Download Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management PDF

TitleFramework for Environmental Health Risk Management
File Size1.7 MB
Total Pages302
Table of Contents
                            Volume 1
	The Commission's Risk Management Framework
		Framework for Risk Management
		Principles for Risk Management Decision-Making
	Defining Problems and Putting Them in Context
		Guidelines for Stakeholder Involvement
	Analyzing Risks
	Examining Options
	Making a Decision
	Taking Action
	Evaluating Results
	Implementing the Framework
Volume 2
	Executive Summary
	1. Introduction
	2. The Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management
	3. Risk Management and Regulatory Decision-Making
	4. Uses and Limitations of Risk Assessment for Risk Management Decision-Making
	5. Uses and Limitations of Economic Analysis in Regulatory Decision-Making
	6. The Role of Peer Review in Regulatory Decision-Making
	7. Recommendations for Specific Regulatory Agencies and Programs
	Appendix A1 Biographies of Commission Members
	Appendix A2 Mandate of the Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management
	Appendix A3 Comments on Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment
	Appendix A4 Individuals Who Presented Testimony at Commission Meetings
	Appendix A5 Individuals and Organizations Who Provided Comments on the Commissionís June 1996 Draft Report
	Appendix A6 Differences Between the Draft and Final Reports
	Appendix A7 Abstracts of Reports Prepared at the Invitation of the Commission
Document Text Contents
Page 301


don and toxic substances, rather than taking a more com-
prehensive view of environmental risks. The kind of com-
munity-based research in the 1960s and 1970s that has
underpinned the prevention movement in health care has
not been done for the environment. Some of our pressing
environmental problems are more amenable to a broad
public-health approach than to the traditional command-
and-control regulatory approach.

The complex nature of risk communication calls into
question the value of requiring simple comparisons of risk
end points with either common risks of daily life or other
chemical or physical risks. Without a context, this infor-
mation might yield wrong or confusing messages for the
public. For most listeners, it evades the primary ques-
tions, “Will it hurt me?” Therefore, risk-communication
efforts should provide both comparisons and context,
which can depend on factors beyond risk numbers.

Recommendations for Practice
Include communication as a specific component of all

risk-management plans and budgets (10% of available
resources is a good rule of thumb).

• Hold risk-program managers accountable for meet-
ing communication objectives.

• Use appropriate formative research to underpin com-
munication efforts.

• Communicate uncertainty with care. Because stake-
holders, including the public, might react to uncertainty
in unpredictable ways, ensure that a good mechanism to
evaluate what has been communicated is in place.

• Use effective communication strategies to build and
extend the consensus among stakeholders, including the
public. Clear consensus-building (e.g., with comparative
risk assessments) can provide support for using more per-
suasive communication techniques.

Recommendations for Research
• Conduct experimental studies on the influence of

risk comparisons on attitudes and behavior of stakehold-
ers, including the public.

• Fund innovative demonstration efforts at the national,
state, and local levels.

• Conduct research on the effectiveness of various tech-
niques for presenting uncertainties in environmental risk

• Conduct research on strategies that make regulatory
standards flexible.

Similer Documents