Framing scientific analyses for risk management of environmental hazards by communities: case studies with seafood safety issues.
Framing scientific analyses for risk management of environmental hazards by communities: case studies with seafood safety issues.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1289/ehp.7655
复制
发表时间：
2005-11
影响因子：
10.4
通讯作者：
Marine Resources for Future Generations
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Judd NL;Drew CH;Acharya C;Mitchell TA;Donatuto JL;Burns GW;Burbacher TM;Faustman EM;Marine Resources for Future Generations
风险管理为处理环境健康危害提供了一个背景。这一办法的关键是确定参与的关键机会。我们应用了一个基于国家研究理事会（NRC）的分析-审议风险管理对话模型的框架，该模型说明了两个主要的迭代过程：告知和框架。通报过程涉及向所有各方传达风险问题分析的信息，通常是科学信息，以便他们能够参与审议。在框架制定过程中，利益攸关方审议的想法和关切有助于确定将进行哪些科学分析以及如何进行科学分析。受影响的各方能够通过很少的活动来传达他们在审议过程中提出的构想，以便进行科学分析。缺乏参与导致单向沟通。由NRC设想并由国家环境健康科学研究所（NIEHS）推动的分析-审议对话强调了双向沟通的重要性。在这篇文章中，我们提出了三个群体的案例研究，一个亚洲和太平洋岛民社区联盟和两个美洲原住民部落，积极制定科学的健康风险分析与受污染的海鲜。与这些组织的联系通过一次区域性的NIEHS城镇会议建立或加强。每个群体的关注原因、参与情况、方法和资金来源各不相同。其活动的好处包括增加社区参与和自主权，更好地突出分析过程的重点，以及提高风险管理的准确性和适当性。这些例子为增加社区参与框架分析提供了一系列备选办法，并突出表明需要增加对这些活动的支持。
Risk management provides a context for addressing environmental health hazards. Critical to this approach is the identification of key opportunities for participation. We applied a framework based on the National Research Council’s (NRC) analytic–deliberative risk management dialogue model that illustrates two main iterative processes: informing and framing. The informing process involves conveying information from analyses of risk issues, often scientific, to all parties so they can participate in deliberation. In the framing process, ideas and concerns from stakeholder deliberations help determine what and how scientific analyses will be carried out. There are few activities through which affected parties can convey their ideas from deliberative processes for framing scientific analyses. The absence of participation results in one-way communication. The analytic–deliberative dialogue, as envisioned by the NRC and promoted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), underscores the importance of two-way communication. In this article we present case studies of three groups—an Asian and Pacific Islander community coalition and two Native American Tribes—active in framing scientific analyses of health risks related to contaminated seafood. Contacts with these organizations were established or enhanced through a regional NIEHS town meeting. The reasons for concern, participation, approaches, and funding sources were different for each group. Benefits from their activities include increased community involvement and ownership, better focusing of analytical processes, and improved accuracy and appropriateness of risk management. These examples present a spectrum of options for increasing community involvement in framing analyses and highlight the need for increased support of such activities.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
10.4
作者：
O'Fallon LR;Dearry A
通讯作者：
Dearry A
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Jardine, CG
通讯作者：
Jardine, CG
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Burger, J;McDermott, MH;Pflugh, KK
通讯作者：
Pflugh, KK
DOI：
10.1007/s00244-002-2001-x
发表时间：
2003-01-01
影响因子：
4
作者：
Judd, NL;Griffith, WC;Faustman, EM
通讯作者：
Faustman, EM
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Knuth, BA;Connelly, NA;Patterson, J
通讯作者：
Patterson, J