Weighted Average Method
Weighted Average Method
Weighted Average Method
"
!Related
!Incorporated
"
"
"
"
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
"
Technical details
Community preferences
Protection to life and property
Multiple Criteria
"
"
Flood Protection
#
"
Neighborhood Acceptance
"
"
Neighborhood Improvement
#
#
#
"
#
#
No Action
#
2.
8.
Park Greenway--South
Bypass Conduit
Purchase and Redevelopment of
Floodplain
7.
Concrete Channel
6.
Park GreenwayNorth
#
4.
Basic Greenway
5.
No corrective measures
3.
Combines 2 and 3
8
Landscape
design for Park
Greenway-South
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
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