IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/oropre/v28y1980i1p188-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Alternatives Involving Potential Fatalities

Author

Listed:
  • Ralph L. Keeney

    (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, California)

Abstract

A critical aspect of many major decisions involves the possible loss of human life. Thus, in evaluating the alternatives, it is desirable to address this issue. This paper proposes a cardinal utility model for evaluating the potential fatalities and the uncertainty of their occurrence. It separates the overall consequences of fatalities into a personal direct impact and a societal indirect impact. Separate preference models are built for each impact and integrated to provide an overall evaluation of the potential fatalities. An assessment procedure is discussed and illustrated.

Suggested Citation

  • Ralph L. Keeney, 1980. "Evaluating Alternatives Involving Potential Fatalities," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 188-205, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:oropre:v:28:y:1980:i:1:p:188-205
    DOI: 10.1287/opre.28.1.188
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.28.1.188
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/opre.28.1.188?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thibault Gajdos & John Weymark & Claudio Zoli, 2010. "Shared destinies and the measurement of social risk equity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 409-424, April.
    2. Georges Dionne & Paul Lanoie, 2002. "How to Make a Public Choice About the Value of a Statistical Life: The Case of Road Safety," Cahiers de recherche 02-04, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée.
    3. Christoph M. Rheinberger, 2010. "Experimental Evidence Against the Paradigm of Mortality Risk Aversion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 590-604, April.
    4. Tim Bedford, 2013. "Decision Making for Group Risk Reduction: Dealing with Epistemic Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1884-1898, October.
    5. William J. Burns & Paul Slovic & Roger E. Kasperson & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Srinivas Emani, 1993. "Incorporating Structural Models into Research on the Social Amplification of Risk: Implications for Theory Construction and Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 611-623, December.
    6. Emmanuel Kemel & Corina Paraschiv, 2018. "Deciding about human lives: an experimental measure of risk attitudes under prospect theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 163-192, June.
    7. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    8. Ralph L. Keeney, 1990. "Mortality Risks Induced by Economic Expenditures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 147-159, March.
    9. Wen‐Qiang Bian & L. Robin Keller, 1999. "Chinese and Americans Agree on What Is Fair, but Disagree on What Is Best in Societal Decisions Affecting Health and Safety Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 439-452, June.

    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:inm:oropre:v:28:y:1980:i:1:p:188-205. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.