CVL300

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND IMPACT

ASSESSMENT
Lecture 14:
METHODS OF EVALUATING EA ALTERNATIVES
Overview of Evaluation Methods
(a) “Ad Hoc”;
(b) Dominance;
(c) Checklist;
(d) Weighting-Scoring Method;
(e) Benefit/cost method;
(f) Cartographic method (overlays/GIS);
(g) Pair-wise comparison methods;
(h) Mathematical Programming method
 Ad Hoc Methods
• Compare alternatives in narrative terms
with no explicitly stated method
• professional” judgement to weigh the
impacts
• decide whether the impacts are significant
 Dominance Methods
• work if most of the methods objectives can be
met
• don’t work in most complex EA projects where
there will be multi-objective and multiple trade-
offs
• Dominance occurs when one alternative
performs at least as well as another on all
criteria, and strictly better than the other on at
least on criterion.
• no needs for criteria weights, aggregate scores,
and common unit of measurements
 Red Hill Creek Expressway
Criterion A B C D
Air quality: increase in PM>120 µg/m3 (% time) 13 12.9 13.2 13.3

Noise: dBA increase 16.1 15.8 16.0 15.9

Cultural heritage: # sites disturbed (number) 3 3 3 3

Contaminated sites: (m3) 8800 9500 115000 8790

Changes to view Yes Yes Yes Yes
Transportation: meet 2021 demand, 90 Km Yes Yes Yes Yes

40Land use: Valley, trail, 500 510 505 400

Bruce trail 100 101 103 80
Fisheries: stream habitat realigned (meters) 300 305 300 301

Ground water: area recharge reduced (%) 30 40 41 29

Surface water: flood risk increase in lower valley Yes Yes Yes Yes

Water quality yearly sedimentation rise 30 42 40 25

Vegetation: plant species loss, uncommon (number) 29 30 31 29

Wildlife: rare animal habitat loss (hectares) 7.7 10.3 11.0 7.6
 Check Lists
• a check list of a project, established by
proper experts, will capture all significant
impacts
• the assessor needs to judge on the basis
of number severity of impacts
• no decision criteria to set the number of
checked items for unacceptable
alternatives
• useful for preliminary screening analysis
 Weighting-Scoring Method
• developed in 1973 for water resource
projects.
• environmental concerns into 4 groups: (i)
ecology; (ii) physical/chemical; (iii)
aesthetics; (iv) human interest/social
• explicit in dealing with (i) measurement
problem; (ii) weights/values
Grand index for each alternative

Gj = Grand index (final score/single number) for the

jth alternative;
n = the number of decision criteria going from 1 to
n;
Wi = weight (importance) of the ith decision criterion;
Sij = score for decision criterion for alternative.
Standardization of scores
 Example 9.1
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
3 5 6 9

Criterion = hectares wood cover removed

Sum of raw scores = 23

•Standardized score i (alternative B) = 5/23 = 0.22
•Standardized score i (alternative B) = 5/9 = 0.56
•Standardized score i (alternative B) = (9-3)/(9-3) = 0.33
Normalization of scores
 Weights
• should be derived through some forms of
public process and expert judgement.
• currently, the weights are set by decision
makers
• people themselves uncertain of our value
• people may not be willing to express their
true values
• people may not be able to order their
values in the abstract with precision and
reliability
 Grand Index of an Alternative
Criterion Weight (W) Score (S) W*S
1 0.4 12 4.8
2 0.2 10 2.0
3 0.6 9 5.4
..
..
..
N 0.1 8 0.8
Grand index 13.0
 Pros and Cons of
Weighting Score Method
• Comprehensive and selective
• Double counting may occur
• Objective and rational
• Systematic with grand index
• Controversy around weights and the mean
aggregated values for decision
• No decision criterion
 Benefit-cost (B/C) analysis
• only method that provides a decision rule
and decision criterion.
• gives a clear measure to accept or reject
alternatives.
 Social Welfare Theory
• social welfare is the sum of all individual
welfares (some call it happiness) in society
• Unit of happiness is “utils”
• the greater the amount of happiness there
is for the greatest number of people in the
society, the better off we are
• decisions can be made to benefit the
majority if and only if they do not limit the
rights of individuals
 Pareto’s Optimal
• wanted to maximize the welfare of the society
• focusing on the greatest good for greatest
number
• make some individuals better off while others
experience no change and are not worse off
• Sub-optimal refers to outcomes in which it is
possible for at least one individual to realize a
welfare improvement without making any on
else in that society worse off
 Social Welfare (SW) Function

• Society SW increases by 11 utils

• Possible U5 loses but SW still positive.
• Pareto’s optimal too restrictive
 Pareto’s Sub-optimal

• The winners get 11 utils while the loser

loses 10 utils
• Ask the winners to give 10 utils to the loser
and still get 1 util
• Surplus would be distributed by markets
and other means (taxes) even if not
actually paid
Decision Criterion of B/C Analysis
• B>C, accept the alternative
• B=C or B<C, reject the alternative
• Some groups could be consistently losers
• Distribution problems are immense
• Community impact agreement through
mediation in recent EA
 B/C Analysis Step: Cost
• Capital costs
• Operating and maintenance costs
• Financing costs
• Social costs
• Economic costs
• Environmental costs
• Aesthetic costs
• non-market goods and cannot be bought
or sold ordinarily.
 B/C Analysis Step: Benefits
• List all benefit categories of the alternative
• E.g. value of power generated, tax base
increase for municipality, economic
development (new shopping) and retail
markets, improve recreation facilities.
• Imputed dollar values for each benefit.
 Imputed Value of Benefits
• willingness to pay survey
• prices of associated expenditure
 Key Flaws in C/B analysis
• Imputing and estimating cost and benefits;
• Opportunity cost – cost of not taking other
opportunities
• Multiplier estimates – empirical
observations of economic indirect benefits
are produced by single primary job
• Contingent valuation – surrogate marker
approach, willingness to pay, and no real
market for some goods.
•
Estimation of Non-Market Goods
• Willingness to pay survey
• Excess value
• Replacement cost of natural environment
Discounting over Planning Horizon
• Discounting is a technique to bring future
costs and benefits back to the present
value.
• The discount rate is a crucial factor as
future costs and benefits may be
insignificant for higher rates.
 Decision Criteria
Proposed Benefits Costs (C) Net Benefit (B-C) B/C ratio
action (B)
X 150 75 75 2.0

Y 120 50 70 2.4

Z 70 25 45 2.8
Weaknesses and strengths of B/C
• Systematic
• Objective
• Rational
• Manipulative
• Intangibles
• Distribution