Defining the Interface Between Economics and Risk Assessment. M. A. Tumeo, USDA/AAAS Risk Assessment Fellow, Office of Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis and Director, Center for Environmental Science, Technology and Policy, Cleveland State University, 1899 E 22nd St., MC-219, Cleveland, OH 44114
Risk and cost-benefit analyses are both conducted to provide structured information useful for decision making. Neither is "science," though both make use of applied science. Both are subsets of decision or policy analysis. However, since the inception of the use of risk assessment as a decision making tool, there has been tension between the two. Often, risk assessment is seen as "the science" portion of the analysis, with the economic potion being viewed as somehow suspect. There has been a historical perception that economic methods inadvertently or intentionally ignored environmental values. While there are always situations in which an analysis tool is intentionally used incorrectly or in such a way to produce a specific desired result, the real problem lies in the fact that cost-benefit analysis suffers from a long standing problem of how to "value" certain attributes, especially attributes which are not typically subject to market forces, or which have emotional overtones. However, the tension between risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis is not only a function of economic analyses methods. Almost all risk analyses are conducted with little or no interaction with the economic analysts who will eventually conduct the cost-benefit analysis. This separated, non-coordinated approach lends itself to misunderstandings and confusion when the economic analysis is conducted. Secondly, risk assessors often perceive themselves as presenting "the facts" when actually, risk assessment is also riddled with assumptions and its own technical problems. Because of inherent uncertainties in risk assessment, its position in decision making as historically been viewed as overly conservative and based on unrealistic expectations of a risk free society. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of both the risk assessor and the economic analyst to coordinate their analyses so as to provide the best and most complete information to both the public and the decision maker. This does not mean that the tension will be eliminated or even reduced between the two approaches, only that the tension will be a creative and positive aspect of looking at the same problem in two different yet important ways.
Go to . . .