Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Framework for Structuring Remedial Decisions at Contaminated Sites

  • Conference paper
Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making

Part of the book series: Nato Science Series: IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences ((NAIV,volume 38))

Abstract

Decision-making in environmental projects is typically a complex and confusing exercise, characterized by trade-offs between socio-political, environmental, and economic impacts. Cost-benefit analyses are often used, occasionally in concert with comparative risk assessment, to choose between competing project alternatives. The selection of appropriate remedial and abatement policies for contaminated sites, land-use planning and other regulatory decision-making problems for contaminated sites involves multiple criteria such as cost, benefit, environmental impact, safety, and risk. Some of these criteria cannot easily be condensed into a monetary value, which complicates the integration problem inherent to making comparisons and trade-offs. Even if it were possible to convert criteria rankings into a common unit this approach would not always be desirable since stakeholder preferences may be lost in the process. Furthermore, environmental concerns often involve ethical and moral principles that may not be related to any economic use or value.

Considerable research in the area of multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has made available practical methods for applying scientific decision theoretical approaches to multi-criteria problems. However, these methods have not been formalized into a framework readily applicable to environmental projects dealing with contaminated and disturbed sites where risk assessment and stakeholder participation are of crucial concern. This paper presents a review of available literature on the application of MCDA in environmental projects. Based on this review, the paper develops a decision analytic framework specifically tailored to deal with decision making at contaminated sites.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Accorsi, R., Apostolakis, G. E., Zio, E., 1999a, Prioritizing stakeholder concerns in environmental risk management. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 1, 11–29.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Accorsi, R., Zio, E., Apostolakis, G. E., 1999b, Developing Utility Functions for Environmental Decision-Making. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 34, 4, 387–411.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Al-Rashdan, D., Al-Kloub, B., Dean, A., Al-Shemmeri, T., 1999, Theory and Methodology Environmental impact assessment and ranking the environmental projects in Jordan., European Journal of Operational Research, 118 (1999) 30–45.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ananda, J. and Herath, G., 2003, Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach. Ecological Economics, 45, 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Apostolakis, G. E., 2001, Assessment and Management of Environmental Risks, Editors: I. Linkov and J. Palma-Oliveira, 211–220. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arvai, J. and Gregory, R., 2003, Testing Alternative Decision Approaches for Identifying Cleanup Priorities at Contaminated Sites. Environmental Science & Technology 37:8, 1469–1476.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Baker, D., Bridges, D., Hunter, R., Johnson, G., Krupa, J., Murphy, J., Sorenson, K., 2001, Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods. Developed for the Department of Energy. WSRC-IM-2002-00002.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bardos, P., Lewis, A., Nortcliff, S., Matiotti, C., Marot, F., Sullivan, T., 2002, CLARINET report: Review of Decision Support Tools for Contaminated Land Management, and their use in Europe. Published by Austrian Federal Environment Agency, on behalf of CLARINET.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bell, M., Hobbs, B.F, Ellis, H., 2003, The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 37 (2003) 289–316.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Belton, Valerie and Steward, Theodor. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bonano, E. J., Apostolakis, G. E., Salter, P. F., Ghassemi, A., Jennings, S., 2000, Application of risk assessment and decision analysis to the evaluation, ranking and selection of environmental remediation alternatives. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 71, 35–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bose, U., Davey, A. M., Olson, D. L., 1997, Multi-attribute utility methods in Group Decision Making: Past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS. Omega, International Journal of Management Sciences, 25, 6, 691–706.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brown, B., Neil Adger, W., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P. Shim, D. Young, K., 2001. Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecological Economics. 37 (2001) 417–434.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cole, R. A., and Feather, T. D., 2002, Improving watershed planning and management through integration: a critical review of federal opportunities. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute of Water Resources by of Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. Contract # DACW72-99-D-0005, Task Order #61.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Corporate Project 7 Team, April 2003a, Assessment Report. Corporate Project 7: A cleanup program driven by risk-based end states, U. S. DOE.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Corporate Project 7 Team, August 2003b,Implementation Plan — U. S. Department of Energy Policy 455.1: Use of risk-based end states. Presented to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U. S. DOE.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Deschaine, L. M., Breslau, B., Ades, M. J., Selg, R. A., Saaty, T. L., 1998, Decision Support Software to Optimize Resource Allocation — Theory and Case History. The Society for Computer Simulation — Simulators International XV, 139–144.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Diwekar U. and Small M.J., 2002, Process analysis approach to industrial ecology, Chapter 11 in A Handbook of Industrial Ecology, R.U. Ayres and L.W. Ayres, eds., Edward Elgar Ltd, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 114–137.

    Google Scholar 

  19. DOE, April 1998, Guidelines for Risk-based Prioritization of DOE Activities. U.S. Department of Energy. DOE-DP-STD-3023-98.

    Google Scholar 

  20. DOE, 2003, Policy DOE P 455.1 — Subject: Use of risk-based end states. Initiated by Office of Environmental Management, U. S. DOE.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dortch, M. S. (U. S. Army Research and Development Center), 2001, Army Risk Assessment Modeling System (ARAMS). Published in Assessment and Management of Environmental Risks: Cost-efficient methods and applications, edited by Igor Linkov and Jose Palma-Oliveira.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ehrhardt, J., and Shershakov, V. M., 1996, Real-time on-line decision support systems (RODOS) for off-site emergency management following a nuclear accident. European Commission, Ukraine — International scientific collaboration on the consequences of the Chernobyl accident (1991–95).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Florig, H.K., Morgan, M.G., Morgan, K.M., Jenni, K.E., Fischoff, B., Fischbeck, P.S., DeKay, M.L., 2001, A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development. Risk Analysis, Vol., 21, No. 5, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Focht, W., DeShong, T., Wood, J., Whitaker, K., 1999, A Protocol for the Elicitation of Stakeholders’ Concerns and Preferences for Incorporation into Policy Dialogue. Proceedings of the Third Workshop in the Environmental Policy and Economics Workshop Series: Economic Research and Policy Concerning Water Use and Watershed Management, Washington. 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  25. French, S., Simpson, L., Atherton, E., Belton, V., Dawes, R., Edwards, W., Hamalainen, R. P., Larichev, O., Lootsma, F., Pearman, A., Vlek, C., 1998, Problem Formulation for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Report of a workshop. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 7, 242–262.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gal, T., Stewart, T. J., Hanne, T., 1999, Multicriteria Decision Making: Advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory, and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gomez-Limon, J. A., Arriaza, M., Riesgo, L., 2003, An MCDM analysis of agricultural risk aversion. European Journal of Operational Research, Article in Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gregory, R. and Failing, L., 2002, Using Decision Analysis to Encourage Sound Deliberation: Water Use Planning in British Columbia, Canada. Professional Practice, 492–499.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gregory, R., Fischhoff, B., Thorne, S., Butte, G., 2003, A Multi-Channel Stakeholder Consultation Process for Transmission Deregulation. Energy Policy 31: 1291–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gregory, R. and Keeney, R. L., 1994, Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values. Management Science, 40, 8, 1035–1048.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gregory, R., McDaniels, T., Fields, D., 2001, Decision Aiding, Not dispute resolution: Creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 3, 415–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gregory, R. and Wellman, K, 2001, Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study. Ecological Economics, 39, 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grelk, B. J., 1997, A CERCLA-Based Decision Support System for Environmental Remediation Strategy Selection. Department of the Air Force Air University, Air Force Institute of Technology, Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Grelk, B., Kloeber, J. M., Jackson, J. A., Deckro, R. F., Parnell, G. S., 1998, Quantifying CERCLA using site decision maker values. Remediation, 8(2), 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Guitouni, A., Martel. J.M., 1998, Tentative Guidelines to Help Choosing an Appropriate MCDA Method. European J. Operations Research, Vol. 109, pp. 501–521.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hamalainen, R.P., Lindstedt, M., Sinkko, K., 2000, Multi-Attribute Risk Analysis in Nuclear Emergency Management. Risk Analysis, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2000, pp. 455–468.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hamalainen, R. P., Kettunen, E., Ehtamo, H., 2001, Evaluating a framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in water resources management. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10, 331–353.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hamalainen, R., 2003, Reversing the Perspective on the Applications of Decision Analysis. Decision Analysis Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hartman, D. H. and Goltz, M. N., 2001, Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Select Characterization and Risk-Based Decision-Making and Management Methods for Hazardous Waste Sites, Environ Eng Policy (2002) 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hayashi, K., 2000, Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives. European Journal of Operational Research 122 (2000) 486–500.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hobbs, B. F. and Meier, 2000, Energy Decisions and the Environment: A Guide to the Use of Multicriteria Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Janssen, R., 2001, On the use of Multi-criteria Analysis in Environmental Impact Assessment in the Netherlands. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 10, 101–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jenni, K. E., Merkhofer, M. W., Williams, C., 1995, The rise and fall of a risk-based priority system: Lessons from DOE’s Environmental Restoration Priority System. Risk Analysis, 15, 3, 397–410.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Joerin, F, & Musy, A, 2000, Land Management with GIS and Multicriteria Analysis. International Transactions In Operational Research, 7, 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kangas, J., Kangas, A., Leskinen, P., Pykalainen, J., 2001, MCDM Methods in strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in Finland: Applications and Experiences. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 10, 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Keefer, D., Kirkwood, C.W., Corner, J.L., 2002, Summary of Decision Analysis Applications in the Operations Research Literature, 1990–2001. Technical Report Department of Supply Chain Management, Arizona State University, November 2002

    Google Scholar 

  47. Keefer, D., Kirkwood, C.W., Corner, J.L., 2002, Perspective on Decision Analysis Applications, 1990–2001. Forthcoming in Decision Analysis. Department of Supply Chain Management, Arizona State University

    Google Scholar 

  48. Keisler, J. M. and Sundell, R. C., 1997, Combining Multi-Attribute Utility and Geographic Information for boundary decisions: an application to Park Planning. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, 1, 2, 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kwak, S. J., Yoo, S. H., Kim, T. Y., 2001, A constructive approach to air-quality valuation in Korea. Ecological Economics, 38, 327–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Larichev, O. I. and Olson, D. I., 2001, Multiple Criteria Analysis in Strategic Siting Problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Levy, J., Hipel, K., Kilgour, D M., 2000, Using environmental indicators to quantify the robustness of policy alternatives to uncertainty. Ecological Modeling 130 (2000) 79–86.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Linkov, I., Burmistrov, D (2003, in press). Model Uncertainty and Choices Made by Modelers: Lessons Learned from the International Atomic Energy Agency Model Intercomparisons. Risk Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Macharis, C., Springael, J., DeBrucker, K., Verbeke, A., 2003, PROMETHEE and AHP: The Design of Operational Synergies in Multicriteria Analysis. Strengthening PROMETHEE With Ideas of AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Males, R. M., 2002, Beyond Expected Value: Making decisions under risk and uncertainty. RMM Technical Services, under contract to Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. IWR Report.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Marttunen, M. and Hamalainen, R. P., 1995, Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research, 87, 551–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Matsatsinis, N. F. and Samaras, A. P., 2001, MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 414–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. McDaniels, T. L., 1995, Using judgment in Resource Management: a multiple objective analysis of a fisheries management decision. Operations Research, 43, 3, 415–426.

    Google Scholar 

  58. McDaniels, T. L. and Roessler, C., 1998, Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach. Ecological Economics, 27, 299–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R. S., Fields, D., 1999, Democratizing Risk Management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis, 19, 3, 497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Miettinen, P., and Hamalainen, R. P., 1997. How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA). European Journal of Operational Research, 102(2), 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Mendoza, G. A., Anderson, A. B. (U.S. Army ERDC), Gertner, G. Z., 2002, Integrating Multi-Criteria Analysis and GIS for Land Condition Assessment: Part 2 — Allocation of Military Training Areas. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, 6, 1, 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Morgan, M. G., Florig, H. K., DeKay, M. L., & Fischbeck, P. S. (2000). Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Analysis, 20, 49–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., Atman, C. J., 2002, Risk Communication. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. National Research Council. 1999. New Directions in Water Resources Planning for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. National Academy Press. Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Parnell, G. S., Frimpon, M., Barnes, J., Kloeber, Jr., J.M., Deckro, R. F., Jackson, J. A., 2001, Safety Risk Analysis of an Innovative Environmental Technology. Risk Analysis 21-1, 143–155.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Pavlikakis, G. E., Tsihrintzis, V. A., 2003, A quantitative method for accounting human opinion, preferences and perceptions in ecosystem management. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Peer Review Committee of the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), 1999, Peer Review of the U. S. Department of Energy’s use of risk in its prioritization process.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Pereira, A.G., Quintana, S.C., 2002, From Technocratic to Participatory Decision Support Systems: Responding to the New Governance Initiatives. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 2002, Vol., 6, No. 2, pp. 95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Peterson, D., Silsbee, D., Schmoldt, D., 1994, A Case Study of Resources Management Planning with Multiple Objectives and Projects. Environmental Management Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 729–742.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Prato, T., 2003, Multiple-attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River system. Ecological Economics, 45, 297–309. Available online at sciencedirect.com.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ralston, B. E., Jackson, J. A., Kloeber, Jr., J. M., Deckro, R. F., 1996, Development of a Decision Support System for the Department of Energy’s Selection of Waste Remediation Technologies. Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis Technical Report 96-02, 1–123.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ramanathan, R., 2001, A note on the use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process for Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 63, 27–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Rauscher, H.M., Lloyd, F.T., Loftis, D.L., Twery, M. J., 2000, A practical decision-analysis process for forest ecosystem management. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 27 (2000) 195–226.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Rogers, M. and Bruen, M., 1998, Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE. European Journal of Operational Research, 107, 542–551.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Rogers, M. and Bruen, M., 1998, A new system for weighting environmental criteria for use within ELECTRE III. European Journal of Operational Research, 107, 552–563.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Schmoldt, D., Mendoza, G.A., Kangas, J., 2001, Past Developments and Future Directions for the AHP in Natural Resources. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making, 289–305.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Schmoldt, D. L. and Peterson, D. L., 2001a, Efficient Group Decision Making in Workshop Settings. The Analytical Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making, 97–114.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Schmoldt, D., and Peterson, D., 2001b, Strategic and Tactical Planning for Managing National Park Resources. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making, 67–79.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Schmoldt, D., Peterson, D., Silsbee, D., 1994, Developing Inventory and Monitoring Programs Based on Multiple Objectives. Environmental Management Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 707–727.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Schreck, F., 2002, Multi-Criteria decision aid as a tool in the management of produced water in the offshore Oil Industry. Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Seppala, J., Basson, L., Norris, G.A., 2002, Decision Analysis Frameworks for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 5, No. 4., pp. 45–68.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Sharifi, M.A., Van Den Toorn, W., Emmanuel, M., 2002, International Institute for Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Siddiqui, M., Everett, J., Vieux, B., 1996, Landfill Siting Using Geographic Information Systems: A Demonstration. Journal of Environmental Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Simon, M., and Pascoe, S., 1999, A review of applications of multiple criteria decision-making techniques to fisheries. Marine Resource Economics, 14, 41–63.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Stahl, C. H., Cimorelli, A. J., Chow, A. H., 2002, A new approach to Environmental Decision Analysis: Multi-Criteria Integrated Resource Assessment (MIRA). Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 22, 6, 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Stahl, C. H., 2003, Multi-criteria Integrated Resource Assessment (MIRA): A New Decision Analytic Approach to Inform Environmental Policy Analysis. Vol 1. Dissertation submitted to Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Affairs and Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Steiguer, J.E., Liberti L., Schuler, A., Hansen, B., 2003. Multi-Criteria Decision Models for Forestry and Natural Resources Management: An Annotated Bibliography. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-307.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Store, R., and Kangas, J., 2001. Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modeling. Landscape and Urban Planning 55 (2001) 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Timmerman, T. J., Kloeber, Jr., J. M., Jackson, J.A., Deckro, R. F., 1996, Selecting Remediation Technologies Through a ‘Technical Risk’ Index: An Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory. Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis Technical Report 96-01.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Top-to-Bottom Review Team, February 2002, A Review of the Environmental Management Program. Presented to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U. S. DOE.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Tran, L., Knight, C.G., O’Neill, R., Smith, E., Ritters, K., Wickham, J., 2002, Environmental Assessment Fuzzy Decision Analysis for Integrated Environmental Vulnerability Assessment of the Mid-Atlantic Region. Environmental Management Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 845–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002. Civil Works Program Strategic Plan. (http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/strategicplan.htm)

  93. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003a. USACE Environmental Operating Principles and Implementation Guidance. (http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/CEPA/7%20Environ%20Prin%20web%20site/Page1.html)

  94. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003b. Planning Civil Works Projects under the Environmental Operating Principles. Circular 1105-2-404. (http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-circulars/ec1105-2-404/entire.pdf)

  95. U. S. DOE, Environmental Assessment Division. http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/home2/.

  96. U. S. EPA, October 2000, Framework for Responsible Environmental Decision-Making (FRED): Using life cycle assessment to evaluate preferability of products. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, Research Triangle Institute, EcoSense Inc., Roy F. Weston Inc., Five Winds International. EPA/600/R-00/095.

    Google Scholar 

  97. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Special Review, 2002. Consistency and Transparency in Determination of EPA’s Anticipated Ozone Designations. Report no. 2002-S-00016.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Vaillancourt, K. and Waaub, J. P., 2002, Environmental site evaluation of waste management facilities embedded into EUGENE model: A multicriteria approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 139, 436–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Vincke, P., 1992, Multi-Criteria Decision-Aid. John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Wakeman, J. S., 2003 (check?), Decision Analysis based upon implementability of action alternatives at Milltown Dam: Attachment A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. (full reference not given. Received as an email attachment)

    Google Scholar 

  101. Wang, T. A., and McTernan, W. F., 2002, The development and application of a multilevel decision analysis model for the remediation of contaminated groundwatcr under uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Management, 64, 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Werrick, W.J., and Whipple, W, 1994. Managing Water for Drought: National Study of Water Management for Drought. US Army Corps of Engineers — Institute of Water Resources Report (IWR) Report NDS-94-8.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Werrick, W.J., and Whipple, W., and Lund, J., 1996. Basinwide Management of Water in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basins: Draft Report. US Army Corps of Engineers — Institute of Water Resources (IWR).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Whitaker, K and Focht, W., 2001, Expert Modeling of Environmental Impacts. OPS Special Issue: Environmental Policy in Oklahoma, 10: 179–186.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Zio, E. and Apostolakis, 1998, Sensitivitiy and Uncertainty Analysis Within A Methodology for Evaluating Environmental Restoration Technologies. N. H. Elsevier, Computer Physics Communications 117 (1999), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ICF Consulting, 33 Hayden Ave., Lexington, MA, 02421, USA

    I. Linkov, A. Varghese & S. Jamil

  2. Center for Contaminated Sediments Research, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USA

    T. P. Seager

  3. Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd, Vicksburg, MS, 39180, USA

    G. Kiker & T. Bridges

Authors
  1. I. Linkov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Varghese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Jamil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. P. Seager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Kiker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. T. Bridges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ICF Consulting, Lexington, MA, USA

    Igor Linkov

  2. Cambridge Environmental, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA

    Igor Linkov

  3. Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority, Cairo, Egypt

    Abou Bakr Ramadan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this paper

Cite this paper

Linkov, I., Varghese, A., Jamil, S., Seager, T.P., Kiker, G., Bridges, T. (2004). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Framework for Structuring Remedial Decisions at Contaminated Sites. In: Linkov, I., Ramadan, A.B. (eds) Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making. Nato Science Series: IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences, vol 38. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2243-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation