CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Environmental and Social Impact AssessmentsEconomic and Environmental ValuationRisk Perception and Management

Tools for comparative analysis of alternatives: Competing or complementary perspectives?

Open access
Hofstetter, Patrick, Bare, Jane C., Hammitt, James K., Murphy, Patricia A., Rice, Glenn E.·2002·Risk Analysis
DOI 10.1111/1539-6924.00255
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A third generation of environmental policy making and risk management will increasingly impose environmental measures, which may give rise to analyzing countervailing risks. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of all risks associated with the decision alternatives will aid decisionmakers in prioritizing alternatives that effectively reduce both target and countervailing risks. Starting with the metaphor of the ripples caused by a stone that is thrown into a pond, we identify 10 types of ripples that symbolize, in our case, risks that deserve closer examination: direct, upstream, downstream, accidental risks, occupational risks, risks due to offsetting behavior, change in disposable income, macro‐economic changes, depletion of natural resources, and risks to the manmade environment. Tools to analyze these risks were developed independently and recently have been applied to overlapping fields of application. This suggests that either the tools should be linked in a unified framework for comparative analysis or that the appropriate field of application for single tools should be better understood. The goals of this article are to create a better foundation for the understanding of the nature and coverage of available tools and to identify the remaining gaps. None of the tools is designed to deal with all 10 types of risk. Provided data suggest that, of the 10 types of identified risks, those associated with changes in disposable income may be particularly significant when decision alternatives differ with respect to their effects on disposable income. Finally, the present analysis was limited to analytical questions and did not capture the important role of the decision‐making process itself.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1539-6924.00255

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many current risk analysis methodologies do not deal well with second, third, and higher order effects that may reinforce or offset the more obvious effects of a process or action under analysis.

    “Many current risk analysis methodologies do not deal well with second, third, and higher order effects that may reinforce or offset the more obvious effects of a process or action under analysis [117].”

    From North American Wetlands and Mosquito Control (2012) · cites this paper as [117]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. CDC. (1999). Achievements in public health, 1900-1999: Control of Infectious Diseases. MMWR, 48(29), 621-629.
  2. VROM. (Ed.). (1994). Policy document on products and the environment. The Hague: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Plan- ning and the Environment (VROM).
  3. Adams, J. (1995). Risk. London: UCL Press.
  4. International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study (IFIAS). (1974). Energy analysis workshop on methodology and conventions. Sweden: Guldsmedshyttan.
  5. SETAC. (1993). Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: A "code of practice." Workshop Sesimbra, March 3-March 4, 1993. Brussels, Belgium.
  6. Udo de Haes, H. A. (Ed.). (1996). Towards a methodology for life cycle impact assessment. Brussels, Belgium: SETAC- Europe Working Group on Impact Assessment.
  7. Giegrich, J. (1994). Modelling spatial information for impact assessment. In P. Hofstetter, S. Schaltegger, & H. A. Udo de Haes (Eds.), First working document on life cycle impact assessment methodology. Z ürich: ETH.
  8. Feldman, D. L., Hanahan, R. A., & Perhac, R. (1999). Envi- ronmental priority-setting through comparative risk assess- ment. Environmental Management, 23(4), 483-493.
  9. Graham, J. D., & Hammitt, J. K. (1996). Refining the CRA framework. In J. C. Davies (Ed.), Comparing environmental risks; Tools for setting governmental priorities (pp. 93-109). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
  10. Posthuma, L., Suter II, G. W., & Traas, T. P. (Eds.). (Forth- coming). The use of species sensitivity distributions in eco- toxicology.
  11. Potting, J., Møller, B. T., & Jensen, A. A. (1997). Work en- vironment and LCA. In H. A. Udo de Haes & N. Wrisberg (Eds.), Life cycle assessment: State-of-the-art and research pri- orities (LCA Documents Volume 1, pp. 149-180). Bayreuth: Eco-Informa Press. 115.
  12. Schmidt, A., Rasmussen, P. B., Andreasen, J., Fløe, T., & Poulsen, K. E. (In press). Integration of the working environ- ment in life cycle assessment (LCA)-A new methodology. Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency. 116.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hofstetter, P., Bare, J. C., Hammitt, J. K., Murphy, P. A., & Rice, G. E.
Affiliations
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Hofstetter, Patrick
ORCID
Hammitt, James K.
Venue
Risk Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-10
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
833-851
ISSN
  • 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-6924
DOI
10.1111/1539-6924.00255
OpenAlex
W2097340202
Cited by
58
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
11.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 27 d)
Locations
  • Risk Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
environmental policy, risk management, decision alternatives, risk analysis framework, occupational risk, natural resource depletion, policy trade-offs
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Making, Environmental Health, Humans, Methyl Ethers, Risk, Risk Management, West Nile Fever, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review