1 / 24

Myriam M. MERAD 1,3 , Thierry VERDEL 2 , Romuald SALMON 3 , Bernard ROY 1

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.

wendi
Télécharger la présentation

Myriam M. MERAD 1,3 , Thierry VERDEL 2 , Romuald SALMON 3 , Bernard ROY 1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Contribution of multi-criteria decision aid methods for natural risk analysis and management studies Myriam M. MERAD1,3, Thierry VERDEL2, Romuald SALMON3, Bernard ROY1 1 Laboratory for Analysing and Modelling Decision-Aid Systems (LAMSADE)- Université Paris-Dauphine. Place du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny. 75775 Paris Cedex 16 (France). 2 LAboratory of Environnement, GeOmechanic and Structures (LAEGO). Ecole des Mines de Nancy. Parc de Saurupt. 54042 Nancy Cedex (France). 3 National Institut of Environnement and Industrial Risk (INERIS). Parc Technologique Alata. 60555 Verneuil-en-Halatte (France).

  2. Introduction

  3. Fig.1. Rooms and pillars exploitation Risk = Hazard  Vulnerability (sensitivity) of the element at risk

  4. Fig. 2. Underground Instabilities: Subsidence

  5. Fig. 3. Consequences of mining subsidence on constructions

  6. Risk Study Subsidence due to underground activities Collective expertise MCDAM Project management Organisation science Analyst The concept of «Risk Study» Risk management consists on : • Contextual analysis. • Risk analysis. • Risk control. Each step represents a “project” that we decide to call “Risk Study” The “Risk Study” : • is a « decisional problem » ; • is a multi-criteria problem ; • can be handled using “collective expertise”. Role of the « analyst » : • To contribute to the collective expertise. • To propose an approach for modeling « Risk studies ».

  7. Methods and tools

  8. 4 2 3 5 1 1 1 Stakeholders(Actors) 3 Problematics 1 The level of the decisional problem 4 The dominant culture 2 2 Decision objects 5 Aggregation Procedures 2 The level of available information and knowledge 5 The criticity of the context 3 4 Criteria 3 The Importance of the internal and external constraints 4 5 « Risk Study » is a decisional problem ... Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Method (MCDAM) « Risk Study » is a « project » carried out within a « organization » ... A help for risk management

  9. The aim of this approach

  10. Knowledge and information Type D Type B No uncertainty Negotiate Forecast Reasonable doubt Type C Type A Explore Communicate Total uncertainty Level of decisional problem Operational Tactical Strategical To be able to practice a « Contextual analysis » A four Groups « Risk Study » typology

  11. 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.

  12. Knowledge and information Type B Type D Fuzzy maximin Fuzzy weighted sum TOPSIS MAVT UTA SMART MAUT AHP ; EVAMIX Methods like ELECTRE (I, II, III, IV, TRI) NAIADE No uncertainty Type C Reasonable doubt ELECTRE (I, II, III, IV, TRI) NAIADE PROMETHEE I /II Fuzzy conjunctive/Disjunctive method MELCHIOR ORESTE ; REGIME Martel et Zaras Type A Fuzzy conjunctive/Disjunctive method Martel et Zaras Method Total uncertainty Level of decisional problem Operational Tactical Strategical To be able to practice a « Risk hierarchization » Proposition of some PMCAs for each « Risk Study » typology

  13. Some suggestions concerning Aggregation procedures (MCDAPs): • General questions : Hwang et Yoon (1981), Teghem et al. (1989), Orzony (1992), Laaribi et al. (1996), Guitouni et Martel (1998) [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? • Some recommendations for Risk studies of the type C : - 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.

  14. Information Global Strategical Tactical Precise Weak 1 The level of the decisional problem 4 The dominant culture Local 2 The level of available information and knowledge 5 The criticity of the context Very important 3 The Importance of the internal and external constraints Operational National Decision impact Importance of technical dimension To be able to identify a change in the decisional context in the case of a long-term Project • Threelevels of concern in decision are identified :

  15. A Case study : Risk of subsidence induced by underground works in the North-East of France (Lorraine region)

  16. A description of the study • Beginning of the Study: 1997. • Extention: 120 km  30 km. • Zones under building or infrastructures. • Imperfect knowledge. • « Making of » of Mining Risk Prevention Plan (MRPP).

  17. The expected results Risk zoning in four risk classes. Land use proposal. A Hazard zoning according to (3) urbanization constraints.

  18. Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Method (MCDAM) 1. Stakeholders(Actors) • INERIS : Research and expertise activities. • GEODERIS : Expertise group. • GISOS : Scientific group. • Local Expert committee. • Ministries • Associations of defense. • Mayors. 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.

  19. Homogenious zones which consists of many pillars and many galeries (431 zones). 2. Decision objects : Shape of the zone to hierarchized 3. Problematics : Class 1 Class 2 zi To sort the zones to one of the 4 risk classes. Class 3 Presence of fault Class 4 To sort the zones to one of the 3 urbanization constraints classes. zi

  20. N° Criteria Type Unit Direction of risk increasing C1.1 Stress on pillar Quant. bar ä C1.2 Presence of fault Quali . Score ä C1.3 Pillars superposition Quali . Score ä C1.4 Size, shape of pillars Quali . Score ä C1.5 Sensitivity to water Quali . Score ä Depth Quant. m æ C2.1 Maximum Quant. cm ä C2.2 subsidence Deformation ( Am /H) Quant. cm/m ä C2.3 Zone Extent Quant. hectare ä C2.4 C2.5.1 Construction Quali . Score ä vulnerability C2.5.2 Roads Quali . Score ä vulnerability C2.5.3 Railways Quali . Score ä vulnerability C2.5.4 Construction Quali . Score ä works vulnerability C2.5.5 Networks Quali . Score ä vulnerability 4. Criteria • Stress on pillar « C1.1 » (bar). • Size and shape of pillars « C1.4 » 0 : Large pillars. 10 : Small pillars or tentering. 20 : Small irregular pillars .

  21. Some specificities of the study … Type C • Problematics: sorting P and rankingP. • Experts commitee. • Finalities: Installing monitoring devices ; urbanization constraints. 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 Which MCDAPs to choose for the Lorraine case?

  22. Some other observations ... 3. 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: • consensual or directed conclusions ; • a rupture of the dynamics of the innovation.

  23. Conclusions and remarks

  24. Risk Study MCDAM • Helps to formulate the decision problem: organization and formalization. • Reintroduces the « analyst and the experts » in the modeling process. • Considers the various aspects of risk: (transdisciplinarity). • Show that « risk studies » aims action. • Proves that complex problems are « decidables ». • Specifies the limits between « expertise » and « decision ». • Manages the interface « Analyst/Expertise (Decision aid)/Decision maker »: Satisfaction • Needs: To formulate the decision problem ; to communicate; etc. • Modeling and conclusions. What are the contributions of the MCDAM?

More Related