IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v11y1991i03p275-290_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Guessing and Choosing: A Multicriterion Decision on Disposal Technology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Author

Listed:
  • Coates, Dennis
  • Munger, Michael

Abstract

Public officials faced with difficult and technologically complex decisions often resort to decision rules that purport to aggregate disparate judgements. Such multicriterion decisions are only as good as the procedures used to perform such aggregation, however. We examine the use of one such decision-making tool, a variant of the Delphi technique, in the choice of a disposal technology for low-level radioactive waste for the Southeast Compact Commission in the United States. The case focuses on the danger when officials guess when they think they are choosing. Choosing occurs when all participants understand the implications, and sensitivities, of the technique used to aggregate judgement; guessing occurs when the participants choose randomly or without full knowledge of the properties of the process.

Suggested Citation

  • Coates, Dennis & Munger, Michael, 1991. "Guessing and Choosing: A Multicriterion Decision on Disposal Technology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 275-290, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:11:y:1991:i:03:p:275-290_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X0000533X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:11:y:1991:i:03:p:275-290_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pup .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.