1. Guide to Options Comparison Revision of the SAFEGROUNDS Guidance James Penfold, Quintessa SAFESPUR, 4 October 2007

2. Outline Need and Purpose Structure and Content Key Questions

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Guiding Principles 1.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.

8. General Approach

9. Performance Matrix Option AOption BOption C Criterion 1Score (A,1)Score (B,1)Score (C,1) Criterion 2Score (A,2)Score (B,2)Score (C,2) Criterion 3Score (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

10. 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

11. Factors Influencing Choice of Method

12. Extent of Stakeholder Involvement

13. Choice of a Method (1) Direct evaluation Non- Compensatory Methods Trade-off Analysis Linear AdditiveAnalytical Hierarchy Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis Quick, simple Very good OK Poor Permits detailed analysis Poor Good Very good Can consider broad range of criteria GoodVery goodGoodOKPoorGood Suited to numerical criteria PoorOK Very good Good Understandable by wide range of stakeholders Very goodGood Poor Suited to a limited range of stakeholders OK GoodOKGoodVery good Allows wide stakeholder involvement Poor Very goodGoodOK

14. Choice of a Method (2)

15. 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?