A Comparison of CBA and MAUT for ALARP Decision-Making. Prof. Simon French and Ms. Elizabeth Atherton, Centre for Informatics Research University of Manchester, Coupland 1, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK; and Dr. Tim Bedford, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Information Technology and Systems, Technical University of Delft, Mekelweg 4, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands, telephone 015-2787252, fax 015-2787255, e-mail t.j.bedford@twi.tudelft.nl
In this paper we make a comparison of Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) with Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), and assess the suitability of both methods for performing "As low as reasonably practicable" (ALARP) decision-making in particular within the nuclear industry.
The economic background to CBA is described. We show that problem formulation has a major impact in the way CBA should be applied. In particular, whether one should be using Willingness to Pay or Willingness to Accept values in a CBA depends on assumptions about the whether a licensee has a "right" to cause a certain level of risk or alternatively whether the public has the "right" to expect zero (or minimal) risk levels. We assess further the claims to objectivity for the weights used in CBA, and the disputable outcomes generated of discounting over long time horizons.
For MAUT, we discuss the problems of subjectivity. We argue that this problem actually provides the opportunity to compare the opinions of various stakeholders (or synthetic stakeholders) within the decision problem. This is illustrated by the use of attribute hierarchies representing different viewpoints. Possible solutions to the discounting problem within MAUT are discussed.
We conclude by pointing out the main similarities and differences between these approaches, and discuss the potential benefits of MAUT for ALARP decision making.
Go to . . .
1999 SRA-Europe Table of Contents
1999 SRA-Europe Author Index
Main Abstracts Menu Page
RiskWorld Home Page