Using intervals for global sensitivity and worst-case analyses in multiattribute value trees

Mustajoki, Jyri; Hämäläinen, Raimo P.; Lindstedt, M.

doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.02.070

Cited by 32 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the probailistic approach takes account of all uncertainties simultaneously so that the user may have confidence in the results which can convincingly be communicated to decision makers (Mustajoki, Hämäläinen and Lindstedt 2006). This communication should be couched in terms of justifiable discrimination between alternatives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using imprecise estimates for weights

Jessop

2011

Journal of the Operational Research Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Variations in parameter values may be considered one at a time or in combination (French 2003). For example, in multiattribute problems Mustajoki, Hämäläinen and Lindstedt (2006) describe three forms of sensitivity analysis. First, a single parameter test in which one weight is varied and the effect on scores observed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using imprecise estimates for weights

Jessop

2011

Journal of the Operational Research Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Under these circumstances, interval estimates of the weights can be determined [31,32]. These interval estimates might serve as an absolute range of potential values for criteria weights; any changes in criteria weights for future decisions of this nature should only occur within these ranges.…”

Section: Relative Weighting Of Decision Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Decision Making about Natural Disaster Mitigation Funding in Australia—A Framework

Honert¹

2016

Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economic losses from natural disasters pose significant challenges to communities and to the insurance industry. Natural disaster mitigation aims to reduce the threat to people and assets from natural perils. Good decisions relating to hazard risk mitigation require judgments both about the scientific and financial issues involved, i.e., the efficacy of some intervention, and the ethical or value principles to adopt in allocating resources. A framework for selecting a set of mitigation options within a limited budget is developed. Project selection about natural disaster mitigation options needs to trade off benefits offered by alternative investments (e.g., fatalities and injuries avoided, potential property and infrastructure losses prevented, safety concerns of citizens, etc.) against the costs of investment. Such costs include capital and on-going operational costs, as well as intangible costs, such as the impact of the project on the visual landscape or the loss of societal cohesion in the event of the relocation of part of a community. Furthermore, dollar costs of any potential project will need to be defined within some prescribed budget and time frame. Taking all of these factors into account, this paper develops a framework for good natural hazard mitigation decision making and selection.

show abstract

“…The alternatives are ranked by the ratings of each alternative with respect to each attribute (value resp. utility) and the weights of the attributes (Mustajoki et al, 2006). While MAVT is a deterministic technique, MAUT accounts for uncertainty and the risk preferences of the decision makers which are integrated with help of probability distributions.…”

Section: Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (Mcda) In the Recovery Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation strategies for nuclear and radiological emergency and post-accident management

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In nuclear and radiological emergency and post-accident management decisions on countermeasures and remediation strategies have to be made. Whereas in the early phase decisions on emergency actions must be made in a very short time, according to emergency plans and dose thresholds, in the recovery phase complexity is higher. But there is also more time for evaluating alternative countermeasures and remediation strategies with respect to several goals. In this paper evaluation strategies supporting the decision makers throughout all phases are presented. The applied decision support techniques range from graphical presentations of decision relevant information about the alternatives for action to multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. In particular methods to cope with several types of uncertainties inherent in the different phases are presented. By the integration of these techniques, the decision support system RODOS is able to provide support for more conscious, transparent and coherent decision making.

show abstract

Using intervals for global sensitivity and worst-case analyses in multiattribute value trees

Cited by 32 publications

References 36 publications

Using imprecise estimates for weights

Using imprecise estimates for weights

Improving Decision Making about Natural Disaster Mitigation Funding in Australia—A Framework

Evaluation strategies for nuclear and radiological emergency and post-accident management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About