Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Framework for Structuring Remedial Decisions at Contaminated Sites

  • I. Linkov
  • A. Varghese
  • S. Jamil
  • T. P. Seager
  • G. Kiker
  • T. Bridges
Part of the Nato Science Series: IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences book series (NAIV, volume 38)

Abstract

Decision-making in environmental projects is typically a complex and confusing exercise, characterized by trade-offs between socio-political, environmental, and economic impacts. Cost-benefit analyses are often used, occasionally in concert with comparative risk assessment, to choose between competing project alternatives. The selection of appropriate remedial and abatement policies for contaminated sites, land-use planning and other regulatory decision-making problems for contaminated sites involves multiple criteria such as cost, benefit, environmental impact, safety, and risk. Some of these criteria cannot easily be condensed into a monetary value, which complicates the integration problem inherent to making comparisons and trade-offs. Even if it were possible to convert criteria rankings into a common unit this approach would not always be desirable since stakeholder preferences may be lost in the process. Furthermore, environmental concerns often involve ethical and moral principles that may not be related to any economic use or value.

Considerable research in the area of multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has made available practical methods for applying scientific decision theoretical approaches to multi-criteria problems. However, these methods have not been formalized into a framework readily applicable to environmental projects dealing with contaminated and disturbed sites where risk assessment and stakeholder participation are of crucial concern. This paper presents a review of available literature on the application of MCDA in environmental projects. Based on this review, the paper develops a decision analytic framework specifically tailored to deal with decision making at contaminated sites.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Accorsi, R., Apostolakis, G. E., Zio, E., 1999a, Prioritizing stakeholder concerns in environmental risk management. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 1, 11–29.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Accorsi, R., Zio, E., Apostolakis, G. E., 1999b, Developing Utility Functions for Environmental Decision-Making. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 34, 4, 387–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Rashdan, D., Al-Kloub, B., Dean, A., Al-Shemmeri, T., 1999, Theory and Methodology Environmental impact assessment and ranking the environmental projects in Jordan., European Journal of Operational Research, 118 (1999) 30–45.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ananda, J. and Herath, G., 2003, Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach. Ecological Economics, 45, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Apostolakis, G. E., 2001, Assessment and Management of Environmental Risks, Editors: I. Linkov and J. Palma-Oliveira, 211–220. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arvai, J. and Gregory, R., 2003, Testing Alternative Decision Approaches for Identifying Cleanup Priorities at Contaminated Sites. Environmental Science & Technology 37:8, 1469–1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baker, D., Bridges, D., Hunter, R., Johnson, G., Krupa, J., Murphy, J., Sorenson, K., 2001, Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods. Developed for the Department of Energy. WSRC-IM-2002-00002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bardos, P., Lewis, A., Nortcliff, S., Matiotti, C., Marot, F., Sullivan, T., 2002, CLARINET report: Review of Decision Support Tools for Contaminated Land Management, and their use in Europe. Published by Austrian Federal Environment Agency, on behalf of CLARINET.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bell, M., Hobbs, B.F, Ellis, H., 2003, The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 37 (2003) 289–316.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Belton, Valerie and Steward, Theodor. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, 2002Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonano, E. J., Apostolakis, G. E., Salter, P. F., Ghassemi, A., Jennings, S., 2000, Application of risk assessment and decision analysis to the evaluation, ranking and selection of environmental remediation alternatives. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 71, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bose, U., Davey, A. M., Olson, D. L., 1997, Multi-attribute utility methods in Group Decision Making: Past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS. Omega, International Journal of Management Sciences, 25, 6, 691–706.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown, B., Neil Adger, W., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P. Shim, D. Young, K., 2001. Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecological Economics. 37 (2001) 417–434.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cole, R. A., and Feather, T. D., 2002, Improving watershed planning and management through integration: a critical review of federal opportunities. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute of Water Resources by of Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. Contract # DACW72-99-D-0005, Task Order #61.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Corporate Project 7 Team, April 2003a, Assessment Report. Corporate Project 7: A cleanup program driven by risk-based end states, U. S. DOE.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Corporate Project 7 Team, August 2003b,Implementation Plan — U. S. Department of Energy Policy 455.1: Use of risk-based end states. Presented to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U. S. DOE.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deschaine, L. M., Breslau, B., Ades, M. J., Selg, R. A., Saaty, T. L., 1998, Decision Support Software to Optimize Resource Allocation — Theory and Case History. The Society for Computer Simulation — Simulators International XV, 139–144.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diwekar U. and Small M.J., 2002, Process analysis approach to industrial ecology, Chapter 11 in A Handbook of Industrial Ecology, R.U. Ayres and L.W. Ayres, eds., Edward Elgar Ltd, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 114–137.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    DOE, April 1998, Guidelines for Risk-based Prioritization of DOE Activities. U.S. Department of Energy. DOE-DP-STD-3023-98.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    DOE, 2003, Policy DOE P 455.1 — Subject: Use of risk-based end states. Initiated by Office of Environmental Management, U. S. DOE.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dortch, M. S. (U. S. Army Research and Development Center), 2001, Army Risk Assessment Modeling System (ARAMS). Published in Assessment and Management of Environmental Risks: Cost-efficient methods and applications, edited by Igor Linkov and Jose Palma-Oliveira.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ehrhardt, J., and Shershakov, V. M., 1996, Real-time on-line decision support systems (RODOS) for off-site emergency management following a nuclear accident. European Commission, Ukraine — International scientific collaboration on the consequences of the Chernobyl accident (1991–95).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Florig, H.K., Morgan, M.G., Morgan, K.M., Jenni, K.E., Fischoff, B., Fischbeck, P.S., DeKay, M.L., 2001, A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development. Risk Analysis, Vol., 21, No. 5, 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Focht, W., DeShong, T., Wood, J., Whitaker, K., 1999, A Protocol for the Elicitation of Stakeholders’ Concerns and Preferences for Incorporation into Policy Dialogue. Proceedings of the Third Workshop in the Environmental Policy and Economics Workshop Series: Economic Research and Policy Concerning Water Use and Watershed Management, Washington. 1–24.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    French, S., Simpson, L., Atherton, E., Belton, V., Dawes, R., Edwards, W., Hamalainen, R. P., Larichev, O., Lootsma, F., Pearman, A., Vlek, C., 1998, Problem Formulation for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Report of a workshop. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 7, 242–262.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gal, T., Stewart, T. J., Hanne, T., 1999, Multicriteria Decision Making: Advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory, and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gomez-Limon, J. A., Arriaza, M., Riesgo, L., 2003, An MCDM analysis of agricultural risk aversion. European Journal of Operational Research, Article in Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gregory, R. and Failing, L., 2002, Using Decision Analysis to Encourage Sound Deliberation: Water Use Planning in British Columbia, Canada. Professional Practice, 492–499.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gregory, R., Fischhoff, B., Thorne, S., Butte, G., 2003, A Multi-Channel Stakeholder Consultation Process for Transmission Deregulation. Energy Policy 31: 1291–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gregory, R. and Keeney, R. L., 1994, Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values. Management Science, 40, 8, 1035–1048.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gregory, R., McDaniels, T., Fields, D., 2001, Decision Aiding, Not dispute resolution: Creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 3, 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gregory, R. and Wellman, K, 2001, Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study. Ecological Economics, 39, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grelk, B. J., 1997, A CERCLA-Based Decision Support System for Environmental Remediation Strategy Selection. Department of the Air Force Air University, Air Force Institute of Technology, Thesis.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Grelk, B., Kloeber, J. M., Jackson, J. A., Deckro, R. F., Parnell, G. S., 1998, Quantifying CERCLA using site decision maker values. Remediation, 8(2), 87–105.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Guitouni, A., Martel. J.M., 1998, Tentative Guidelines to Help Choosing an Appropriate MCDA Method. European J. Operations Research, Vol. 109, pp. 501–521.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hamalainen, R.P., Lindstedt, M., Sinkko, K., 2000, Multi-Attribute Risk Analysis in Nuclear Emergency Management. Risk Analysis, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2000, pp. 455–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hamalainen, R. P., Kettunen, E., Ehtamo, H., 2001, Evaluating a framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in water resources management. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10, 331–353.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hamalainen, R., 2003, Reversing the Perspective on the Applications of Decision Analysis. Decision Analysis Publication.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hartman, D. H. and Goltz, M. N., 2001, Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Select Characterization and Risk-Based Decision-Making and Management Methods for Hazardous Waste Sites, Environ Eng Policy (2002) 1–7.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hayashi, K., 2000, Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives. European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 486–500.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hobbs, B. F. and Meier, 2000, Energy Decisions and the Environment: A Guide to the Use of Multicriteria Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Janssen, R., 2001, On the use of Multi-criteria Analysis in Environmental Impact Assessment in the Netherlands. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 10, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jenni, K. E., Merkhofer, M. W., Williams, C., 1995, The rise and fall of a risk-based priority system: Lessons from DOE’s Environmental Restoration Priority System. Risk Analysis, 15, 3, 397–410.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Joerin, F, & Musy, A, 2000, Land Management with GIS and Multicriteria Analysis. International Transactions In Operational Research, 7, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kangas, J., Kangas, A., Leskinen, P., Pykalainen, J., 2001, MCDM Methods in strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in Finland: Applications and Experiences. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 10, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Keefer, D., Kirkwood, C.W., Corner, J.L., 2002, Summary of Decision Analysis Applications in the Operations Research Literature, 1990–2001. Technical Report Department of Supply Chain Management, Arizona State University, November 2002Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Keefer, D., Kirkwood, C.W., Corner, J.L., 2002, Perspective on Decision Analysis Applications, 1990–2001. Forthcoming in Decision Analysis. Department of Supply Chain Management, Arizona State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Keisler, J. M. and Sundell, R. C., 1997, Combining Multi-Attribute Utility and Geographic Information for boundary decisions: an application to Park Planning. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, 1, 2, 101–118.Google Scholar
  49. 48.
    Kwak, S. J., Yoo, S. H., Kim, T. Y., 2001, A constructive approach to air-quality valuation in Korea. Ecological Economics, 38, 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Larichev, O. I. and Olson, D. I., 2001, Multiple Criteria Analysis in Strategic Siting Problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Levy, J., Hipel, K., Kilgour, D M., 2000, Using environmental indicators to quantify the robustness of policy alternatives to uncertainty. Ecological Modeling 130 (2000) 79–86.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Linkov, I., Burmistrov, D (2003, in press). Model Uncertainty and Choices Made by Modelers: Lessons Learned from the International Atomic Energy Agency Model Intercomparisons. Risk Analysis.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Macharis, C., Springael, J., DeBrucker, K., Verbeke, A., 2003, PROMETHEE and AHP: The Design of Operational Synergies in Multicriteria Analysis. Strengthening PROMETHEE With Ideas of AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 1–11.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Males, R. M., 2002, Beyond Expected Value: Making decisions under risk and uncertainty. RMM Technical Services, under contract to Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. IWR Report.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Marttunen, M. and Hamalainen, R. P., 1995, Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research, 87, 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Matsatsinis, N. F. and Samaras, A. P., 2001, MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 414–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    McDaniels, T. L., 1995, Using judgment in Resource Management: a multiple objective analysis of a fisheries management decision. Operations Research, 43, 3, 415–426.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    McDaniels, T. L. and Roessler, C., 1998, Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach. Ecological Economics, 27, 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R. S., Fields, D., 1999, Democratizing Risk Management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis, 19, 3, 497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Miettinen, P., and Hamalainen, R. P., 1997. How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA). European Journal of Operational Research, 102(2), 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mendoza, G. A., Anderson, A. B. (U.S. Army ERDC), Gertner, G. Z., 2002, Integrating Multi-Criteria Analysis and GIS for Land Condition Assessment: Part 2 — Allocation of Military Training Areas. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, 6, 1, 17–30.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Morgan, M. G., Florig, H. K., DeKay, M. L., & Fischbeck, P. S. (2000). Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Analysis, 20, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., Atman, C. J., 2002, Risk Communication. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    National Research Council. 1999. New Directions in Water Resources Planning for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. National Academy Press. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Parnell, G. S., Frimpon, M., Barnes, J., Kloeber, Jr., J.M., Deckro, R. F., Jackson, J. A., 2001, Safety Risk Analysis of an Innovative Environmental Technology. Risk Analysis 21-1, 143–155.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pavlikakis, G. E., Tsihrintzis, V. A., 2003, A quantitative method for accounting human opinion, preferences and perceptions in ecosystem management. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Peer Review Committee of the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), 1999, Peer Review of the U. S. Department of Energy’s use of risk in its prioritization process.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pereira, A.G., Quintana, S.C., 2002, From Technocratic to Participatory Decision Support Systems: Responding to the New Governance Initiatives. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 2002, Vol., 6, No. 2, pp. 95–107.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Peterson, D., Silsbee, D., Schmoldt, D., 1994, A Case Study of Resources Management Planning with Multiple Objectives and Projects. Environmental Management Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 729–742.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Prato, T., 2003, Multiple-attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River system. Ecological Economics, 45, 297–309. Available online at sciencedirect.com.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ralston, B. E., Jackson, J. A., Kloeber, Jr., J. M., Deckro, R. F., 1996, Development of a Decision Support System for the Department of Energy’s Selection of Waste Remediation Technologies. Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis Technical Report 96-02, 1–123.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ramanathan, R., 2001, A note on the use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process for Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 63, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rauscher, H.M., Lloyd, F.T., Loftis, D.L., Twery, M. J., 2000, A practical decision-analysis process for forest ecosystem management. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 27 (2000) 195–226.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rogers, M. and Bruen, M., 1998, Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE. European Journal of Operational Research, 107, 542–551.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Rogers, M. and Bruen, M., 1998, A new system for weighting environmental criteria for use within ELECTRE III. European Journal of Operational Research, 107, 552–563.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Schmoldt, D., Mendoza, G.A., Kangas, J., 2001, Past Developments and Future Directions for the AHP in Natural Resources. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making, 289–305.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Schmoldt, D. L. and Peterson, D. L., 2001a, Efficient Group Decision Making in Workshop Settings. The Analytical Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making, 97–114.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Schmoldt, D., and Peterson, D., 2001b, Strategic and Tactical Planning for Managing National Park Resources. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making, 67–79.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Schmoldt, D., Peterson, D., Silsbee, D., 1994, Developing Inventory and Monitoring Programs Based on Multiple Objectives. Environmental Management Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 707–727.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Schreck, F., 2002, Multi-Criteria decision aid as a tool in the management of produced water in the offshore Oil Industry. Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master Thesis.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Seppala, J., Basson, L., Norris, G.A., 2002, Decision Analysis Frameworks for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 5, No. 4., pp. 45–68.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sharifi, M.A., Van Den Toorn, W., Emmanuel, M., 2002, International Institute for Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Siddiqui, M., Everett, J., Vieux, B., 1996, Landfill Siting Using Geographic Information Systems: A Demonstration. Journal of Environmental Engineering.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Simon, M., and Pascoe, S., 1999, A review of applications of multiple criteria decision-making techniques to fisheries. Marine Resource Economics, 14, 41–63.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Stahl, C. H., Cimorelli, A. J., Chow, A. H., 2002, A new approach to Environmental Decision Analysis: Multi-Criteria Integrated Resource Assessment (MIRA). Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 22, 6, 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Stahl, C. H., 2003, Multi-criteria Integrated Resource Assessment (MIRA): A New Decision Analytic Approach to Inform Environmental Policy Analysis. Vol 1. Dissertation submitted to Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Affairs and Public Policy.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Steiguer, J.E., Liberti L., Schuler, A., Hansen, B., 2003. Multi-Criteria Decision Models for Forestry and Natural Resources Management: An Annotated Bibliography. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-307.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Store, R., and Kangas, J., 2001. Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modeling. Landscape and Urban Planning 55 (2001) 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Timmerman, T. J., Kloeber, Jr., J. M., Jackson, J.A., Deckro, R. F., 1996, Selecting Remediation Technologies Through a ‘Technical Risk’ Index: An Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory. Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis Technical Report 96-01.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Top-to-Bottom Review Team, February 2002, A Review of the Environmental Management Program. Presented to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U. S. DOE.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Tran, L., Knight, C.G., O’Neill, R., Smith, E., Ritters, K., Wickham, J., 2002, Environmental Assessment Fuzzy Decision Analysis for Integrated Environmental Vulnerability Assessment of the Mid-Atlantic Region. Environmental Management Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 845–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002. Civil Works Program Strategic Plan. (http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/strategicplan.htm)
  93. 93.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003a. USACE Environmental Operating Principles and Implementation Guidance. (http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/CEPA/7%20Environ%20Prin%20web%20site/Page1.html)
  94. 94.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003b. Planning Civil Works Projects under the Environmental Operating Principles. Circular 1105-2-404. (http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-circulars/ec1105-2-404/entire.pdf)
  95. 95.
    U. S. DOE, Environmental Assessment Division. http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/home2/.
  96. 96.
    U. S. EPA, October 2000, Framework for Responsible Environmental Decision-Making (FRED): Using life cycle assessment to evaluate preferability of products. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, Research Triangle Institute, EcoSense Inc., Roy F. Weston Inc., Five Winds International. EPA/600/R-00/095.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Special Review, 2002. Consistency and Transparency in Determination of EPA’s Anticipated Ozone Designations. Report no. 2002-S-00016.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Vaillancourt, K. and Waaub, J. P., 2002, Environmental site evaluation of waste management facilities embedded into EUGENE model: A multicriteria approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 139, 436–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Vincke, P., 1992, Multi-Criteria Decision-Aid. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Wakeman, J. S., 2003 (check?), Decision Analysis based upon implementability of action alternatives at Milltown Dam: Attachment A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. (full reference not given. Received as an email attachment)Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Wang, T. A., and McTernan, W. F., 2002, The development and application of a multilevel decision analysis model for the remediation of contaminated groundwatcr under uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Management, 64, 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Werrick, W.J., and Whipple, W, 1994. Managing Water for Drought: National Study of Water Management for Drought. US Army Corps of Engineers — Institute of Water Resources Report (IWR) Report NDS-94-8.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Werrick, W.J., and Whipple, W., and Lund, J., 1996. Basinwide Management of Water in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basins: Draft Report. US Army Corps of Engineers — Institute of Water Resources (IWR).Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Whitaker, K and Focht, W., 2001, Expert Modeling of Environmental Impacts. OPS Special Issue: Environmental Policy in Oklahoma, 10: 179–186.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Zio, E. and Apostolakis, 1998, Sensitivitiy and Uncertainty Analysis Within A Methodology for Evaluating Environmental Restoration Technologies. N. H. Elsevier, Computer Physics Communications 117 (1999), 1–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Linkov
    • 1
  • A. Varghese
    • 1
  • S. Jamil
    • 1
  • T. P. Seager
    • 2
  • G. Kiker
    • 3
  • T. Bridges
    • 3
  1. 1.ICF ConsultingLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Contaminated Sediments ResearchUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Environmental LaboratoryU.S. Army Engineer Research and Development CenterVicksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations