• Documents
  • Authors
  • Tables
  • Other Seers ▼
    RefSeer AckSeer CollabSeer SeerSeer
  • Log in
  • Sign up
  • MetaCart

CiteSeerX logo

Advanced Search Include Citations
Advanced Search Include Citations | Disambiguate

The expected value of information and the probability of surprise. Risk Analysis 19(1): 135–152 (1999)

by J K Hammitt, A I Shlyakhter
Add To MetaCart

Tools

Sorted by:
Results 1 - 3 of 3

SUIT Sustainable development of Urban historical areas through an active Integration within Towns Task 3.2 – Screening and scoping procedures Task leader: SPIRAL

by unknown authors , 2002
"... The screening and the scoping stages are critical sequences of the EIA/SEA in the sense that they are moments when a cost effective approach addressing salient uncertainties may and should be designed. Left unattended, these uncertainties will set the case management on a destructive track. This is ..."
Abstract - Add to MetaCart
The screening and the scoping stages are critical sequences of the EIA/SEA in the sense that they are moments when a cost effective approach addressing salient uncertainties may and should be designed. Left unattended, these uncertainties will set the case management on a destructive track. This is the case with the screening decision when the parties – stakeholders or the developer – fail to agree on how well the exemption copes with the residual uncertainty of the project’s consequences. The public may believe that this residual uncertainty is not so negligible and should not be disregarded. The developer may withdraw because – right or wrong- he does not acknowledge the uncertainties of consequences CA identify and mobilise to ask additional information (EIA). The scoping opinion is crucial insofar the scoping decision – “scoping opinion ” or term of reference “- becomes a problem because the absence of a shared problematisation of the EIA workprogram fosters public opposition to the relevance of the added information from an EIA and further to the decision grounded on this EIA. The specific objective of task 3.2. is to design fine-tunings to the screening and scoping

Version 1.0 Organisation Signature/Date Authors M.H.C. Everdij NLR

by Mariken Everdij, Henk Blom, H. A. P. Blom, Internal Reviewers P. Lezaud Cena, S. H. Stroeve , 2004
"... Version: 0.6 ..."
Abstract - Add to MetaCart
Version: 0.6

DECISION ALTERNATIVES No Dredging Bucket CAD Bucket CDF

by Martin T. Schultz, Thomas D. Borrowman, Mitchell J. Small, Cutterhead Cdf
"... 540 to 560 10.0 560 to 580 40.0 580 to 600 40.0 600 to 620 10.0 580 ± 17 PCT_FINES, % 60 to 70 10.0 70 to 80 80.0 80 to 90 10.0 75 ± 5.3 PCB_SED_CHNL, mg/Kg 0 to 0.1 5.00 ..."
Abstract - Add to MetaCart
540 to 560 10.0 560 to 580 40.0 580 to 600 40.0 600 to 620 10.0 580 ± 17 PCT_FINES, % 60 to 70 10.0 70 to 80 80.0 80 to 90 10.0 75 ± 5.3 PCB_SED_CHNL, mg/Kg 0 to 0.1 5.00
The National Science Foundation
  • About CiteSeerX
  • Submit Documents
  • Privacy Policy
  • Help
  • Data
  • Source
  • Contact Us

Developed at and hosted by The College of Information Sciences and Technology

© 2007-2010 The Pennsylvania State University