WSP03744 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002H ;J ft~~) ~}~)}, ':";;'~I 12 1 reflect in its formulation a different emphasis on the relative importance 2 of specified objectives. 3 For each alternate plan a display of the gross benefits, gross 4 costs, and net benefits toward each objective will be prepared in such 5 manner that the different levels of achievernent to each objective can 6 be readily discerned and compared indicating the tradeoffs between 7 alternative plans. 8 Multiobjective evaluation embraces, either explicitly or implicitly, 9 an awareness by decision makers that water and related land resource 10 planning decisions are a subset of a larger set of public investment 11 decisions that can contribute to overall national welfare. Given a 12 specific set of ordered priorities as an operable basis for making 13 tradeoffs among different objectives, it will be possible for planners 14 to provide decision makers with benefit-cost comparisons which fully 15 reflect society's weighted preferences toward the mix of objectives 16 within water resources plans or arnong such plans and other kinds of 17 public investments. This multiobjective benefit-cost cOlnparison is a 18 more general form of the traditional benefit-cost relation in which only 19 benefits and costs to a single objective, that of national economic develop- 20 ment, are counted. In the absence of a specific set of ordered priorities, 21 such a multiobjective benefit-cost comparison may not be made explicitly. 22 Consequently, these Principles recognize that judgment estimates must 23 be made that assign implicit weights to the various objectives and 24 related alternatives. ;;>'~;.:;;::;;'::' '~--;. . ,_.;:.-:_-;-;-- .<-':~.:~~_t ',,::"::"~.:.: ~~:fj ~rl :\..~~-;~~.:: ~~~B1 ~$~~ ;:P:9~~ ~t~:~~ tl ~J~ ff~~i ~i:kI~ ~~J.1P.;1; I 0~~~! ~1f';r ~:~;~~~~:~~ ~;;\~)..~ ':-:~,.: '.- ,-..' .-,".-.--.- :'!,.';... ~.. i:.;_ _-..:.~;. :e_'. -..