Prioritizing stakeholder concerns in environmental risk management

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 11-29

  Accorsi, Roberto ^a   Apostolakis, George ^a   Zio, Enrico ^a,b  

^a Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge   (United States)

^b POLITECNICO DI MILANO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039926415     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/136698799376961     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Advanced Sciences, Inc., Beta Corporation International, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New Mexico State University, and QuantiSci, Inc. (1997), Risk Communication, Assessment, and Management at Hazardous Waste Sites, Final Technical Report to the US Department of Energy.
2. Apostolakis, G.E. and Pickett, S.E. (1998) Deliberation: integrating analytical results into environmental decisions, Risk A nalysis, accepted for publication.
3. Belton, V. and Gear, T. (1983) On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies, Omega 11, 228-30.
4. Clemen, R.T. (1991) Making Hard Decisions, Belmont, California: Duxbury Press.
5. Dyer, J. S. (1990a) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process, Management Science 36, 249-58.
6. Dyer, J. S. (1990b) A clarification of ‘Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process’, M anagement Science 36, 274-75.
7. Edwards, W. and Newman, J.R. (1986) Multiattribute evaluation, in: H.R. Arkes, and K.R. Hammond, (eds), Judgment and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader Cambridge University Press.
8. Fichtner, J. (1986) On deriving priority vectors from matrices of pairwise comparisons, SocioEconomic Planning Science, 20, 341-45.
9. Forman, E.H. (1986) Facts and fictions about the analytic hierarchy process, Mathematical and Computer Modeling 17, 4-5.
10. Gregory, R. and Keeney, R.L. (1994) Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values, Management Science 40, 1035-48.
11. Harker, P.T. and Vargas, L.G. (1990) Reply to ‘Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process’, Management Science 36 269-73.
12. Holder, R.D. (1990) Some comments on the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of the Operational Research Society 41, 1073-76.
13. Hong, Y. and Apostolakis, G.E. (1993) Conditional influence diagrams in risk management, Risk Analysis 13, 625-36.
14. Kadvany, J. (1995) From comparative risk to decision analysis: ranking solutions to multiple- value environmental problems, Risk 6, 333-58.
15. Keeney, R. (1981) Analysis of preference dependencies among objectives, Operations Research 29, 1105-20.
16. Keeney, R.L. and von Winterfeldt, D. (1994) Managing nuclear waste from power plants, Risk Analysis 14, 107-30.
17. Merkhofer, M.W. and Keeney, R.L. (1987) A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear waste, Risk Analysis 7, 173-94.
18. National Research Council (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. Saaty, T.L. (1987) Rank generation, preservation, and reversal in the analytic hierarchy process, Decision Science 18, 157-77.
20. Saaty, T.L. (1990) An exposition of AHP in reply to the paper ‘Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process’, Management Science 36, 259-68.
21. Saaty, T. L. (1996) The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
22. Zio, E. and Apostolakis, G.E. (1998) Application of sensitivity analysis to environmental management, in Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output, SAMO98, Venice, April, pp. 333-36.