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?