IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v34y2014i1p4-16.html

Eliciting and Combining Decision Criteria Using a Limited Palette of Utility Functions and Uncertainty Distributions: Illustrated by Application to Pest Risk Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Johnson Holt
  • Adrian W. Leach
  • Gritta Schrader
  • Françoise Petter
  • Alan MacLeod
  • Dirk Jan van der Gaag
  • Richard H. A. Baker
  • John D. Mumford

Abstract

Utility functions in the form of tables or matrices have often been used to combine discretely rated decision‐making criteria. Matrix elements are usually specified individually, so no one rule or principle can be easily stated for the utility function as a whole. A series of five matrices are presented that aggregate criteria two at a time using simple rules that express a varying degree of constraint of the lower rating over the higher. A further nine possible matrices were obtained by using a different rule either side of the main axis of the matrix to describe situations where the criteria have a differential influence on the outcome. Uncertainties in the criteria are represented by three alternative frequency distributions from which the assessors select the most appropriate. The output of the utility function is a distribution of rating frequencies that is dependent on the distributions of the input criteria. In pest risk analysis (PRA), seven of these utility functions were required to mimic the logic by which assessors for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization arrive at an overall rating of pest risk. The framework enables the development of PRAs that are consistent and easy to understand, criticize, compare, and change. When tested in workshops, PRA practitioners thought that the approach accorded with both the logic and the level of resolution that they used in the risk assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Johnson Holt & Adrian W. Leach & Gritta Schrader & Françoise Petter & Alan MacLeod & Dirk Jan van der Gaag & Richard H. A. Baker & John D. Mumford, 2014. "Eliciting and Combining Decision Criteria Using a Limited Palette of Utility Functions and Uncertainty Distributions: Illustrated by Application to Pest Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 4-16, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:1:p:4-16
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12089
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12089
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12089?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. Martin Neil & Norman Fenton & Manesh Tailor, 2005. "Using Bayesian Networks to Model Expected and Unexpected Operational Losses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 963-972, August.
    2. Louis Anthony (Tony)Cox, 2008. "What's Wrong with Risk Matrices?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 497-512, April.
    3. Bohanec, Marko & Messéan, Antoine & Scatasta, Sara & Angevin, Frédérique & Griffiths, Bryan & Krogh, Paul Henning & Žnidaršič, Martin & Džeroski, Sašo, 2008. "A qualitative multi-attribute model for economic and ecological assessment of genetically modified crops," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 215(1), pages 247-261.
    4. Znidarsic, Martin & Bohanec, Marko & Zupan, Blaz, 2008. "Modelling impacts of cropping systems: Demands and solutions for DEX methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(3), pages 594-608, September.
    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. Xin Ruan & Zhiyi Yin & Dan M. Frangopol, 2015. "Risk Matrix Integrating Risk Attitudes Based on Utility Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(8), pages 1437-1447, August.
    2. Jianping Li & Chunbing Bao & Dengsheng Wu, 2018. "How to Design Rating Schemes of Risk Matrices: A Sequential Updating Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 99-117, January.
    3. Shabnam Vatanpour & Steve E. Hrudey & Irina Dinu, 2015. "Can Public Health Risk Assessment Using Risk Matrices Be Misleading?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-14, August.

    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. Mouron, Patrik & Heijne, Bart & Naef, Andreas & Strassemeyer, Jörn & Hayer, Frank & Avilla, Jesus & Alaphilippe, Aude & Höhn, Heinrich & Hernandez, José & Mack, Gabriele & Gaillard, Gérard & Solé, Joa, 2012. "Sustainability assessment of crop protection systems: SustainOS methodology and its application for apple orchards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-15.
    2. Nejc Trdin & Marko Bohanec, 2018. "Extending the multi-criteria decision making method DEX with numeric attributes, value distributions and relational models," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 1-41, March.
    3. David J. Ball & Laurence Ball‐King, 2013. "Safety Management and Public Spaces: Restoring Balance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 763-771, May.
    4. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr., 2012. "Evaluating and Improving Risk Formulas for Allocating Limited Budgets to Expensive Risk‐Reduction Opportunities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1244-1252, July.
    5. Luca Allodi & Fabio Massacci, 2017. "Security Events and Vulnerability Data for Cybersecurity Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1606-1627, August.
    6. E. S. Levine & Julie F. Waters, 2013. "Managing Risk at the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(7), pages 1281-1292, July.
    7. Debeljak, Marko & Trajanov, Aneta & Stojanova, Daniela & Leprince, Florence & Džeroski, Sašo, 2012. "Using relational decision trees to model out-crossing rates in a multi-field setting," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 245(C), pages 75-83.
    8. Wei, Lu & Jing, Haozhe & Huang, Jie & Deng, Yuqi & Jing, Zhongbo, 2023. "Do textual risk disclosures reveal corporate risk? Evidence from U.S. fintech corporations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    9. Michael R. Powers & Thomas Y. Powers & Siwei Gao, 2012. "Risk Finance for Catastrophe Losses with Pareto‐Calibrated Lévy‐Stable Severities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(11), pages 1967-1977, November.
    10. David Rios Insua & David Banks & Jesus Rios, 2016. "Modeling Opponents in Adversarial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 742-755, April.
    11. David Rios Insua & Aitor Couce‐Vieira & Jose A. Rubio & Wolter Pieters & Katsiaryna Labunets & Daniel G. Rasines, 2021. "An Adversarial Risk Analysis Framework for Cybersecurity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 16-36, January.
    12. Gilberto Montibeller & L. Alberto Franco & Ashley Carreras, 2020. "A Risk Analysis Framework for Prioritizing and Managing Biosecurity Threats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2462-2477, November.
    13. Erik Pruyt & Diederik J. D. Wijnmalen & Marc Bökkerink, 2013. "What Can We Learn from the Evaluation of the Dutch National Risk Assessment?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(8), pages 1385-1388, August.
    14. Gonçalves, Ana & Marques, Margarida Correia & Loureiro, Sílvia & Nieto, Raquel & Liberato, Margarida L.R., 2023. "Disruption risk analysis of the overhead power lines in Portugal," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PA).
    15. Jonathon Mackay & Matthew Pepper & Albert Munoz, 2023. "Disruptions, systems and individual agents—Exploring the intersections," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 43-60, January.
    16. Laurence Ball‐King & John Watt & David J. Ball, 2013. "The Rise and Fall of a Regulator: Adventure Sports in the United Kingdom," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 15-23, January.
    17. Wan, Chengpeng & Yan, Xinping & Zhang, Di & Qu, Zhuohua & Yang, Zaili, 2019. "An advanced fuzzy Bayesian-based FMEA approach for assessing maritime supply chain risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 222-240.
    18. Rehak, David & Senovsky, Pavel & Hromada, Martin & Lovecek, Tomas, 2019. "Complex approach to assessing resilience of critical infrastructure elements," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 125-138.
    19. Cavan, Nicolas & Omon, Bertrand & Dubois, Sophie & Toqué, Clotilde & Van Inghelandt, Bastien & Queyrel, Wilfried & Colbach, Nathalie & Angevin, Frédérique, 2023. "Model-based evaluation in terms of weed management and overall sustainability of cropping systems designed with three different approaches," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    20. Cornwell, Nikki & Bilson, Christopher & Gepp, Adrian & Stern, Steven & Vanstone, Bruce J., 2023. "Modernising operational risk management in financial institutions via data-driven causal factors analysis: A pre-registered report," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    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:34:y:2014:i:1:p:4-16. 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.