LAB #5: Criteria-Alternatives Matrix (CAM) Analysis
Introducing Lab #5 – Introducing the Criteria-Alternatives Matrix (CAM)
The criteria-alternatives matrix (CAM) analysis is a decision-making tool that is used to compare how policy options “measure up” against the identified criteria.
The matrix or table lists the policy options or “alternatives” along the Y-axis (usually) and the criteria along the X-axis.
An evaluation of the projected outcomes of an alternative against a criterion fills each cell of the matrix.
EXAMPLE 1: Dog Park Alternative-Criterion Matrix (from Musso reading)
Location
Cost
Suitability for off-leash use
Negative spillovers
Playland
$750,000
4 acres; 2 wooded; small stream and natural pond
Entrance is 100 feet away from homes; some parking congestion expected
Land’s End
$150,000, plus unknown costs to address erosion problem (costs are probably less than $30,000).
1 acre, drainage problems lead to muddiness in winter, limited shade and fresh water
1 mile away from the nearest subdivision; adjacent parking lot and left-turn lane mitigate traffic and parking impacts
Splitsville
$200,000 plus unknown costs to mitigate drainage (costs probably less than $20,000).
1/2 acre, sloping area with severe erosion; no shade or fresh water
Entrance is 150 feet away from residential development; may be some noise complaints; few problems with parking or traffic expected
No Exit
$100,000
1 wooded acre with duck pond; drinking fountains, rolling hills
South fence line adjoins property of 20 homes, residents of which oppose park. Limited parking.
Four Corners
$300,000
1/2 acre, rolling hills, some trees, small ornamental fountain and drinking fountain
Entrance is 400 feet from commercial development; noise not expected to be a problem and there is plentiful off-street parking.
Purpose of the Matrix Analysis
The goal of the matrix analysis is not to treat the analytic process as some calculator that spits out an answer about your decision.
The analyst should be transparent, clear, and honest about their evaluation of the projected outcomes against each criterion.
Descriptive statements about the projected outcomes should accompany the matrix.
Uncertainty and risk should be included and acknowledged.
The matrix then helps the analyst to explain clearly and honestly the trade-offs that exist between policy options.
PART ONE – Completing Your Criteria-Alternatives Matrix (CAM) – What will you do this summer?
Complete the CAM on “What will you do this summer?”
Complete the CAM table below to understand the trade-offs involved in deciding between options for this summer. Your goals for this summer are: 1) to save as much as money as possible, 2) to add qualifications to your resume for your job search post-graduation, and 3) to have positive mental health benefits.
Consider the 3 options below for your summer OR choose 3 options of your choosing to include in the table below:
Option 1 – Stay in Los Angeles and take summer classes to focus on gaining additional skills in environmental policy and methods. Stay in your current apartment situation.
Option 2 – Accept an internship as a consulting firm in New York City that pays $1800 per month as a stipend. Pay rent for an apartment in New York.
Option 3 – Go back home and continue working on your online business that has gained net profits of $3000-3500 per month for the past 6 months.
Specify each alternative and criterion descriptively in the table cells below. Specify criterion as metrics where possible. (Ex. Save at least $2000 this summer.).
STEP ONE – Complete the matrix. (100 words)
Communicate outcomes in their “natural units”. Quantify if possible. Include any documentation or explanation of how you calculated costs with assumptions using footnotes.
Include areas of uncertainty involved. For unknown factors, include any “ceilings” or contingencies involved. Include worst-case or best-case scenarios if known.
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
STEP TWO – Decide. (150 words)
Which option will you select and why?
Write you answer here.
PART TWO: Confronting Trade-offs – Coast City Case
We continue to consider the congestion problem on Central Ave. in the Coast City case.(I have attached the case backgrounds to additional documents)
Now we consider the three options once again using the criterion-alternative matrix below.
Option 1: Bicycle Coalition implements a Driver Safety Program from their offices in Coast City. The public education classes are free, offering a $15 dining voucher for participants. A new program coordinator will run the program. Training materials and refreshments will be provided at each class.
Option 2: The Planning Department hires a cycling coordinator who spends their first year implementing a ban on bicycles on the busy 2-mile strip of Central Ave. during the busiest 4 hours of the day. New street signage will be needed to indicate the times of restricted biking. Law enforcement would be required, especially initially, to enforce the ban.
Option 3: The Planning Department and Transportation Department would install a protected bike lane on the busy 2-mile strip of Central Ave. and remove the street parking to make room for the lane. The city would construct a new parking structure within a 7 mile walk and charge parking fees. The new lot would create 20 new parking spaces in addition to replacing the lost parking spaces on the street. Pay machines and a staff person on standby would operate the parking lot.
The Planning Department produced the criterion alternative matrix below. This matrix assesses each option in terms of four criteria: cost estimates, average of accidents reduced annually, emissions reduced, and survey of how satisfied businesses are with option.
Coast City Case:
Criterion-Alternative Matrix
Annual Cost over 10 years
Accidents Reduced (Annual Average)
Emissions Reduction
Index of Central Ave. business satisfaction with policy option (from Web survey*)
Driver Safety Classes
$145,000
Opportunity costs of building use and volunteer hours.
7 accidents reduced (2 lives saved)
No direct impact on emissions reduction since vehicle usage patterns would remain unchanged.
May indirectly increase biking as safety is increased.
3.1
Cycling Coordinator & Restricted Biking
$22,500
Opportunity costs of law enforcement officers patrolling
May result in loss of business revenue
10 accidents reduced (3 lives saved)
May cause increased auto vehicle usage since biking would be restricted during busy times resulting in small increase in emissions.
1.5
Protected Bike Lane & Parking Structure
$100,000
Opportunity cost of land use (land value $5 million)
Uncertain impact on business revenue
16 accidents reduced (5 lives saved)
May cause increased bicycle usage with increase in safety resulting in small reduction of emissions.
4.7
* User satisfaction determined on a 1 to 5 scale
(1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = somewhat dissatisfied; 3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 4 = somewhat satisfied; 5 = very satisfied)
STEP 1 – Measure cost-effectiveness.
Calculate a measure of cost-effectiveness, considering both numbers of cost and accidents reduced and lives saved. Which program is most cost-effective from a standpoint of lives saved?
Write answer here.
STEP 2 – Discuss the trade-offs (500 words)
Consider the Trade-offs
Confront any value trade-offs that exist. This task is complicated when there are a lack of comparable measures or the presence of conflicting stakeholders. To do this, complete the following steps:
Identify any bad or excellent performing options.
Utilize a system of naïve rankings to identify and eliminate dominated alternatives.
First, rank each option from best to worst for each criterion. Be prepared to explain your rankings since they are subjective.
Then, determine if there are any alternatives that “dominates” others. An alternative is consider to dominate another alternative if it is better in at least one criterion and no worse on all the others.
Determine if any alternatives are “dominated” by others. An alternative is dominated by others when they appear worse across dimensions than at least one other alternative.
Remember, do not “sum” rankings to compare alternatives.
Consider how stakeholders will perceive trade-offs. Do the rankings inform your political analysis?
Consider whether a lexical ordering approach is applicable.
What are the goals/wants and constraints/needs of the issue? Practical criteria, such as legality, political feasibility, and implementation feasibility could be considered here.
Can you eliminate any options that do not satisfy the needs or constraints of the issue?
In a couple of paragraphs, discuss the value trade-offs associated with closure options, with attention to whether there are any dominated alternatives or dominating alternatives. What would be your final recommendation?
Write answer here.
1