IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v30y2010i7p1139-1156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison Between Probabilistic and Dempster‐Shafer Theory Approaches to Model Uncertainty Analysis in the Performance Assessment of Radioactive Waste Repositories

Author

Listed:
  • Piero Baraldi
  • Enrico Zio

Abstract

Model uncertainty is a primary source of uncertainty in the assessment of the performance of repositories for the disposal of nuclear wastes, due to the complexity of the system and the large spatial and temporal scales involved. This work considers multiple assumptions on the system behavior and corresponding alternative plausible modeling hypotheses. To characterize the uncertainty in the correctness of the different hypotheses, the opinions of different experts are treated probabilistically or, in alternative, by the belief and plausibility functions of the Dempster‐Shafer theory. A comparison is made with reference to a flow model for the evaluation of the hydraulic head distributions present at a radioactive waste repository site. Three experts are assumed available for the evaluation of the uncertainties associated with the hydrogeological properties of the repository and the groundwater flow mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Piero Baraldi & Enrico Zio, 2010. "A Comparison Between Probabilistic and Dempster‐Shafer Theory Approaches to Model Uncertainty Analysis in the Performance Assessment of Radioactive Waste Repositories," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1139-1156, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:30:y:2010:i:7:p:1139-1156
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01416.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01416.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01416.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Enrique López Droguett & Ali Mosleh, 2008. "Bayesian Methodology for Model Uncertainty Using Model Performance Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1457-1476, October.
    2. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1999. "Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 187-203, April.
    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. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    2. Shang Gao & Yong Deng, 2019. "An evidential evaluation of nuclear safeguards," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, , vol. 15(12), pages 15501477198, December.
    3. Piero Baraldi & Michele Compare & Enrico Zio, 2013. "Uncertainty analysis in degradation modeling for maintenance policy assessment," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(3), pages 267-278, June.
    4. Enrique López Droguett & Ali Mosleh, 2013. "Integrated treatment of model and parameter uncertainties through a Bayesian approach," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(1), pages 41-54, February.
    5. Edoardo Tosoni & Ahti Salo & Enrico Zio, 2018. "Scenario Analysis for the Safety Assessment of Nuclear Waste Repositories: A Critical Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 755-776, April.
    6. Matteo Vagnoli & Francesco Di Maio & Enrico Zio, 2018. "Ensembles of climate change models for risk assessment of nuclear power plants," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 232(2), pages 185-200, April.
    7. Ibsen Chivatá Cárdenas & Saad S.H. Al‐jibouri & Johannes I.M. Halman & Frits A. van Tol, 2013. "Capturing and Integrating Knowledge for Managing Risks in Tunnel Works," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 92-108, January.
    8. Enrique López Droguett & Ali Mosleh, 2014. "Bayesian Treatment of Model Uncertainty for Partially Applicable Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 252-270, February.
    9. Tu Duong Le Duy & Laurence Dieulle & Dominique Vasseur & Christophe Bérenguer & Mathieu Couplet, 2013. "An alternative comprehensive framework using belief functions for parameter and model uncertainty analysis in nuclear probabilistic risk assessment applications," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(5), pages 471-490, October.

    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. Kenneth Gillingham & William D. Nordhaus & David Anthoff & Geoffrey Blanford & Valentina Bosetti & Peter Christensen & Haewon McJeon & John Reilly & Paul Sztorc, 2015. "Modeling Uncertainty in Climate Change: A Multi-Model Comparison," NBER Working Papers 21637, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Avner Engel & Shalom Shachar, 2006. "Measuring and optimizing systems' quality costs and project duration," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 259-280, September.
    3. Atanasov, Pavel & Witkowski, Jens & Ungar, Lyle & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip, 2020. "Small steps to accuracy: Incremental belief updaters are better forecasters," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 19-35.
    4. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2017. "Probabilistic opinion pooling generalized. Part one: general agendas," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 747-786, April.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:607-621 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Patrick Afflerbach & Christopher Dun & Henner Gimpel & Dominik Parak & Johannes Seyfried, 2021. "A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Wisdom of Crowds Phenomenon in Aggregating Expert Judgment," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 63(4), pages 329-348, August.
    7. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    8. Robert F. Bordley, 2009. "Combining the Opinions of Experts Who Partition Events Differently," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 38-46, March.
    9. Jason R. W. Merrick & J. Rene van Dorp & Jack Harrald & Thomas Mazzuchi & John E. Spahn & Martha Grabowski, 2000. "A systems approach to managing oil transportation risk in Prince William Sound," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3), pages 128-142.
    10. Donnacha Bolger & Brett Houlding, 2016. "Reliability updating in linear opinion pooling for multiple decision makers," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 230(3), pages 309-322, June.
    11. Robert L. Winkler & Robert T. Clemen, 2004. "Multiple Experts vs. Multiple Methods: Combining Correlation Assessments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 167-176, September.
    12. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    13. Ine H. J. Van Der Fels‐Klerx & Louis H. J. Goossens & Helmut W. Saatkamp & Suzan H. S. Horst, 2002. "Elicitation of Quantitative Data from a Heterogeneous Expert Panel: Formal Process and Application in Animal Health," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 67-81, February.
    14. Kenichiro McAlinn & Knut Are Aastveit & Jouchi Nakajima & Mike West, 2020. "Multivariate Bayesian Predictive Synthesis in Macroeconomic Forecasting," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 115(531), pages 1092-1110, July.
    15. Minh Ha-Duong, 2008. "Hierarchical fusion of expert opinion in the Transferable Belief Model, application on climate sensitivity," Post-Print halshs-00112129, HAL.
    16. Jahanbani, Zeinab & Ataee-pour, Majid & Mortazavi, Ali, 2024. "Application of Z-numbers theory to study the influencing criteria in underground mining method selection," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    17. Pennings, Clint L.P. & van Dalen, Jan & Rook, Laurens, 2019. "Coordinating judgmental forecasting: Coping with intentional biases," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 46-56.
    18. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2017. "Probabilistic opinion pooling generalized. Part two: the premise-based approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 787-814, April.
    19. Hongjun Fan & Hossein Enshaei & Shantha Gamini Jayasinghe, 2022. "Formation of Dataset for Fuzzy Quantitative Risk Assessment of LNG Bunkering SIMOPs," Data, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-13, May.
    20. 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.
    21. Chunchang Zhang & Hu Sun & Yuanyuan Zhang & Gen Li & Shibo Li & Junyu Chang & Gongqian Shi, 2023. "Fire Accident Risk Analysis of Lithium Battery Energy Storage Systems during Maritime Transportation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-12, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:30:y:2010:i:7:p:1139-1156. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.