Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Value of Information for Conflict Resolution

  • Conference paper
Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making

Part of the book series: Nato Science Series: IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences ((NAIV,volume 38))

  • 1446 Accesses

Abstract

A formulation for the value of information for conflict resolution is shown to provide insights and guidance for identifying the attributes of scientific procedures and studies needed to support participatoryrisk assessment and decision making. Traditional approaches to the value of information are first reviewed, including the determination of potential reductions in the uncertainty variance of risk-model outputs resulting from a proposed study or data collection program, and the economic value of information in a decision-analytic context. Limitations of these metrics are identified — when scientific assessments are conducted by multiple experts who may be exposed to either consistent or inconsistent observations, and when decision value is required for multiple stakeholders who may differ in their prior beliefs, methods for interpreting scientific studies, and their economic valuations for the outcomes of alternative decisions. Methods for identifying the sources and implications of differences in these among experts and stakeholders are presented. The use of a precautionary ratio is proposed as a means for characterizing the source of differing degrees of precaution exhibited towards a proposed project by different rational stakeholders, highlighting the programmatic and scientific changes that could be considered by project proponents to attempt to build a consensus with other, more-precautionary parties. Initial methods for computing a monetary value of information for conflict resolution are also presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbaspour, K. C., R. Schulin, R., E. Schlappi and H. Fluhler, (1996) A Bayesian approach for incorporating uncertainty and data worth in environmental projects. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 1: 151–158.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alhakami, A.S. and Slovic, P. (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit, Risk Analysis 14, 1085–1096.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bergin, M. S. and J. B. Milford, J. B., (2000) Application of Bayesian Monte Carlo analysis to a Lagrangian photochemical air quality model. Atmospheric Environment, 34(5): 781–792.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bogen, K.T. and R.C. Spear, (1987) Integrating uncertainty and interindividual variability in environmental risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 7: 427–436.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brand, K.P. and Small, M.J. (1995) Updating uncertainty in an integrated risk assessment: Conceptual framework and methods. Risk Analysis, 15(6): 719–731.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Casman, E.A., Morgan, M.G. and Dowlatabadi, H. (1999) Mixed levels of uncertainty in complex policy models, Risk Analysis 19, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chao, P.T., Hobbs, B.F. (1997) Decision analysis of shoreline protection under climate change uncertainty, Water Resources Research, 33(4): 817–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clemen, R.T. (1996) Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis (2nd ed.), Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cleveland, T. and Yeh, W. W.-G. (1990) Sampling network design for transport parameter identification, Journal Water Resources Planning & Management, 116(6): 765–783.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cleveland, T. and Yeh, W. W.-G. (1991) Optimal configuration and scheduling of groundwater tracer test, Journal Water Resources Planning & Management, 117(1): 37–51.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cooke, R.M. (1991) Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science, Oxford Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Costello, C.J., Adams, R.M., Polasky, S. (1998) The value of El Nino forecasts in the management of salmon: A stochastic dynamic assessment, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80: 765–777.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cullen, A.C. and Frey, H.C. (1999) Probabilistic Techniques in Exposure Assessment — A Handbook for Dealing with Variability and Uncertainty in Models and Inputs. Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cvetkovich, G., Siegrist, M., Murray, R. and Tragresser, S. (2002) New information and social trust: Asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers, Risk Analysis, 22: 359–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dakins, M.E., Toll, J.E. and Small, M.J. (1994) Risk-based environmental remediation: decision framework and role of uncertainty, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13, 1907–1915.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Dakins, M.E., Toll, J.E., Small, M.J. and Brand, K.P. (1996) Risk-based environmental remediation: Bayesian Monte Carlo analysis and the expected value of sample information, Risk Analysis 16, 67–79.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. DeGroot, M. H., M. J. Schervish (2002) Probability and Statistics. Addison-Wesley, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  18. DeKay, M.L., M. J. Small, P.S. Fischbeck, R.S. Farrow, A. Cullen, J.B. Kadane, L. Lave, M.G. Morgan and K. Takemura. (2002) Risk-based decision analysis in support of precautionary policies. Journal of Risk Research, 5(4): 391–417.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dilks, D.W., Canale, R.P., and Meier, P.G. (1992) Development of Bayesian Monte Carlo techniques for water quality model uncertainty. Ecological Modelling, 62:149–162.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Finkel, A.M. and Evans, J.S. (1987) Evaluating the benefits of uncertainty reduction in environmental health risk management, Journal Air Pollution Control Association, 37:1164–1171.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Forester, J. and Stitzel, D. (1989) Beyond neutrality: The possibilities of activist mediation in public sector conflicts, Negotiation Journal, 5(3): 251–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Freeze, R.A., Massmann, J.W., Smith, L., Sperling, T. and James, B. (1990) Hydrogeological decision analysis, 1. A framework, Ground Water, 28, 738–766.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Frey, H.C. and Burmaster, D.E. (1999) Methods for characterizing variability and uncertainty: Comparison of bootstrap simulation and likelihood-based approaches. Risk Analysis, 19(1): 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J. (1991) Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gamerman, D. (1997) Markov Chain Monte Carlo: Stochastic Simulation for Bayesian Inference. Chapman & Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S. and Rubin, D.B. (1995) Bayesian Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gregory, R., Kunreuther, H, Easterling, D. and Richards, K. (1991) Incentives policies to site hazardous facilities. Risk Analysis, 11: 667–675.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gurian, P.L, Small, M.J., Lockwood, J.R.III and Schervish, M.J. (2001) Benefit-cost estimation for alternative drinking water maximum contaminant levels. Water Resources Research, 37(9): 2213–2226.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hammitt, J.K. and Shlyakhter, A.I. (1999) The expected value of information and the probability of surprise, Risk Analysis 19, 135–152.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hilton, R.W. (1981) The determinants of information value: Synthesizing some general results, Management Science, 27: 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hoffman, F.O., Hammonds, J.S. (1994) Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability, Risk Analysis, 14, 707–712.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Iman, R. and Hora, S. (1989) Bayesian methods for modeling recovery times with an application to the loss of off-site power at nuclear power plants. Risk Analysis, 9(1): 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  33. James, B.R. and Gorelick, S.M. (1994) When enough is enough: The worth of monitoring data in aquifer remediation design, Water Resources Research, 30(12): 3499–3513.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Jasanoff, S. (1993) Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis, Risk Analysis 13, 123–129.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Johnson, B.B. and Slovic. P. (1995) Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust, Risk Analysis 15, 485–494.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A., eds. (1982) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U K.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Johnson, N.L. and Kotz, S. (1970) Distributions in Statistics, Continuous Univariate Distributions-1. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Keeney, R.L. (1982) Decision analysis: an overview, Operations Research 39, 803–838.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Keller, L.R. and Sarin, R.K. (1995) Fair processes for societal decisions involving distributional inequalities, Risk Analysis 15, 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kottegoda, NT. and R. Rosso. (1997) Statistics, Probability, and Reliability for Civil and Environmental Engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kunreuther, H. and Easterling, D. (1996) The role of compensation in siting hazardous facilities, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15: 601–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee, P.M. (1989) Bayesian Statistics: An Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Leonard, T. and J.S.J. Hsu. (1999) Bayesian Methods, An Analysis for Statisticians and Interdisciplinary Researchers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Loaiciga, H.A. (1989) An optimizationapproach for groundwater quality monitoring design, Water Resources Research, 25(8): 1771–1782.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Lockwood, J.R., Schervish, M.J. Gurian, P. and Small, M.J. (2001) Characterization of arsenic occurrence in source waters of US community water systems. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(456): 1184–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Massmann, J. and Freeze, R.A. (1987a) Groundwater contamination from waste management: the interaction between risk-based engineering design and regulatory policy, 1. Methodology, Water Resources Research 23, 351–367.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Massmann, J. and Freeze, R.A. (1987b) Groundwater contamination from waste management: the interaction between risk-based engineering design and regulatory policy, 2. Results, Water Resources Research 23, 368–380.

    Google Scholar 

  48. McKinney, D.C. and Loucks, D.P. (1992) Network design for predicting groundwater contamination, Water Resources Research, 28(1): 133–147.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Miller, D.S., Green, J.J. and Gill, D.A. (1999) Bridging the gap between the reductionist perspective of public policy and the precautionary perspective of communities, Electronic Green Journal, Issue 11, http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj11/miller1.html, accessed April 3, 2003.

  50. Monahan, J.F. (2001) Numerical Methods of Statistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Morgan, M.G., Henrion, M. (1990) Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Morgan, M.G. and Keith, D. (1995) Subjective judgments by climate experts, Environmental Science & Technology, 29(10): 468–476.

    Google Scholar 

  53. NRC (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, Stern, P.C. and Fineberg, H.V. (eds) National Research Council (NRC), Washington, DC, National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Patwardhan, A., Small, M.J., (1992) Bayesian methods for model uncertainty analysis with application to future sea level rise, Risk Analysis, 4, 513–523.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Raiffa, H. (1968) Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choice under Uncertainty, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Reichard, E.G. and Evans, J.S. (1989) Assessing the value of hydrogeologic information for risk-based remedial action decisions. Water Resources Research, 25(7): 1451–1460.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Reichert, P., Schervish, M. and Small, M.J. 2002. An efficient sampling technique for Bayesian inference with computationally demanding models. Technometrics, 44(4): 318–327.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Shlyakhter, A.I. (1994) Improved framework for uncertainty analysis: Accounting for unsuspected errors, Risk Analysis, 14: 441–447.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Slovic, P. (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy, Risk Analysis, 13: 675–682.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Small, M.J. (1994) Invariably uncertain about variability? Try the normal-gamma conjugate! Proceedings of Air & Waste Management Association 87th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, June 19–24f, Cincinnati, Ohio, Paper 94-TP55.05.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Small, M.J. 1997. Groundwater detection monitoring using combined information from multiple constituents. Water Resources Research, 33(5): 957–969.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Small, M.J. and Fischbeck, P.S. (1999) False precision in Bayesian updating with incomplete models, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5, 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Smith, H.J. and Kunreuther, H. (2001) Mitigation and benefits measures as policy tools for siting potentially hazardous facilities: Determinants of effectiveness and appropriateness, Risk Analysis, 21: 371–382.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Smith, J.Q. and French, S. (1993) Bayesian updating of atmosphericdispersion models for use after an accidental release of radiation. The Statistician, 42: 501–511.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Sohn, M.D., Small, M.J. and Pantazidou, M. (2000) Reducing uncertainty in groundwater site characterization using Bayes Monte Carlo methods. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 126(10): 893–902.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Stiber, N.A., Pantazidou, M. and Small, M.J. (1999) Expert system methodology for evaluating reductive dechlorination at TCE sites. Environmental Science & Technology, 33(17): 3012–3020.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Susskind, L. and Weinstein, A. (1980) Towards a theory of environmental dispute resolution, Boston College Law Review, 9: 311–357.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Susskind, L, Levy, P.F. and Thomas-Larmer, J. (2000) Negotiating Environmental Agreements, How to Avoid Escalating Confrontation, Needless Costs, and Unnecessary Litigation, Island Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Taylor, A.C., Evans, J. and McKone, T. (1993) The value of animal test information in environmental control decisions, Risk Analysis, 13:403–412.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1971) Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 2: 105–110.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Wagner, B.J. (1995) Sampling design methods for groundwater modeling under uncertainty, Water Resources Research, 31(10): 2581–2591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Wagner, B.J. (1999) Evaluating data worth for ground-water management under uncertainty, Journal Water Resources Planning & Management, 125(5): 281–288.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Winkler, R.L. and Murphy, A.H. (1985) Decision analysis, in A.H. Murphy and R.W. Katz (eds), Probability, Statistics, and Decision Making in the Atmospheric Sciences, pp. 493–524, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Wood, E. and Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. (1975) A Bayesian approach to analyzing uncertainty among flood frequency models. Water Resources Research, 11(6): 839–843.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. H. John Heinz III Professor of Environmental Engineering Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    M. J. Small

Authors
  1. M. J. Small
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ICF Consulting, Lexington, MA, USA

    Igor Linkov

  2. Cambridge Environmental, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA

    Igor Linkov

  3. Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority, Cairo, Egypt

    Abou Bakr Ramadan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this paper

Cite this paper

Small, M.J. (2004). The Value of Information for Conflict Resolution. In: Linkov, I., Ramadan, A.B. (eds) Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making. Nato Science Series: IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences, vol 38. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2243-3_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation