IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v1y1981i4p289-302.html

Siting Hazardous Facilities: Lessons from LNG

Author

Listed:
  • Howard Kunreuther
  • John W. Lathrop

Abstract

This paper develops a descriptive framework for siting large scale technological facilities such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, and suggests ways of using analyses to improve the process. A key feature of these problems is that they involve relatively new technologies where there has not been a long history with which to construct a statistical data base. Hence the interested parties will each have different estimates of the probabilities and losses associated with events that affect the environment or safety of the population. The decision‐making process can be characterized as a sequence of decisions, subject to change over time, which are influenced by exogenous factors and new legislation. Each of the separate decisions involves an input phase and an interaction phase. The input phase specifies the relevant alternatives and attributes associated with a particular decision. The interaction phase focuses on the nature of the conflicts between the different parties in evaluating the alternatives. Conflicts are often difficult to resolve because each stakeholder in the process has his own objectives, a limited information base shaped by these objectives and scarce computational resources. We illustrate the above descriptive framework through a case study of the LNG siting process in California. The paper then explores possible ways of improving the input and interaction phases through more structured analyses. Specific attention is given to the role of decision analysis, the analytic hierarchy process, examining assumptions, and the use of interactive computer models for scenario generation. The paper concludes by suggesting future research needs on designing policy instruments for helping to reconcile conflicts between the vying interest parties. Promising areas for more problem‐focused research include the role of insurance and compensation schemes.

Suggested Citation

  • Howard Kunreuther & John W. Lathrop, 1981. "Siting Hazardous Facilities: Lessons from LNG," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(4), pages 289-302, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:1:y:1981:i:4:p:289-302
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01429.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01429.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01429.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. Wildavsky, Aaron, 1981. "Rationality in Writing: Linear and Curvilinear," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 125-140, February.
    2. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    3. James G. March, 1978. "Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 587-608, Autumn.
    4. Ian I. Mitroff & James R. Emshoff & Ralph H. Kilmann, 1979. "Assumptional Analysis: A Methodology for Strategic Problem Solving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 583-593, June.
    5. Walker, Jack L., 1977. "Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate: A Theory of Problem Selection," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 423-445, October.
    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. James J. Buckley, 1986. "Stochastic Dominance: An Approach to Decision Making Under Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 35-41, March.

    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. Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore & Slowinski, Roman, 2009. "Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(2), pages 460-486, June.
    2. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    3. Reza Banai, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    4. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    5. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    6. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    7. Pascale Amans & Sylvie Rascol-Boutard, 2006. "Controlling Complex Organizations on the Basis of an Operational Performance Measure," Post-Print hal-01659071, HAL.
    8. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    9. Kamila Hodasová & Dávid Krčmář & Ivana Ondrejková, 2025. "Satellite-based drought assessment: integrating AHP method and fuzzy logic for comprehensive vulnerability and risk analysis," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 121(10), pages 11609-11632, June.
    10. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    11. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    12. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    13. Luis Pérez-Domínguez & Luis Alberto Rodríguez-Picón & Alejandro Alvarado-Iniesta & David Luviano Cruz & Zeshui Xu, 2018. "MOORA under Pythagorean Fuzzy Set for Multiple Criteria Decision Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, April.
    14. Kieran Donaghy, 2011. "Models of travel demand with endogenous preference change and heterogeneous agents," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 17-30, March.
    15. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    16. Kumar B, Pradeep, 2021. "Changing Objectives of Firms and Managerial Preferences: A Review of Models in Microeconomics," MPRA Paper 106967, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2021.
    17. Alvesson, Mats & Sveningsson, Stefan, 2011. "Management is the solution: Now what was the problem? On the fragile basis for managerialism," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 349-361.
    18. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Anirban Mukhopadhyay & Sugata Hazra & Debasish Mitra & C. Hutton & Abhra Chanda & Sandip Mukherjee, 2016. "Characterizing the multi-risk with respect to plausible natural hazards in the Balasore coast, Odisha, India: a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) appraisal," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1495-1513, February.
    20. Chamoli, Sunil, 2015. "Hybrid FAHP (fuzzy analytical hierarchy process)-FTOPSIS (fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity of an ideal solution) approach for performance evaluation of the V down perforated baffle roughened rectangular channel," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 432-442.

    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:1:y:1981:i:4:p:289-302. 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.