• methods that process quantitative information:

• weighted summation method, in which the (standardized) parameter scores are multiplied with the corresponding parameter weights. For each alternatives, the resulting values are added. By comparing these sums a ranking of alternatives can be obtained;
• Goals-achievement matrix, which presents for each alternative the changes that will occur in relation to the (explicitly formulated) project goals. A break down can be made into the different societal groups that would be affected by the implementation of the alternatives. The relative weight of the different goals and groups can be included too. For ranking the alternatives, a further processing of the matrix is required in most cases;
• Concordance analysis, in which the alternatives are compared two by two. The first step is to determine, on the basis of parameter scores and weights, which of the two alternatives is to be preferred. This is done without looking to the magnitude of differences between the scores and weights. The second step is to analyse in which extent the alternatives are dominated by the other. This analysis is based on the magnitude of differences between the (standardized) scores and the weights. For each pair of alternatives, the outcome of these analyses is presented by indices. The amount of alternatives can be reduced by comparing the indices to threshold values. A further mathematical processing of indices is required to come to a ranking;
• Permutation method, which confronts the ranking of alternatives per parameter with all possible rankings;

• methods which process qualitative information:

• Regime method, in which alternatives are two-by-two compared. For each judgement parameter, it is determined which of the two alternatives scores better (score +1, and worse (score -1). The outcome of all possible comparisons are displayed in a regime matrix. To determine an overall ranking of to alternatives, the values in the regime matrix are multiplied with the judgement parameter weights and added, as to come to an overall ranking.

• mixed methods:

• Evamix method. As a first step the quantitative and qualitative information is dealt with separately through two separate overviews. Alternatives are compared two-by-two for each overview. The outcome is displayed in two dominance matrices, which display the respective dominance scores, thereby indicating to which extent one alternative is dominant over the other. Through standardization of these two matrices, a mutual comparison of quantitative and qualitative information becomes possible. Summation of the standardized dominance scores, including the weights of the quantitative and qualitative judgement parameters results in a total score of each pair of alternatives. These scores can be used to come to an overall ranking of alternatives.