Tools for Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: Competing or Complementary Perspectives?

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 decision-makers 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.

Risk Assessment and Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) for Human Health Cancerous and Noncancerous Emissions: Integrated and Complementary with Consistency within the USEPA

“…The relative LCA approach can be seen to identify and frame possible system issues and trade-offs, where other absolute tech niques analyze the details of possible issues raised by LCA" (pp. 7-8) (Barnthouse et al 1998) The limitations of LCIA have been cited by many authors and will not be re peated in detail here, but will be simply listed (Owens 1997;Barnthouse et al 1998;Bare et al 1999;Hertwich et al 1999;Bare et al 2000;Hofstetter et al 2002;Bare et al 2003). These limitations can differ widely depending on the particular model that is being analyzed, but some of the common complaints include the following:…”

“…Previous authors have considered the comparison of LCA and risk assessment rec ognizing the inherent differences in LCA and risk assessment, for example, LCA's focus on the functional unit, and the differences in perspective of LCA and risk as sessment (Hofstetter et al 2002;Olsen et al 2001;Wegener et al 2001), and also the commonalities (e.g., the basis for the modeling). Until this time, however, no one has proposed a coordinated approach for conducting LCA and risk assessment us ing models consistent with the USEPA's handbooks, policies, and guidelines (USEPA 1989(USEPA , 1999(USEPA , 2003a.…”

“…Although previous papers have included indirect risks, risks due to changes in disposable income, and other risks related to the many changes in the system (Hofstetter et al 2002), this article will only focus on human health risks as predicted by direct impacts related to releases to chemicals that are known, or suspected, to cause human health effects.…”

“…Previous authors have considered the comparison of LCA and risk assessment (Cowell et al 2002;Olsen et al 2001;Hofstetter et al 2002;Wegener Sleeswijk and Heijungs 2001;Owens 1997). Although each recognized the inherent differences in LCA and risk assessment (e.g., LCA's focus on the functional unit, and the dif ferences in perspective of LCA and risk assessment), they also recognized the com monalities (e.g., the basis for the modeling).…”

“…Human health was subdivided to better reflect the focus of EPA regulations and to allow methodology development consistent with the regulation, handbooks, and guidelines (Bare et al 2003). Bare et al 2002).…”