Abstract
Experience is a great teacher, and learning from someone else’s experience can make the lessons much less painful. This chapter shares lessons learned from the recently completed New Jersey Comparative Risk Project (NJCRP). It briefly describes the project and offers a preliminary evaluation of its adequacy, value, effectiveness, and legitimacy. The main purpose of this broadly scoped project was to inform a state regulatory agency’s strategic decisions. The project involved a large number of technical experts from a variety of fields, plus public officials, high-profile stakeholders, and members of the general public over a four-year period. It gathered and organized a vast amount of useful information, but found that there was still an inadequate scientific basis for a precise single ranking of environmental threats. The NJCRP instead developed policy findings using a humbler approach that involved less aggregation. Highlighted environmental threats for New Jersey included land use change, indoor environmental problems, a set of traditionally regulated pollutants, and invasive exotic species.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2003). New Jersey Comparative Risk Project Final Report. Available online at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/njcrp/index.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Policy Analysis, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (1987) Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems, Overview report and technical appendices, USEPA, Washington, DC.
Andrews, C.J. (2002) Humble Analysis: The Practice of Joint Fact-Finding, Praeger, Westport, CT.
Jones, K. (1997) “A Retrospective on Ten Years of Comparative Risk,” report prepared for the American Industrial Health Council by the Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy (Montpelier, VT).
National Research Council, Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health (1983) Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterisation, H. Fineburg, ed. (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Clark, W.C. and G. Majone (1985) The Critical Appraisal of Scientific Inquiries with Policy Implications, Science, Technology, and Human Values 10 (3), 6–19.
Suchman, M.C. (1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches, Academy of Management Review 20, 571–610.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control., National Health Statistics Center online data, Trend C, Table 292: Deaths for 282 Selected Causes, By 5-year Age Groups, Race, and Sex, USA, 1979-1998, Lightning (E907), Pg. 1870. Downloaded on 13 January 2003 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/gm292_3.pdf. See also “Lightning-Associated Deaths: 1980–1995,” MMWR Weekly 47(19):391–394 dated 22 May 1998, available at www.cdc.gov.
Mossman, B.T., J. Bignon, M. Com, A. Seaton, and J.B.L. Gee (1990) Asbestos: Scientific developments and implications for public policy, Science 247, 294, 299.
Krimsky, S. and D. Golding, eds. (1992) Social Theories of Risk, Praeger, Westport, CT.
Weber, M. (1922/1957) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Free Press, New York.
Simon, H.A. (1976) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organization, Harper & Rowe, New York.
Williams, B.A., and A.R. Matheny (1995) Democracy, Dialogue, and Environmental Disputes: The Contested Languages of Social Regulation, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Elliott, M. (1981) Pulling the Pieces Together: Amalgamation in Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA Review 2 (1) 11–37.
Keeney, R., and H. Raiffa (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Morgan, K.M. (1999) The Development and Evaluation of a Method for Risk Ranking, Ph.D. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, available from UMI Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, MI.
Andrews, C.J. (1992) Sorting out a consensus: Analysis in support of multi-party decisions, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 9 (2), 189–204.
Stirling, A. (2004) “Risk, uncertainty and precaution: Some instrumental implications from the socia sciences,” in F. Berkhout, M. Leach and I Scoones, eds., Negotiating Change, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this paper
Cite this paper
Andrews, C.J. (2004). Lessons from the New Jersey Comparative Risk Project. In: Linkov, I., Ramadan, A.B. (eds) Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making. Nato Science Series: IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences, vol 38. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2243-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2243-3_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1895-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2243-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)