A mixed-methods approach to strategic planning for multi-benefit regional water infrastructure.

ABSTRACT

Finding regional solutions for water infrastructure and other environmental management challenges requires coordination, communication, and a shared understanding among different stakeholders. To develop a more versatile and collaborative decision-making process for nutrient management in the San Francisco Bay Area, we used a mixed-methods approach consisting of stakeholder analysis with cluster analysis, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and scenario planning. These methods allowed us to identify agreements and disagreements in stakeholder objectives and preferences, clarify ways in which different options could meet the goals of diverse stakeholders, and elucidate how scientific uncertainty about technical performance and future conditions could affect management strategies. Results of the analysis indicate that several non-conventional nutrient management options like constructed wetlands and increased water recycling for irrigation met the goals of many stakeholders under a variety of future scenarios. A comparison of MCDA results with a more traditional 'cost-efficiency' measure (i.e., optimizing for the lowest cost per mass of nutrients removed) revealed little correlation between the two methods for stakeholders who expressed a preference for co-benefits of management options such as increased water supply and nutrient recovery for fertilizer use. The method also allowed us to identify key areas of disagreement (e.g., the relative importance of constructing infrastructure that would not be affected by sea level rise) that should find regulatory or professional consensus before advancing with decision-making. This mixed-methods approach is time-consuming and requires specific expertise that is not always available to stakeholders. The development of more efficient preference elicitation and interaction procedures would increase the likelihood that decision-makers would make the extra effort required to use this potentially powerful method. Nonetheless, the mixed-methods approach had several important advantages over more traditional strategic planning methods including its ability to stimulate discussions amongst stakeholders who do not regularly interact, support collaborative planning, and encourage multi-benefit solutions.