IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v33y2013i2d10.1007_s10669-013-9442-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertainty modelling in multi-criteria analysis of water safety measures

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Lindhe

    (Chalmers University of Technology)

  • Lars Rosén

    (Chalmers University of Technology)

  • Tommy Norberg

    (University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology)

  • Jon Røstum

    (SINTEF Building and Infrastructure)

  • Thomas J. R. Pettersson

    (Chalmers University of Technology)

Abstract

Water utilities must assess risks and make decisions on safety measures in order to obtain a safe and sustainable drinking water supply. The World Health Organization emphasises preparation of water safety plans, in which risk ranking by means of risk matrices with discretised probability and consequence scales is commonly used. Risk ranking enables prioritisation of risks, but there is currently no common and structured way of performing uncertainty analysis and using risk ranking for evaluating and comparing water safety measures. To enable a proper prioritisation of safety measures and an efficient use of available resources for risk reduction, two alternative models linking risk ranking and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) are presented and evaluated. The two models specifically enable uncertainty modelling in MCDA, and they differ in terms of how uncertainties in risk levels are considered. The need of formal handling of risk and uncertainty in MCDA is emphasised in the literature, and the suggested models provide innovations that are not dependent on the application domain. In the case study application presented here, possible safety measures are evaluated based on the benefit of estimated risk reduction, the cost of implementation and the probability of not achieving an acceptable risk level. Additional criteria such as environmental impact and consumer trust may also be included when applying the models. The case study shows how safety measures can be ranked based on preference scores or cost-effectiveness and how measures not reducing the risk enough can be identified and disqualified. Furthermore, the probability of each safety measure being ranked highest can be calculated. The two models provide a stepwise procedure for prioritising safety measures and enable a formalised handling of uncertainties in input data and results.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Lindhe & Lars Rosén & Tommy Norberg & Jon Røstum & Thomas J. R. Pettersson, 2013. "Uncertainty modelling in multi-criteria analysis of water safety measures," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 195-208, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:33:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-013-9442-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-013-9442-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-013-9442-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-013-9442-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, October.
    2. Stan Kaplan & Yacov Y. Haimes & B. John Garrick, 2001. "Fitting Hierarchical Holographic Modeling into the Theory of Scenario Structuring and a Resulting Refinement to the Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 807-807, October.
    3. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, April.
    4. Bernard Roy, 2005. "Paradigms and Challenges," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, chapter 0, pages 3-24, Springer.
    5. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    6. Theodor J Stewart, 2005. "Dealing with Uncertainties in MCDA," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, chapter 0, pages 445-466, Springer.
    7. Stefan Hajkowicz & Kerry Collins, 2007. "A Review of Multiple Criteria Analysis for Water Resource Planning and Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(9), pages 1553-1566, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas P. Seager & Zachary A. Collier & Igor Linkov & James H. Lambert, 2013. "Environmental sustainability, complex systems, and the disruptive imagination," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 181-183, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher W. Karvetski & James H. Lambert, 2012. "Evaluating deep uncertainties in strategic priority‐setting with an application to facility energy investments," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 483-493, December.
    2. Schneider, Frank, 2008. "Multiple criteria decision making in application layer networks," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 36, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    3. Mahdi Zarghami, 2010. "Urban Water Management Using Fuzzy-Probabilistic Multi-Objective Programming with Dynamic Efficiency," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(15), pages 4491-4504, December.
    4. Barry Charles Ezell, 2007. "Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I‐VAM)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 571-583, June.
    5. C Ram & G Montibeller & A Morton, 2011. "Extending the use of scenario planning and MCDA for the evaluation of strategic options," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(5), pages 817-829, May.
    6. Angilella, Silvia & Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Słowiński, Roman, 2016. "Robust Ordinal Regression and Stochastic Multiobjective Acceptability Analysis in multiple criteria hierarchy process for the Choquet integral preference model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 154-169.
    7. Mohammaddust, Faeghe & Rezapour, Shabnam & Farahani, Reza Zanjirani & Mofidfar, Mohammad & Hill, Alex, 2017. "Developing lean and responsive supply chains: A robust model for alternative risk mitigation strategies in supply chain designs," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(PC), pages 632-653.
    8. Ioannis Kougkoulos & M. Selim Cakir & Nathan Kunz & Doreen S. Boyd & Alexander Trautrims & Kornilia Hatzinikolaou & Stefan Gold, 2021. "A Multi‐Method Approach to Prioritize Locations of Labor Exploitation for Ground‐Based Interventions," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(12), pages 4396-4411, December.
    9. Jerzy Michnik & Artur Grabowski, 2020. "Modeling Uncertainty in the Wings Method Using Interval Arithmetic," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(01), pages 221-240, January.
    10. Regina Negri Pagani & João Luiz Kovaleski & Luis Mauricio Resende, 2015. "Methodi Ordinatio: a proposed methodology to select and rank relevant scientific papers encompassing the impact factor, number of citation, and year of publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2109-2135, December.
    11. Scholten, Lisa & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter & Lienert, Judit, 2015. "Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – An application to water supply infrastructure planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 243-260.
    12. Josephine Gatti Schafer & Caleb T Gallemore, 2016. "Biases in multicriteria decision analysis: The case of environmental planning in Southern Nevada," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1652-1675, December.
    13. Kaveh Madani & Laura Read & Laleh Shalikarian, 2014. "Voting Under Uncertainty: A Stochastic Framework for Analyzing Group Decision Making Problems," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(7), pages 1839-1856, May.
    14. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    15. James H. Lambert & Rachel K. Jennings & Nilesh N. Joshi, 2006. "Integration of risk identification with business process models," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 187-198, September.
    16. Roszkowska, Ewa & Wachowicz, Tomasz, 2015. "Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 920-932.
    17. Nikolaos Argyris & Alec Morton & José Rui Figueira, 2014. "CUT: A Multicriteria Approach for Concavifiable Preferences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 633-642, June.
    18. Miller, Michael & Mattes, Katharina, 2014. "Demonstration of a multi-criteria based decision support framework for selecting PSS to increase resource efficiency," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S11/2014, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    19. Roy, Bernard & Slowinski, Roman, 2008. "Handling effects of reinforced preference and counter-veto in credibility of outranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 188(1), pages 185-190, July.
    20. Catrinu, M.D. & Nordgård, D.E., 2011. "Integrating risk analysis and multi-criteria decision support under uncertainty in electricity distribution system asset management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(6), pages 663-670.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:33:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-013-9442-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.