TY - JOUR
T1 - Advancing alternative analysis
T2 - Integration of decision science
AU - Malloy, Timothy F.
AU - Zaunbrecher, Virginia M.
AU - Batteate, Christina M.
AU - Blake, Ann
AU - Carroll, William F.
AU - Corbett, Charles J.
AU - Hansen, Steffen Foss
AU - Lempert, Robert J.
AU - Linkov, Igor
AU - McFadden, Roger
AU - Moran, Kelly D.
AU - Olivetti, Elsa
AU - Ostrom, Nancy K.
AU - Romero, Michelle
AU - Schoenung, Julie M.
AU - Seager, Thomas
AU - Sinsheimer, Peter
AU - Thayer, Kristina A.
N1 - Funding Information:
This paper came from discussions at a workshop that was supported by the University of California (UC) Sustainable Technology and Policy Program, a joint collaboration of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law and the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health in partnership with the UC Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN). UC CEIN is funded by a cooperative agreement from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (NSF DBI-0830117; NSF DBI-1266377). Support for this workshop was also provided by the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability and the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, both at UCLA.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, Public Health Services, US Dept of Health and Human Services. All rights reserved.
PY - 2017/6
Y1 - 2017/6
N2 - BACKGROUND: Decision analysis—a systematic approach to solving complex problems—offers tools and frameworks to support decision making that are increasingly being applied to environmental challenges. Alternatives analysis is a method used in regulation and product design to identify, compare, and evaluate the safety and viability of potential substitutes for hazardous chemicals. OBJECTIVES: We assessed whether decision science may assist the alternatives analysis decision maker in comparing alternatives across a range of metrics. METHODS: A workshop was convened that included representatives from government, academia, business, and civil society and included experts in toxicology, decision science, alternatives assessment, engineering, and law and policy. Participants were divided into two groups and were prompted with targeted questions. Throughout the workshop, the groups periodically came together in plenary sessions to reflect on other groups’ findings. RESULTS: We concluded that the further incorporation of decision science into alternatives analysis would advance the ability of companies and regulators to select alternatives to harmful ingredients and would also advance the science of decision analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We advance four recommendations: a) engaging the systematic development and evaluation of decision approaches and tools; b) using case studies to advance the integration of decision analysis into alternatives analysis; c) supporting transdisciplinary research; and d) supporting education and outreach efforts.
AB - BACKGROUND: Decision analysis—a systematic approach to solving complex problems—offers tools and frameworks to support decision making that are increasingly being applied to environmental challenges. Alternatives analysis is a method used in regulation and product design to identify, compare, and evaluate the safety and viability of potential substitutes for hazardous chemicals. OBJECTIVES: We assessed whether decision science may assist the alternatives analysis decision maker in comparing alternatives across a range of metrics. METHODS: A workshop was convened that included representatives from government, academia, business, and civil society and included experts in toxicology, decision science, alternatives assessment, engineering, and law and policy. Participants were divided into two groups and were prompted with targeted questions. Throughout the workshop, the groups periodically came together in plenary sessions to reflect on other groups’ findings. RESULTS: We concluded that the further incorporation of decision science into alternatives analysis would advance the ability of companies and regulators to select alternatives to harmful ingredients and would also advance the science of decision analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We advance four recommendations: a) engaging the systematic development and evaluation of decision approaches and tools; b) using case studies to advance the integration of decision analysis into alternatives analysis; c) supporting transdisciplinary research; and d) supporting education and outreach efforts.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031707124&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85031707124&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1289/EHP483
DO - 10.1289/EHP483
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28669940
AN - SCOPUS:85031707124
SN - 0091-6765
VL - 125
JO - Environmental Health Perspectives
JF - Environmental Health Perspectives
IS - 6
M1 - 066001
ER -