Presentation on theme: "Contribution of multi-criteria decision aid methods for natural risk analysis and management studies Myriam M. MERAD 1,3, Thierry VERDEL 2, Romuald SALMON."— Presentation transcript:
Contribution of multi-criteria decision aid methods for natural risk analysis and management studies Myriam M. MERAD 1,3, Thierry VERDEL 2, Romuald SALMON 3, Bernard ROY 1 1 Laboratory for Analysing and Modelling Decision-Aid Systems (LAMSADE)- Université Paris- Dauphine. Place du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny Paris Cedex 16 (France). 2 LAboratory of Environnement, GeOmechanic and Structures (LAEGO). Ecole des Mines de Nancy. Parc de Saurupt Nancy Cedex (France). 3 National Institut of Environnement and Industrial Risk (INERIS). Parc Technologique Alata Verneuil-en-Halatte (France).
Risk = Hazard Vulnerability (sensitivity) of the element at risk Fig.1. Rooms and pillars exploitation
Fig. 2. Underground Instabilities: Subsidence
Fig. 3. Consequences of mining subsidence on constructions
The concept of «Risk Study» Risk management consists on : n Contextual analysis. n Risk analysis. n Risk control. The Risk Study : n is a « decisional problem » ; n is a multi-criteria problem ; n can be handled using collective expertise. Each step represents a project that we decide to call Risk Study Role of the « analyst » : n To contribute to the collective expertise. n To propose an approach for modeling « Risk studies ». Analyst Subsidence due to underground activities Risk Study Collective expertise MCDAMProject management Organisation science
Methods and tools
Stakeholders (Actors)1 Decision objects2 Criteria4 Problematics3 Aggregation Procedures5 « Risk Study » is a « project » carried out within a « organization »... Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Method (MCDAM) « Risk Study » is a decisional problem... The level of the decisional problem1 The level of available information and knowledge 2 The Importance of the internal and external constraints 3 The dominant culture4 The criticity of the context A help for risk managemen t
The aim of this approach
To be able to practice a « Contextual analysis » A four Groups « Risk Study » typology Reasonable doubt No uncertainty Total uncertainty OperationalTacticalStrategical Level of decisional problem Knowledge and information Type B Forecast Type D Negotiate Type C Explore Type A Communicate
A description of the type C Identifying and understanding the risk are the finalities of this type of « Risk Study ». The « actors » involved are of the « analytical » type ; they tend towards determinism even if their preferences are not set a priori. In this type of study the actor s needs and expectations are a help to structure the decision making problem. Observations : - No a priori preferences. - Often a single actor (routine and analytical operations). - Mixed information. - Mainly technical. - Tendency to determinism. Requirements : - Structuring the decision making problem.
To be able to practice a « Risk hierarchization » Proposition of some PMCAs for each « Risk Study » typology Reasonable doubt No uncertainty Total uncertainty OperationalTacticalStrategical Level of decisional problem Knowledge and information Type B Type D Type C Type A ELECTRE (I, II, III, IV, TRI) NAIADE PROMETHEE I /II Fuzzy conjunctive/Disjun ctive method MELCHIOR ORESTE ; REGIME Martel et Zaras Methods like ELECTRE (I, II, III, IV, TRI) NAIADE Fuzzy maximin Fuzzy weighted sum TOPSIS MAVT UTA SMART MAUT AHP ; EVAMIX Fuzzy conjunctive/Disjunctive method Martel et Zaras Method
Some suggestions concerning Aggregation procedures (MCDAPs): - Preference structures (S, R) seem of interest. For Type C, the incomparability relation R lets the different actors ask themselves about the pertinence of the the Risk Study problem structure. - PMCAs that use both quantitative and qualitative information. [G1]. Are the stakeholders numerous or not? [G2]. Which cognitive procedure (Comparison, etc.) do the decision makers use ? [G3]. What is the decision reference problematic (ranking, choice, etc.)? [G4]. What information (quantity and quality) do we have? [G5]. What level of compensation the decision maker wish to obtain? [G6]. What are the basic assumptions of the MCAD one has ? [G7]. Is there a software that can handle with the principles of the PMCA to choose? General questions : Hwang et Yoon (1981), Teghem et al. (1989), Orzony (1992), Laaribi et al. (1996), Guitouni et Martel (1998) Some recommendations for Risk studies of the type C :
To be able to identify a change in the decisional context in the case of a long-term Project n Three levels of concern in decision are identified : The level of the decisional problem1 The level of available information and knowledge 2 The Importance of the internal and external constraints 3 The dominant culture4 The criticity of the context5 Importance of technical dimension Decision impact Information Global Very important Weak Precise Local National Tactical Strategical Operational
A Case study : Risk of subsidence induced by underground works in the North- East of France (Lorraine region)
n Beginning of the Study: n Extention: 120 km 30 km. n Zones under building or infrastructures. n Imperfect knowledge. n « Making of » of Mining Risk Prevention Plan (MRPP). A description of the study
The expected results Land use proposal. A Hazard zoning according to (3) urbanization constraints. Risk zoning in four risk classes.
Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Method (MCDAM) n INERIS : Research and expertise activities. n GEODERIS : Expertise group. n GISOS : Scientific group. n Local Expert committee. n Ministries n Associations of defense. n Mayors. 1. Stakeholders (Actors) 1. The level of the decisional problem The direct and/or indirect actors implied in the risk analysis study have changed : the socio-political dimension is less important that in 1997.
Homogenious zones which consists of many pillars and many galeries (431 zones). 2. Decision objects : 3. Problematics : To sort the zones to one of the 4 risk classes. Class 2 Class 3 Class 1 Class 4 zizi To sort the zones to one of the 3 urbanization constraints classes. zizi Shape of the zone to hierarchized Presence of fault
(bar). 0 : Large pillars. 10 : Small pillars or tentering. 20 : Small irregular pillars. 4. Criteria n Size and shape of pillars « C1.4 » n Stress on pillar « C1.1 »
Which MCDAPs to choose for the Lorraine case? n Problematics: sorting P and ranking P. n Experts commitee. n Finalities: Installing monitoring devices ; urbanization constraints. n Some specificities of the study … ELECTRE (I, II, III, IV, TRI) NAIADE PROMETHEE I /II Fuzzy conjunctive/Disjunctive method MELCHIOR ORESTE REGIME Martel et Zaras Choice of the ELECTRE method Type C
Some other observations Constraints More hardware. Geographical Information Systems (GIS). A relaxation of time constraints. 4. Dominant culture Geotechnics. 5. Criticity of the decisional context Crisis (1997) to Post-crisis (2003). This makes it possible to be conscious of the group dynamics: l consensual or directed conclusions ; l a rupture of the dynamics of the innovation.
Conclusions and remarks
What are the contributions of the MCDAM? n Reintroduces the « analyst and the experts » in the modeling process. n Considers the various aspects of risk: (transdisciplinarity). Show that « risk studies » aims action. n Proves that complex problems are « decidables ». n Specifies the limits between « expertise » and « decision ». MCDAM Risk Study n Helps to formulate the decision problem: organization and formalization. n Manages the interface « Analyst/Expertise (Decision aid)/Decision maker »: Satisfaction n Needs: To formulate the decision problem ; to communicate; etc. n Modeling and conclusions.