Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey...
Transcript of Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey...
![Page 1: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Oct. 8, 2014
Energize Eastside
Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b
![Page 2: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1
MODA evaluation
Transparent Choice: Online software to support
Multi-Objective Decision Analysis
![Page 3: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
2
MODA and decision-making
How does MODA inform recommendations?
Allows for objective look at multiple data points and
multiple values
Applies levels of importance to criteria (factors) via
weighting
Compiles reviewers’ scores to allow discussion and
consideration
Is a decision-making tool, not the decision-maker
![Page 4: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
3
Evaluation factor
Advisory group
weighting
(n = 23)
Community
survey
weighting
(n = 461)
Difference
between
weights
Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%
Avoids residential areas 24% 31% + 7%
Avoids sensitive community land uses 13% 10% - 3%
Avoids sensitive environmental areas 7% 12.5% + 5.5%
Least cost to the rate payer 14% 7% - 7%
Maximizes longevity 9% 4% - 5%
Maximizes opportunity areas 15% 6% - 9%
Protects health and safety 9% 9% 0%
Protects mature vegetation 4% 6.5% + 2.5%
Total 100% 100% n/a
Weighting schemes
Evaluation factor
Advisory group
weighting
(n = 23)
Community
survey
weighting
(n = 461)
Difference
between
weights
Avoids impacts to aesthetics* 5% 14% + 9%
Avoids residential areas 24% 31% + 7%
Avoids sensitive community land uses 13% 10% - 3%
Avoids sensitive environmental areas 7% 12.5% + 5.5%
Least cost to the rate payer 14% 7% - 7%
Maximizes longevity 9% 4% - 5%
Maximizes opportunity areas 15% 6% - 9%
Protects health and safety 9% 9% 0%
Protects mature vegetation 4% 6.5% + 2.5%
Total 100% 100% n/a
*Highlighted evaluation factors have a difference of seven percentage points or greater
between the two weighting schemes.
![Page 5: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
4
MODA evaluation
How the software calculated the results:
Process Example Equation
1. Scores
provided by all
evaluators are
averaged
On a scale of 1 to 5, the
average score for Ash in
“Avoids residential areas” is 3.
Ash = 3
2. Averaged
scores are
normalized
Since 5 is the total number of
points possible, 3 is 60% of the
total possible score.
3/5 = .6 or 60%
3. The weighting
is applied
“Avoids residential areas” is
given weighting of 24%. This is
multiplied by the percentage of
total points received.
0.6 * 0.24 = 0.144
![Page 6: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
5
Results of the MODA evaluation
Advisory group weighting
![Page 7: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
6
Results of the MODA evaluation
Updated advisory group weighting
Note: After the meeting, the MODA evaluation results for the advisory group weighting were updated. The results presented at the meeting were
inaccurate due to a rounding error with the software.
![Page 8: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
7
Results of the MODA evaluation
Community survey weighting
* Note: Transparent Choice, the online MODA software used to compile and calculate results, can only use weighting values that are whole numbers. As a result, the
evaluation factors “Avoids sensitive environmental areas” and “Protects mature vegetation” were rounded to the nearest whole number.
![Page 9: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
8
Sensitivity analysis
MODA provides results
Sensitivity analysis = “gut check” of the results
to ensure the software output matches
group’s values
How increasing/decreasing weightings impact
the results
![Page 10: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
9
Evaluation factor
Advisory group
weighting
(n = 23)
Community
survey
weighting
(n = 461)
Difference
between
weights
Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%
Avoids residential areas 24% 31% + 7%
Avoids sensitive community land uses 13% 10% - 3%
Avoids sensitive environmental areas 7% 12.5% + 5.5%
Least cost to the rate payer 14% 7% - 7%
Maximizes longevity 9% 4% - 5%
Maximizes opportunity areas 15% 6% - 9%
Protects health and safety 9% 9% 0%
Protects mature vegetation 4% 6.5% + 2.5%
Total 100% 100% n/a
Weighting schemes
Evaluation factor
Advisory group
weighting
(n = 23)
Community
survey
weighting
(n = 461)
Difference
between
weights
Avoids impacts to aesthetics* 5% 14% + 9%
Avoids residential areas 24% 31% + 7%
Avoids sensitive community land uses 13% 10% - 3%
Avoids sensitive environmental areas 7% 12.5% + 5.5%
Least cost to the rate payer 14% 7% - 7%
Maximizes longevity 9% 4% - 5%
Maximizes opportunity areas 15% 6% - 9%
Protects health and safety 9% 9% 0%
Protects mature vegetation 4% 6.5% + 2.5%
Total 100% 100% n/a
*Highlighted evaluation factors have a difference of seven percentage points or greater
between the two weighting schemes.
![Page 11: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
10
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Weight [%]
Sensitivity analysis
Advisory group
weighting (5%)
Key:
Willow
Oak
Redwood
Ash
Cottonwood
Aspen
Elm
Cedar
Pine
Sycamore
Laurel
Avoids impacts to aesthetics
Score
0.85
0.64
0.42
0.21
0.00
Community survey
weighting (14%)
![Page 12: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
11
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Weight [%]
Sensitivity analysis
Avoids residential areas
0.85
0.64
0.43
0.21
0.00
Advisory group
weighting (24%)
Key:
Willow
Oak
Redwood
Ash
Cottonwood
Aspen
Elm
Cedar
Pine
Sycamore
Laurel
Score
Community survey
weighting (31%)
![Page 13: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
12
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Weight [%]
Sensitivity analysis
Least cost to rate payer
1.05
0.79
0.53
0.26
0.00 Advisory group
weighting (14%)
Key:
Willow
Oak
Redwood
Ash
Cottonwood
Aspen
Elm
Cedar
Pine
Sycamore
Laurel
Score
Community survey
weighting (7%)
![Page 14: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
13
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Weight [%]
Sensitivity analysis
Maximizes opportunity areas
0.85
0.64
0.42
0.21
0.00 Advisory group
weighting (15%)
Key:
Willow
Oak
Redwood
Ash
Cottonwood
Aspen
Elm
Cedar
Pine
Sycamore
Laurel
Score
Community survey
weighting (6%)
![Page 15: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
14
Discussion
Recommendation discussion
![Page 16: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
15
Selecting recommended route(s)
ROUTE OPTIONS
ROUTE OPTION(S) to recommend
![Page 17: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
16
Substation selection
Based on:
Route, and
What works best electrically for the system
![Page 18: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
17
Sharing your recommendation
What are your top comments or concerns
about each recommended route option?
Any other comments you want to share
about the preliminary route
recommendation?
![Page 19: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
18
Informing your recommendation
Is there any specific type of feedback
or information you’d like from the
community that will help you make
your final recommendation?
![Page 20: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
19
Recommendation report
Introduction
Project background
About the Community Advisory Group
Community Advisory Group activities
Community involvement
Recommendations of the Community Advisory
Group
Signature page
![Page 21: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
20
Next steps
Open Houses in November
The public will review the advisory group’s
preliminary route recommendation and
provide feedback
Meeting #6 on Dec. 10
Review community feedback on
recommendation
Finalize recommendation for PSE to
consider
![Page 22: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
21
Public comment
![Page 23: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
22
Upcoming meetings
November Open Houses
Wednesday, Nov. 12, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
at Renton Technical College
Thursday, Nov. 13, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at
Redmond Marriott Town Center
Community Advisory Group Meeting #6
Wednesday, Dec. 10, location TBD
![Page 24: Community Advisory Group Meeting #5b · Advisory group weighting (n = 23) Community survey weighting (n = 461) Difference between weights Avoids impacts to aesthetics 5% 14% + 9%](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071116/5ffe8ecbd95f76223e504247/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
23
Thank you!