Environmental Decision Making Involving Multiple Stakeholders

  • G. E. Apostolakis
Part of the NATO Science Series book series (NAIV, volume 4)


The management of environmental programs often involves several stakeholders with diverse, and often conflicting, concerns. In the United States, the National Research Council has recommended the use of an analytic/deliberative decision-making process for environmental restoration decisions that involve multiple stakeholders. This work implements this process by using the results of risk assessment and multiattribute utility analysis for each stakeholder to guide the deliberation. Based on the preferences of each stakeholder as revealed by the analysis, a number of proposals are prepared for consideration by the stakeholders during the deliberation. These proposals are the starting point for the formulation of actual recommendations by the group. In our case study, these recommendations included new remedial action alternatives that were created by the stakeholders after an extensive discussion of the detailed analytical results.


Impact Category Prefer Alternative Tentative Conclusion Site Owner Soil Vapor Extraction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    National Research Council (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonano, E.J., Apostolakis, G. E., Salter, P.F., Ghassemi, A., and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Accorsi, R., Apostolakis, G., and Zio, E., (1999), “Prioritizing Stakeholder Concerns in Environmental Risk Management,” Journal of Risk Research 2, 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Accorsi, R., Zio, E., and Apostolakis, G.E. (1999) “Developing Utility Functions for Environmental Decision Making,” Progress in Nuclear Energy 34, 387–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zio, E., and Apostolakis, G.E. (1999) “Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis within a Methodology for Evaluating Environmental Restoration Technologies,” Computer Physics Communications 117, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Apostolakis, G.E., and Pickett, S.E. (1998) “Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders,” Risk Analysis 18, 621–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Apostolakis, G., and Bonano, E. (1998) “On Stakeholder Involvement in Environmental Restoration,” in: A. Mosleh and R.A. Bari, Editors, Proceedings of PSAM 4, Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management,New York City, 13–18 September 1998, vol. 3, pp. 1768–1773, Springer-Verlag, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gregory, R., and Keeney, R.L. (1994) “Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values,” Management Science 40, 1035–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kazarians, M., Apostolakis, G., and Siu, N. (1985) “Risk Management Application of Fire Risk Analysis,” Fire Safety Science, C. E. Grant and P. J. Pagni, Editors, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York. 1039–1046.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. E. Apostolakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Depat huent of Nuclear EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of Technology CambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations