RESEARCH: Environmental Priority-Setting Through Comparative Risk Assessment

/ More than three dozen states and communities in the United States have undertaken comparative risk projects to establish environmental priorities and, thus, to address their most important environmental problems. This trend has been supported by a growing consensus among subnational governments that they are increasingly encumbered with prescriptive, top-down environmental regulations and policies without regard to the policies' efficacy, benefit, or cost. Despite the rising use of comparative risk projects, few studies have systematically analyzed and compared them. The purpose of our research was to fill this void. Weexamined key elements of comparative risk projects including how they were administered; how they involved the public; how they characterized, ranked, and prioritized risks; whether and how they implemented ranking results; and whether and how they evaluated project results. The research team reviewed project reports and independent studies and undertook a survey of risk project participants. Results showed that while many priority-setting projects have successfully identified environmental problems and characterized and ranked their risks, few have developed risk-management strategies. Successes to date include increasing environmental awareness among participants; building consensus and establishing collaboration among diverse stakeholders; and establishing novel means of public involvement. However, no project that we evaluated has, as yet, documented achievement of a system for developing and implementing environmental priorities in order to mitigate their most significant environmental problems. Further, it may be difficult to know if and when this objective is met unless projects establish mechanisms for evaluating their results, a project element that was often missing or limited in scope. We also discuss the challenges to developing implementable risk-management strategies and conclude by citing future research needs. KEY WORDS: Comparative risk assessment; Environmental priorities; Risk-ranking