IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v34y2014i1d10.1007_s10669-013-9487-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A geophysical perspective of value of information: examples of spatial decisions for groundwater sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Whitney J. Trainor-Guitton

    (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

Abstract

The value of information (VOI) can be used to determine what kind of spatial information maybe relevant and useful for groundwater sustainability decisions. In this paper, the unique challenges for applying VoI to spatial information from geophysical data are described. The uncertainty regarding the spatial structure or continuity of the subsurface properties can be described with geostatistical sample models. Using these models, one can quantify the prior value given our present state of uncertainty and a set of decision alternatives and outcomes. Because geophysical techniques are a type of remote-sensing data, assuming “perfect” information is not realistic since the techniques usually are indirectly sampling the aquifer properties. Therefore, the focus of this paper is describing how the data reliability (the measure of imperfectness) can be quantified. One of the foremost considerations is the non-unique relationship between geological parameters (which determine groundwater flow) and geophysical observables (what determines the response of the technique). Another is to have the information in a form such that it is useful for spatial decisions. This will often require inversion and interpretation of the geophysical data. Inversion reconstructs an image of the subsurface from the raw geophysical data. How closely the image reproduces the true subsurface structure or property of interest depends on the particular technique’s resolution, depth of investigation and sensor locations. Lastly, in some cases, interpretation of the geophysical data or inversion will be necessary to link the data to the variables that determine the outcome of the decision. Three examples are provided that illustrate different approaches and methods for addressing these challenges. In the examples, time-domain electromagnetic and electrical resistivity techniques are evaluated for their ability to assist in spatial decisions for aquifer management. The examples considered address these three situations: aquifer vulnerability to surface–borne contaminants, managed aquifer recharge and CO2/brine leakage (related to CO2 geologic sequestration activities). The methods presented here are transferable to other subsurface sciences and decisions that involve risk. Recent work has been applied to geothermal well-siting using electromagnetic techniques. These approaches can also be applied for oil and mining spatial decisions, and they offer advantages over previous VOI work done for oil applications: they explicitly include the geologic uncertainty modeling and simulate the physics of the considered geophysical technique.

Suggested Citation

  • Whitney J. Trainor-Guitton, 2014. "A geophysical perspective of value of information: examples of spatial decisions for groundwater sustainability," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 124-133, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:34:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-013-9487-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-013-9487-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-013-9487-9
    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/s10669-013-9487-9?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. J. Eric Bickel, 2008. "The Relationship Between Perfect and Imperfect Information in a Two-Action Risk-Sensitive Problem," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 116-128, September.
    2. Hilton, Rw & Swieringa, Rj & Hoskin, Re, 1981. "Perception Of Accuracy As A Determinant Of Information Value," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 86-108.
    3. Ronald W. Hilton, 1981. "The Determinants of Information Value: Synthesizing Some General Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 57-64, January.
    4. Debarun Bhattacharjya & Jo Eidsvik & Tapan Mukerji, 2013. "The Value of Information in Portfolio Problems with Dependent Projects," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 341-351, December.
    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. Zou, Guang & Faber, Michael Havbro & González, Arturo & Banisoleiman, Kian, 2021. "Computing the value of information from periodic testing in holistic decision making under uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    2. Jeffrey M. Keisler, 2014. "Value of information: facilitating targeted information acquisition in decision processes," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 1-2, March.

    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. Adam Fleischhacker & Pak-Wing Fok & Mokshay Madiman & Nan Wu, 2023. "A Closed-Form EVSI Expression for a Multinomial Data-Generating Process," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 73-84, March.
    2. Debarun Bhattacharjya & Léa A. Deleris, 2014. "The Value of Information in Some Variations of the Stopping Problem," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 189-203, September.
    3. Vilkkumaa, Eeva & Liesiö, Juuso & Salo, Ahti, 2014. "Optimal strategies for selecting project portfolios using uncertain value estimates," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 772-783.
    4. Philippe Delquié, 2008. "The Value of Information and Intensity of Preference," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 129-139, September.
    5. Jafarizadeh, Babak, 2012. "Information acquisition as an American option," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 807-816.
    6. Debarun Bhattacharjya & Jo Eidsvik & Tapan Mukerji, 2013. "The Value of Information in Portfolio Problems with Dependent Projects," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 341-351, December.
    7. James K. Hammitt & Alexander I. Shlyakhter, 1999. "The Expected Value of Information and the Probability of Surprise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 135-152, February.
    8. Niyazi Onur Bakir, 2015. "Monotonicity of the Selling Price of Information with Risk Aversion in Two Action Decision Problems," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 7(2), pages 71-90, June.
    9. James E. Smith & Canan Ulu, 2017. "Risk Aversion, Information Acquisition, and Technology Adoption," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1011-1028, August.
    10. Ali E. Abbas & N. Onur Bakır & Georgia-Ann Klutke & Zhengwei Sun, 2013. "Effects of Risk Aversion on the Value of Information in Two-Action Decision Problems," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 257-275, September.
    11. Zou, Guang & Faber, Michael Havbro & González, Arturo & Banisoleiman, Kian, 2021. "Computing the value of information from periodic testing in holistic decision making under uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    12. Sun, Zhengwei & Hupman, Andrea C. & Abbas, Ali E., 2021. "The value of information for price dependent demand," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(2), pages 511-522.
    13. Hans Olav Vogt Myklebust & Jo Eidsvik & Iver Bakken Sperstad & Debarun Bhattacharjya, 2020. "Value of Information Analysis for Complex Simulator Models: Application to Wind Farm Maintenance," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 134-153, June.
    14. Zhengwei Sun & Ali E. Abbas, 2014. "On the sensitivity of the value of information to risk aversion in two-action decision problems," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 24-37, March.
    15. Yan, Ruiliang & Ghose, Sanjoy, 2010. "Forecast information and traditional retailer performance in a dual-channel competitive market," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 77-83, January.
    16. Messina, C. D. & Hansen, J. W. & Hall, A. J., 1999. "Land allocation conditioned on El Nino-Southern Oscillation phases in the Pampas of Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 197-212, June.
    17. L. Robin Keller & Ali Abbas & Manel Baucells & Vicki M. Bier & David Budescu & John C. Butler & Philippe Delquié & Jason R. W. Merrick & Ahti Salo & George Wu, 2010. "From the Editors..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 327-330, December.
      • L. Robin Keller & Manel Baucells & Kevin F. McCardle & Gregory S. Parnell & Ahti Salo, 2007. "From the Editors..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 173-175, December.
      • L. Robin Keller & Manel Baucells & John C. Butler & Philippe Delquié & Jason R. W. Merrick & Gregory S. Parnell & Ahti Salo, 2008. "From the Editors..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 173-176, December.
      • L. Robin Keller & Manel Baucells & John C. Butler & Philippe Delquié & Jason R. W. Merrick & Gregory S. Parnell & Ahti Salo, 2009. "From the Editors ..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 199-201, December.
    18. Jeffrey M. Keisler, 2005. "Additivity of Information Value in Two‐Act Linear Loss Decisions with Normal Priors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 351-359, April.
    19. Graham R. Marshall & Kevin A. Parton & G.L. Hammer, 1996. "Risk Attitude, Planting Conditions And The Value Of Seasonal Forecasts To A Dryland Wheat Grower," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(3), pages 211-233, December.
    20. Albers, Heidi & Fisher, Anthony & Hanemann, W., 1995. "Valuation and Management of Tropical Forests: Implications of Uncertainty and Irreversibility," CUDARE Working Papers 198641, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    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:34:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-013-9487-9. 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.