Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders

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.

[1]  Warren R. Hughes,et al.  Deriving utilities using the analytic hierarchy process , 1986 .

[2]  Siegfried Gottwald,et al.  Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic , 1993 .

[3]  W W Daniel,et al.  An introduction to decision analysis. , 1978, The Journal of nursing administration.

[4]  T. Saaty RANK GENERATION, PRESERVATION, AND REVERSAL IN THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY DECISION PROCESS , 1987 .

[5]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Science, Values, and Risk , 1996 .

[6]  William L. Ury,et al.  Getting to Yes , 2019, Boy on the Bridge.

[7]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1996 .

[8]  Jeffrey L. Cruikshank,et al.  Breaking The Impasse , 1987 .

[9]  Yuan Hong,et al.  Conditional Influence Diagrams in Risk Management , 1993 .

[10]  R. Gregory,et al.  Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values , 1994 .

[11]  Joseph F. DiMento,et al.  Environmental Law and American Business , 1986, Environment, Development, and Public Policy.

[12]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure , 1993, Policy Sciences.

[13]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Analysis of Preference Dependencies among Objectives , 1981, Oper. Res..

[14]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Managing Nuclear Waste from Power Plants , 1994 .

[15]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[16]  M. Kazarians,et al.  Risk Management Application Of Fire Risk Analysis , 1986 .

[17]  Lawrence Susskind,et al.  The importance of nonobjective judgments in environmental impact assessments , 1981 .

[18]  P. Slovic Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[19]  T. Saaty Risk-Its Priority and Probability: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1987 .

[20]  Ward Edwards,et al.  SIMPLICITY IN DECISION ANALYSIS: AN EXAMPLE AND A DISCUSSION , 1983 .

[21]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis1,2 , 1993 .

[22]  R. D. Holder,et al.  Some Comments on the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[23]  Robert T. Clemen,et al.  Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis , 1997 .

[24]  Ernest H. Forman,et al.  Facts and fictions about the analytic hierarchy process , 1993 .

[25]  R L Keeney,et al.  A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear waste. , 1987, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[26]  L. Susskind,et al.  Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach To Resolving Disputes , 1996 .