Decision analysis has been with us for at least half a century. Over that time it has developed from a theoretical paradigm for individual rational choice to a practical tool for individuals, small groups and 'unitary' organisations, which helps them towards a sound decision-making mindful of the behavioural characteristics of individuals and group dynamics. Decision analysis has also shown its worth in the context of stakeholder engagement and public participation. The time is right for it to be more widely used in making societal decisions. However, to achieve that we need to realise that in many circumstances it will only be one input to the political process that leads to the actual decision. Recognising that suggests that our community of decision analysts needs to deconstruct our paradigm and attend more to communicating the result of the analysis in comparison with other inputs to the societal decision.
The objective of the CONFIDENCE project has been to identify, assess and communicate the uncertainties that arise in managing and recovering from a nuclear accident. To do that, it is important to be clear on what uncertainty means, how it arises and how we might analyse it. In fact, there are many forms of uncertainty, some of which we can assess with current tools, but some of which are more nebulous and difficult to deal with. Nonetheless, all need to be communicated to the emergency managers. Starting with a review of different categories of uncertainties, and using examples from the CONFIDENCE project, this paper discusses how the various uncertainties are manifested in nuclear emergency management. It concludes with a simple framework for categorising and analysing them. The overall intention is that such a framework could contribute to a broader discussion on identifying and handling uncertainties with nuclear emergency management actors
One of the strengths of decision analysis is that it can deal with most uncertainties; but, alas, not all. Sometimes uncertainties are too deep: that is, within the time and data currently available, no agreement is possible between decision makers, experts, and stakeholders on their quantification as probabilities. The possible range of probabilities may be so great that any sensitivity study would show that virtually all actions may be optimal. Recently, such cases have been approached by scenario-focused decision analyses in which the deep uncertainties are fixed at several “interesting” values. These approaches are showing considerable potential, but there is a problem. The assumptions on which decision analysis is based do not necessarily apply, because scenarios are not quite “small worlds” in Savage’s sense. This paper discusses the difficulty, offers a way forward, and demonstrates some of the points within an example on nuclear energy strategy.
Nuclear accidents suchasthat at Chemobyl in 1986 have emphasised the need for improving the emergency management of any aceidentat release of radio-activity. RODOS isareal-time on-line decision support system intended tobe used throughout all phases of a nuclear accident. It follows a consistent Bayesian methodology for handling uncertainty and the effective communication of this to the decision makers. Evaluation is based upon multi-attribute value and utility methods with extensive provision of sensitivity analysis and automated explanations to the decision maker.
Please scroll down for article-it is on subsequent pages With 12,500 members from nearly 90 countries, INFORMS is the largest international association of operations research (O.R.) and analytics professionals and students. INFORMS provides unique networking and learning opportunities for individual professionals, and organizations of all types and sizes, to better understand and use O.R. and analytics tools and methods to transform strategic visions and achieve better outcomes. For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org
The international community has come a long way in developing a consensus that the remediation and management of naturally occurring radioactive materials and nuclear legacy sites will benefit from the use of the framework for risk-informed decision-making. Such a framework should ideally integrate risk assessment and decision-making. The framework presented in this paper specifically addresses the needs and expectations in the wider socio-economic and environmental context, as well as a narrower human health context. The framework was demonstrated as part of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s second Modelling and Data for Radiological Impact Assessments Programme. Three case studies, which have used or could use this integrative approach, are used for illustration. The first concerns remediation from uranium mining activities at Beaverlodge Lake in northern Saskatchewan, Canada, engaging stakeholders (also called ‘interested parties’) in the decision-making process on further options. The second case study suggests how decision analysis could support the selection of the best option for waste disposal for uranium ore processing at Žirovski vrh, Slovenia, taking into account a potential landslide and migration of waste throughout the adjacent valley in the event of flooding. The third case study presents the process and results of radiological safety assessment of the Kepkensberg sludge basin in Tessenderlo area, Belgium both before and after the disposal of material from remediation of the nearby Winterbeek River. It illustrates how such assessments could interface with decision analysis for the purpose of supporting the regulatory decisions related to future approval of a waste disposal option. Results show that formal stakeholder engagement in decision analysis provides a strong contribution to objective, robust, and transparent decision-making not only for radiation protection area but also in others where health and environmental impacts are of concern. A number of recommendations for future work have also been made.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.