Advertisement

A Risk-Based Decision Analytic Approach to Assessing Multi-stakeholder Policy Problems

  • Mats Danielson
  • Love EkenbergEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.4k Downloads
Part of the Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research book series (NTHR, volume 32)

Abstract

The design of a public-private flood insurance system is a multi-stakeholder policy problem. The stakeholders include, among others, the public in the high-risk and low-risk areas, the insurance companies and the government. With an understanding of the preferences of the stakeholder groups, decision analysis can be a useful tool in establishing and ranking different policy alternatives. However, the design of a nation-wide insurance system involves handling imprecise information, including estimates of the stakeholders’ utilities, outcome probabilities and importance weightings. This chapter describes a general approach to analysing decision situations under risk involving multiple stakeholders. The approach was employed to assess options for designing a public-private flood insurance and reinsurance system in Hungary with a focus on the Tisza river basin. It complements the actual stakeholder process for this same purpose described in previous chapters of this book. The general method of probabilistic, multi-stakeholder analysis extends the use of utility functions for supporting evaluation of imprecise and uncertain information.

Keywords

Flood insurance Multi-stakeholder policy problem Decision analysis Upper Tisza river basin 

References

  1. Brouwers L, Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Hansson K (2004) Multi-criteria decision-making of policy strategies with public-private re-insurance systems. Risk Decis Policy 9(1):23–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brouwers L, Riabacke M (2012) Consensus by simulation: a flood model for participatory policymaking. In: Amendola et al. (eds) Integrated catastrophe risk modeling: supporting policy processes. Springer, Dordrecht, pp xx–xxGoogle Scholar
  3. IPCC (2001) In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, 881 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Danielson M (2004) Handling imperfect user statements in real-life decision analysis. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 3(3):513–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2007) Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees. Eur J Oper Res 181:808–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Johansson J, Larsson A (2003) The DecideIT decision tool, ISIPTA '03. In: Bernard J-M, Seidenfeld T, Zaffalon M (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on imprecise probabilities and their applications, proceedings in informatics 18, Carleton Scientific, pp 204–217Google Scholar
  7. Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Ekengren A, Hökby T, Lidén J (2008) A process for participatory democracy in electronic government. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 15(1–2):15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ekenberg L (2000) Risk constraints in agent based decisions. In: Kent A, Williams JG (eds) Encyclopaedia of computer science and technology 23(48):263–280, Marcel Dekker Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Ekenberg L, Thorbiörnson J (2001) Second-order decision analysis. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 9(1):13–38Google Scholar
  10. Ekenberg L, Boman M, Linnerooth-Bayer J (2001) General risk constraints. J Risk Res 4(1):31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ekenberg L, Thorbiörnson J, Baidya T (2005) Value differences using second order distributions. Int J Approx Reason 38(1):81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jiménez A, Rios-Insua S, Mateos A (2006) A generic multi-attribute analysis system. Comput Oper Res 33(4):1081–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Larsson A, Johansson J, Ekenberg L, Danielson M (2005) Decision analysis with multiple objectives in a framework for evaluating imprecision international. J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 13(5):495–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Salo AA, Hämäläinen RP (1995) Preference programming through approximate ratio. Comp Eur J Oper Res 82:458–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Vári A (1999) Flood control development in Hungary: public awareness report. Prepared for VITUKI consult Rt Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute of SociologyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm UniversityStockholm, KistaSweden

Personalised recommendations