Public decision makers

A subdivision in the types of decision making clarifies the kinds of people involved. There are public decision-makers who make either policy or management decisions about on-site behaviour. There are marketers in joint public-private cooperative endeavours whose interests include such factors as what will influence travellers to come to place A, B or C. There are also business decision makers concerned with the design and financial success of tourism products. These kinds of interests focus on what tourists will prefer and how they make their travel choices and purchases. Tourism industry lobby groups may also be interested in select tourist behaviour issues, particularly topics such as user-pays fees and taxes on activities. 

Altliough the technical conununity has come a long way in understanding how to do a better job in luizard identification, dose-response assessment, and exposure assessment portions of risk assessment, it lias only begun to understand how to best cluiractcrize hcaltli risks and how to present tliese risks most appropriately to both the public and decision makers. Tlie next tliree sections specifically address tlicse issues. Tliis section deals witli qualitative risk assessment while tlie next two sections deal witli quantitative risk assessment. 

The Department of Homeland Security has funded preliminary studies to elaborate specific chemical/biological threat vectors and to increase understanding of airflows in several terminals and boarding areas of San Francisco International Airport and Albuquerque Airport. It has also conducted an exercise in which the many airport decision makers (e.g., in areas of operations, security, fire control and prevention, public health and safety, and environmental is-... 

In response to increasing scientific evidence that human activities are contributing significantly to global climate change [1], decision makers are devoting considerable attention to public policies to reduce GHG emissions and thereby prevent or reduce such change. 

To sum up, the question that should concern decision-makers now is not so much whether Spain s current level of expenditure can be put on a par with that attained by its neighbouring countries, but rather to what extent current growth rates of public health spending are compatible with the income scenarios fixed by the Spanish public sector in the process of European convergence and its frameworks of stability. 

The decision on the selection of measures has to be made by politicians/managers. Scientists can provide transparency for the decision makers by clarifying the current and potential future status of the system, the possible measures and their ecological, economical and social consequences. Scientists should learn the language and the interests of the public, because often information handed over from the scientists/ water managers to the public is perceived not reliable and/or relevant for them, moreover taking into account that public participation is mandatory according to the WFD. It is clear that public participation is important for the implementation of measures and for acceptance, because measures can have an impact on specific interests of the public (see example described in the previous section). 

A second important set of issues arises once precise and reliable drug responsiveness in minorities is known. Here the problem is to determine whether or when public and private decision makers may take that race-based information into account, and if so, whether there is also an obligation to take it into account. 

CLL mapping is extremely useful in communicating findings of environmental impact studies both for general public and decision-makers. 

One can identify two major categories of uncertainty in EIA data (scientific) uncertainty inherited in input data (e.g., incomplete or irrelevant baseline information, project characteristics, the misidentification of sources of impacts, as well as secondary, and cumulative impacts) and in impact prediction based on these data (lack of scientific evidence on the nature of affected objects and impacts, the misidentification of source-pathway-receptor relationships, model errors, misuse of proxy data from the analogous contexts) and decision (societal) uncertainty resulting from, e.g., inadequate scoping of impacts, imperfection of impact evaluation (e.g., insufficient provisions for public participation), human factor in formal decision-making (e.g., subjectivity, bias, any kind of pressure on a decision-maker), lack of strategic plans and policies and possible implications of nearby developments (Demidova, 2002). 

The need to provide accurate, timely, transparent and credible information so that decision-makers at least have a factual basis from which to operate. Without a continuing commitment from industry to far greater transparency -especially in matters that are perceived as impinging on public or environmental health - our industry will be unsustainable. Trust me - I m a businessman works about as well as Trust me - I m a politician . Even Trust me - I m a journalist works better ... 

Decision-makers have sometimes found presentations of comparative risk information a useful aid to the public discourse on risk acceptance. We referred in an earlier section, for example, to the OSHA s use of statistics on the risks of job-related accidents to support decisions... 

US-EPA s Risk Assessment Guidehnes set forth recommended principles and procedures to guide US-EPA scientists in assessing the risks from chemicals or other agents in the environment. They also inform US-EPA decision-makers and the public about these procedures. 

The series of Risk Assessment Guidelines includes a guideline for neurotoxicity risk assessment (US-EPA 1998). This Guideline sets forth principles and procedures to guide US-EPA scientists in evaluating environmental contaminants that may pose neurotoxic risks, and inform US-EPA decision-makers and the public about these procedures. The Guideline includes a discussion of general dehnitions and issues, an overview of test methods, and the interpretation of data within the U.S. framework for risk assessment. 

There are many methods of analyzing variability and uncertainty and many ways of presenting the results. Inappropriate use of these methods gives misleading results, and experts differ on what is appropriate. Disagreement about which methods are appropriate will lead to wasted resources, conflict over results, and reduced credibility with decision makers and the public. There is, therefore, a need to reach a consensus on how to choose and use appropriate methods, and to present this in the form of guidance for prospective users. 

Risk assessors and decision makers both need to be prepared to communicate risk results in an understandable form to other practitioners (regulatory and registrant), stakeholders, and the public. This is particularly critical in the case of uncertainty in the assessment. Most scientists hired to perform risk assessment are thoroughly trained in their subject matter but less familiar with the demands of public presentation or the essentials of educating at multiple levels. Regulators must provide scientists and decision makers with the support and opportunity to develop skills necessary to effectively communicate with stakeholders and the public. 

As physicians are asked simultaneously to represent their patients interests while being asked to deliver clinical services with parsimony, and as reimbursement for medical services becomes more centralized in many countries, decision-makers must turn for assistance to collaborative efforts of epidemiologists and economists in the assessment of new therapeutic agents. Through a merger of epidemiology and economics, better information can be provided to the greatest number of decision-makers, and limited resources can be used most effectively for the health of the public. 

In order to sensitize decision-makers it is necessary to develop initiatives that involve all stakeholders of the public sector and the civil society through organizations representing health professionals, patients, manufacturers, distributors, as well as communication professionals and the media. 

---