Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Smoking Status And Public Responses To Ambiguous Scientific Risk Evidence, W. Kip Viscusi, Wesley A. Magat, Joel Hubert
Smoking Status And Public Responses To Ambiguous Scientific Risk Evidence, W. Kip Viscusi, Wesley A. Magat, Joel Hubert
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Situations in which individuals receive information seldom involve scientific consensus over the level of the risk. When scientific experts disagree, people may process the information in an unpredictable manner. The original data presented here for environmental risk judgments indicate a tendency to place disproportionate weight on the high risk assessment, irrespective of its source, particularly when the experts disagree. Cigarette smokers differ in their risk information processing from nonsmokers in that they place less weight on the high risk judgment when there is a divergence in expert opinion. Consequently, they are more likely to simply average competing risk assessments.
Sustainable Development: A Five-Dimensional Algorithm For Environmental Law, J.B. Ruhl
Sustainable Development: A Five-Dimensional Algorithm For Environmental Law, J.B. Ruhl
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
This article describes sustainable development as involving five dimensions: environment, economy, equity, time, and space (or scale). I suggest that the complexity inherent in balancing these five dimensions demand algorithmic approaches like those being explored in complex adaptive systems theory.
The Metrics Of Constitutional Amendments: And Why Proposed Environmental Quality Amendments Don't Measure Up, J.B. Ruhl
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
This article builds a model of federal constitutional amendments using proposed environmental quality rights amendments as a case study. I argue that environmental quality rights amendments are unworkable and violate the underpinnings of federal constitutional design.
Are Risk Regulators Rational? Evidence From Hazardous Waste Cleanup Decisions, W. Kip Viscusi, James Hamilton
Are Risk Regulators Rational? Evidence From Hazardous Waste Cleanup Decisions, W. Kip Viscusi, James Hamilton
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Using original data on the cleanup of 130 hazardous waste sites, we examine the degree Superfund decisions are driven by efficiency concerns, biases in risk perceptions, and political factors. Target risk levels chosen by regulators are largely a function of political variables and risk perception biases. Regulators exhibit biases consistent with anchoring and the availability heuristic, and do not distinguish between current risks to actual residents and potential risks to hypothetically exposed populations. Quantile regressions indicate that political factors affect decisions on the cost per case of cancer averted, especially for the most inefficient cleanup efforts.