Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
O
enables better documentation of expert judgement of environmental
impacts of a range of different hydrological regimes;
O
includes participation of all relevant stakeholders and defines the roles of
the expert panel;
O
is a quantitative approach which can work even in data scarce settings;
O
is a computerised multi-criteria analytical tool that makes it easy to
compare and co-weight the different river values/impacts;
O
can be used both in setting water levels in reservoirs and as water flow in
river reaches; and
O
is flexible enough to be replicated and adapted to a variety of water
management decisions, and updated at low cost as new information
becomes available (Barton
et al
. 2010; Berge
et al.
2010).
With the caveat that optimum water-level curve and critical periods may
not be easy to decide for all river values due to lack of data, this approach
could be used in a variety of situations. For example, options might be
considered for supplying water flow to critical river reaches in critical time
periods, such as waterholes for hippos in the dry season. With less available
data, the results may be more ambiguous. While the option building based
on pressure-impact curves could be used without MCA, MCA does allow
for transparency about how criteria are weighted and decisions are made,
important for good governance. In addition, trade-offs might be more
difficult to make and 'more easily influenced by the strongest debater' (Berge
et al
. 2010: 116).
Another limitation of the MCA is that some techniques are extremely
complex, must be undertaken by a specialist, and as such may detract from
transparency or the decision-maker understanding the trade-offs. For the most
part, though, even if the results of the MCA are not adopted, the method can
still make a significant contribution to the decision-making process by better
structuring the decision problem, making the process more transparent, and
helping decision makers learn about inherent trade-offs.
For further information about MCA, Hajkowicz
et al
. (2000) provide a
good explanation of the process, its strengths and weaknesses, and examples.
Impact assessment and MCA are among many tools that can assist in
decision-making about water resource planning. An integral part of the many
tools, is a final reminder about the important role of a consensus building
approach in creating a total package that may involve trade-offs, but also
results in mutual benefits.
A Sustainability Assessment Tool: The Global Reporting Initiative
The principles espoused earlier in this topic reflect long-term triple bottom
line economic, social and environmental concerns. Uptake of application
and reporting using a range of sustainability assessment tools by corporate
entities, particularly water utilities, has increased in both Australia and
