Methods and Decision Processes: Descriptive and Normative

  • Oleg I. Larichev
  • David L. Olson


How are large-scale siting decisions made in practice? H. Kunreuther, J. Linnerooth, and some of their colleagues (1983) investigated large-scale siting decisions while working in the International Institute for Applied System Analysis (ELASA). The problem under study was the decision process used to site liquified energy gas (LEG) facilities in four countries: the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Different countries have different institutional settings for deciding how siting choices are made. Despite major differences in approaches, Kunreuther and Linnerooth developed a general framework for describing siting decisions.


Construction Cost Tennessee Site Concordance Index Active Party Reference Option 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barzilai, J., Cook, W.D. and Golany, B. Consistent weights for judgements matrices of the relative importance of alternatives, Operations Research Letters 6:3, 1987, 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berkeley, D., Humphreys, P., Larichev, O. and Moshkovich, H. Aiding strategic decision making: Derivation and development of ASTRID A. In Environment for Supporting Decision Processes, Y. Vecsenyi and H. Sol, eds., North Holland, Amsterdam, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds.), Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  4. Keeney, R.L., Siting Energy Facilities, Academic Press, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  5. Keeney, R.L. & Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives, Wiley, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Kunreuther, H.C., Linnerooth, J., Lathrop, J., Atz, H., Macgill, S., Mandl, C, Schwarz, M. and Thompson, M. Risk Analysis and Decision Processes: The Siting of Liquified Energy Gas Facilities in Four Countries. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Larichev, O.I. and Moshkovich, H.M. Verbal Decision Analysis for Unstructured Problems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Larichev, O.I., Yu, A., Zuev, Y.A. and Gnedenko, L.S. Method ZAPROS (Closed Procedures near Reference Situations) for the analysis of variants of complex decisions, in S.V. Emelyanov, ed., Multicriteria Choice for the Solution of Ill-Structured Problems, Moscow: VNIISI Proceedings, N 5 (in Russian), 1978, 83–97.Google Scholar
  9. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. Organizations, New York, Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
  10. Merrow, E.W.: Understanding the Outcomes of Megaprojects: A Quantitative Analysis of Very Large Civilian Projects. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. Montgomery, H. and Svenson, O. A think-aloud study of dominance structuring in decision processes, in Process and Structure on Human Decision Making, H. Montgomery and O. Svenson, eds., J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1989, 135–150.Google Scholar
  12. Roy, B. Clessement et choix en presence de criteres multiples. RIRO vol. 8, 1968, pp. 57–75.Google Scholar
  13. Roy, B. and Bouyssou, D. Comparison of two decision-aid models applied to a nuclear power plant siting example. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 25, 1986, 200–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Saaty, T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15:3 1977, 234–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process New York, McGraw Hill 1980 (2nd ed. T.L. Saaty, 1988).Google Scholar
  16. Saaty, T.L. Decision Making for Leaders Belmont, CA Van Nostrand Reinhold 1982 (2nd ed. RWS Publications, 1986).Google Scholar
  17. Sarin, R.K. A social decision analysis of the earthquake safety problem: The case of existing Los Angeles buildings. Risk Analysis, vol. 3, no. 1, 1983, 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shim, J.P. Bibliographical research on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 23:3 1989, 161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Simon, H.A. The New Science of Management Decision, New York: Harper and Row Publ., 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, V.K. and Desvousges, W.H. The value of avoiding a LULU: Hazardous waste disposal sites. The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 68, no. 2, 1986, 293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Walker, W.E., Abrahamse, A., Bolten, J., Kahan, J.P., Van de Riet, O., Kok, M., and Den Braber, M. A policy analysis of Dutch river dike improvements: Trading off safety, cost, and environmental impacts. Operations Research vol. 42, no. 5, 1994, 823–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zahedi, F. The analytic hierarchy process — A survey of the method and its application., Interfaces 16 (4) 1986, 96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oleg I. Larichev
    • 1
  • David L. Olson
    • 2
  1. 1.Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Texas A&M UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations