A principal of the ongoing New Jersey Comparative Risk project discusses what has been learned about environmental problems and policies from the dozens of efforts that have been conducted since US EPA launched this approach in 1987.

Comparative risk projects attempt to rank environmental threats in order of importance to provide strategic planning guidance to jurisdictions, typically states. Some projects rely exclusively on expert input from scientists to assess the human health, ecological, and socioeconomic impacts of environmental problems. Other projects interpret the scientific evidence through the filter of stakeholder values and public participation mechanisms. As states have experimented with different recipes for legitimacy, there have been notable successes and failures.

This presentation will evaluate the scientific adequacy, demonstrated value, political effectiveness, and legitimacy of the comparative risk approach as revealed in a set of completed state-level projects. It will identify what works and what doesn't, and it will link the comparative risk enterprise to a broader debate about the role of technical expertise in public policymaking.