Decision/Evaluation Methodologies
• Physical modelling (hydrologic, Hydraulics,
ecological suitability)
• Simulation models (Shared Vision Planning)
• Optimization – e.g. maximize net economic
benefits; minimize risk-cost)
• Multiattribute/Multicriteria Models (MCDMs)
• Risk-based,Fuzzy arithmetic models
• Scenario Robust decisionmaking
International Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River Study
Candidate Plans:
– A: Balanced Economics
– B: Balanced Environmental
– D: Blended Benefits
Natural Flow Plan
– E: Natural Flow
Interest Specific:
– Ontario Riparian Plan
– Recreational Boating Plan
Reference Plans:
– Plan 1998
– Plan 1958DD
– Plan 1958D
Net Economic/Ecologic Benefits of Alternative Plans
Avg. annual
net benefits
($US million)
Plan
1958DD
Plan A
Plan B
Plan D
Plan E
Net Benefits
0.00
7.52
6.48
6.52
-12.30
Shoreline Damages
0.00
-0.62
-1.11
0.32
-25.96
Navigation
0.00
0.41
2.20
2.31
4.13
Recreation Boating
0.00
4.23
-0.58
Hydroelectric
0.00
3.50
5.97
1.82
14.16
Municipal Water
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Environmental
Index
1.00
1.06
1.35
1.10
4.04
Wetlands Index
1.00
1.02
1.44
1.17
1.56
2.04
-4.64
Stakhiv Plan selection
rationale for IUGLS
 Used Study Guidelines as basis for evaluation





criteria
Developed simple MAUT model for replicable
evaluation
Plan D is robust selection under wide range of
weights – other plans vary in rank
Plan E is “worst” performing under most weights
Gave extra weight to equity considerations
(disproportionate loss, geographic distrib, etc.)
Plan A, B, C close- selection depends on weights
(I.e. preferences for particular attributes)
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES WITH SUB-OBJECTIVES
Contributes to
Ecological Integrity
Total Weight = 50
Economic Benefits
Total Weight = 35
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES WITH NO SUB-OBJECTIVES
Sub-Objectives for Each Primary Objective
Species at Risk
Weight =
15
Maximize Net Benefits
Weight =
15
Wetland PIs
Weight =
10
Disp. Losses During
Worst Flow Events
Weight =
5
All Other
Environmental PIs
Weight =
15
Average Annual Disp.
Loss
Weight =
10
Environmental Equity
Weight =
10
Geographic Equity
Weight =
5
Unusual &
Unexpected Events
Weight =
0
Mitigation Required
Weight =
10
Adaptable to
Climate Change
Weight =
5
Do not change the weights on this page
Change them on the rankings page instead
Go to the rankings page
Click here to go back to the weightings and rankings
Click on an Objective to Score
Species at Risk
Net Economic Benefits
Unusual/Unexpected Events
Wetlands
Disp. Losses During Worst Flows
Mitigation Required
All Other Env PIs
Avg Annual Disp Losses
Adaptable to Climate Change
Env Equity
Geographic Equity
Species at Risk
Plans
Plan Scores and Rankings
Scores
1.2
Plan A
0.7
1
Plan B
0.8
0.8
0.6
Plan C
0.4
Plan D
0.5
0.2
Plan E
1
0
1958DD
0.7
0.4
Plan A
Rank = 3
Plan B
Rank = 2
Plan C
Rank = 6
Plan D
Rank = 5
Plan E
Rank = 1
1958DD
Rank = 3
Stakhiv Decision Model for Lake Ontario Regulation
Weights
50
15
10
15
10
Economic Benefits
Net Benefits
Disp Loss-Worst Flows
Avg Annual Disp. Losses
Geographic Equity
35
15
5
10
5
Unusual/Unexpected Events
Mitigation Required
Climate Change
0
10
5
Sum of Weights (should be 100) =
100
Overall Plan Rankings
0.7
0.6
Weighted Score
Contributes to Ecological Integrity
SAR
Wetlands
Other Env PIs
Environmental Equity
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Click here to change the plan scores
Plan A
Rank = 3
Plan B
Rank = 2
Plan C
Rank = 4
Plan D
Rank = 1
Plan E
Rank = 5
1958DD
Rank = 6
Stakhiv Decision Model for Lake Ontario Regulation
Weights
40
10
10
10
10
Economic Benefits
Net Benefits
Disp Loss-Worst Flows
Avg Annual Disp. Losses
Geographic Equity
45
15
5
10
10
Unusual/Unexpected Events
Mitigation Required
Climate Change
0
10
5
Overall Plan Rankings
0.8
0.7
0.6
Weighted Score
Contributes to Ecological Integrity
SAR
Wetlands
Other Env PIs
Environmental Equity
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Sum of Weights (should be 100) =
100
0.1
0
Click here to change the plan scores
Plan A
Rank = 3
Plan B
Rank = 4
Plan C
Rank = 2
Plan D
Rank = 1
Plan E
Rank = 5
1958DD
Rank = 6
‘Fuzzy Set’ Risk-Cost Analysis for
alternative dredged material sites
Multiattribute utility analysis
High degrees of uncertainty and unknowns
Use of weights, probabilities
CAD – confined aquatic disposal
UAD – unconfined aquatic disposal
CDF – Confined disposal facility
UFL – Upland disposal facility
UPS – Upland protected source
Level 1
Cancer
Level 2
(0.7)
(0.3)
Noncance
r
Fish
(0.7)
Toxicity
Fish Burial (0.3)
Shellfish
Toxicity
Shellfish
Burial
Terrestrial
Toxicity
Terrestrial
Burial
Habitat
Loss
Cost
(0.4)
Level 4
Human Risk
(0.7)
Site Risk
Fish Risk
(0.5)
Shellfish Risk
(0.6)
(0.7)
Level 3
Ecol Risk
Final
Risk–Cost
Tradeoff
(0.3)
Terrestrial Risk
(0.3)
(0.5)
Level 2 Analysis
1
UAD
Shellfish Risk
0.8
0.6
0.4
CDF
CAD
0.2
UFL
UPS
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Terrestial Risk
0.8
1
Level 3 Analysis
1
10-2
Human Health Risk
UAD
CAD
UPL
10-4
10-6
CDF
10-8
UPS
10-10
0.01
0.1
Biological Risk
1
Goal
Objective

Criteria
Mgmt.
Measure
Sustainable Development
Econ.
Envir.
Equity
$ Costs
W.Q.
Income
&
Habitat Distribution
Benefit Diversity
Reduce Vulnerability
SWB
Relocate
Safety
Population
at Risk
Reliability
Frequency
of Failure
MM1
…
MMi
…
MMn
Management  •Structural / infrastructure
(Adaptive)
•Legal / legislative
•Institutional / administrative
Measures
•Financial incentives, subsidies (+)
•Taxes, tariffs, user fees (-)
•Research and development
•Regulations (land use, zoning, standards) •Market mechanisms
•Technology development
•Education
Level 4 Analysis
Cancer Risk (probability)
1
UAD
10-6 is the
*Standard*
10-2
CDF
10-4
UPS
UPL
10-6
10-8
CAD
10-10
105
106
107
108
Disposal Cost ($)
UAD – unconfined aquatic disposal
CAD – capped aquatic disposal
CDF – confined disposal facility
UPL – upland disposal
UPS – upland protected
source
ACT-ACF Study used
RCHARC indices.
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.55
Summer 0.46
Winter
0.55
Chattahoochee R.
Lake Lanier
Morgan Falls
Atlanta, GA
Flint R.
West Point
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.25
Summer 0.26
Winter
0.35
Columbus, GA
Private Power
Dams
George Andrews
Georgia
Jim Woodruff
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.34
Summer 0.48
Winter
0.55
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.23
Summer 0.45
Winter
0.76
W.F. George
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.35
Summer 0.51
Winter
0.63
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.45
Summer 0.56
Winter
0.65
Florida
Apalachicola R.
Apalachicola Bay
Riparian Index Shown in this schematic
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.55
Summer 0.65
Winter
0.76
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.61
Summer 0.63
Winter
0.72
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.43
Summer 0.61
Winter
0.78
TNC
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.55
Summer 0.46
Winter
0.55
Chattahoochee R.
Lake Lanier
Morgan Falls
Atlanta, GA
Flint R.
West Point
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.25
Summer 0.26
Winter
0.35
Columbus, GA
George Andrews
Georgia
Jim Woodruff
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.34
Summer 0.48
Winter
0.55
Opportunity cost tradeoff
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.23
Summer 0.45
Winter
0.76
Private Power
Dams
W.F. George
Florida
Apalachicola R.
3 alternatives,
3 RCHARC output levels
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.55
Summer 0.65
Winter
0.76
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.61
Summer 0.63
Winter
0.72
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.43
Summer 0.61
Winter
0.78
Apalachicola Bay
Economic vs Environmental Frontier
Annual Economic
Benefits (Millions$)
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.35
Summer 0.51
Winter
0.63
Riverine Habitat Scores
Spring
0.45
Summer 0.56
Winter
0.65
$35.0
$30.0
$25.0
$20.0
$15.0
$10.0
$5.0
$0.0
Recreation
0.00
Navigation
Environmental
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Riverine Habitat Score-Site R3 Spring
0.60
0.70