Multi-attribute decision making and public perceptions of risk in relation to large scale environmental projects

Abstract

Assessment of societal risk perception is a different process compared to traditional risk assessment based on probabilistic risk evaluation methods. Where uncertainty and subjectivity exist, a structured decision making method that can capture public risk perception would help designers to progress toward sustainable product design. In this article a multiple attribute decision making methodology is tested using two groups of experts to assess possible public perceptions of gasification plants. Issues associated with the methodology are discussed.

Stakeholder analysis for industrial waste management systems

“…In the latter case, had Shell considered better the potential impact of NGOs and local communities as stakeholders, then whilst the outcome (of towing the platform for breakdown and recycling) would have remained the same, the fall in sales and public discontent could have been avoided and Shell's 'green credentials' made more apparent. At this level, the stakeholder analysis is taking on elements of risk analysis and public perception of risk that are often critical for the success of projects and business activities (Harvey et al, 2004). The matrix created can be treated by senior management in an organization as a form of a multi-attribute decision making (MADM) tool.…”

“…Visually, it is easy to see how different stakeholders wield different levels of influence, and it would then be possible to examine how circumstances might change these data and analyse the possible consequences. One could take this approach further and undertake a full MADM exercise so that importance of outcome and likelihood of stakeholder influences (all subjective and therefore 'fuzzy') are weighted and aggregated (Harvey et al, 2004).…”

“…The question was whether to opt for a Likert-type scale (Likert, 1932) with linguistic anchors at each of 6 or 7 points depending on whether a mid-point was desired, or a longer scale with anchors only at the ends (Oppenheim, 2003). In either choice the difficulty remains that the terms are still relative and the values remain imprecise and fuzzy, (Harvey et al, 2004). For the Likert-type scale with linguistic anchors to work on perceptual judgements about urgency or importance, 'very important' (for example) must be clearly defined, which may make it completely context-specific.…”

A ratings‐based stakeholder analysis for a food production company, including trust and risk implications

“…The role of the analyst-investigator is important, as expert judgments are required in this technique; in a large operation, it may be necessary to run an exercise where several analysts each rate the various stakeholders on the dimensions, and then these are standardized to score out of 10, in a form of multi-attribute decision making (Harvey et al, 2004). In this case, unlike Heidrich et al (2009) which focused on a waste management system, trust and risk elements have been clearly incorporated into the roles, affect and effects.…”

A ratings‐based stakeholder analysis for a food production company, including trust and risk implications

“…The role of the analyst‐investigator is important, as expert judgements are required in this technique; in a large operation, it may be necessary to run an exercise where several analysts each rate the various stakeholders on the dimensions, and then these are standardised to score out of 10, in a form of multi‐attribute decision making (Harvey et al , 2004). In this case, unlike Heidrich et al (2009) which focussed on a waste management system, trust and risk elements have been clearly incorporated into the roles, affect and effects.…”