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

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.


Issue Date:
1999
Publication Type:
Working or Discussion Paper
PURL Identifier:
http://purl.umn.edu/10474
Total Pages:
38
Series Statement:
Discussion Paper 99-46




 Record created 2017-04-01, last modified 2017-08-23

Fulltext:
Download fulltext
PDF

Rate this document:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Not yet reviewed)