(4) submit the alternative policies, along with their policy implications, to the
responsible decision makers.
Such a planning procedure would, hopefully, guarantee that the political leaders
are aware of the pertinent alternatives and the efficient trade-offs among multiple
objectives. Concurrently, this would emphasize the importance of the politician’s
duty in the allocation of relative priorities and in describing the best compromise
solution. Lastly, such a process would establish a systematic definition of the
comparative priorities among various objectives by the political process. Ultimately,
this could hopefully entail weight coefficients being approximately specified prior to
individual policy formulation and evaluation. When estimates of the comparative
weights values are known prior to policy planning, technicians could take the
initiative and request responsible decision makers to disclose their value judgments.
Instead of presenting the decision makers with a single policy or project plan
representing a best compromise among conflicting goals, planners should place
political choice in the hands of the politicians - who are elected by the people, and
accountable to the people affected by those choices. It is only through the further use
and development of such analytical planning techniques that technical persons can
start educating those people who believe that public-policy evaluation and analyses
should be technical, rather than political.
References
Benayoun, R., Montgolfier, J. de Tergny, J., & Laritchey, O. (1971, December). Linear programming with multiple objective functions: Step method (STEM), Mathematical Programme, 1(3).
Biswas A. K. (1975). Mathematical modelling and environmental decision-making. Ecological
Modelling, 1(1), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(75)90004-6
Biswas A. K. (1976). Systems approach to water management. In A. K. Biswas (ed.). Systems
approach to mater management. McGraw-Hill.
Buckley, J. W., & McLaughlin, R. T. (1966, October). Simulation of political interaction in
multiple purpose river basin development (Report N. 100). Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Hydrodynamics Laboratory.
Dorfman, R., & Jacoby, H. D. (1972). An illustrative model of River Basin pollution control
(Chapter 3). In Dorfman et al. (Eds.), Models for managing regional water quality. Cambridge:
Harvard Unversity Press.
Haimes, Y. Y. (1981). Risk/benefit analysis in water resources planning and management.
New York: Plenum Press.
Haith, D. A., & Loucks, D. P. (1976). Multiobjective water resources planning. In A. K. Biswas
(Ed.), Systems approach to water management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Keeny, R. I., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value
Tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schultze, C.L. (1968). The politics and economics of public spending. Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution.
410
14 Multi Sector/Purpose Infrastructure Planning
responsible decision makers.
Such a planning procedure would, hopefully, guarantee that the political leaders
are aware of the pertinent alternatives and the efficient trade-offs among multiple
objectives. Concurrently, this would emphasize the importance of the politician’s
duty in the allocation of relative priorities and in describing the best compromise
solution. Lastly, such a process would establish a systematic definition of the
comparative priorities among various objectives by the political process. Ultimately,
this could hopefully entail weight coefficients being approximately specified prior to
individual policy formulation and evaluation. When estimates of the comparative
weights values are known prior to policy planning, technicians could take the
initiative and request responsible decision makers to disclose their value judgments.
Instead of presenting the decision makers with a single policy or project plan
representing a best compromise among conflicting goals, planners should place
political choice in the hands of the politicians - who are elected by the people, and
accountable to the people affected by those choices. It is only through the further use
and development of such analytical planning techniques that technical persons can
start educating those people who believe that public-policy evaluation and analyses
should be technical, rather than political.
References
Benayoun, R., Montgolfier, J. de Tergny, J., & Laritchey, O. (1971, December). Linear programming with multiple objective functions: Step method (STEM), Mathematical Programme, 1(3).
Biswas A. K. (1975). Mathematical modelling and environmental decision-making. Ecological
Modelling, 1(1), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(75)90004-6
Biswas A. K. (1976). Systems approach to water management. In A. K. Biswas (ed.). Systems
approach to mater management. McGraw-Hill.
Buckley, J. W., & McLaughlin, R. T. (1966, October). Simulation of political interaction in
multiple purpose river basin development (Report N. 100). Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Hydrodynamics Laboratory.
Dorfman, R., & Jacoby, H. D. (1972). An illustrative model of River Basin pollution control
(Chapter 3). In Dorfman et al. (Eds.), Models for managing regional water quality. Cambridge:
Harvard Unversity Press.
Haimes, Y. Y. (1981). Risk/benefit analysis in water resources planning and management.
New York: Plenum Press.
Haith, D. A., & Loucks, D. P. (1976). Multiobjective water resources planning. In A. K. Biswas
(Ed.), Systems approach to water management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Keeny, R. I., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value
Tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schultze, C.L. (1968). The politics and economics of public spending. Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution.
410
14 Multi Sector/Purpose Infrastructure Planning