|
|
xi | (2) |
|
|
xiii | (1) |
List of formulae |
|
xiv | (1) |
Preface |
|
xv | |
|
1 An introduction to making calculated choices |
|
|
1 | (34) |
Introduction |
|
1 | (4) |
|
|
5 | (2) |
|
1.2 What does impact assessment look like? |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
1.3 Developments in the application of the methodology |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
1.4 Impact assessment as an advanced cost-benefit analysis |
|
|
9 | (7) |
|
1.5 Impact assessment within the framework of evaluation research |
|
|
16 | (11) |
|
1.5.1 User-oriented approach |
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
1.5.2 The independence of evaluation methodology |
|
|
19 | (2) |
|
|
21 | (5) |
|
|
26 | (1) |
|
|
27 | (6) |
|
1.6.1 Choices in policy-making |
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
1.6.2 Alternatives and criteria |
|
|
29 | (1) |
|
|
29 | (1) |
|
1.6.4 The importance of criteria |
|
|
29 | (1) |
|
|
30 | (2) |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
1.6.7 Leave the decision to the decision maker |
|
|
33 | (1) |
|
1.7 Structure of the book |
|
|
33 | (1) |
|
|
34 | (1) |
|
2 The task is to make a well-thought-out choice |
|
|
35 | (16) |
Introduction |
|
35 | (2) |
|
2.1 The elements of policy-making |
|
|
37 | (3) |
|
2.2 Merits of the tactical approach |
|
|
40 | (9) |
|
2.2.1 Problems with an intuitive choice process |
|
|
41 | (4) |
|
2.2.2 Advantages of the tactical approach |
|
|
45 | (1) |
|
2.2.3 Problems with the tactical approach |
|
|
46 | (3) |
|
|
49 | (2) |
|
3 Alternatives and criteria |
|
|
51 | (24) |
Introduction |
|
51 | (2) |
|
3.1 The relationship between information and decision-making quality |
|
|
53 | (6) |
|
3.1.1 Incrementalists and synopticians |
|
|
53 | (3) |
|
3.1.2 Information theory and cybernetics |
|
|
56 | (3) |
|
3.2 What determines information search behaviour? |
|
|
59 | (9) |
|
3.2.1 Factors related to the content of the choice problem |
|
|
59 | (1) |
|
3.2.2 Factors related to the characteristics of the Decision maker(s) |
|
|
60 | (8) |
|
3.3 Does an optimum exist? |
|
|
68 | (1) |
|
|
69 | (3) |
|
3.5 Types of alternatives |
|
|
72 | (2) |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
4 Determining how well alternatives score on criteria |
|
|
75 | (47) |
Introduction |
|
75 | (1) |
|
4.1 Criteria and indicators |
|
|
76 | (3) |
|
4.2 Methods for determining criterion scores |
|
|
79 | (28) |
|
4.2.1 Information from previous evaluations |
|
|
79 | (9) |
|
4.2.2 Information derived from performance indicators |
|
|
88 | (10) |
|
4.2.3 Ask the experts: the classic Delphi method |
|
|
98 | (2) |
|
|
100 | (1) |
|
4.2.5 Comparative case studies |
|
|
101 | (6) |
|
4.3 Environmental impact assessment in practice |
|
|
107 | (12) |
|
|
108 | (1) |
|
4.3.2 The outcomes of content analysis |
|
|
109 | (10) |
|
|
119 | (3) |
|
|
122 | (26) |
Introduction |
|
122 | (2) |
|
|
124 | (1) |
|
5.2 Theories on prioritizing |
|
|
124 | (8) |
|
5.3 Methodological aspects of weight determination |
|
|
132 | (4) |
|
5.4 Transformation of weights |
|
|
136 | (6) |
|
5.5 Attribution of weights in practice |
|
|
142 | (5) |
|
|
147 | (1) |
|
6 Compilation into a ranking order |
|
|
148 | (25) |
Introduction |
|
148 | (1) |
|
6.1 Utility of alternatives |
|
|
149 | (4) |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
6.1.3 The utility formula |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
|
153 | (3) |
|
|
156 | (1) |
|
6.4 Various analytical techniques |
|
|
156 | (15) |
|
6.5 Interpretation of ranking order |
|
|
171 | (1) |
|
6.5.1 Variation of outcomes with identical scores |
|
|
171 | (1) |
|
6.5.2 Input of scores in a new analysis |
|
|
172 | (1) |
|
|
172 | (1) |
|
|
173 | (22) |
Introduction |
|
173 | (1) |
|
7.1 Decision requirements |
|
|
174 | (4) |
|
|
178 | (2) |
|
|
180 | (5) |
|
7.3.1 Adding bad alternatives |
|
|
180 | (3) |
|
|
183 | (2) |
|
7.4 Stepwise and pairwise analysis |
|
|
185 | (3) |
|
7.5 The `locations for a nuclear power station' case |
|
|
188 | (4) |
|
|
192 | (3) |
|
8 Leave the decision to the decision makers |
|
|
195 | (10) |
Introduction |
|
195 | (2) |
|
8.1 Advantages of impact assessment |
|
|
197 | (1) |
|
8.2 Use of impact assessment in decision-making |
|
|
197 | (1) |
|
8.3 Threatening information |
|
|
198 | (1) |
|
8.4 The strategic nature of impact assessment |
|
|
199 | (4) |
|
|
203 | (2) |
References |
|
205 | (10) |
Subject Index |
|
215 | (4) |
Author Index |
|
219 | |