Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Framework for Managing Contaminated Sediments

  • Conference paper
Strategic Management of Marine Ecosystems

Part of the book series: NATO Science Series IV: Earth and Environmental Series ((NAIV,volume 50))

Abstract

Decision-making in environmental projects can be complex and seemingly intractable, principally due to the inherent existence of tradeoffs between sociopolitical, environmental, and economic factors. One tool that has been used to support environmental decision-making is comparative risk assessment (CRA). Central to CRA is the construction of a two-dimensional decision matrix that contains project alternatives' scores on various criteria. The projects are then evaluated by either qualitatively comparing the projects' scores on the different criteria or by somehow quantitatively aggregating the criterion scores for each project and comparing the aggregate scores. Although CRA is laudable in its attempts to evaluate projects using multiple criteria, it has at least one significant drawback. That drawback is the unclear or unsupported way in which it combines performance on criteria to arrive at an optimal project alternative. In the case of qualitative comparison of project scores using CRA, it can be unclear why an alternative is chosen if it performs better only on some criteria compared to another alternative. Quantitative CRAs are often unsupported in how they determine the relative importance of each criterion in determining an aggregate score for each alternative.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

8. References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Accorsi, R., Zio, E., and 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. and Al-Shemmeri, T.T. (1999). Environmental impact assessment and ranking the environmental projects in Jordan. European Journal of Operational Research 18:30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Apostolakis, G.E. (2001). Assessment and Management of Environmental Risks. I. Linkov and J. Palma-Oliveira eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 211–220.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. Baker, D., Bridges, D., Hunter, R., Johnson, G., Krupa, J., Murphy, J., and Sorenson, K. (2001). Guidebook to decision-making methods. Developed for the Department of Energy. WSRC-IM-2002-00002.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bardos, P., Lewis, A., Nortcliff, S., Matiotti, C., Marot, F., and 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 

  8. Bella, A., Duckstein, L., and Szidarovszky, F. (1996). A multicriterion analysis of the water allocation conflict in the upper Rio Grande River basin. Applied Mathematics and Computation 77:245–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Belton, V. and Steward, T (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Borsuk, M., Clemen, R.L., Maguire, L.A., and Reckhow, K. (2001). Stakeholder values and scientific modeling in the Neuse River watershed. Group Decision and Negotiation 10:355–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bose, U., Davey, A.M., and Olson, D.L. (1997). Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision making: past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS. International Journal of Management Sciences 25(6):691–706.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Corporate Project 7 Team (2003). Assessment report. Corporate Project 7: A cleanup program driven by risk-based end states. U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Doley, T.M., Benelmoouffok, D., and Deschaine, L.M. (2001). Decision support for optimal watershed load allocation. Paper presented at the Society for Modeling and Simulation International Conference, Seattle, 22–26 April.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Driscoll, S.B.K., Wickwire, T.W., Cura, J.J., Vorhees, D.J., Butler, C.L., Moore, D.W., and Bridges, T.S. (2002). A comparative screening-level ecological and human health risk assessment for dredged material management alternatives in New York/New Jersey harbor. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8:603–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fernandes, L., Ridgley, M., and van't Hof, T. (1999). Multiple criteria analysis integrates economic, ecological and social objectives for coral reef managers. Coral Reefs 18(4):393–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Focht, W., DeShong, T., Wood, J., and 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 

  20. Gallego, E., Jiménez, A., Mateos, A., Sazykina, T., and Ríos-Insua, S. (2004). Application of Multiattribute Analysis (MAA) to search for optimum remedial strategies for contaminated lakes with the MOIRA system. Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of the International Radiation Protection Association, Madrid, 23–28 May.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ganoulis, J. (2003). Evaluating alternative strategies for wastewater recycling and reuse in the Mediterranean area. Water Science and Technology:Water Supply 3(4):11–19.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gregory, R., McDaniels, T., and 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 

  23. 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 

  24. 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 

  25. Grelk, B.J. (1997). A CERCLA-based decision support system for environmental remediation strategy selection. Department of the Air Force, Air Force Institute of Technology, Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gurocak, E.R. and Whittlesey, N.K. (1998). Multiple criteria decision making: a case study of the Columbia River salmon recovery plan. Environmental and Resource Economics 12(4):479–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hämäläinen, R.P., Kettunen, E., Ehtamo, H., and Marttunen, M. (2001). Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decision and Negotiation 10(4):331–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Herath, G. (2004). Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Environmental Management 70(3):263–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jenni, K.E., Merkhofer, M.W., and 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Joubert, A.R., Leiman, A., de Klerk, H.M., Katua, S., and Aggenbach, J.C. (1997). Fynbos (fine bush) vegetation and the supply of water: a comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis. Ecological Economics 22:123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kangas, J., Kangas, A., Leskinen, P., and 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 

  33. Kholghi, M. (2001). Multi-criterion decision-making tools for wastewater planning management. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 3:281–286.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Klauer, B., Drechsler, M., and Messner, F. (2002). Multi-criteria analysis more under uncertainty with IANUS — method and empirical results. UFZ discussion GmbH, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 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 

  36. Mardle, S. and Pascoe, S. (2002). Modeling the effects of trade-offs between long and short-term objectives in fisheries management. Journal of Environmental Management 65:49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mardle, S., Pascoe, S., and Herrero, I. (2004). Management objective importance in fisheries: an evaluation using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Environmental Management 33(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Marttunen, M. and Hämäläinen, R.P. (1995). Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research 87(3):551–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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 

  40. McDaniels, T. (1999). A decision analysis of the Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Preservation alternatives. Journal of Environmental Management 19(3):498–510.

    Google Scholar 

  41. McDaniels, T.L. (1995). Using judgment in resource management: an analysis of a fisheries management decision. Operations Research 43(3):415–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Merritt, M. (2001). Strategic plan for Salmon Research in the Kuskokwim River Drainage. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Division of Sport Fish. Special Publication No. 01-07.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 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 

  44. Mimi, Z.A. and Sawalhi, B.I. (2003). A decision tool for allocating the waters of the Jordan River Basin between all riparian parties. Water Resources Management 17:447–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., and Atman, C.J. (2002). Risk Communication. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 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 

  47. Ni, J.R., Borthwick, A.G.L., and Qin, H.P. (2002). Integrated approach to determining postreclamation coastlines. Journal of Environmental Engineering 128(6):543–551.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Ning, S.K. and Chang, N. (2002). Multi-objective, decision-based assessment of a water quality monitoring network in a river system. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 4:121–126.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2004). DLTR Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Manual. Available at http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_about/documents/page/odpm_about_608524-02.hcsp. Downloaded June 16, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Özelkan, E.C. and Duckstein, L. (1996). Analyzing water resources alternatives and handling criteria by multi criterion decision techniques. Journal of Environmental Management 48(1):69–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Parnell, G.S., Frimpon, M., Barnes, J., Kloeber, Jr., J.M., Deckro, R.F., and Jackson, J.A. (2001). Safety risk analysis of an innovative environmental technology. Risk Analysis 21(1):143–155.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Pavlou, S.P. and Stansbury, J.S. (1998). Risk-cost trade off considerations for contaminated sediment disposal. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 4(4):991–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pereira, A.G. and Quintana, S.C. (2002). From technocratic to participatory decision support systems: responding to the new governance initiatives. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 6(2):95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Prato, T. (2003). Multiple attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River. Ecological Economics 45:297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Qin, H.P., Ni, J.R., and Borthwick, A.G.L. (2002). Harmonized optimal postreclamation coastline for Deep Bay, China. Journal of Environmental Engineering 128(6):552–561.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Rogers, S.H., Seager, T.P., and Gardner, K.H. (2004). Combining expert judgement and stakeholder values with Promethee: a case study in contaminated sediments management. In:Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making. I. Linkov and A. Bakr Ramadan eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 305–322.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ríos-Insua, S., Gallego, E., Mateos, A., and Jiménez, A. (2002). A decision support system for ranking countermeasures for radionuclide contaminated aquatic ecosystems: the MOIRA project, p. 283–297.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Seppala, J., Basson, L., and Norris, G.A. (2002). Decision analysis frameworks for life-cycle impact assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 5(4):45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Soma, K. (2003). How to involve stakeholders in fisheries management—a country case study in Trinidad and Tobago. Marine Policy 27:47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Stahl, C.H., Cimorelli, A.J., and 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 

  61. 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 

  62. Stansbury, J., Member, P.E., Bogardi, I., and Stakhiv, E.Z. (1999). Risk-cost optimization under uncertainty for dredged material disposal. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 125(6):342–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (1983). Economic and environmental principles and guidelines for water and related land resources implementation studies.

    Google Scholar 

  64. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2003a). USACE environmental operating principles and implementation guidance. Available at http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/CEPA/7%20Environ%20Prin%20web%20site/Page1.html.

    Google Scholar 

  65. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2003b). Planning civil works projects under the environmental operating principles. Circular 1105-2-404. Available at http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-circulars/ec1105-2-404/entire.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  66. U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) (1998). Guidelines for risk-based prioritization of DOE activities. U.S. Department of Energy. DOE-DP-STD-3023-98.

    Google Scholar 

  67. U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) (2003). Policy DOE P 455.1 — Subject: use of risk-based end states. Initiated by Office of Environmental Management.

    Google Scholar 

  68. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (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 

  69. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2002). Consistency and transparency in determination of EPA's anticipated ozone designations. Report no. 2002-S-00016. Office of Inspector General, Special Review.

    Google Scholar 

  70. van Moeffaert, D. (2002). Multi-Criteria Decision Aid in Sustainable Urban Water Management. Masters thesis. Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Wakeman, J.B. (2003). &quote;RE: decision analysis.&quote; Email to Igor Linkov, dated April 4, 2003. Includes Attachment A: descision analysis based upon implementability of the action alternatives at Milltown Dam.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Whitaker, K. and Focht, W. (2001). Expert modeling of environmental impacts. Oklahoma Politics 10:179–186.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Wladis, D., Rosén, L., and Kros, H. (1999). Risk-based decision analysis of atmospheric emission alternatives to reduce ground water degradation on the European scale. Ground Water 37(6):818–826.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Yoe, C. (2002). Trade-Off Analysis Planning and Procedures Guidebook. Prepared for Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. April.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cambridge Environmental Inc., 58 Charles Street, Cambridge, MA, 02141, USA

    I. Linkov & S. Sahay

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

    G. Kiker & T. Bridges

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

    T.P. Seager

Authors
  1. I. Linkov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Sahay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Kiker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Bridges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T.P. Seager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Holon Academic Institute of Technology, Holon, Israel

    Eugene Levner

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

    Igor Linkov

  3. INRIA, Metz, France

    Jean-Marie Proth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer

About this paper

Cite this paper

Linkov, I., Sahay, S., Kiker, G., Bridges, T., Seager, T. (2005). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Framework for Managing Contaminated Sediments. In: Levner, E., Linkov, I., Proth, JM. (eds) Strategic Management of Marine Ecosystems. NATO Science Series IV: Earth and Environmental Series, vol 50. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3198-X_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation