Assessing the status of risk-based approaches for the prioritization of federal environmental spending

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been promoting the use of risk‐based analysis for setting environmental priorities since the early 1980s. From “Risk, Science and Democracy” in 1985, to the ground‐breaking Unfinished Business in 1987, to William Reilly's (former administrator of the EPA) high‐profile embrace of the Reducing Risk report in 1990, studies have pointed to the advantages of using risk‐based approaches to prioritize environmental spending. As we near the new millennium, the need for considering risk in the decision making process has not diminished. Government environmental managers are being asked to meet increasing regulatory burdens, devote more attention to the conservation of natural and cultural resources, and invest more in adopting environmental‐friendly technologies, all while ensuring mission readiness. All of these demands are occurring against the backdrop of flat environmental budgets. This study describes the current status of the methodologies in use by federal civilian agencies and the Department of Defense (DOD) for prioritizing nonrestoration spending. It evaluates each method against EPA's recommended criteria for assessing risk‐based prioritization models. It discusses what further research is needed to improve the integration of these methods into the agency budgetary process and to shift from a “worst first” to a “results first” approach.