IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v18y1998i5p621-634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • George E. Apostolakis
  • Susan E. Pickett

Abstract

The National Research Council has recommended the use of an analytic/deliberative decision making process in environmental restoration decisions that involve multiple stakeholders. This work investigates the use of the results of risk assessment and multiattribute utility analysis (the “analysis”) in guiding the deliberation. These results include the ranking of proposed remedial action alternatives according to each stakeholder's preferences, as well as the identification of the major reasons for these rankings. The stakeholder preferences are over a number of performance measures that include the traditional risk assessment metrics, e.g., individual worker risk, as well as programmatic, cultural, and cost‐related impacts. Based on these results, a number of proposals are prepared for consideration by the stakeholders during the deliberation. These proposals are the starting point for the formulation of actual recommendations by the group. In our case study, these recommendations included new remedial action alternatives that were created by the stakeholders after an extensive discussion of the detailed analytical results.

Suggested Citation

  • George E. Apostolakis & Susan E. Pickett, 1998. "Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 621-634, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:18:y:1998:i:5:p:621-634
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00375.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00375.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00375.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sheila Jasanoff, 1993. "Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 123-129, April.
    2. Miley W. Merkhofer & Ralph L. Keeney, 1987. "A Multiattribute Utility Analysis of Alternative Sites for the Disposal of Nuclear Waste," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 173-194, June.
    3. Ralph L. Keeney, 1981. "Analysis of Preference Dependencies among Objectives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1105-1120, December.
    4. Ralph L. Keeney & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1994. "Managing Nuclear Waste from Power Plants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 107-130, February.
    5. Hughes, Warren R., 1986. "Deriving utilities using the analytic hierarchy process," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 393-395.
    6. Yuan Hong & George Apostolakis, 1993. "Conditional Influence Diagrams in Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 625-636, December.
    7. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 1994. "Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(8), pages 1035-1048, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Amanda P. Rehr & Mitchell J. Small & Paul S. Fischbeck & Patricia Bradley & William S. Fisher, 2014. "The role of scientific studies in building consensus in environmental decision making: a coral reef example," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 60-87, March.
    2. Judith Petts & Catherine Brooks, 2006. "Expert Conceptualisations of the Role of Lay Knowledge in Environmental Decisionmaking: challenges for Deliberative Democracy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(6), pages 1045-1059, June.
    3. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "The Role of Quantitative Risk Assessments for Characterizing Risk and Uncertainty and Delineating Appropriate Risk Management Options, with Special Emphasis on Terrorism Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(4), pages 587-600, April.
    4. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2021. "Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 503-518, March.
    5. George E. Apostolakis & Douglas M. Lemon, 2005. "A Screening Methodology for the Identification and Ranking of Infrastructure Vulnerabilities Due to Terrorism," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 361-376, April.
    6. Emanuele Borgonovo & Veronica Cappelli & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2015. "Risk Analysis and Decision Theory: Foundations," Working Papers 556, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    7. Hua Li & George E. Apostolakis & Joseph Gifun & William VanSchalkwyk & Susan Leite & David Barber, 2009. "Ranking the Risks from Multiple Hazards in a Small Community," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 438-456, March.
    8. Robert Goble & Vicki M. Bier, 2013. "Risk Assessment Can Be a Game‐Changing Information Technology—But Too Often It Isn't," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1942-1951, November.
    9. Mitchell J. Small & Ümit Güvenç & Michael L. DeKay, 2014. "When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 1978-1994, November.
    10. Karydas, D.M. & Gifun, J.F., 2006. "A method for the efficient prioritization of infrastructure renewal projects," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 84-99.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patrick Ilg & Silke Gabbert & Hans‐Peter Weikard, 2017. "Nuclear Waste Management under Approaching Disaster: A Comparison of Decommissioning Strategies for the German Repository Asse II," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1213-1232, July.
    2. Nigel Martin & John Rice, 2010. "Analysing emission intensive firms as regulatory stakeholders: a role for adaptable business strategy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 64-75, January.
    3. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    4. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    5. Elisa Morgera, 2015. "Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing at the Cross-Roads of the Human Right to Science and International Biodiversity Law," Laws, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-29, December.
    6. Emmanuel Somers, 1995. "Perspectives on Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 677-684, December.
    7. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 2017. "A Practical Approach to Address Uncertainty in Stakeholder Deliberations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 487-501, March.
    8. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    9. Bottero, M. & Ferretti, V. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Roy, B., 2015. "Dealing with a multiple criteria environmental problem with interaction effects between criteria through an extension of the Electre III method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(3), pages 837-850.
    10. James Derbyshire, 2020. "Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(4), pages 710-727, June.
    11. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    12. Donald L. Keefer & Craig W. Kirkwood & James L. Corner, 2004. "Perspective on Decision Analysis Applications, 1990–2001," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 4-22, March.
    13. Cameron A. MacKenzie & Kristy A. Bryden & Anna A. Prisacari, 2020. "Integrating narratives into decision making for complex systems engineering design issues," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 65-81, January.
    14. James E. Smith & James S. Dyer, 2021. "On (Measurable) Multiattribute Value Functions: An Expository Argument," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 247-256, December.
    15. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    16. Doug Easterling, 1997. "The Vulnerability of the Nevada Visitor Economy to a Repository at Yucca Mountain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(5), pages 635-647, October.
    17. Andree Ehlert & Jan Seidel & Ursula Weisenfeld, 2020. "Trouble on my mind: the effect of catastrophic events on people’s worries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 951-975, August.
    18. Arnold Tukker, 2002. "Risk Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment—The Common Challenge of Dealing with the Precautionary Frame (Based on the Toxicity Controversy in Sweden and the Netherlands)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 821-832, October.
    19. Kimberly M. Thompson & Radboud J. Duintjer Tebbens & Mark A. Pallansch & Olen M. Kew & Roland W. Sutter & R. Bruce Aylward & Margaret Watkins & Howard Gary & James P. Alexander & Linda Venczel & Denis, 2006. "Development and Consideration of Global Policies for Managing the Future Risks of Poliovirus Outbreaks: Insights and Lessons Learned Through Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1571-1580, December.
    20. Joanna Burger & Robert A. Kennamer & I. Lehr Brisbin & Michael Gochfeld, 1998. "A Risk Assessment for Consumers of Mourning Doves," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 563-573, October.

    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:wly:riskan:v:18:y:1998:i:5:p:621-634. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.