Radon risk information and voluntary protection: evidence from a natural experiment.

This study examines the perceived risks and mitigating behavior of Maine households who received new information on their exposures to significant health risks from indoor radon. The observed responses of these households illustrate conceptual issues related to designing an effective risk information program. Despite the involvement of generally well-motivated homeowners and well-intentioned researchers and government officials, we conclude that the risk information approach used in Maine failed to induce appropriate, cost-effective voluntary protection. The results indicate that, after receiving radon test results, information on associated health risks, and suggestions on how to reduce exposures: perceived risks tended to understate objective risks by orders of magnitude, and there was no statistically significant relationship between mitigating behavior and objective risks. These results suggest that the formation of risk perceptions and subsequent behavioral adjustments involve complex interactions among information, contextual, socioeconomic, and psychological variables. Therefore, government programs that seek to reduce health and safety risks with information programs, instead of using more conventional enforced standards, must be crafted very carefully to accommodate this complex process.

The emerging role of benefit-cost analysis in the regulatory process at EPA.

Almost since its inception, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been using analytical techniques related to the concept of balancing benefits and costs. As a result of the Reagan Administration's Executive Order 12291, benefit-cost analysis is playing an increasingly important role in the EPA regulatory process. Benefit-cost analysis has assisted in organizing information and improving cost estimates. It has influenced the choice of regulatory criteria and aided in the developing degrees of stringency for environmental regulations. The usage of benefit-cost analysis is limited by interpretations of portions of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act that restrict consideration of costs or establish technology standards. Benefit analysis is only as reliable as the underlying scientific data in the health effects area. Work by epidemiologists on the relationships between pollutant exposures and adverse health effects will play a vital role in EPA's ability to value in dollars the health improvements attributable to pollution control. EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation is currently conducting combined economic and epidemiology research to develop methods and estimates of the health benefits of pollution control.