Olli-Matti Verta & Mika Marttunen (olli-matti.verta@environment.fi, mika.marttunen@environment.fi)

1. PARTICIPATORY AND MULTIOBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER COURSE REGULATION – Towards collaborative planning by using decision tools Olli-Matti Verta & Mika Marttunen (olli-matti.verta@environment.fi, mika.marttunen@environment.fi) Finnish Environment Institute 07/01/2020

2. MY BACKGROUND • Student at the Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) • Major subject Water Resources Engineering • Master of Science Thesis under work (about the Lake Koitere case) • Finnish Environmental Institute (SYKE, 2004) • Lake Koitere case as a main work  Planning and implementing decision analysis tools

3. BACKGROUND OF MIKA MARTTUNEN • 10 large water course regulation development projects (1989-2005) • Major issues: • Ecological and social impacts • Improvement of the sustainability of the regulation projects • Public participation and collaborative planning • 5 MCDA applications (1992-2005) • Comparison of alternatives, generation of new alternatives • To enhance stakeholders’ involvement and learning • Role as a project manager/”facilitator” has made it easier to apply MCDA methods in real-life cases • Co-operation with Systems Analysis Laboratory • MCDA software, decision structuring dialogue, systems intelligence

4. CONTENT • INTRODUCTION • Development of the regulation of Lake Koitere • DECISION ANALYSIS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT • Value-Focused Thinking (Keeney 1992) • MCDA based REGAIM-model and target regulations • Generation of new regulation alternatives • EXPERIENCES AND CONCLUCIONS

5. FINLAND Lake Koitere PART IDEVELOPMENT OF THE REGULATION OF LAKE KOITERE

6. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM • Many stakeholder groups impacted • Recreational users, land owners, power company, conservationists, etc. • Multiple and conflicting objectives • e.g. Autumn: rise of water level to increase power generation during winter time VS. lowering of water level to decrease erosion • Value tradeoffs • Ecological, social and economic impacts • Several decision makers • Representatives of the steering group (20 DM’s)

7. THE IMPACTS OF REGULATION IN LAKE KOITERE ECONOMIC IMPACTS SOSIAL IMPACTS ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS • Hydro power • Erosion and land slides • Damages to shoreline structures • Flood damage • Tourism • Landscape • Usability of shore • Fishing • Boating • Moving on ice (snowmobiling, skiing) • Mercury content of the fish • Water and sediment quality • Vegetation • Macroinvertebrates • Fish (whitefish, pike, littoral fish) • - Birdlife

8. GOAL: IMPROVE THE SUSTAINABILITY OF LAKE REGULATION SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE REGULATIONPOLICY ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE REGULATIONPOLICY X PAST REGULATION(1980-2005) X ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE REGULATION POLICY

9. KEY ISSUES TO CONSENSUS PROCESS: Earlier experiences • Improved understanding • Incorporating stakeholders' knowledge and values • Good knowledge basis • Consolidated trust • Extension of pie • Alternative option (water court process) undesirable

10. PART IIDECISION ANALYSIS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

11. The regulation development process Decision analysis IDENTIFY OBJECTIVES AND STRUCTURE THE PROBLEM • STEP 1: VALUE-FOCUSED THINKING • Value tree THE ROLE OF DA IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IMPACT ASSESSMENT GENERATE REGULATION ALTERNATIVES • STEP 2: DA INTERVIWS – MCDA-METHOD (REGAIM) • Target regulations IMPACTS OF REGULATION ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER MEASURES STEP 3: MCDA-METHOD (HIPRE) ? GENERATE AND COMPARE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES • RECOMMENDATIONS TO MANAGEMENT STRATEGY • Regulation practice • Other measures

12. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES FOR DA INTERVIEWS • Stakeholders’ image of good water level fluctuation may not necessarily meet their objectives • DA interviews support the learning process of steering group

13. STEP 1: Construct a value tree MAIN STEPS OF REGAIM ANALYSES STEP 2: Define a range for water level fluctuation in different dates STEP 3: Assess impacts of water level fluctuation STEP 4: Define the best water level for each attribute STEP 5: Define weights for attributes. STEP 6: Analyse target water levels STEP 7: Analyse the impacts and compare to current regulation

14. Water level of Lake Koitere a.s.l. Water level of Lake Koitere a.s.l. 144,0 144,0 143,5 143,5 143,0 143,0 142,5 142,5 142,0 142,0 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. 1.9. 1.10. 1.11. 1.12. 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. 1.9. 1.10. 1.11. 1.12. REGAIM OUTCOMES: Target regulations for steering group members • Considerable differences in impacts • power production ca. 300 000 €/year • eroding shorelines varies from 10% to 60% of the studied shorelines • BARGAIN PHASE • “Which are the objectives you would be willing to bargain with to diminish the harmful impacts of your target regulation?” • To avoid the participants to anchor to their target regulations

15. GENERATION OF NEW REGULATION ALTERNATIVES (Jackson 2004) DA INTERVIEWS WITH REGAIM-MODEL

16. PART III EXPERIENCES AND CONCLUSIONS

17. HYPOTHESIS 1: Stakeholders’ image of good water level fluctuation may not necessarily meet their objectives REASONS: • Hydrological system was poorly understood • Insufficient knowledge about the impacts of water level fluctuation • Objectives are partly conflicting

18. HYPOTHESIS 2: DA interviews supports the learning process of steering group • Learning by analysing • The method was interactive and iterative • Instant feedback in form of impacts of target regulation • The bargaining phase motivated to think about the value trade-offs • “This system is ingenious!”

19. APPLICABILITY OF DECISION ANALYSIS INTERVIEWS

20. MCDA AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION • Provides systematic framework • Creates common language • Objectives and attributes • Improves understanding • Own and other participants values and objectives • Essential tradeoffs Outcomes: • Shared understanding of issues of agreement and disagreement • Improved capabilities to perspective taking MCDA method used and how it has been applied have crucial importance to outcomes!

21. CRITERIA FOR GOOD PRACTICES IN STAKEHOLDER DECISION ANALYSIS APPLICATIONS • Designing phase • Choice of participants • Do participants views reflect the range of opinions related to problem? • Choice of method: • Is the method appropriate for the decision problem? • Is the method easy to use for participants? • Is the method valid? • Problem structuring • Is the value tree (criteria and indicators) widely accepted among participants? • Are criteria of good value tree structure fulfilled?

22. CRITERIA FOR GOOD PRACTICES IN STAKEHOLDER DECISION ANALYSIS APPLICATIONS (continued) • Education of users • Consciousness of procedural biases and human mistakes • Are participants informed about the common problems and mistakes? • Are opportunities to eliminate biases taken into account in the different phases of the analysis? • Orientation of users • Have participants got acquainted with the method before the interviews? • Use of method • Is the method used in an interactive and iterative way? • Are the weights of lowest level attributes compared to each other? • Are there any consistency checks? • Have participants opportunities to revise their weights? • Analysis and presentation of results • Does the presentation of result support understanding? • Is there common meeting where results are presented and discussed?

23. References Hobbs B.F., Horn G.T.F. (1997). Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas. Energy policy 25(3), 357-375. Jackson S. (2004). Translating Sustainability Theory into Practice - Making “Real” Decisions with “Real” People. BC Hydro: Generation. Presentation November, 2004. Keeney R.L. (1992). Value focused thinking: A path to creative decisionmaking. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Beierle T.C. (1999). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Studies Review 16(3/4), 75-103. Marttunen M. (2005). Framework for the sustainable management of regulated watercourses – A collaborative approach supported by decision analysis. Doctoral Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology. Draft 22.3.2005. Marttunen M., Suomalainen M. (2004). Participatory and multiobjective development of water regulation – creation of regulation alternatives from stakeholders' preferences. Manuscript 1.10.2004. McDaniels T.L., Gregory R.S. and Fields D. (1999). Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decision. Risk Analysis 19(3), 497-510.

24. END OF PRESENTATION

25. STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 REGAIM STEP 1: CONSTRUCT A VALUE TREE THE IMPACTS OF REGULATION IN LAKE KOITERE ECONOMIC IMPACTS SOSIAL IMPACTS ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS • Hydro power • Erosion and land slides • Damages to shoreline structures • Flood damage • Tourism • Landscape • Usability of shore • Fishing • Boating • Moving on ice (snowmobiling, skiing) • Mercury content of the fish • Water and sediment quality • Vegetation • Macro-invertebrates • Fish (whitefish, pike, littoral fish) • - Birdlife

26. Regulated W75% Natural W75% Upper reg. bound. Regulated W25% Natural W25% Lower reg. bound. 144,50 5. 144,00 4. 3. 2. 143,50 Water level a.s.l. 143,00 1. 142,50 142,00 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. 1.9. 1.10. 1.11. 1.12. STEP 1 STEP 2: Define a range for water level fluctuation in different dates STEP 3: Assess impacts of water level fluctuation STEP 4: Define the best water level for each attribute STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7

27. STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 5: DEFINE WEIGHTS FOR ATTRIBUTES • TASK: • Select the attribute in which the change from the worst level to the best level is the most significant, and give this attribute a weight of 100. • Select the attribute in which the change is the second most significant, and give this attribute a weight from 0 to 100 so that it reflects the significance of the attribute in comparison to the most significant attribute. • etc. • Material, where impacts of water level fluctuation on each criteria in each selected date were represented, was sent home for every steering group member to become acquainted with. • Work-shop, where weighting of attributes was done together with expert assistance, was held for steering group before individual interviews to get the weighting done right. • An interactive, iterative and illustrative computer aided weighting of attributes was done in the individual interviews.

28. STEP 1: Construct a value tree STEP 2: Define a range for water level fluctuation in different dates STEP 3: Assess impacts of water level fluctuation STEP 4: Define the best water level for each attribute STEP 5: Define weights for attributes. REGAIM STEPS 6 AND 7: STEP 6: Analyse target water levels STEP 7: Analyse the impacts and compare to current regulation