Literature DB >> 21371061

Use of multicriteria decision analysis to support weight of evidence evaluation.

Igor Linkov1, Paul Welle, Drew Loney, Alex Tkachuk, Laure Canis, J B Kim, Todd Bridges.   

Abstract

Weight of evidence (WOE) methods are key components of ecological and human health risk assessments. Most WOE applications rely on the qualitative integration of diverse lines of evidence (LOE) representing impact on ecological receptors and humans. Recent calls for transparency in assessments and justifiability of management decisions are pushing the community to consider quantitative methods for integrated risk assessment and management. This article compares and contrasts the type of information required for application of individual WOE techniques and the outcomes that they provide in ecological risk assessment and proposes a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for integrating individual LOE in support of management decisions. The use of quantitative WOE techniques is illustrated for a hypothetical but realistic case study of selecting remedial alternatives at a contaminated aquatic site. Use of formal MCDA does not necessarily eliminate biases and judgment calls necessary for selecting remedial alternatives, but allows for transparent evaluation and fusion of individual LOE. It also provides justifiable methods for selecting remedial alternatives consistent with stakeholder and decision-maker values.
© 2011 Society for Risk Analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21371061     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01585.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  7 in total

1.  A decision support framework for characterizing and managing dermal exposures to chemicals during Emergency Management and Operations.

Authors:  G Scott Dotson; Naomi L Hudson; Andrew Maier
Journal:  J Emerg Manag       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug

2.  Ecological status classification of the Taizi River Basin, China: a comparison of integrated risk assessment approaches.

Authors:  Juntao Fan; Elena Semenzin; Wei Meng; Elisa Giubilato; Yuan Zhang; Andrea Critto; Alex Zabeo; Yun Zhou; Sen Ding; Jun Wan; Mengchang He; Chunye Lin
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  A decision analysis framework for estimating the potential hazards for drinking water resources of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.

Authors:  Erin E Yost; John Stanek; Lyle D Burgoon
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 7.963

4.  Hazard Screening Methods for Nanomaterials: A Comparative Study.

Authors:  Barry Sheehan; Finbarr Murphy; Martin Mullins; Irini Furxhi; Anna L Costa; Felice C Simeone; Paride Mantecca
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2018-02-25       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  From "weight of evidence" to quantitative data integration using multicriteria decision analysis and Bayesian methods.

Authors:  Igor Linkov; Olivia Massey; Jeff Keisler; Ivan Rusyn; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 6.043

Review 6.  Weight of Evidence for Hazard Identification: A Critical Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Pierre Martin; Claire Bladier; Bette Meek; Olivier Bruyere; Eve Feinblatt; Mathilde Touvier; Laurence Watier; David Makowski
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2018-07-17       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  Ten most important accomplishments in risk analysis, 1980-2010.

Authors:  Michael Greenberg; Charles Haas; Anthony Cox; Karen Lowrie; Katherine McComas; Warner North
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 4.000

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.