More than three dozen states and communities in the United Stales have unde
rtaken comparative risk projects to establish environmental priorities and,
thus, to address their most important environmental problems. This trend h
as been supported by a growing consensus among subnational governments that
they are increasingly encumbered with prescriptive, top-down environmental
regulations and policies without regard to the policies' efficacy, benefit
, or cost. Despite the rising use of comparative risk projects, few studies
have systematically analyzed and compared them. The purpose of our researc
h was to fill this void. We examined key elements of comparative risk proje
cts including how they were administered; how they involved the public; how
they characterized, ranked, and prioritized risks; whether and how they im
plemented ranking results; and whether and how they evaluated project resul
ts. The research team reviewed project reports and independent studies and
undertook a survey of risk project participants. Results showed that while
many priority-setting projects have successfully identified environmental p
roblems and characterized and ranked their risks, few have developed risk-m
anagement strategies. Successes to date include increasing environmental aw
areness among participants; building consensus and establishing collaborati
on among diverse stakeholders; and establishing novel means of public invol
vement. However, no project that we evaluated has, as yet, documented achie
vement of a system for developing and implementing environmental priorities
in order to mitigate their most significant environmental problems. Furthe
r, ii may be difficult to know ii and when this objective is met unless pro
jects establish mechanisms for evaluating their results, a project element
that was often missing or limited in scope. We also discuss the challenges
to developing implementable risk-management strategies and conclude by citi
ng future research needs.