Comparing environmental risks: a consultative approach to setting priorities at the community level

Area of Science:

• Environmental Science
• Risk Assessment
• Public Policy

Background:

• Environmental risk management struggles with resource limitations for detailed hazard assessment.
• Existing methods cannot cope with the increasing number of recognized environmental hazards.
• A need exists for efficient prioritization methods that avoid extensive quantitative risk assessment.

Purpose of the Study:

• To introduce and evaluate the risk comparison approach for environmental hazard prioritization.
• To explore the applicability of the risk comparison process in the Canadian context.
• To analyze the inherent tradeoffs within the risk comparison methodology.

Main Methods:

• Utilized expert panels and public consultation in a consultative and iterative process.
• Applied the risk comparison framework developed by the Northeast Center for Comparative Risk.
• Examined tradeoffs including categorical hazards vs. media quality and ecological integrity vs. human health.

Main Results:

• Risk comparison facilitates agreement on relative rankings of diverse environmental hazards.
• The process, though potentially tedious, provides a viable solution to environmental hazard management challenges.
• Identified implicit tradeoffs in balancing various risk factors.

Conclusions:

• Risk comparison is a practical, albeit process-oriented, method for addressing the environmental risk management crisis.
• The approach can foster consensus among diverse stakeholders on hazard prioritization.
• Adaptability of the risk comparison model to different geographical and regulatory contexts is suggested.