Expert panel survey

86 the survey with expert estimations regarding public preferences. For results on the public survey, refer to Section 5.2.

87 approach, an extensive list of criteria was first identified to describe the two development paths.

However, not all were relevant in the decision-making process, and a balance between volume of information and relevance needed to be found. It was, therefore, decided that only differentiating criteria would be used to distinguish between the two development paths, i.e. the emphasis would be placed on presenting the differences rather than the similarities between the two development paths. This was aimed at keeping the information to a minimum and as relevant as possible.

Therefore, only criteria that yielded enough information to describe significant differences between development paths A and B were used in the study (see Figure 16).

Criteria group 4:

Socio-economic aspects Criteria group 1:

Water balance

Criteria group 2:

Financial aspects

Criteria group 3:

Environmental aspects Criteria group 5:

Public acceptance

Waste disposal and dilution effect

Recreation and tourism Impacts on river flow

Urbanisation

Volume of water allocated from rural to urban areas

Dependency on natural rainfall Impacts on agricultural production and employment Ground water recharge Flood and erosion control Loss in biodiversity

Timing

Confidence in yield URV Tariff changes necessary to maintain service

Confidence in total cost estimations Multipliers

Main criteria groups

Figure 16: Criteria tree for the regional MCDA used in the study

Five main criteria groups, of which four consisted of sub-criteria, were identified:

• Water balance, with two sub-criteria. The first sub-criterion was the relative “confidence in the yield” expectation, because it would heavily influence the relative time before new supply schemes would be needed. The second sub-criterion was “timing of yield” or the timely phasing in of different schemes to supplement supply, and it was seen as an important criterion if viewed from an assurance of supply point of view – particularly if

88 schedule one (water for human consumption and in-stream flow requirements) water users are considered as the most important users of water.

• Finances, with three sub-criteria. The unit reference value (“URV”) was included as this measure is the standard financial indicator to compare bulk supply projects. The URV is a discounted value (over the project life-time using a predetermined discount rate) per cubic metre of water for the project. This value only accounts for the capital, operational, and maintenance costs of schemes over the project lifespan. It does not include externalities (positive or negative) and the long-term impacts of the schemes. The relative “confidence in the accuracy of cost estimations” impacts on water tariff settings (particularly in cases where cost-recovery strategies are followed) and, therefore, also on the relative weight of financial criteria as a whole – this criterion is, therefore, important and was included.

“Changes in tariffs” necessary to maintain the water supply services reflect on the affordability of an option or, in this case, development path. It has an important impact on the public’s acceptance of an option and eventually on the relative willingness of the public to pay for this water.

• Socio-economics included six sub-criteria. The “dependency on natural rainfall” and the

“volume of water allocated from rural to urban areas” were used as the point of departure for the discussion on socio-economic impacts. One could question whether these two could be seen as criteria; however, after consideration it was decided that they should be included because they form the bases for differentiating spin-offs from themselves. The "dependency on natural rainfall” was included to present the basic difference between the development of additional storage capacity and water production. The relative importance of agricultural irrigation in terms of water usage was accommodated by including the impacts of water restrictions (“impact on agricultural production and employment”) on irrigated agriculture.

These impacts were pulled through to the rest of the economy by using “multipliers”.

“Urbanisation” was included for its relative importance in population demographics as an important driver of water demand and to show the opportunity cost of keeping the people in the rural areas. Finally, “recreation and tourism” were included because of the correlation between tourism and the natural beauty of water bodies.

• The environment criteria group proved to be a controversial topic (Day, 2005; Killick, 2006). Without being trapped in lengthy discussions on differing values and moralities, it was decided to include five sub-criteria. “In-stream flow requirements” proved to be the first and most important determinant in this section. Minimum in-stream flow requirements are enforced by law in South Africa, and much research effort goes into the quantification of such requirements for the different catchment areas in South Africa. “Waste disposal and

89 the dilution effect” of rivers were included because these have a direct impact on pollution as an important driver of water demand. “Ground-water recharge and discharge” tempos were included to focus specifically on the groundwater potential (being the next source of bulk supply because of the lack of alternative surface supply options) of the area and the differences between the two development paths in this regard. “Flood and erosion control”

were also included; however, little scope remains for the construction of additional dams in the study area, which limits the expansion of increased flood control. The “impacts on biodiversity” remain rather open and were seen as the “generic criteria” of environmental impacts.

• Public acceptance was accommodated as a separate criteria group.

In compiling the list of experts used on the expert panel, 16 individuals who served on the CMABWS study (Eberhard and Joubert, 2002; Kleynhans, 2002a) were used as a point of departure. An additional 34 individuals (chosen from among authors included in the literature review and networking contacts) were identified and invited to participate (see Annexure 3). Of the 50 invitations, 17 agreed to participate in the survey.

Initially, the intention was to complete the expert panel survey at a series of workshops where all scoring and negotiations could be concluded. However, finding a date that would be suitable for all proved impossible to obtain. This proposal was abandoned and an electronic survey via e-mail was chosen instead. Participation entailed scoring the two proposed development paths in terms of a criteria tree (see Figure 16). The expert panel survey presented the two developments paths in significant detail, and the challenge was to quantify (or at least discuss) the long-term impacts of both development paths in terms of the criteria set. Experts were asked to score and make a trade-off based on the presented information and their own field of expertise. The panel were also asked to indicate the relative importance of the different criteria (see Figure 16) via a weight allocation exercise. They also received the public questionnaire (see Section 4.4.3) and were asked to provide their estimation regarding the outcome. This was important to determine whether, or to what extent, the experts (decision-makers or agents) have insight into public (principal) preference.

The e-mail session was followed by a personal consultation with each expert after completion of the scoring document. During this meeting, all scores and weights were discussed and verified, and care was taken to ensure the correct interpretation of questions. All the comments made during these meetings were noted. After completion of the round of interviews, all comments were compiled in a single questionnaire (see Annexure 6) and used in a follow-up e-mail session (see

90 Annexure 5) during which the expert panel were given the opportunity to respond to one another’s comments. All comments were used anonymously to partially guide the statistical analysis and inference in Chapter 5.