Assigns Weights to Utility

Function for Each Criterion

Lecture 5
WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD

"

!Related

to Multi- Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT)

into the SMART approach (W.
Edwards, How to Use Multiattribute Utility
Measurement for Social Decision Making, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, SMC
- 7, 326
- 340, 1977)

!Incorporated

"
"
"
"

Weights assigned to each criterion

wi | i = 1, 2,..., m Usually > 0
Evaluation matrix of criteria I for
each alternative j fi ( a j )

Define utility function for each

criterione.g., linear is popular choice

U i fi (a j ) = i + i fi (a j )

Illustrative Example in
Floodplain Management

Maximize Utility
max
aj
"
"
"
"
"

"

i =1

"

wi U i [ fi (a j )]

Assumes monotonicity
Utility independence
Risk neutrality
Most common methodbut probably
the weakest

"

Peaks Branch watershed within Dallas

city limits
Present channel designed for 5 yr
flood onlyimprove for 100 yr flood
Formulation of alternative floodprevention measures to address
#
#
#

Technical details
Community preferences
Protection to life and property

Multiple Criteria
"

"

Multiple Criteria (cont.)

Flood Protection
#

"

Neighborhood Acceptance

"

Relocations (people and structures)

"

Project and Maintenance Costs

Legal Aspects

Open channel vs. closed conduit

Paved channels vs. grass- covered

Neighborhood Improvement
#
#
#

More business and commerce

Multiple uses
Increase property values

"

#
#

Social and aesthetic preferences

Encounter disapproval

Structural and nonstructural changes

Possible litigation
6

Management Alternatives (cont.)

1.

No Action
#

2.

8.

Park Greenway--South

Detention storage and pump station

Bypass Conduit
Purchase and Redevelopment of
Floodplain

7.

2 lakes, hike and bike trails, widen

channels

Widening of main branch, additionalright- of- way

Concrete Channel

6.

every structure inundated by 100 yr

flood purchased and cleared

Park GreenwayNorth
#

4.

Basic Greenway

5.

No corrective measures

Purchase of the Floodplain

#

3.

Management Alternatives (cont.)

Combines 2 and 3
8

Landscape
design for Park
Greenway-South

Example of Weighted Average Method--Evaluation of Alternative Plans for Floodplain Management

[from Multiobjective Decision Analysis with Engineering and Business Applications , by A. Goicoechea, D. Hansen, and L. Duckstein, Wiley, 1982]

Buy the
Park Green- Park GreenBasic
Concrete
Bypass
Buy/Redevelop
Factors Used
No Action
Floodplain
way--North way--South
Greenway
Channel
Conduit
Floodplain
in Evaluation
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8
1. Flood protection
Bad
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Excellent
Fair
Very Good
2. Multiple use of floodway
Fair
Very Good
Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Fair
Excellent
3. Enhancement of property values
Bad
Good
Very Good
Excellent
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
4. Aesthetic value
Bad
Fair
Very Good
Excellent
Good
Poor
Fair
Good
5. Relative neighborhood improvement
Bad
Fair
Very Good
Excellent
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
6. Number of family relocations
0
800
237
419
164
69
30
604
7. Project cost (millions)
$0
$12
$9.3
$10.9
$7.7
$5.6
$12.3
$16.3
8. Maintenance cost (thousands)
$12
$0
$41
$41
$41
$16
$0
$41
9. Ease of phased construction
Excellent
Very Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Bad
Good
10. Legal obstacles
Poor
Poor
Very Good
Good
Good
Fair
Excellent
Bad

Evaluation Matrix for Floodplain Management Example

No Action
Alternative 1

Buy the Floodplain

Alternative 2

Relative
Rating Combined Rating
Importance
(1 to 8)
Rating
(1 to 8)
(1 to 10)
1. Flood protection
10
1
10
6
2. Multiple use of floodway
7
3
21
7
3. Enhancement of property values
3
1
3
5
4. Aesthetic value
5
1
5
4
5. Relative neighborhood improvement
6
1
6
2
6. Number of family relocations
8
8.0
64
1.0
7. Project cost
9
8.0
72
2.8
8. Maintenance cost
4
6.0
24
8.0
9. Ease of phased construction
2
8
16
7
10. Legal obstacles
1
2
2
2
Total Desirability Rating
223
Ranking
8
Factors Considered in
Selecting a Design

Basic Greenway
Alternative 5
Factors Considered in
Selecting a Design
1. Flood protection
2. Multiple use of floodway
3. Enhancement of property values
4. Aesthetic value
5. Relative neighborhood improvement
6. Number of family relocations
7. Project cost (millions)
8. Maintenance cost (thousands)
9. Ease of phased construction
10. Legal obstacles
Total Desirability Rating
Ranking

4
4
4
5
5
6.6
4.7
1.0
3
5

40
28
12
25
30
52.8
42.3
4
6
5
245.1
5

Park Greenway
South Alternative 4

Combined
Rating

Rating
(1 to 8)

Combined
Rating

Rating Combined
(1 to 8)
Rating

60
49
15
20
12
8
25.2
32
14
2
237.2
6

5
5
7
7
7
5.9
4.0
1.0
4
7

50
35
21
35
42
47.2
36
4
8
7
285.2
2

Concrete Channel
Alternative 6

Relative
Rating Combined Rating
Importance
(1 to 8)
(1 to 8)
Rating
(1 to 10)
10
7
3
5
6
8
9
4
2
1

Park Greenway
North Alternative 3

8
2
3
2
4
7.4
5.6
5.3
2
4

Bypass Conduit
Alternative 7

Combined
Rating

Rating
(1 to 8)

Combined
Rating

80
14
9
10
24
59.2
50.4
21.2
4
4
275.8
3

4
3
3
3
4
7.7
2.7
8.0
1
8

40
21
9
15
24
61.6
24.3
32
2
8
236.9
7

6
6
8
8
8
4.3
3.3
1.0
4
6

60
42
24
40
48
34.4
29.7
4
8
6
296.1
1
Buy/Redevelop
Floodplain
Alternative 8
Rating Combined
(1 to 8)
Rating
7
8
6
6
6
2.7
1.0
1.0
6
1

70
56
18
30
36
21.6
9
4
12
1
257.6
4