin Pavlikov & Stan Uryasev, 2018. "CVaR distance between univariate probability distributions and approximation problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 262(1), pages 67-88, March.
    13. Fadhil Y. Al-Aboosi & Mahmoud M. El-Halwagi, 2019. "A Stochastic Optimization Approach to the Design of Shale Gas/Oil Wastewater Treatment Systems with Multiple Energy Sources under Uncertainty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-39, September.
    14. Peck, Dannele E. & Adams, Richard M., 2010. "Farm-level impacts of prolonged drought: is a multiyear event more than the sum of its parts?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(01), pages 1-18.
    15. Gupta, Neeraj, 2016. "Probabilistic load flow with detailed wind generator models considering correlated wind generation and correlated loads," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 96-105.
    16. Concha Bielza & Peter Müller & David Ríos Insua, 1999. "Decision Analysis by Augmented Probability Simulation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(7), pages 995-1007, July.
    17. Horan, Richard D. & Claassen, Roger & Cooper, Joseph C., 2000. "Environmental Risk And Agri-Environmental Policy Design," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21827, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Soltani, Mohamad & Samorani, Michele & Kolfal, Bora, 2019. "Appointment scheduling with multiple providers and stochastic service times," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 667-683.
    19. Dohyeong Kim & Zachary Brown & Richard Anderson & Clifford Mutero & Marie Lynn Miranda & Jonathan Wiener & Randall Kramer, 2017. "The Value of Information in Decision‐Analytic Modeling for Malaria Vector Control in East Africa," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 231-244, February.
    20. Abu MD Ariful Islam & Jørn Vatn, 2023. "Condition-based multi-component maintenance decision support under degradation uncertainties," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 14(4), pages 961-979, December.

    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:1:p:163-176. 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.