Abstract
This project investigates the utility of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) as a tool for testing stakeholder responses to and improving expert assessment of innovative contaminated sediments technologies. Within the broader context of environmental decision-making theory, this case study focuses on a planned dredging project in Dover, New Hampshire where sediments containing PAHs and heavy metals will be removed from 2.7 miles of the Cocheco River (a navigable estuary). Faced with limited alternatives for dredged material disposal, local officials decided to place the contaminated materials in a sealed and lined disposal cell in a riparian area. However, the decision process employed (process of elimination) may have been severely taxed by innovative technological alternatives. To assess the feasibility of innovative technologies in this case, a group of stakeholders with a vested interest in the materials management decision were queried about the basic criteria they would apply to assessing decision alternatives, experts at the Center for Contaminated Sediments Research (CCSR) at the University of New Hampshire provided performance estimates related to those criteria, and an MCDA outranking study identified those stakeholder groups likely be in conflict or willing to reach consensus. Of the three innovative technologies tested, one was found to be unsuitable for this site while two others were likely to have support from different stakeholder groups. Those groups with strongly held views were modeled with the greatest confidence while groups with less strongly expressed preferences may be satisfied by more than one alternative and have a greater willingness to compromise.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
6. References
USEPA. 2000. Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-making. USEPA Science Advisory Board: Washington DC. EPA-SAB-EC-00-011.
Linkov I, Varghese A, Jamil S, Seager TP, Kiker G, Bridges T. 2004. Multi-criteria decision analysis: Framework for applications in remedial planning for contaminated sites. In Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making. Linkov I, Ramadan A, eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston MA.
Seager TP, Lambert JH, Gardner KH. 2005. Fostering innovation in contaminated sediments management through multi-criteria technology assessment and public participation. Risk Analysis. Under review.
Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I. 2004. Application of multi-criteria decision analysis to environmental decision-making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 1(2):95–108.
Stahl CH, Cimorelli AJ, Chow AH. 2002. A new approach to environmental decision analysis: Multicriteria integrated resource assessment (MIRA). Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. 22(6):443–459.
Stahl CH. 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.
Nelson R. 1987. The economics profession and the making of public policy. J Economic Literature. 25(1):49–91.
Beierle T, Cayford J. 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Resources for the Future: Washington, DC
Sagoff M. 1988. The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law, and the Environment (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Public Policy). Cambridge U Press: Cambridge UK.
Diduck A, Sinclair J. 2002. Public involvement in environmental assessment: The case of the nonparticipant. Environmental Management. 29(4):578–588.
Wood C. 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment A Comparative Review. Longman Scientific & Technical: Essex England.
NRC 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Stern P, Fineberg H, eds. National Academy Press: Washington DC.
Borsuk M, Clemen R, Maguire L, Reckhow K. 2001. Stakeholder values and scientific modeling in the Neuse river watershed. Group Decision and Negotiation. 10(4):355–373.
McDaniels T, Roessler C. 1998. Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: A constructive approach. Ecological Economics. 27(3):299–312.
Gregory R. 2000. Valuing environmental policy options: A case study comparison of multiattribute and contingent valuation survey methods. Land Economics. 76(2):151–173.
Ananda J, Herath G. 2003. Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach. Ecological Economics. 45(1):75–90.
Gregory R, Wellman K. 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: A community-based estuary case study. Ecological Economics. 39:37–52.
Gregory R, Keeney R. 1994. Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Management Science. 40(8):1035–1048.
Wilson M, Howarth R. 2002. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: Establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecological Economics. 41:431–443.
Belton V, Steward T. 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht NL.
Rogers SH, Seager TP, Gardner KH. 2004. Combining expert judgment and stakeholder values with PROMETHEE: A case study in contaminated sediments management. In Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making. Linkov I, Ramadan A, eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston MA.
NHDES. 2001. Wetland Permit Application. File #2001-932
Dunn K. 2000. Interviewing. In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Hay I, ed. Oxford University Press: Oxford UK.
Lahdelma R, Salminen P, Hokkanen J. 2000. Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environmental Management. 26(6):595–605.
Visual Decision, Inc. 2000. See documentation for Decision Lab 2000 on-line http://www.visualdecision.com/
Brans J, Mareschal B. 1994. How to decide with PROMETHEE. http://www.visualdecision.com/Pdf/How%20to%20use%20PROMETHEE.pdf
Brans JP, Vincke PH. 1985. A preference ranking organisation method: The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making. Mgt. Sci. 31(6):647–656.
Seager TP. 2004. Understanding industrial ecology and the multiple dimensions of sustainability. In Strategic Environmental Management by O’Brien and Gere Engineers. John Wiley & Sons: New York NY. ISBN: 0-471-09221-5.
Salminen P, Hokkanen J, Lahdelma R. 1998. Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems. European J Operational Res. 104(3):485–496.
Lahdelma R, Salminen P. 2002. Pseudo-criteria vs. linear utility function in stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis. European J Operational Res. 141(2):454–469.
Geldermann J, Zhang K. 2001. Software review: ‘Decision Lab 2000’. J Multi-criteria Decision Analysis. 10(6):17–323.
Lahdelma R, Hokkanen J, Salminen P. 1998. SMAA — stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. European J. Operational Research. 106(1):137–143.
Lahdelma R, Salminen P. 2001. SMAA-2: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Operations Research. 49(3):444–454.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer
About this paper
Cite this paper
Seager, T.P., Rogers, S.H., Gardner, K., Linkov, I., Howarth, R. (2006). Coupling Public Participation and Expert Judgment for Assessment of Innovative Contaminated Sediment Technologies. In: Morel, B., Linkov, I. (eds) Environmental Security and Environmental Management: The Role of Risk Assessment. NATO Security through Science Series, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3893-3_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3893-3_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3891-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-3893-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)