Approaches to environmental noise policy in Australia

Australia is a federation of six states and two territories. Legislation for environmental noise is the responsibility of each of the Australian states and territories. The Federal government has the responsibility for national issues such as aircraft noise and also to encourage harmonisation of the legislation and regulations among the states and territories. For some decades there has been a document on environmental noise produced by Standards Australia but it is up to each state or territory to call up part or all of this Standard. For general environmental noise some states use comparison with background as the criteria while others define the criteria levels based on land use zones. Both approaches have their advantages and drawbacks. This paper will compare and contrast the different legislation and regulations and discuss the issue of 'cross border' disputes.

On measuring wealth: A case study on the state of Queensland

In order for policy makers to plan effectively for sustainable development, there is a need for measures of welfare that consider changes in the natural capital stock. Current measures based on conventional national accounting are flawed because they are based solely on flow measures and do not account for environmental effects. In this paper, we use an expanded measure of wealth to estimate the value of natural capital for Queensland. The state's stock of natural capital is valued at A$355.6 billion, of which non-timber forest resources account for 45.3%, ecosystem services 20.0%, and mineral resources 17.6%. This figure is a conservative estimate of the true value since some significant components such as the ecological and life-support functions of the environment are excluded. The estimates highlight the relative importance of different forms of natural capital and can be used to draw the attention of policymakers to the need to give adequate weight to the value of such services in decision-making processes. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Science-policy in environmental and health risk assessment: if we cannot do without, can we do better?

How can empirical evidence of adverse effects from exposure to noxious agents, which is often incomplete and uncertain, be used most appropriately to protect human health? We examine several important questions on the best uses of empirical evidence in regulatory risk management decision-making raised by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s science-policy concerning uncertainty and variability in human health risk assessment. In our view, the US EPA (and other agencies that have adopted similar views of risk management) can often improve decision-making by decreasing reliance on default values and assumptions, particularly when causation is uncertain. This can be achieved by more fully exploiting decision-theoretic methods and criteria that explicitly account for uncertain, possibly conflicting scientific beliefs and that can be fully studied by advocates and adversaries of a policy choice, in administrative decision-making involving risk assessment. The substitution of decision-theoretic frameworks for default assumption-driven policies also allows stakeholder attitudes toward risk to be incorporated into policy debates, so that the public and risk managers can more explicitly identify the roles of risk-aversion or other attitudes toward risk and uncertainty in policy recommendations. Decision theory provides a sound scientific way explicitly to account for new knowledge and its effects on eventual policy choices. Although these improvements can complicate regulatory analyses, simplifying default assumptions can create substantial costs to society and can prematurely cut off consideration of new scientific insights (e.g., possible beneficial health effects from exposure to sufficiently low 'hormetic' doses of some agents). In many cases, the administrative burden of applying decision-analytic methods is likely to be more than offset by improved effectiveness of regulations in achieving desired goals. Because many foreign jurisdictions adopt US EPA reasoning and methods of risk analysis, it may be especially valuable to incorporate decision-theoretic principles that transcend local differences among jurisdictions.