10.2190/D526-5YH0-24EN-2FBW D5265YH024EN2FBW 3 Trade off Analysis in Environmental Decisionmaking: An Alternative to Weighted Decision Models 35 44 20020509 20020509 20020509 20020509 D5265YH024EN2FBW.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=D5265YH024EN2FBW 1 Albert Herson School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles This paper reviews the weighting and aggregation of project impacts in weighted decision models commonly employed for environmental decisionmaking, and proposes an alternative method, the systematic analysis of project impacts, for certain decision problems. Advantages of weighted decision models include the explicit quantification of decisionmaker values and the usefulness of systems analysis techniques for optimizing decisions. Disadvantages include the assumption of unanymity of values among affected publics and unresponsiveness to the needs of many participants in the decisionmaking process. For controversial decision problems with substantial implications for different social groups, explicit analysis of trade offs among impact areas or project goals is advanced as a method superior to the quantitative weighting and aggregation of impacts. M. L. Warner and E. H. Preston, <i>A Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies</i>, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/5-74-002, 1974. R. Stone and A. Herson, <i>Research Needs in Environmental Impact Analysis</i>, Paper presented at the American Society of Civil Engineers Environmental Engineering Convention, Preprint Number 2374, 1974. L. B. Leopold, <i>A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact</i>, U. S. Geological Survey Circular 645, 1971. D. M. McAllister, <i>Some Basics of Cost Benefit Analysis: Theoretical Terra Firma and Terra Not-So-Firma</i>, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles, Discussion Paper 48, 1974. J. V. Krutilla and A. C. Fisher, <i>The Economics of Natural Environments</i>, Resources for the Future, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Chapter 2, 1975. M. Hill, A Goals-Achievement Matrix for Evaluating Alternative Plans, <i>Journal of the American Institute of Planners</i>, pp. 19-29, January, 1968. W. S. Butcher, Water Resources, Optimization, and Social Change, in <i>Conflicts in Water Resources Planning</i>, E. F. Glogna and W. S. Butcher, (eds.), Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas, p. 95, 1972. I. L. McHarg, <i>Design with Nature</i>, Doubleday and Company, New York, p. 34, 1971. J. Lyle and M. von Wodtke, An Information System for Environmental Planning, <i>Journal of the American Institute of Planners</i>, pp. 304-413, November, 1974. J. Friedmann, The Future of Comprehensive Urban Planning: A Critique, <i>Public Administration Review</i>, p. 317, May/June, 1971. D. B. Lee, Jr., Requiem for Large-Scale Models, <i>Journal of the American Institute of Planners</i>, pp. 193-178, May, 1973. W. L. Miller and D. M. Byers, Development and Display of Multiple Objective Project Impacts, <i>Water Resources Research</i>, p. 19, January, 1973. A. Herson, <i>Land Based Sewage Sludge Management Alternatives for Los Angeles: Evaluation and Comparison</i>, Master's Thesis, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles, 1976. Available as a School of Architecture and Urban Planning Research Report.