Search

Communicating the rationale for allocating resources to manage policy priorities and their risks is challenging. Here, we demonstrate that environmental risks have diverse attributes and locales in their effects that may drive disproportionate responses among citizens. When 2,065 survey participants deployed summary information and their own understanding to assess 12 policy-level environmental risks singularly, their assessment differed from a prior expert assessment. However, participants provided rankings similar to those of experts when these same 12 risks were considered as a group, allowing comparison between the different risks. Following this, when individuals were shown the prior expert assessment of this portfolio, they expressed a moderate level of confidence with the combined expert analysis. These are important findings for the comprehension of policy risks that may be subject to augmentation by climate change, their representation alongside other threats within national risk assessments, and interpretations of agency for public risk management by citizens and others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental risk analysts need to draw from a clear typology of uncertainties when qualifying risk estimates and/or significance statements about risk. However, categorizations of uncertainty within existing typologies are largely overlapping, contradictory, and subjective, and many typologies are not designed with environmental risk assessments (ERAs) in mind. In an attempt to rectify these issues, this research provides a new categorization of uncertainties based, for the first time, on the appraisal of a large subset of ERAs, namely 171 peer-reviewed environmental weight-of-evidence assessments. Using this dataset, a defensible typology consisting of seven types of uncertainty (data, language, system, extrapolation, variability, model, and decision) and 20 related sub-types is developed. Relationships between uncertainties and the techniques used to manage them are also identified and statistically evaluated. A highly preferred uncertainty management option is to take no action when faced with uncertainty, although where techniques are applied they are commensurate with the uncertainty in question. Key observations are applied in the form of guidance for dealing with uncertainty, demonstrated through ERAs of genetically modified higher plants in the European Union. The presented typology and accompanying guidance will have positive implications for the identification, prioritization, and management of uncertainty during risk characterization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee (HSAC) provides expert advice to UK officials, Ministers and other relevant bodies on the protection of the environment, and human health via the environment, from potentially hazardous substances and articles. Hazardous substances are often the subject of controversy, on which individuals, and different groups in society, hold divergent views. This paper details the approach taken by HSAC when considering the evidence to provide advice on hazardous substances. Firstly HSAC reviews the range of evidence and determines its quality considering: transparency of aims, the methodology and results, completeness, independent review and accessibility. HSAC does not follow one explicit methodology as the wide range of hazardous substances we consider means they need to be addressed on a case by case basis. Most notably HSAC considers the evidence in the wider context, being aware of factors that influence individuals in their decision making when receiving a HSAC opinion e.g. trust in the source of the evidence, defensibility, conformity to a ‘world view’ and framing. HSACs also reflect on its own perspectives with the aim of addressing bias by the diversity of its membership. The Committee's intention, in adopting this rounded approach, is to reach opinions that are robust, relevant and defensible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]