4.7 Article

Contaminant remediation decision analysis using information gap theory

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00477-012-0573-1

关键词

Hydrogeology; Decision analysis; Information gap theory; Transport

资金

  1. Environmental Programs Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decision making under severe lack of information is a ubiquitous situation in nearly every applied field of engineering, policy, and science. A severe lack of information precludes our ability to determine a frequency of occurrence of events or conditions that impact the decision; therefore, decision uncertainties due to a severe lack of information cannot be characterized probabilistically. To circumvent this problem, information gap (info-gap) theory has been developed to explicitly recognize and quantify the implications of a severe lack of information in decision making. This paper presents a decision analysis based on info-gap theory developed for a contaminant remediation scenario. The analysis provides decision support in determining the fraction of contaminant mass to remove from the environment. An info-gap uncertainty model is developed to characterize uncertainty due to a lack of information concerning the contaminant flux. The info-gap uncertainty model groups nested, convex sets of functions defining contaminant flux over time based on their level of deviation from a nominal contaminant flux. The nominal contaminant flux defines a best estimate of contaminant flux over time based on existing, though incomplete, information. A robustness function is derived to quantify the maximum level of deviation from nominal that still ensures compliance for alternative decisions. An opportuneness function is derived to characterize the possibility of meeting a desired contaminant concentration level. The decision analysis evaluates how the robustness and opportuneness change as a function of time since remediation and as a function of the fraction of contaminant mass removed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据