Is there sufficient coordination between economists and risk assessors in developing appropriate data for valuation?
Relatively few examples exist where risk assessors and economists have collaborated seamlessly in characterization and valuation of environmental risk. More typically, economic analysis follows risk assessment, but risk characterizations often do not provide information conducive to benefit estimation. As a result, benefit assessments cannot accurately or completely capture impacts on children, or the value of reducing risk. The limited collaboration between risk assessors and economists is not restricted to children’s health, and often leads to three problems for economic assessments. First, measures of risk conveyed by risk assessments often are not well suited for estimating individual benefits. Benefits arise from avoiding, or from reducing the probability or severity of, health effects that individuals recognize as adverse. Non-cancer risk assessments, however, generally characterize risks in terms of a Reference Dose (or the proposed Margin of Exposure). While threshold-type meas
