Grantee Research Project Results
2000 Progress Report: Continued Development of Methods for Characterizing and Ranking Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks
EPA Grant Number: R827920Title: Continued Development of Methods for Characterizing and Ranking Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks
Investigators: Morgan, M. Granger , Dekay, Michael L. , Fischbeck, Paul S.
Institution: Carnegie Mellon University
EPA Project Officer: Chung, Serena
Project Period: December 15, 1999 through December 14, 2001
Project Period Covered by this Report: December 15, 1999 through December 14, 2000
Project Amount: $235,504
RFA: Decision-Making and Valuation for Environmental Policy (1999) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Environmental Justice
Objective:
In the majority of risk-ranking exercises undertaken to date, the specific methods that have been employed to perform the rankings have received little attention. In the case of many of the EPA-sponsored regional ranking exercises, this has not been a serious problem because a primary objective has been to promote dialogue among stakeholders. However, if the results of risk ranking are to be used by regulatory agencies in support of risk-management decision making, they must be based on normatively justifiable and empirically validated procedures. Under support from a previous National Science Foundation (NSF) grant (SBR-95120232), researchers in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon have begun the development, empirical testing, and refinement of such a method for ranking health and safety risks. The research proposed here is designed to complete that work, and to extend it to include environmental risks.Progress Summary:
Excellent progress has been made on all phases of the work. We have completed a critical review of previous research in environmental psychology, ecology, conservation, and comparative risk assessment on attributes for use in characterizing ecological risks. We completed a systematic process to develop candidate attributes, and used these to evaluate a comprehensive, multimedia set of activities and stressors. Using these materials, we then designed and conducted a series of experimental studies with lay respondents. The results, which have been analyzed using factor analysis and multi-dimensional scaling, have allowed us to confirm many previous findings in the literature and extended those earlier results. We currently are conducting additional studies to determine whether the attribute set accurately represents risk perception for other stakeholder groups (for example, environmental risk assessors and industry experts). This work is providing us with a firm basis on which to develop a set of risk-ranking procedures.In parallel with these efforts, we defined a new testbed for experimental risk-ranking studies. Our previous testbed (the hypothetical Centerville Middle School?see http://www.epp. cmu.edu/research/risk_ranking.html) allowed us to study only risks to health and safety. We now have defined a new testbed (a hypothetical mid-western county?in which the school is located) and we are in the early stages of developing a new set of risk summary sheets (or in some cases revising and extending previously developed sheets). Creating these sheets is very labor intensive because a great deal of risk-specific information must be developed, and the sheets must then be subjected to intensive review and refinement.
In addition to the work on extending our risk-ranking method to cover ecological risks, we also have continued work on refining the previously developed method for ranking health and safety risks. We have continued to run experimental studies with participants in the risk-related short-course run by the School of Public Health at Harvard. We have long argued that simply reporting the results of a risk ranking was not sufficient, that decision makers would need a "thick description" that highlights sources of agreement and disagreement, notes risks that are likely to be problematic, and so on. We now have developed a draft "thick description" of the results of a set of previous risk-ranking exercises we conducted, and have pilot tested it with three volunteers from one of the Harvard classes. The materials now are being revised in preparation for more extensive study.
Finally, a study is now being developed to examine how the relative effect of different types of risk information affects ranking results. Four conditions, simple verbal descriptions, anonymous (e.g., Risk A, Risk B) numerical attribute tables, verbal descriptions plus numerical attribute tables, and full risk summary sheets are being examined.
Standard methods for developing social science research materials, and standard statistical methods are being employed throughout the work to assure the quality of the results. Results have been, and will continue to be, submitted to peer reviewed journals for publication.
Future Activities:
In the next year of project activity, the current work on developing empirically valid attributes for characterizing lay concerns about ecological risks will be completed. A new risk-ranking testbed, based on a hypothetical county in the mid-western United States, will be developed using the ecological risk attributes along with the materials, methods, and insights of our previous studies on ranking risks to health and safety. Risk summary sheets will be developed for use in the testbed. Experimental studies using lay respondents will be undertaken to develop, test, and refine risk-ranking methods that include ecological as well as health and safety risks. Individuals will be asked to rank risks by themselves and as part of a small group. The method will be evaluated on participant satisfaction with ranking results, agreement between individual's ranking results, and agreement between groups of lay public participants. In addition, the experimental testbed may be used to assess differences in risk management decisions between different stakeholder groups.Journal Articles on this Report : 3 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
| Other project views: | All 26 publications | 7 publications in selected types | All 5 journal articles |
|---|
| Type | Citation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Florig HK, Morgan MG, Morgan KM, Jenni KE, Fischhoff B, Fischbeck PS, DeKay ML. A deliberative method for ranking risks (I): overview and test bed development. Risk Analysis 2001;21(5):913-922. |
R827920 (2000) R827920 (2001) R827920 (Final) |
|
|
|
Morgan KM, DeKay ML, Fischbeck PS, Fischhoff B, Morgan MG, Florig HK. A deliberative method for ranking risks (II): evaluation of validity and agreement among risk managers. Risk Analysis 2001;21(5):923-938. |
R827920 (2000) R827920 (2001) R827920 (Final) |
|
|
|
Morgan MG, Florig HK, DeKay ML, Fischbeck P. Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Analysis 2001;20(1):49-58. |
R827920 (2000) R827920 (Final) |
|
Supplemental Keywords:
risk ranking, ecological risk, attributes of risk, measurement of ecological risk, risk characterization, risk assessment, ecosystem protection, ecosystem indicators, methods/techniques., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Economics & Decision Making, Ecological Indicators, Ecological Risk Assessment, Health Risk Assessment, Ecosystem Protection, Ecology, Ecosystem/Assessment/Indicators, decision-making, Social Science, Ecological Effects - Environmental Exposure & Risk, Applied Math & Statistics, Psychology, Ecological Effects - Human Health, Sociology, Ecology and Ecosystems, multi-objective decision making, deliberative policy, value-based judgement, environmental risks, risk characterization, risk reduction, stakeholder, multi-attribute utility, environmental decision-making, risk ranking, ecological exposure, decision analysis, valuation, human health risk, risk management, environmental policy, multi-criteria, health and safety rankingRelevant Websites:
Copies of the materials developed for our risk-ranking studies involving health
and safety risks can be found at http://www.epp.cmu.edu/research/risk_ranking.html
. New materials, which include
ecological as well as health and safety risks, are not yet available but also
will be posted on this site when they have been completed.
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.