Guide to Options Comparison Revision of the SAFEGROUNDS Guidance James Penfold, Quintessa SAFESPUR, 4 October 2007
Jan 19, 2016
Guide to Options Comparison
Revision of the SAFEGROUNDS Guidance
James Penfold, QuintessaSAFESPUR, 4 October 2007
Outline
• Need and Purpose
• Structure and Content
• Key Questions
Need and Purpose• Options comparison is at the heart of the LMG
– But it isn’t described in much detail– This is because there is no single “right” way
• Consultation on – Scope, form function– Outline contents
• The document should– Describe the overall objectives– Present a range of approaches– Guide the reader in the selection of a method
Structure of the Guide
• Introduction – Background, context, SAFEGROUNDS, status
• General Approach to Options Comparison– Guidelines and a common framework
• Key Features of Options Comparison Methods– Description of a range of methods
• Selecting an Options Comparison Method– Criteria and method for selection
Scope
• Informed by established methods, guidance and experience
• Practical guidance, recognising the variety of contaminated land situations that exist
• Primarily aimed at those responsible for managing the contaminated land
Context• Central feature of the LMG (in terms of
strategy determination and implementation)
• Regulations and guidance call for systematic assessment of options– E.g. Decommissioning policy, SAPs and
contaminated land guidance
• Benefits to those managing the land
Guiding Principles1. Comparison of land management options should be undertaken
in a structured, systematic and transparent manner with the involvement of stakeholders.
2. The extent of stakeholder involvement depends on the technical and societal significance of the contaminated land problem.
3. The level of detail in which the options are compared must be commensurate with the magnitude of the contaminated land issue, whether it is strategic or specific, and its potential impact on people.
4. The options comparison process will require information and data, which should be at an appropriate level of detail for the study. Uncertainties should be identified and taken account of in the options comparison.
5. The output of the options comparison must be a clear record of the information considered, the assessment of options, the views expressed, and the conclusions reached. Unless issues of national security dictate, it should be available to all relevant stakeholders.
General ApproachDefine Objectives, Constra in ts
and Assum ptions
Identify Com prehensive L ist o f O ptions
List o f O ptions m ay be Screened
Assess O ptions against C riteria
Identify C riteria that Reflec tIssues of Im portance
Com pare O ptions andDeterm ine a P reference
Sta
keh
old
er
Inpu
t m
ay b
e A
pp
ropr
iate
Input in to the Decision-m aking Process
Performance MatrixOption A Option B Option C
Criterion 1 Score (A,1) Score (B,1) Score (C,1)
Criterion 2 Score (A,2) Score (B,2) Score (C,2)
Criterion 3 Score (A,3) Score (B,3) Score (C,3)
• Wide range of options should be considered• Criteria should be able to be scored, and
reflect the interests of those with a stake in the decision
• Scores should be, as far as possible, factually based and objective
Range of Methods• All use a Performance Matrix
– Differing levels of detail– Differing ways of establishing weights– Differing ways of analysing scores/weights
• Review of methods by LSE• Selected methods:
– Direct evaluation– Non-compensatory methods– Trade-off analysis– Linear additive method– Analytical hierarchy– Multiple criteria decision analysis
Factors Influencing Choice of Method
Ra
ng
e o
f S
tak
eho
lde
rs
Status
Ma
na
gem
en
t,R
egu
lato
rsE
very
on
e
Im plem entationoptions
Technology options
Extent of Stakeholder Involvement
Characteristics o f Contam ination
Sta
ge
in M
an
agin
g t
he
C
on
tam
ina
ted
La
nd
Sm allPatch,
low concs &pathways
Com plexSite , sign ificant
concs & pathways
Fo
rmu
late
Pla
ns
Imp
lem
en
t-a
tion
De
velo
pst
rate
gy
Ide
ntif
yte
chn
olo
gy
S izeConcentrations
Pathways/receptors
W ide range of stakeholder,substantial involvem ent
Local s takeholders and regulators,involvem ent and in form ation
Nar
row
ran
ge o
f st
ake
hold
ers
(e.g
. R
egu
lato
rs)
Choice of a Method (1)Direct
evaluationNon-
CompensatoryMethods
Trade-off Analysis
Linear Additive Analytical Hierarchy
Multiple Criteria
Decision Analysis
Quick, simpleVery good Very good OK OK Poor Poor
Permits detailed analysis Poor Poor Good Good Very good Very good
Can consider broad range of criteria
Good Very good Good OK Poor Good
Suited to numerical criteria
Poor OK OK Very good Very good Good
Understandable by wide range of stakeholders
Very good Good Good Poor Poor Poor
Suited to a limited range of stakeholders
OK OK Good OK Good Very good
Allows wide stakeholder involvement
Poor Poor Very good Good OK OK
Choice of a Method (2)
Characteristics o f C ontam ination
Sta
keh
old
er
Inte
res
t
Sm allPatch
Com plexSite
Ma
nag
e-
me
ntE
very
-o
ne
Dom inance andNon-com pensatory m ethods
Trade-off A nalysis
Not re levant
L inear A dditive
M CDA
Analytica l H ierarchy
Trade-off A nalysis
Some Key Questions
• Should the “performance matrix” be central to the guidance?
• Is there a sufficient range of methods?• How are these methods best described
(bearing in mind “worked examples” will be included in the next draft)?
• Is the suggested guidance on the selection of a particular method helpful?