SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Accorsi R, Apostolakis GE, Zio E. 1999a. Prioritizing stakeholder concerns in environmental risk management. Journal of Risk Research 2: 1129.
  • Accorsi R, Zio E, Apostolakis GE. 1999b. Developing utility functions for environmental decision-making. Prog Nucl Energy 34: 387411.
  • Al-Rashdan D, Al-Kloub B, Dean A, Al-Shemmeri T. 1999. Theory and methodology environmental impact assessment and ranking the environmental projects in Jordan. European Journal of Operational Research 118: 3045.
  • Ananda J, Herath G. 2003. Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: A value function approach. Ecological Economics 45: 7590.
  • Apostolakis GE. 2001. Assessment and management of environmental risks. In: LinkovI, Palma-OliveiraJ, editors. Assessment and management of environmental risks. Boston (MA), USA: Kluwer. p 211220.
  • Arvai J, Gregory R. 2003. Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. Environ Sci Technol 37: 14691476.
  • Baker D, Bridges D, Hunter R, Johnson G, Krupa J, Murphy J, Sorenson K. 2001. Guidebook to decision-making methods. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Energy. WSRC-IM-2002-00002.
  • Bardos P, Lewis A, Nortcliff S, Matiotti C, Marot F, Sullivan T. 2002. CLARINET report: Review of decision support tools for contaminated land management, and their use in Europe. Vienna: Austrian Federal Environment Agency.
  • Bell M, Hobbs BF, Ellis H. 2003. The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: Implications for IA practitioners. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 37: 289316.
  • Belton V, Steward T. 2002. Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Boston (MA), USA: Kluwer.
  • Bonano EJ, Apostolakis GE, Salter PF, Ghassemi A, Jennings S. 2000. Application of risk assessment and decision analysis to the evaluation, ranking and selection of environmental remediation alternatives. J Hazard Mater 71: 3557.
  • Bose U, Davey AM, Olson DL. 1997. Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision-making: Past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS. International Journal of Management Sciences 25: 691706.
  • Brown B, Neil-Adger W, Tompkins E, Bacon P, Shim D, Young K. 2001. Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecological Economics 37: 417434.
  • Corporate Project 7 Team. 2003. Assessment report. Corporate project 7: A cleanup program driven by risk-based end states. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
  • [CRESP] Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation. 1999. Peer review of the U.S. Department of Energy use of risk in its prioritization process. New Brunswick (NJ), USA: CRESP.
  • Deschaine LM, Breslau B, Ades MJ, Selg RA, Saaty TL. 1998. Decision support software to optimize resource allocation: Theory and case history. Society for Computer Simulation, Simulators International XV. Boston (MA), USA: Society for Modeling Simulations. p 139144.
  • Edwards W. 1977. How to use multi-attribute utility measurement for social decision-making. IEEE (Inst Electr Electron Eng) Trans Biomed Eng 7: 326340.
  • Ehrhardt J, Shershakov VM. 1996. Real-time on-line decision support systems (RODOS) for off-site emergency management following a nuclear accident. Final Report. Luxemburg: European Commission.
  • Florig HK, Morgan MG, Morgan KM, Jenni KE, Fischoff B, Fischbeck PS, DeKay ML. 2001. A deliberative method for ranking risks (I): Overview and test bed development. Risk Analysis 21: 913922.
  • Focht W, DeShong T, Wood J, Whitaker K. 1999. A protocol for the elicitation of stakeholders' concerns and preferences for incorporation into policy dialogue. In: Proceedings of the third workshop in the environmental policy and economics workshop series: Economic research and policy concerning water use and watershed management. Washington DC: Environmental Law Institute. p 124.
  • Gomez-Limon JA, Arriaza M, Riesgo L. 2003. An MCDM analysis of agricultural risk aversion. European Journal of Operational Research 151: 569585.
  • Gregory R, Failing L. 2002. Using decision analysis to encourage sound deliberation: Water use planning in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21: 492499.
  • Gregory R, Fischhoff B, Thorne S, Butte G. 2003. A multi-channel stakeholder consultation process for transmission deregulation. Energy Policy 31: 12911299.
  • Gregory R, Keeney RL. 1994. Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Management Science 40: 10351048.
  • Gregory R, McDaniels T, Fields D. 2001. Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: Creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20: 415432.
  • Gregory R, Wellman K. 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: A community-based estuary case study. Ecological Economics 39: 3752.
  • Grelk BJ. 1997. A CERCLA-based decision support system for environmental remediation strategy selection [thesis]. Colorado Springs (CO): U.S. Department of the Air Force, Air University, Air Force Institute of Technology.
  • Grelk B, Kloeber JM, Jackson JA, Deckro RF, Parnell GS. 1998. Quantifying CERCLA using site decision maker values. Remediation 8: 87105.
  • Hamalainen RP, Kettunen E, Ehtamo H. 2001. Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decision and Negotiation 10: 331353.
  • Hamalainen RP, Lindstedt M, Sinkko K. 2000. Multi-attribute risk analysis in nuclear emergency management. Risk Analysis 20: 455468.
  • Hartman DH, Goltz MN. 2001. Application of the analytic hierarchy process to select characterization and risk-based decision-making and management methods for hazardous waste sites. Environmental Engineering and Policy 3: 17.
  • Hayashi K. 2000. Multi-criteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives. European Journal of Operational Research 122: 486500.
  • Hobbs BF, Meier P. 2000. Energy decisions and the environment: A guide to the use of multi-criteria methods. Boston (MA), USA: Kluwer.
  • Janssen R. 2001. On the use of multi-criteria analysis in environmental impact assessment in the Netherlands. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10: 101109.
  • Jenni KE, Merkhofer MW, Williams C. 1995. The rise and fall of a risk-based priority system: Lessons from DOE's environmental restoration priority system. Risk Analysis 15: 397410.
  • Joerin F, Musy A. 2000. Land management with GIS and multi-criteria analysis. International Transactions in Operational Research 7: 6778.
  • Kane Driscoll SB, Wickwire WT, Cura JJ, Vorhees DJ, Butler CL, Moore DW, Bridges TS. 2002. A comparative screening-level ecological and human health risk assessment for dredged material management alternatives in New York/New Jersey Harbor. International Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8: 603626.
  • Kangas J, Kangas A, Leskinen P, Pykalainen J. 2001. MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in Finland: Applications and experiences. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10: 257271.
  • Keefer D, Kirkwood CW, Corner JL. 2002a. Perspective on decision analysis applications, 1990–2001. Decision Analysis 1: (online supplement).
  • Keefer D, Kirkwood CW, Corner JL. 2002b. Summary of decision analysis applications in the operations research literature, 1990–2001. Tucson (AZ), USA: Technical Report Department of Supply Chain Management, Arizona State University.
  • Keisler JM, Sundell RC. 1997. Combining multi-attribute utility and geographic information for boundary decisions: An application to park planning. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 1: 101118.
  • Kwak SJ, Yoo SH, Kim TY. 2001. A constructive approach to air-quality valuation in Korea. Ecological Economics 38: 327344.
  • Larichev OI, Olson DI. 2001. Multiple criteria analysis in strategic siting problems. Boston (MA), USA: Kluwer.
  • Levy J, Hipel K, Kilgour DM. 2000. Using environmental indicators to quantify the robustness of policy alternatives to uncertainty. Ecol Model 130: 7986.
  • Linkov I, Sahay S, Seager TP, Kiker G, Bridges T. 2005. Multi-criteria decision analysis: Framework for applications in remedial planning for contaminated sediments. In: ProthJM, LevnerE, LinkovI, editors. Strategic management of marine ecosystems. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Linkov I, Varghese A, Jamil S, Seager TP, Kiker GA, Bridges TS. 2004. Multi-criteria decision analysis: Framework for applications in remedial planning for contaminated sites. In: LinkovI, RamadanA, editors. Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer. p 1554.
  • Males RM. 2002. Beyond expected value: Making decisions under risk and uncertainty. RMM Technical Services, under contract to Planning and Management Consultants Ltd. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. IWR Report 02-R-4. www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/02r4bey_exp_val.pdf Accessed 1 August 2003.
  • Marttunen M, Hamalainen RP. 1995. Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research 87: 551563.
  • Matsatsinis NF, Samaras AP. 2001. MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research 130: 414429.
  • McDaniels TL. 1995. Using judgment in resource management: A multiple objective analysis of a fisheries management decision. Operations Research 43: 415426.
  • McDaniels TL, Roessler C. 1998. Multi-attribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: A constructive approach. Ecological Economics 27: 299312.
  • McDaniels TL, Gregory RS, Fields D. 1999. Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis 19: 497510.
  • Miettinen P, Hamalainen RP. 1997. How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA). European Journal of Operational Research 102: 279294.
  • Mendoza GA, Anderson AB, Gertner GZ. 2002. Integrating multi-criteria analysis and GIS for land condition assessment: Part 2—Allocation of military training areas. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 6: 1730.
  • Morgan MG, Florig HK, DeKay ML, Fischbeck PS. 2000. Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Analysis 20: 4958.
  • Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. 2002. Risk communication. Boston (MA), USA: Cambridge University Press.
  • [NRC] National Research Council. 1999. New directions in water resources planning for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
  • Parnell GS, Frimpon M, Barnes J, Kloeber JM Jr, Deckro RF, Jackson JA. 2001. Safety risk analysis of an innovative environmental technology. Risk Analysis 21: 143155.
  • Pavlikakis GE, Tsihrintzis VA. 2003. A quantitative method for accounting human opinion, preferences, and perceptions in ecosystem management. J Environ Manag 68: 193205.
  • Pereira AG, Quintana SC. 2002. From technocratic to participatory decision support systems: Responding to the new governance initiatives. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 6: 95107.
  • Peterson D, Silsbee D, Schmoldt D. 1994. A case study of resources management planning with multiple objectives and projects. Environ Manag 18: 729742.
  • Prato T. 2003. Multiple-attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River system. Ecological Economics 45: 297309.
  • Ralston BE, Jackson JA, Kloeber JM Jr, Deckro RF. 1996. Development of a decision support system for the Department of Energy selection of waste remediation technologies. Wright Patterson Air Force Base, USA: Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis. Technical report 96-02: 1123.
  • Ramanathan R. 2001. A note on the use of the analytical hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manag 63: 2735.
  • Rauscher HM, Lloyd FT, Loftis DL, Twery MJ. 2000. A practical decision-analysis process for forest ecosystem management. Comput Electron Agric 27: 195226.
  • Rogers M, Bruen M. 1998. Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE. European Journal of Operational Research 107: 542551.
  • Schmoldt DL, Kangas J, Mendoza GA, Pesonen M. 2001. The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Schmoldt DL, Peterson DL. 2001a. Efficient group decision making in workshop settings. In: Name, editors. The analytical hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision-making. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer. p 97114.
  • Schmoldt D, Peterson D. 2001b. Strategic and tactical planning for managing national park resources. In: Name, editors. The analytical hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision-making. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer. p 6779.
  • Schmoldt D, Peterson D, Silsbee D. 1994. Developing inventory and monitoring programs based on multiple objectives. Environ Manag 18: 707727.
  • Seppala J, Basson L, Norris GA. 2002. Decision analysis frameworks for life-cycle impact assessment. J Ind Ecol 5: 4568.
  • Sharifi MA, van den Toorn W, Rico A, Emmanuel M. 2003. Application of GIS and multicriteria evaluation in locating sustainable boundary between Tunari National Park and Cochabamba City (Bolivia). Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 11: 151164.
  • Siddiqui M, Everett J, Vieux B. 1996. Landfill siting using geographic information systems: A demonstration. Journal of Environmental Engineering 122: 515523.
  • Simon M, Pascoe S. 1999. A review of applications of multiple criteria decision-making techniques to fisheries. Marine Resource Economics 14: 4163.
  • Stahl CH. 2003. Multi-criteria integrated resource assessment (MIRA): A new decision analytic approach to inform environmental policy analysis [thesis]. Wilmington (DE), USA: University of Delaware.
  • Stahl CH, Cimorelli AJ, Chow AH. 2002. A new approach to environmental decision analysis: Multi-criteria integrated resource assessment (MIRA). Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 22: 443459.
  • Steiguer JE, Liberti L, Schuler A, Hansen B. 2003. Multi-criteria decision models for forestry and natural resources management: An annotated bibliography. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General technical report NE-307.
  • Store R, Kangas J. 2001. Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modeling. Landsc Urban Plann 55: 7993.
  • Timmerman TJ, Kloeber JM Jr, Jackson JA, Deckro RF. 1996. Selecting remediation technologies through a technical risk index: An application of multi-attribute utility theory. Wright Patterson Air Force Base, USA: Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis. Technical report 96–01.
  • Tran L, Knight CG, O'Neill R, Smith E, Ritters K, Wickham J. 2002. Environmental assessment fuzzy decision analysis for integrated environmental vulnerability assessment of the mid-atlantic region. Environ Manag 29: 845859.
  • [USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1983. The economic and environmental principles and guidelines for water and related land resources implementation. Engineering Regulation (ER) 105-2-100.
  • [USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003a. Environmental operating principles and implementation guidance. www.hq.usace.army.mil/CEPA/7%20Environ%20Prin%20web%20site/Page1.html Accessed 13 January 2005.
  • [USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003b. Planning civil works projects under the environmental operating principles. Circular 1105-2-404. www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-circulars/ec1105-2-404/entire.pdf Accessed 13 January 2005.
  • [USDOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 1998. Guidelines for risk-based prioritization of DOE Activities. Washington, DC: USDOE. DOE-DP-STD-3023-98.
  • [USDOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2003. Washington, DC: USDOE-RESRAD Environmental Assessment Division. http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/home2 Accessed 13 January 2005.
  • [USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Framework for responsible environmental decision-making (FRED): Using life cycle assessment to evaluate preferability of products. Washington, DC: USEPA. EPA/600/R-00/095.
  • [USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Consistency and transparency in determination of USEPA anticipated ozone designations. Special Review. Washington, DC: USEPA, Office of Inspector General. Report 2002-S-00016.
  • Vaillancourt K, Waaub JP. 2002. Environmental site evaluation of waste management facilities embedded into EUGENE model: A multi-criteria approach. European Journal of Operational Research 139: 436448.
  • Wakeman JS. 2003. Milltown reservoir sediment/Clark Fork River superfund site-focused feasibility study. www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/sites/mt/milltowncfr/home.html Accessed 13 January 2005.
  • Whitaker K, Focht W. 2001. Expert modeling of environmental impacts. OPS Special Issue: Environmental Policy in Oklahoma 10: 179186.
  • Yoe C. 2002. Trade-off analysis planning and procedures guidebook. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/tradeoff.pdf Accessed 13 January 2005.