An Environmental Decision Framework Applied to Marine Engine Control Technologies

Abstract This paper develops a decision framework for considering emission control technologies on marine engines, informed by standard decision theory, with an open structure that may be adapted by operators with specific vessel and technology attributes different from those provided here. Attributes relate objectives important to choosing control technologies with specific alternatives that may meet several of the objectives differently. The transparent framework enables multiple stakeholders to understand how different subjective judgments and varying attribute properties may result in different technology choices. Standard scoring techniques ensure that attributes are not biased by subjective scoring and that weights are the primary quantitative input where subjective preferences are exercised. An expected value decision structure is adopted that considers probabilities (likelihood) that a given alternative can meet its claims; alternative decision criteria are discussed. Capital and annual costs are combined using a net present value approach. An iterative approach is advocated that allows for screening and disqualifying alternatives that do not meet minimum conditions for acceptance, such as engine warranty or U.S. Coast Guard requirements. This decision framework assists vessel operators in considering explicitly important attributes and in representing choices clearly to other stakeholders concerned about reducing air pollution from vessels. This general decision structure may also be applied similarly to other environmental controls in marine applications.

[1]  R. Keeney Decision analysis: an overview. , 1982, Operations research.

[2]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Feature Article - Decision Analysis: An Overview , 1982, Oper. Res..

[3]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making for leaders , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[4]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking , 1992 .

[5]  S. Kafandaris Decision Sciences: An Integrative Perspective , 1993 .

[6]  Interoffice Memorandum Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission , 1998 .

[7]  Lae,et al.  International marine and aviation bunker fuel: trends, ranking of countries and comparison with national CO2 emission , 1999 .

[8]  James J. Corbett,et al.  Commercial marine emissions and life-cycle analysis of retrofit controls in a changing science and policy environment , 2002 .

[9]  James J Winebrake,et al.  Controlling Air Pollution from Passenger Ferries: Cost-Effectiveness of Seven Technological Options , 2002, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[10]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making , 2003 .

[11]  Pratyush Bhatia,et al.  Market Segmentation Approach to Mode Choice and Ferry Ridership Forecasting , 2004 .

[12]  James J Winebrake,et al.  Optimal Fleetwide Emissions Reductions for Passenger Ferries: An Application of a Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Programming Model for the New York–New Jersey Harbor , 2005, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[13]  V. Eyring,et al.  Emissions from international shipping: 2. Impact of future technologies on scenarios until 2050 , 2005 .