Top

Group Decision and Negotiation

Published in:

01-11-2015

Implementing a Multiple Criteria Model to Debate About Nuclear Power Plants Safety Choices

Author: F. Beaudouin

Published in: Group Decision and Negotiation | Issue 6/2015

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to present a model that supports debate about nuclear safety measurement within the operator’ organization. This model concentrates on cognitive aspects specific to debate. For that purpose, it describes the construction of a multiattribute function that aims to give experts’ judgments about six safety criteria. These criteria cover the safety performances of power plant design modifications. An extension of this model based on Choquet’s integral is then given in order to improve the descriptive performance of the multiple criteria model. Lastly, we investigate its implementation in the context of group decision.

previous article Preference Elicitation for Group Decisions Using the Borda Voting Rule

next article Comparison of Geodesign Tools to Communicate Stakeholder Values

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

Atherton E, Bedford T, French S, Supporting ALARP (2005) Decision making by cost benefit analysis and multiattribute utility theory. J Risk Res 8:207–223CrossRef

Beaudouin F, Brac P, Dubreuil-Chambardel A (2011) Handling multiple criteria to assess safety benefits of modifications. DPSA 3–5 october Espoo, Finland

Calle-Vives P, Dubreuil-Chambardel A, Beaudouin, Domecq C, Vasseur D (2008) Review of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) methodology for decision-making related to safety modifications. PSAM09

Chateauneuf A, Jaffray JY (1989) Some characterizations of lower probabilities and other monotone capacities through the use of Möbius Inversion. Math Soc Sci 17:263–283CrossRef

Cooke R (1991) Experts in uncertainty. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Dubreuil-Chambardel A, Roux JP, Gimet-Meca N (2005) The technico-economic optimization of the improvement of the safety level of the PWR 900 MWe units for their third ten-yearly outage thanks to the cost—benefit analysis. Eurosafe 7–8 November Brussels, Belgium

French S (2012) Expert judgment, meta-analysis and participatory risk analysis. Decis Anal 9:119–127CrossRef

Geldermann J, Bertsch V, Treitz M, French S, Papamichail KN, Hämäläinen R (2009) Multi-criteria decision support and evaluation of strategies for nuclear remediation management. Omega 37:238–251CrossRef

Grabisch M (1997) k-Order additive discrete fuzzy measures and their representation. Fuzzy Sets Syst 2:167–189CrossRef

Grabisch M, Kojadinovic I, Meyer P (2006) Kappalab: non additive measure and integral manipulation functions. R package version 0.3. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/kappalab

Grabisch M, Kojadinovic I, Meyer P (2008) A review of methods for capacity identification in Choquet integral based multiattribute utility theory applications of the Kappalab R package. Eur J Oper Res 186:766–785CrossRef

Grabisch M, Labreuche C (2008) A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid. Q J Oper Res 6:1–44CrossRef

Hämäläinen RP, Lindstedt MRK, Sinkko K (2000) Multiattribute risk analysis in nuclear emergency management. Risk Anal 20:455–467CrossRef

Hämäläinen R, Sloote S (2012) Decision structuring dialogue. GDN 20–24 May Recife, Brazil

Jacquet-Lagrèze E, Siskos Y (1982) Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multiple crieteria decision-making: the UTA method. Eur J Oper Res 10:151–164CrossRef

Keefer DL, Kirkwood CW, Corner JL (2002) Summary of decision analysis applications in the operations research literature, 1990–2000. Decision analysis, Department of Supply Chain Management. Arizona State University, Arizona

Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decision with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

Kojadinovic I (2007) Quadratic distances for capacity and bi-capacity approximation and identification. Q J Oper Res 5:117–142

Krantz DH, Luce RD, Suppes P, Tversky A (1971) Foundations of measurement, volume 1: additive and polynomial representations. Academic Press, New York

Lassagne M, Vivalda C (2001) A formal method to balance safety requirements and regularity of fast ships. FAST, Southampton, United Kingdom

Liginlal D, Ow T (2006) Modeling attitude to risk in human decision processes: an application of fuzzy measures. Fuzzy Sets Syst 157:3040–3054CrossRef

Marichal JL (1998) Aggregation operators for multicriteria decision aid, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Liege, Belgium

Marichal JL (2000) An axiomatic approach of the discrete Choquet Integral as a tool to aggregate interacting criteria. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8:800–897CrossRef

Martello S, Toth P (1990) Knapsack problems: algorithms and computer interpretations. Wiley Interscience, New Jersey

Munier B (2002) Risk attitude appraisal and cognitive coordination in decentralized decision systems. In: Bouyssou Denis (ed) Aiding decisions with multiple criteria, essays in honor of Bernard Roy. Kluwer Acadamic Publishers, Dordrecht

Munier B (2012) Saving face as the main rationale for action in identity conflicts. GDN 20–24 May Recife, Brazil

Murofushi T, Soneda S (1993) Techniques for reading fuzzy measures: interaction index. Ninth fuzzy system symposium, Sapporo, Japan

NEA/CSNI/R (2002) The use and development of probabilistic assessment in NEA member countries. 18

Rapoport A (1960) Fights, games and debates. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

Saltiel DH, Cleary VD, Rexroth PE, Rochau GE, Greneche D, Ng S, Charlton WS, Ford D (2007) Testing and assessment of inputs for proliferation assessment tools. International conference on advanced nuclear fuel cycles and systems, Boise, Idaho

Shapley LS (1953) A value for n-person games. In: Kuhn HW, Tucker AW (eds) Contributions to the theory of games, vol II, annals of mathematics studies, 28. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Title: Implementing a Multiple Criteria Model to Debate About Nuclear Power Plants Safety Choices
Author: F. Beaudouin
Publication date: 01-11-2015
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Group Decision and Negotiation / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 0926-2644
Electronic ISSN: 1572-9907
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9428-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

Heterogeneous Actor and Everyday Life as Key Concepts of Evergetics

Multinomial Probabilistic Values

The Influence of Top Management Team Conflict on Firm Innovativeness

Comparison of Geodesign Tools to Communicate Stakeholder Values

Preference Elicitation for Group Decisions Using the Borda Voting Rule

Bounded Benefits of Representative Cooperativeness in Intergroup Negotiations

Premium Partner