|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
00000cam a2200000 i 4500 |
| 001 |
ocn876512680 |
| 003 |
OCoLC |
| 005 |
20240909213021.0 |
| 006 |
m o d |
| 007 |
cr |n||||||||| |
| 008 |
140412s2014 xx o 000 0 eng d |
| 040 |
|
|
|a EBLCP
|b eng
|e pn
|c EBLCP
|d DEBSZ
|d OCLCQ
|d MERUC
|d OCLCQ
|d LOA
|d OCLCO
|d K6U
|d OCLCF
|d OCLCO
|d OCLCQ
|d OCLCO
|d SXB
|d OCLCQ
|
| 020 |
|
|
|a 9781135890544
|
| 020 |
|
|
|a 1135890544
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (OCoLC)876512680
|
| 050 |
|
4 |
|a GE145 .C65 2014
|
| 049 |
|
|
|a HCDD
|
| 100 |
1 |
|
|a Davies, J. Clarence.
|
| 245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Comparing Environmental Risks :
|b Tools for Setting Government Priorities.
|
| 260 |
|
|
|a Hoboken :
|b Taylor and Francis,
|c 2014.
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a 1 online resource (177 pages)
|
| 336 |
|
|
|a text
|b txt
|2 rdacontent
|
| 337 |
|
|
|a computer
|b c
|2 rdamedia
|
| 338 |
|
|
|a online resource
|b cr
|2 rdacarrier
|
| 588 |
0 |
|
|a Print version record.
|
| 505 |
0 |
|
|a Cover; Half Title; Title Page; Copyright Page; Table of Contents; Foreword; Preface; 1 Comparative Risk Analysis in the 1990s: The State of the Art; Comparative Risk Analysis Becomes a Political Issue; The Scope of This Book; A Basic Vocabulary of Risk; A Strong Foundation or a Weak Reed?; References; 2 Ranking Risks: Some Key Choices; Scope and Direction of the CRA; Estimating Risks in a CRA; Comparing Risks in a CRA; Followup Actions to a CRA; Conclusion: CRA as the Best Method Available; References; 3 CRA and the States: History, Politics, and Results.
|
| 505 |
8 |
|
|a The Basics of Comparative Risk ProjectsThe Evolution of Comparative Risk Projects at EPA; The States and Cities: Process, Politics, Results; Analytical Approaches: The Role of Social Values; Ranking Risks, Ranking Priorities; Grant Flexibility: Balancing Efficiency and Accountability; The New Projects; Conclusions; References; 4 CRA and Its Stakeholders: Advice to the Executive Office; Risk-Based Priority Setting: New Wine in Old Skins; Why Now, How Now? The Current Emphasis on Risk-Based Priority Setting; From the Top: Risk-Based Priority Setting in the Executive Office; Conclusions.
|
| 505 |
8 |
|
|a EndnotesReferences; 5 Refining the CRA Framework; The Constraint to Risk Reduction Is Resources, Not Money; Time for Guidance: Finding Standards for Measuring Risk; Applying Decision Theory: Five Suggestions for Refining the Analytical Framework of CRA; Considering Both Risk Equity and Risk Efficiency; Using the New Framework: Building Institutional Capacities; References; 6 A Proposal for Ranking Risk within Federal Agencies; Why Perform Risk Ranking?; Design Philosophy; Design Strategy; A Risk-Ranking Procedure for Federal Agencies; Implementing the Risk-Ranking Procedure.
|
| 505 |
8 |
|
|a Conclusions: What Risk Ranking Cannot DoEndnotes; References; Index.
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a The budgetary squeeze of the 1990s has made it obvious that the government cannot address every possible environmental problem. Comparative risk assessment (CRA) is increasingly advanced as the means for setting realistic priorities. RFF's Center for Risk Management commissioned background papers from leading experts on CRA for a meeting with federal regulatory officials. Comparing Environmental Risks presents the revised papers of this workshop. Representing the state of the art on programmatic CRA, its methodological analyses and practical recommendations will be invaluable to government off.
|
| 650 |
|
0 |
|a Environmental risk assessment.
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Environmental risk assessment
|2 fast
|
| 776 |
0 |
8 |
|i Print version:
|a Davies, J. Clarence.
|t Comparing Environmental Risks : Tools for Setting Government Priorities.
|d Hoboken : Taylor and Francis, ©2014
|z 9780915707799
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/holycrosscollege-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1665793
|y Click for online access
|
| 903 |
|
|
|a EBC-AC
|
| 994 |
|
|
|a 92
|b HCD
|