Engaging with Comparative Risk Appraisals: Public Views on Policy Priorities for Environmental Risk Governance

Environmental Governance, Public Health Expenditure, and Economic Growth: Analysis in an OLG Model

This article studies the relationship between environmental governance, public health expenditure, and economic growth by introducing human health status into a three-period overlapping generation dynamic general equilibrium (OLG-DGE) model and conducting a policy simulation analysis in a Chinese scenario. The main findings are generalized as follows: (i) The increase in pollution emissions per unit of output will not only lead to the deterioration of public health but also hinder long-term economic growth, while the efficiency of pollution control will improve health and output per labor unit; (ii) Although levying environmental tax will improve health status and life expectancy, it has a non-linear impact on pollution emissions and output per labor unit, which means that there are trade-offs among environmental governance, public health improvement, and economic output; and (iii) Although the increase in the proportion of public health expenditure will improve health status, its impact on life expectancy and economic output is affected by the level of environmental tax. Only when the environmental tax rate is relatively low, will increasing the proportion of public health expenditure extend life expectancy and output per labor unit.

Informing environmental health and risk priorities through local outreach and extension

Our society is currently facing an unprecedented number of environmental and societal challenges. Stakeholder and community engagement can help identify priority issues and needs at local levels. One approach to engage stakeholders and communities in the contexts of environmental, health, and societal challenges is to leverage outreach and extension programs. Within this context, and to help identify priority issues to focus subsequent research and extension programs in North Carolina (NC), a survey was conducted with extension agents to identify priority issues as they relate to environmental health and risks and related needs. Based on responses from 66 study participants that represented half of the 100 NC counties, we found that Water pollution, Flooding, Natural resources management, and Engaging stakeholders were top priority issues across all environmental health and risk topics. Participants also identified that practices of Engaging stakeholders as well as Assessing, Managing, and Communicating risks were increasingly important. Participants indicated they needed a moderate-to-significant amount of guidance across a range of areas related to assessing, managing, communicating, and making decisions regarding environmental health and risk topics, as well as engaging with local communities. Outcomes from this work can not only help inform subsequent research and outreach efforts at local scales, but this work demonstrates a simple, low-cost approach to elicit perspectives and priorities can be leveraged in other states and regions with established stakeholder and community outreach programs more broadly.

Strategic risk appraisal. Comparing expert- and literature-informed consequence assessments for environmental policy risks receiving national attention

Strategic risk appraisal (SRA) has been applied to compare diverse policy level risks to and from the environment in England and Wales. Its application has relied on expert-informed assessments of the potential consequences from residual risks that attract policy attention at the national scale. Here we compare consequence assessments, across environmental, economic and social impact categories that draw on 'expert'- and 'literature-based' analyses of the evidence for 12 public risks appraised by Government. For environmental consequences there is reasonable agreement between the two sources of assessment, with expert-informed assessments providing a narrower dispersion of impact severity and with median values similar in scale to those produced by an analysis of the literature. The situation is more complex for economic consequences, with a greater spread in the median values, less consistency between the two assessment types and a shift toward higher severity values across the risk portfolio. For social consequences, the spread of severity values is greater still, with no consistent trend between the severities of impact expressed by the two types of assessment. For the latter, the findings suggest the need for a fuller representation of socioeconomic expertise in SRA and the workshops that inform SRA output.