Value of information analysis in remedial investigations

Ambio

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 486-493

  Back, Pär Erik ^a   Rosén, Lars ^b   Norberg, Tommy ^b  

^a Geo Innova AB   (Sweden)

^b CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; CONTAMINATED LAND; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; SITE INVESTIGATION;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECONOMICS; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

BAYES THEOREM; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

EID: 36148999481     PISSN: 00447447     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[486:VOIAIR]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Brundtland Commission. 1987. Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. A/42/427, United Nations, New York, 372 pp.
2. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Official website. (http://www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/Verksamheter-med-miljopaverkan/ Efterbehandling-av-fororenade-omraden/Laget-i-landet-efterbehandling/)
3. Freeze, R.A., Bruce, J., Massman, J., Sperling, T. and Smith, L. 1992. Hydrogeological decision analysis. 4. The concept of data worth and its use in the development of site investigation strategies. Ground Water 30, 574-588.
4. James, B.R. and Freeze, R.A. 1993. The worth of data in predicting aquitard continuity in hydrogeological design. Water Resourc. Res. 29, 2049-2065.
5. James, B.R. and Gorelick, S.M. 1994. When enough is enough: the worth of monitoring data in aquifer remediation design. Water Resourc. Res. 30, 3499-3513.
6. Abbaspour, K.C., Schulin, R., Schläppi, E. and Flühler, H. 1996. A Bayesian approach for incorporating uncertainty and data worth in environmental projects. Environ. Model. Assess. 1, 151-158.
7. James, B.R., Gwo, J.-P. and Toran, L. 1996a. Risk-cost decision framework for aquifer remediation design. J. Water Resourc. Plan. Manage. 122, 414-420.
8. IT Corporation. 1997. Value of Information Analysis for Corrective Action Unit no. 98: Frenchman Flat. DOE/NV/13052-T1, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 230 pp.
9. McNulty, G., Deshler, B, and Dove, H.IT Corporation. 1997. Value of Information Analysis; Nevada Test Site. CONF-970335-37, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 12 pp.
10. Russell, K.T. and Rabideau, A.J. 2000. Decision analysis for pump-and-treat design. Groundwater Monitor. Remediation Summer, 159-168.
11. Dakins, M.E., Toll, J.E. and Small, M.J. 1994. Risk-based environmental remediation: decision framework and role of uncertainty. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13, 1907-1915.
12. Dakins, M.E., Toll, J.E., Small, M.J. and Brand, K.P. 1996. Risk-based environmental remediation: Bayesian Monte Carlo analysis and the expected value of sample information. Risk Anal. 16, 67-79.
13. Rautman, C.A., McGraw, M.A., Istok, J.D., Sigda, J.M. and Kaplan, P.G. 1993. Probabilistic Comparison of Alternative Characterization Technologies at the Fernald Uranium-in-Soils Integrated Demonstration Project. SAND-93-4075C; CONF-940225-16. US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 11 pp.
14. James, B.R., Huff, D.D., Trabalka, J.R., Ketelle, R.H. and Rightmire, C.T. 1996. Allocation of environmental remediation funds using economic risk-cost-benefit analysis: a case study. Groundwater Monitor. Remediation Fall, 95-105.
15. Kaplan, P.G. 1998. A Tutorial: A Real-Life Adventure in Environmental Decision Making. US Department of Energy, The Center for Risk Excellence, Washington, DC (http://www.doe.gov/riskcenter/)
16. Demougeot-Renard, H., de Fouquet, C. and Renard, P. 2004, Forecasting the number of soil samples required to reduce remediation cost uncertainty. J. Environ. Qual. 33, 1694-1702.
17. Norberg, T. and Rosén, L. 2006. Calculating the optimal number of contaminant samples by means of data worth analysis. Environmetrics 17, 705-719.
18. Back, P.-E. 2007. A model for estimating the value of sampling programs and the optimal number of samples for contaminated soil. Environ. Geol. 52, 573-585.
19. Lindley, D.V. 1997. The choice of sample size. Statistician 46, 129-138.
20. Cox, L.A. 1999. Adaptive spatial sampling of contaminated soil. Risk Anal. 19, 1059-1069.
21. Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 320 pp.
22. Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 205 pp.
23. European Committee for Standardization. 2005. Characterization of Waste: Sampling of Waste Materials: Framework for the Preparation and Application of a Sampling Plan. EN 14899:2005, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 26 pp.
24. In this context, "society" includes both the problem owner and the rest of society.
25. Keeney, R.L. 1982. Decision analysis: an overview. Oper. Res. 30, 803-838.
26. Martignon, L.F. 2001. Principles of adaptive decision-making. In: Rational Decision-Making in the Preservation of Cultural Property. Baer, N.S. and Snickars, F. (eds). Dahlem University Press, Berlin, pp. 263-275.
27. Hintze, S. 1994. Risk Analysis in Foundation Engineering with Application to Piling in Loose Friction Soils in Urban Situations. TRITA-JOB, Report No. 94/2 Thesis. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
28. Norrman, J. 2004. On Bayesian Decision Analysis for Evaluating Alternative Actions at Contaminated Sites. PhD Thesis No. 2202, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
29. Morgan, M.G. and Henrion, M. 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 334 pp.
30. Lacasse, S. and Nadim, F. 1996. Uncertainties in characterising soil properties. In: Uncertainty in the Geologic Environment: From Theory to Practice. Schackelford, C.D., Nelson, P.P. and Roth, M.J.S. (eds). American Society of Civil Engineers, Madison, pp. 49-75.
31. Sturk, R. 1998. Engineering Geological Information: Its Value and Impact on Tunnelling. PhD Thesis. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
32. Bedford, T. and Cooke, R. 2001. Probabilistic Risk Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 414 pp.
33. Minasny, B. and McBratney, A.B. 2002. The efficiency of various approaches to obtaining estimates of soil hydraulic properties. Geoderma 107, 55-70.
34. In general economic terminology, something (e.g., a policy option) is regarded as cost-effective when it achieves some specified objective (e.g., an environmental quality objective) at the least possible cost.
35. Dawdy, D.R. 1979. The worth of hydrologic data. Water Resourc. Res. 15, 1726-1732.
36. Back, P.-E. 2006. Value of Information Analysis for Site Investigations in Remediation Projects. PhD Thesis No. 2551. Chalmers University of Technology. Göteborg, Sweden.
37. Freeze, R.A., Massman, J., Smith, L., Sperling, T. and James, B. 1990. Hydrogeological decision analysis. 1. A framework. Ground Water 28, 738-766.
38. Ferguson, C.C. and Abbachi, A. 1993. Incorporating expert judgement into statistical sampling designs for contaminated sites. Land Contamination and Reclamation 1 135-142.
39. Two different VOIA models are used in Figure 5, with slightly different results; see Back et al. (20).
40. Perman, R., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J. and Common, M. 2003. Natural Resource and Environmental Economies. Pearson Education, Harlow, 344 pp.
41. Acknowledgments: This work was performed at the Forum for Risk Investigation and Soil Treatment (FRIST) competence center at Chalmers (www.frist.chalmers.se). We thank Stena Metall AB and Renova AB for financial support.