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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
National Research Council, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996).
L. Susskind and P. Field, Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes (The Free Press, New York, 1996).
S. Jasanoff, “Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis,” Risk Anal. 13, 123–129 (1993).
H. Kunreuther and P. Slovic, “Science, Values, and Risk,” Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 545, 116–125 (1996).
National Research Council, Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1994).
Advanced Sciences, Inc., Beta Corporation International, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New Mexico State University, and QuantiSci, Inc., 1997, Risk Communication, Assessment, and Management at Hazardous Waste Sites, Final Report to the Department of Energy (in preparation).
P. Slovic, “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk Assessment Battlefield,” in D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel, and K. Wade-Benzoni (eds.), Psychological Perspectives to Environment and Ethics in Management (Josey Bass, San Francisco, 1996).
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management, Final Report, Vol. 1 (1997).
O. Renn, T. Webler, H. Rakel, P. Dienel, and B. Johnson, “Public Participation in Decision Making: A Three-Step Procedure,” Policy Sci. 26, 189–214 (1993).
J. Crowfoot and J. Wondolleck, “Environmental Dispute Settlement,” in J. Crowfoot and J. Wondolleck (eds.), Environmental Disputes (Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1990).
L. Susskind and L. Dunlap, “The Importance of Non-Objective Judgments in Environmental Impact Assessment,” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2, 335–366 (1981).
J. F. Dimento, Environmental Law and American Business (Plenum Press, New York, 1986).
L. Susskind and J. Cruikshank, Breaking the Impasse (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987).
M. W. Merkhofer and R. L. Keeney, “A Multiattribute Analysis of Alternative Sites for the Disposal of Nuclear Waste,” Risk Anal. 7, 173–194 (1987).
R. L. Keeney and D. von Winterfeldt, “Managing Nuclear Waste from Power Plants,” Risk Anal. 14, 107–130 (1994).
Y. Hong and G. Apostolakis, “Conditional Influence Diagrams in Risk Management,” Risk Anal. 13, 625–636 (1993).
R. L. Keeney, “Analysis of Preference Dependencies among Objectives,” Oper. Res. 29, 1105–1120 (1981).
R. Gregory, and R. L. Keeney, “Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values,” Mgmt. Sci. 40, 1035–1048 (1994).
R. T. Clemen, Making Hard Decisions. An Introduction to Decision Analysis (Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA, 1991).
W. Edwards, D. von Winterfeldt, and D. L. Moody, “Simplicity in Decision Analysis: An Example and a Discussion,” in D. E. Bell, H. Raiffa, and A. Tversky (eds.), Decision Making. Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1988).
T. L. Saaty, “Risk—Its Priority and Probability: The Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Risk Anal. 7, 159–172 (1987).
T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, (RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1996).
R. D. Holder, “Some Comments on the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” J. Oper. Res. Soc. 41, 1073–1076 (1990).
E. H. Forman, “Facts and Fictions About the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” in T. L. Saaty (eds.), The Analytic Hierarchy Process (RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1996).
T. L. Saaty, “Rank Generation, Preservation and Reversal in the Analytic Hierarchy Decision Process,” Decision Sci. 18, 157–177 (1987).
W. R. Hughes, “Deriving Utilities Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 20, 393–395 (1986).
G. J. Klir, and B. Yuan, Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic (Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1995).
M. Kazarians, G. Apostolakis, and N. Siu, “Risk Management Application of Fire Risk Analysis,” in C. E. Grant and P. J. Pagni (eds.), Fire Safety Science—Proceedings of the First International Symposium, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, October 7–11. (Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York, 1985), pp. 1039–1046.
R. Fisher and W. Ury, Getting to Yes (Penguin Books, New York, 1991).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Apostolakis, G.E., Pickett, S.E. Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders. Risk Anal 18, 621–634 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIAN.0000005936.45310.22
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIAN.0000005936.45310.22