IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Role of Health Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Decision Making in Selected Countries: An Initial Survey


  • Mazurek, Janice


This paper seeks to inform the current "regulatory reform" effort in the U.S. by describing how information from risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses is used by decision makers in six other industrialized countries. In Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Canada and the European Union decision makers deal with uncertainties associated with risk assessments differently than in the U.S. They are less likely to employ "default assumptions" to bridge uncertainties and instead tailor risk evaluations to the chemical in question. Furthermore, while U.S. agencies are sometimes required to pair information from risk assessments with data from cost-benefit analyses in order to estimate how much it costs to stem or avert environmental and health effects, the decision makers in the six study regimes primarily use such information to set standards, screen chemicals, and identify potential substitutes for hazardous chemicals. Respondents in the study countries say that both quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis presently contain too many uncertainties to yield meaningful results. However, trade liberalization and shrinking government budgets are stirring greater interest abroad in how the U.S. conducts and uses risk assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Mazurek, Janice, 1996. "The Role of Health Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Decision Making in Selected Countries: An Initial Survey," Discussion Papers dp-96-36, Resources For the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-96-36

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


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

    Cited by:

    1. David Pearce, 1998. "Environmental Appraisal and Environmental Policy in the European Union," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 489-501, April.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:rff:dpaper:dp-96-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Webmaster). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.