Procedural and Substantive Fairness in Risk Decisions

Comparative Risk Assessment Procedures1

Bibliographic Data

ID6330409
AuthorsChristopher J Paterson (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, corresponding author), R Andrews (0000-0003-0741-7864), Richard N L Andrews (0000-0002-0672-5366)
Year1995
Volume23
Issue1
Pages85-95
Publication date1995-03-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolicy Studies Journal (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0190-292X • E-ISSN: 1541-0072
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1541-0072.1995.tb00508.x
OpenAlexW2064972088
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited9

The issue of fairness often is central within environmental policy debates. The recent proliferation of state and local comparative risk projects for informing the selection of environmental policy priorities offers an appropriate setting to explore the issue of procedural fairness in risk‐based decisionmaking. This paper describes and evaluates the process by which one of the initial state comparative risk projects, Washington's “Environment 2010,” attempted to include a broader range of participants in identifying, assessing, and generating preferred management strategies for a wide range of environmental hazards. The Washington case study suggests that comparative risk projects can be fairer procedurally, but that significant barriers remain. Noting that greater procedural fairness does not necessarily produce greater substantive fairness, the paper concludes that more attention needs to be directed at the process by which comparative risk projects translate their consensus upon risk priorities into subsequent actions

Actuarial science · Business · Comparative case · Economics · Management · Political science · Process (computing · Public economics · Risk analysis (engineering · Risk assessment · Risk management · Computer Science · Environmental and Social Impact Assessments · Regulation and Compliance Studies · Risk Perception and Management · Finance

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub