IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-99-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparative Risk Projects: A Methodology for Cross-Project Analysis of Human Health Risk Rankings

Author

Listed:
  • Konisky, David

Abstract

Public agencies at all levels of government have conducted comparative risk projects to inform environmental priority-setting efforts. Using the analytic policy tool, comparative risk analysis (CRA), most projects have ranked environmental problems in terms of the relative risks they pose to human health and other endpoints. Differences in project design complicate cross-project analysis of the risk ranking results. This paper discusses important project design variations that complicate cross-project analysis and presents a methodology that provides a simple, straightforward approach for comparing risk ranking results that overcomes some of these project-specific idiosyncrasies. The methodology provides a mechanism to help practitioners of CRA determine how their risk ranking results compare with other projects. The paper also illustrates how the methodology can be applied to develop a consolidated ranking of the most often ranked environmental health problems. Thirty-nine completed human health CRAs are analyzed to determine which ten environmental problems have most often been cited in comparative risk projects as posing the most significant threats to human health.

Suggested Citation

  • Konisky, David, 1999. "Comparative Risk Projects: A Methodology for Cross-Project Analysis of Human Health Risk Rankings," Discussion Papers dp-99-46, Resources For the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-99-46
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-99-46.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Bernauer, Thomas & Koubi, Vally, 2009. "Effects of political institutions on air quality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1355-1365, 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:rff:dpaper:dp-99-46. 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: http://edirc.repec.org/data/degraus.html .

    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.