Attachment C
REFERENCES

Bronfman, N.C., L.A. Cifuentes, M.L. DeKay, and H.H. Willis. 2007. Accounting for variation in the explanatory power of the psychometric paradigm: The effects of aggregation and focus. J. Risk Res. 10(4):527-554.

Bronfman, N.C., L.A. Cifuentes, and V.V. Gutierrez. 2008a. Participant-focused analysis: Explanatory power of the classic psychometric paradigm in risk perception. J. Risk Res. 11(6):735-753.

Bronfman, N.C., E.L. Vazquez, V.V. Gutierrez, and LA. Cifuentes. 2008b. Trust, acceptance and knowledge of technological and environmental hazards in Chile. J. Risk Res. 11(6):755-773.

Davies, J.C. 1996. Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

DeKay, M.L., H.K. Florig, P.S. Fischbeck, M.G. Morgan, K.M. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, and K.E. Jenni. 2001. The use of public risk ranking in regulatory development. Pp. 208-230 in Improving Regulation: Cases in Environment, Health, and Safety, P.S. Fischbeck, and R.S. Farrow, eds. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

DeKay, M.L., P.S. Fischbeck, H.K. Florig, M.G. Morgan, K.M. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, and K.E. Jenni. 2005. Judgment-based risk ranking for food safety. Pp. 198-226 in Toward Safer Food: Perspectives on Risk and Priority Setting, S.A. Hoffmann, and M.R. Taylor, eds. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. EPA/230/2-87/025. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

EPA SAB (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board). 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. SAB-EC-90-021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/28704D9C420FCBC1852573360053C692/$File/REDUCING+RISK++++++++++EC-90-021_90021_5-11-1995_204.pdf [accessed Dec. 2, 2008].

Finkel, A.M., and D. Golding. 1995. Worst Things First? The Debate over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Fischhoff, B. 1995. Ranking risks. Risk Health Saf. Environ. 6:189-200.

Fischhoff, B. 2006. Cognitive processes in stated preference methods. Pp. 937-968 in Handbook of Environmental Economics, Vol. 2. Valuing Environmental Changes, K.G. Mäler, and J.R. Vincent, eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Florig, H.K., M.G. Morgan, K.M. Morgan, K.E. Jenni, B. Fischhoff, P.S. Fischbeck, and M.L. DeKay. 2001. A deliberative method for ranking risks (I): Overview and test-bed development. Risk Anal. 21(5): 913-921.

Gutiérrez, V.V., L.A. Cifuentes, and N.C. Bronfman. 2006. The influence of information delivery on risk ranking by lay people. J. Risk Res. 9(6):641-655.

HM Treasury. 2004. The Orange Book: Management of Risk-Principles and Concepts. London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. October 2004 [online]. Available: http://www.who.int/management/general/risk/managementofrisk.pdf [accessed Dec. 2, 2008].

HM Treasury. 2005a. Managing Risks to the Public: Appraisal Guidance. London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. June 2005 [online]. Available: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Managing_risks_to_the_public.pdf [accessed Dec. 2, 2008].

HM Treasury. 2005b. Principles of Managing Risks to the Public. HM Treasury Cabinet Office, London, UK [online]. Available: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/risk_principles_180903.pdf [accessed Dec. 2, 2008].

Jones, K. 1997. A Retrospective on Ten Years of Comparative Risk. Prepared for American Industrial Health Council, Washington, DC, by Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy, Montpelier,



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 18
Attachment C REFERENCES Bronfman, N.C., L.A. Cifuentes, M.L. DeKay, and H.H. Willis. 2007. Accounting for variation in the explanatory power of the psychometric paradigm: The effects of aggregation and focus. J. Risk Res. 10(4):527-554. Bronfman, N.C., L.A. Cifuentes, and V.V. Gutierrez. 2008a. Participant-focused analysis: Explanatory power of the classic psychometric paradigm in risk perception. J. Risk Res. 11(6):735-753. Bronfman, N.C., E.L. Vazquez, V.V. Gutierrez, and LA. Cifuentes. 2008b. Trust, acceptance and knowledge of technological and environmental hazards in Chile. J. Risk Res. 11(6):755-773. Davies, J.C. 1996. Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. DeKay, M.L., H.K. Florig, P.S. Fischbeck, M.G. Morgan, K.M. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, and K.E. Jenni. 2001. The use of public risk ranking in regulatory development. Pp. 208-230 in Improving Regulation: Cases in Environment, Health, and Safety, P.S. Fischbeck, and R.S. Farrow, eds. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. DeKay, M.L., P.S. Fischbeck, H.K. Florig, M.G. Morgan, K.M. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, and K.E. Jenni. 2005. Judgment-based risk ranking for food safety. Pp. 198-226 in Toward Safer Food: Perspectives on Risk and Priority Setting, S.A. Hoffmann, and M.R. Taylor, eds. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. EPA/230/2-87/025. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA SAB (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board). 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. SAB-EC-90-021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://yosemite.epa. gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/28704D9C420FCBC1852573360053C692/$File/REDUCING+RISK++++++ ++++EC-90-021_90021_5-11-1995_204.pdf [accessed Dec. 2, 2008]. Finkel, A.M., and D. Golding. 1995. Worst Things First? The Debate over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Fischhoff, B. 1995. Ranking risks. Risk Health Saf. Environ. 6:189-200. Fischhoff, B. 2006. Cognitive processes in stated preference methods. Pp. 937-968 in Handbook of Environmental Economics, Vol. 2. Valuing Environmental Changes, K.G. Mäler, and J.R. Vincent, eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Florig, H.K., M.G. Morgan, K.M. Morgan, K.E. Jenni, B. Fischhoff, P.S. Fischbeck, and M.L. DeKay. 2001. A deliberative method for ranking risks (I): Overview and test-bed development. Risk Anal. 21(5): 913- 921. Gutiérrez, V.V., L.A. Cifuentes, and N.C. Bronfman. 2006. The influence of information delivery on risk ranking by lay people. J. Risk Res. 9(6):641-655. HM Treasury. 2004. The Orange Book: Management of Risk-Principles and Concepts. London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. October 2004 [online]. Available: http://www.who.int/management/ general/risk/managementofrisk.pdf [accessed Dec. 2, 2008]. HM Treasury. 2005a. Managing Risks to the Public: Appraisal Guidance. London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. June 2005 [online]. Available: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Managing_risks_ to_the_public.pdf [accessed Dec. 2, 2008]. HM Treasury. 2005b. Principles of Managing Risks to the Public. HM Treasury Cabinet Office, London, UK [online]. Available: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/risk_principles_180903.pdf [accessed Dec. 2, 2008]. Jones, K. 1997. A Retrospective on Ten Years of Comparative Risk. Prepared for American Industrial Health Council, Washington, DC, by Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy, Montpelier, 18

OCR for page 18
VT. January 24, 1997 [online]. Available: http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/23157i.pdf [accessed Dec. 2, 2008]. Long, J., and B. Fischhoff. 2000. Setting risk priorities: A formal model. Risk Anal. 20(3):339-352. Minard, R.A. 1996. Comparative risk assessment and the States: History, politics and results. Pp. 23-62 in Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities, J.C. Davies, ed. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Morgan, K.M., M.L. DeKay, and P.S. Fischbeck. 1999. A multi-attribute approach to risk prioritization. Risk Policy Report 6(6):38-40. Morgan, M.G., H.K. Florig, M.L. DeKay, and P. Fischbeck. 2000. Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Anal. 20(1):49-58. Morgan, K.M., M.L. DeKay, P.S. Fischbeck, M.G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, and H.K. Florig. 2001. A deliberative method for ranking risks (II): Evaluation of validity and agreement among managers. Risk Anal. 21(5):923-937. Morgan, M.G., B. Fischhoff, L. Lave, and P. Fischbeck. 1996. A proposal for ranking risks within federal agencies. Pp. 111-148 in Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities, J.C. Davies, ed. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Morgan, M.G., H.K. Florig, M.L. DeKay, and P. Fischbeck. 2000. Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Anal. 20(1):49-58. Murray, C.J.L., and A.D. Lopez, eds. 1996. The Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. OGC (Office of Government Commerce). 2008. Management of Risk (M_o_R). Office of Government Commerce, HM Treasury, London, UK [online]. Available: http://www.ogc.gov.uk/guidance_ management_of_risk_4441.asp [accessed Dec. 2, 2008]. Palmgren, C.R., M.L. DeKay, P.S. Fischbeck, B. Fischhoff, and M.G. Morgan. 2000. Evaluating a Risk- Ranking Methodology. Society of Risk Analysis Annual Meeting Applications of Risk Analysis in Industry and Government, December 3-6, 2000, Washington, DC. UNC. 2008. UNC School of Public Health to help UAE assess environmental health risks. UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. School of Public Health News: June 9, 2008 [online]. Available: http://www.sph.unc.edu/school_of_public_health_news/unc_school_of_public_health_to_help_uae_ assess_environmental_health_risks_7546_1957.html [accessed Dec. 2, 2008]. USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. Risk-Informed Decision Framework Appendix, Draft. Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Technical Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, Mississippi Valley Division. February 2008 [online]. Available: http://lacpr. usace.army.mil/\Report\Draft Appendices\Risk Informed Decision Framework Appendix.pdf [accessed Dec. 2, 2008]. WHO (World Health Organization). 2008. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. Geneva: World Health Organization [online]. Available: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD _report_2004update_full.pdf [accessed Jan. 9, 2009]. Willis, H.H., M.L. DeKay, M.G. Morgan, H.K. Florig, and P.S. Fischbeck. 2004. Ecological risk ranking: Development and evaluation of a method for improving public participation in environmental decision making. Risk Anal. 24(2):363-378. Willis, H.H., M.L. DeKay, B. Fischhoff, and M.G. Morgan. 2005. Aggregate, disaggregate, and hybrid analyses of ecological risk perceptions. Risk Anal. 25(2):405-428. 19