----------- Forwarded message -----------
Date: 06/01/2001 - 23:41
From: "L-Soft list server at CCLRC (1.8d)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RISK: approval required (B9701F40)
This message was originally submitted by [log in to unmask] to the RISK
list at JISCMAIL.AC.UK. You can approve it using the "OK" mechanism, ignore it,
or repost an edited copy. The message will expire automatically and you do not
need to do anything if you just want to discard it. Please refer to the list
owner's guide if you are not familiar with the "OK" mechanism; these
instructions are being kept purposefully short for your convenience in
processing large numbers of messages.
----------------- Original message (ID=B9701F40) (214 lines) ------------------
Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from ori.rl.ac.uk by jiscmail.ac.uk (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 21:35:25 0100
Received: (from root@localhost)
by ori.rl.ac.uk (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f51KeNs13514
for [log in to unmask]; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 21:40:23 0100
Received: from naga.mailbase.ac.uk ([log in to unmask] [128.240.226.3])
by ori.rl.ac.uk (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f51KeNS13483
for <[log in to unmask]>; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 21:40:23 0100
Received: from dep.state.nj.us (gw.dep.state.nj.us [199.20.97.29])
by naga.mailbase.ac.uk (8.8.x/Mailbase) with SMTP id VAA05603;
Fri, 1 Jun 2001 21:35:17 0100 (BST)
Received: from DEP-GATEWAY-Message_Server by dep.state.nj.us
with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:33:35 -0400
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.4
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:33:30 -0400
From: "Branden Johnson" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "Eileen Murphy" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Request for Proposals
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
To: [log in to unmask]
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of =
Science, Research and Technology, hereby requests proposals for research =
on "Communicating Uncertain Risks of Environmental Monitoring." Readers =
are free to post this RFP on professional websites and listservs, forward =
it, or otherwise make it known to potentially interested researchers.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SOLICITATION OF RESEARCH PROPOSALS=20
Title Communicating Uncertain Risks of Environmental =
Monitoring
Funding available: Approximately $100,000
Project Manager: Branden B. Johnson, Ph.D., Division of Science, =
Research & Technology, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Anticipated start date: July 1, 2002
=09
Potential investigators must contact Dr. Branden Johnson at (609)633-2324 =
by September 10, 2001 to express interest in submitting a proposal. =
Proposals must be received by October 5, 2001. Use the attached proposal =
format. Send five copies of the proposal to:
U.S. Postal Service:
Dr. Branden Johnson
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Science, Research and Technology
P.O. Box 409
Trenton, NJ 08625-0409
Overnight courier:
Dr. Branden Johnson
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Science, Research and Technology
401 E. State Street, 1st floor
Trenton, NJ 08625-0409
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection will fund this study =
by awarding a research contract to the selected investigator. This =
investigator will be required to submit an electronic copy of the =
proposal, which will be included as part of the contract. Proposals should =
be no longer than twenty (20) pages (excluding CVs) and should follow the =
attached format.
Introduction
Environmental monitoring sometimes produces uncertain results, that are =
difficult to interpret for both professionals and the public, yet =
government agencies have an obligation to explain to the public what they =
don't know, as well as what they know. The risk communication literature =
does not offer guidance in this task, and NJDEP expects that this research =
will help provide that guidance.
Need for Project
NJDEP anticipates that it may face communicating highly uncertain results =
of environmental monitoring to public audiences, and that this uncertainty =
about environmental contamination may be disturbing to those audiences, =
above and beyond any concern aroused by the contamination itself. For =
example, the agency might find that local drinking water (either the raw =
water source, or the treated water, or both) is contaminated with very low =
levels of substances that have no pertinent standards; have few or no =
health effects data; have few or no dose-response data; and are not =
monitored on a regular basis, at least in part because there is no =
standard method for analyzing for these substances (which might in fact be =
difficult or impossible to test for with standard analytic methods). How =
does one communicate such findings, or some combination thereof, in ways =
that meet the criteria for message evaluation recommended by Weinstein and =
Sandman (1993): i.e., audience evaluation of it as understandable, useful, =
etc., plus evidence that the message is indeed comprehensible, agreed to =
by the audience, elicits responses that are proportional to the risk and =
that hazards that are riskier elicit higher responses than hazards that =
are less risky, and that responses are uniform? =20
The risk communication literature, scholarly and otherwise, =
suggests some of the potential pitfalls (e.g., concern about, and even =
ignorance of, the fact that drinking water contains contaminants as a =
matter of course, although for regulated contaminants usually at levels =
below a public health standard) and possible solutions (e.g., acknowledging=
uncertainty frankly; suggesting how people can protect themselves, where =
feasible; correcting "myths"). However, most of this problem, and any =
potential solutions, are not covered by the literature, and NJDEP would =
prefer to communicate in such situations based on empirical evidence =
rather than on hunch and anecdote. The purpose of this RFP is to solicit =
proposals to provide that evidence.
The drinking water example given above is typical of the kind of uncertaint=
ies that NJDEP can face in some cases. It might be complicated by =
sometimes occurring in water supply systems that also have regulated =
substances above the standard in raw water, a situation which research =
shows alarms consumers even if the contamination level is below the =
standard after treatment.=20
Analogies to these drinking water cases might occur with regard to =
indoor or outdoor air toxics, or soil. Information might be even scantier =
for these environmental media than for drinking water. Public reactions =
to similar uncertainty in these media might be similar to or different =
from those in the drinking water cases (e.g., the latter involve more =
obvious and voluntary ingestion, but also offer the seemingly-safer and =
widespread alternative of bottled water, an analog of which is unavailable =
for breathing air). =20
To the extent that this study's results can be validly extrapolated=
to media other than drinking water (either because directly tested for =
other media in the research, or because researchers can demonstrate that =
the results should be validly applied to communicating about uncertain =
monitoring results in other media), that will be a valuable component. =
NJDEP will fund drinking-water-related research out of a fund devoted =
exclusively to drinking water research. If a proposal includes research =
that takes environmental media other than drinking water into account, it =
should explicitly distinguish this option and its implications for =
research validity, feasibility, methods and budget separately, because any =
of that work that NJDEP chooses to fund will be paid from a separate fund.
Methods
Researchers are free to suggest their own approaches. NJDEP presumes for =
now that large-scale survey experiments (e.g., random assigning of =
different test messages to randomly selected New Jersey households, in a =
mail survey) could be one of the best ways to determine quantitatively how =
best to communicate uncertain monitoring results. Focus groups or other =
qualitative means to develop these test messages might be appropriate.
Data, it is assumed, will be collected in New Jersey. However, =
out-of-state data collection will be considered if a proposal can justify =
it (e.g., with similar situations and populations to those found in New =
Jersey, and a consequently lower budget; qualitative data collection, if =
any, as part of the planning for New Jersey survey experiments-see =
below-that would validate extrapolation of the out-of-state data). Many =
of the drinking water issues discussed above are likely to occur in =
smaller water supply systems (<10,000 connections), so it may be appropriat=
e to focus on responses from customers of such systems, which might raise =
costs. The pharmaceuticals, air and soils cases might not be so restricted=
. Survey samples should have sufficient statistical power to answer =
project questions.
Dr. Branden Johnson will be the project manager, and probably co-PI, of =
this project. His experience in research on public responses to uncertaint=
y (Johnson and Slovic, 1995, 1998), and to drinking water (several ms. in =
press or under review), should be of use in this study. Possibly he can =
perform, or oversee others' work on, certain in-state data collection =
tasks, reducing costs for contracted researchers.
Maximum funding is likely to be $100,000 for drinking-water-related=
research, and budgets lower than that are more likely to be funded, =
everything else being equal. Maximum funding for non-drinking-water =
aspects is likely to be $30,000, and likely to be lower. Proposals must =
make the strongest argument for their recommended budgets; those that =
describe the budget in modules (in effect saying "this is what you get for =
X, but for another Y you get this extra benefit") will aid NJDEP in =
deciding on the appropriate budget, funding source, and contractor.
The deadline for proposals is October 5, 2001. If a contract is pursued, =
it will probably be signed and ready to implement no earlier than summer =
of 2002, and perhaps as late as September 2002. Anticipated duration of =
the project is currently 12-15 months, although alternative durations will =
be considered if proposed.
Benefits of Project
The research is expected to produce data on how citizens respond to =
uncertain environmental monitoring results (distinguished both by the =
nature of the monitoring [e.g., environmental medium; nature of uncertainty=
] and audience characteristics [e.g., demographics; trust of NJDEP/governme=
nt]); test the effect of alternative messages about such uncertainty on =
citizens' beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions; and produce =
guidance to NJDEP and other risk communicators on how best to communicate =
about uncertain environmental monitoring results.
Johnson, Branden B. and Paul Slovic (1995). "Presenting Uncertainty in =
Health Risk Assessment: Initial Studies of Its Effects on Risk Perception =
and Trust," Risk Analysis, 15, 485-494.
- (1998). "Lay Views on Uncertainty in Environmental Health Risk Assessment=
," Journal of Risk Research, 1, 261-279.
Weinstein, Neil D. and Peter M. Sandman (1993). "Some Criteria for =
Evaluating Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, 13, 103-114.
PROPOSAL FORMAT
I. Title
II. Investigator name and institution
III. DEP project manager name=20
IV. Total budget amount
V. Problem statement and Needs assessment
a. Explanation of why research is necessary
b. Benefits and relevance to state
VI. Objectives
VII. Methods
a. Study design
b. Detailed description of experimental protocol including analytical =
procedures
c. Quality assurance procedures
d. Data analysis
VIII. Schedule of Activities
IX. Deliverables or expected products
X. Budget
|
