Abstract
Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) with stakeholder participation has been suggested as a way to reach mutually acceptable and robust decisions regarding methods and strategies for recovery of inhabited land areas and food production systems severely contaminated by an airborne radioactive plume from a severe nuclear power plant accident. The paper describes a new approach to help ensuring that important issues are not overlooked when decisions are based on MCDA.
Highlights
IntroductionThis is because each potentially applicable restoration option (countermeasure) is associated with a large number of case specific features or criteria, which can have positive and/or negative effects on the implementation outcome of that countermeasure
Nuclear and radiological accident scenarios that significantly affect large areas of land are generally highly challenging and complex to address with the objective of optimized restoration and recovery of normal lifestyles to the extent possible
The example above highlights that the Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) process seemingly offers great transparency and provides a result that involved stakeholders will likely see as a “best compromise” that takes into account all important factors, and, facilitates consensus, there is a risk that important aspects may be hidden in the process, since the assumption that scores can unproblematically be added and weighted against each other to provide the most desirable solution will not necessarily be valid in all cases
Summary
This is because each potentially applicable restoration option (countermeasure) is associated with a large number of case specific features or criteria, which can have positive and/or negative effects on the implementation outcome of that countermeasure Such criteria could for example comprise the health effect or radiological impact (e.g., change in dose reduction to the population, incremental dose to countermeasure implementers), direct costs of the implementation (e.g., worker wages, equipment, consumables, transport, treatment and storage of any waste produced, and other monetary influences), environmental impact (e.g., risk of pollution of groundwater, impact on soil fertility, risk of erosion), legal impact (conflicts between the outcome or processes of the intervention and current legislation in the area), social impact (e.g., restrictions on further use of land and amenities, loss of income, communication needs) and ethical impact (e.g., equity in countermeasure implementation, and public consent) (Nisbet et al, 2010). MCDA has its weaknesses (or challenges), but when a decision must be taken as to which intervention options should be implemented, following this type of procedure can in principle encompass evaluation of all factors deemed to be of importance
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
