Skip to main content
Log in

Risk tolerance measure for decision-making in fuzzy analysis: a health risk assessment perspective

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In risk assessment studies it is important to determine how uncertain and imprecise knowledge should be included into the simulation and assessment models. Thus, proper evaluation of uncertainties has become a major concern in environmental and health risk assessment studies. Previously, researchers have used probability theory, more commonly Monte Carlo analysis, to incorporate uncertainty analysis in health risk assessment studies. However, in conducting probabilistic health risk assessment, risk analyst often suffers from lack of data or the presence of imperfect or incomplete knowledge about the process modeled and also the process parameters. Fuzzy set theory is a tool that has been used in propagating imperfect and incomplete information in health risk assessment studies. Such analysis result in fuzzy risks which are associated with membership functions. Since possibilistic health risk assessment studies are relatively new, standard procedures for decision-making about the acceptability of the resulting fuzzy risk with respect to a crisp standard set by the regulatory agency are not fully established. In this paper, we are providing a review of several available approaches which may be used in decision-making. These approaches involve defuzzification techniques, the possibility and the necessity measures. In this study, we also propose a new measure, the risk tolerance measure, which can be used in decision making. The risk tolerance measure provides an effective metric for evaluating the acceptability of a fuzzy risk with respect to a crisp compliance criterion. Fuzzy risks with different membership functions are evaluated with respect to a crisp compliance criterion by using the possibility, the necessity, and the risk tolerance measures and the results are discussed comparatively.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bardossy A, Bogardi I, Duchstein L (1991) Fuzzy set and probabilistic techniques for health-risk analysis. Appl Math Comput 45:241–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonano EJ, Apostolakis GE, Salter PF, Ghassemi A, Jennings S (2000) Application of risk assessment and decision analysis to the evaluation, ranking and selection of environmental remediation alternatives. J Hazard Mater 71:35–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Christakos G, Serre ML (2000) Spatiotemporal analysis of environmental exposure-health effect associations. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 10:168–187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Côme B, Guyonnet D, Magnouni S (1997) Apports potentiels de la théori des possibilitiés á l’évaluation des risques environnementaux. Déchets-Sci Tech 7:40–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen AC, Frey HC (1999) Probabilistic techniques in exposure assessment. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado M, Vila MA, Voxman W (1998b) A fuzziness measure for fuzzy numbers: applications. Fuzzy Sets Syst 94:205–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dou C, Woldt W, Bogardi I, Dahab M (1995) Steady-state groundwater flow simulation with imprecise parameters. Water Resour Res 31(11):2709–2719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D, Prade H (1988) Possibility theory. An approach to computerized processing of uncertainty. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA US (2000) Presenter’s manual for: “superfund risk assessment and how you can help”. EPA/540/R-99/013, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

  • EPA US (2001) Risk assessment guidance for superfund (RAGS), vol III— Part A, process for conducting probabilistic risk assessment. Office of emergency and remedial response, Washington, DC

  • Ferson S, Ginzburg LR (1996) Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability. Reliabil Eng Syst Safety 54:133–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guyonnet D, Côme B, Perrochet P, Parriaux A (1999) Comparing two methods for addressing uncertainty in risk assessment. J Environ Eng 125(7):660–666

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guyonnet D, Bourgine B, Dobois D, Fargier H, Côme B, Chilés J-P (2003) Hybrid approach for addressing uncertainty in risk assessment. J Environ Eng 129(1):68–78

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel A (1986) Fuzzy mathematical techniques with applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann A, Gupta MM (1985) Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic. Theory and Applications, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly EJ, Campbell K (2000) Separating variability and uncertainty in environmental risk assessment-making choices. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 6(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kentel E (2006) Uncertainty modeling in health risk assessment and groundwater resources management. PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology

  • Kentel E, Aral MM (2004) Probabilistic-fuzzy health risk modeling. Stochast Environ Res Risk Assess 18:324–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kentel E, Aral MM (2005) 2D Monte Carlo versus 2D fuzzy Monte Carlo health risk assessment. Stochast Environ Res Risk Assess 19:86–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kikuchi S, Pursula M (1998) Treatment of uncertainty in study of transportation: fuzzy set theory and evidence theory. J Transport Eng 124(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klir GJ, Yuan B (1995) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: theory and applications. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Klir GJ, Yuan B (1996) Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy systems—selected papers by Lotfi A. Zadeh. In: Zadeh LA, Hirota K, Klir GJ, Sanchez E, Wang P-Z, Yager RR (eds) Advances in fuzzy systems—application and theory. World Scientific Publishing Co Pvt Ltd, Singapore, 826 p

  • Lein JK (1992) Expressing environmental risk using fuzzy variables: a preliminary examination. Environ Prof 14:257–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu L, Cheng SY, Guo HC (2004) A simulation-assessment modeling approach for analyzing environmental risks of groundwater contamination at waste landfill sites. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 10:373–388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mohamed AMO, Côté K (1999) Decision analysis of polluted sites—a fuzzy set approach. Waste Manage 19:519–533

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrycz W (1995) Fuzzy sets engineering. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuhmacher M, Meneses M, Xifro A, Domingo JL (2001) The use of Monte-Carlo simulation techniques for risk assessment: study of a municipal waste incinerator. Chemosphere 43:787–799

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vose D (1996) Quantitative risk analysis—a guide to Monte Carlo simulation modelling. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang L-X (1997) A course in fuzzy systems and control. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Wonneberger S, Kistinger S, Deckert A (1995) Nuclear science and technology. Unbiassed guess, a concept to cope with fuzzy and random parameters? European Commission, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodbury AD, Dudicky EA (1991) The geostatistical characteristics of the borden aquifer. Water Resour Res 27(4):533–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR, Filev DP (1994) Essentials of fuzzy modeling and control. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa M. Aral.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kentel, E., Aral, M.M. Risk tolerance measure for decision-making in fuzzy analysis: a health risk assessment perspective. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 21, 405–417 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-006-0073-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-006-0073-2

Keywords

Navigation