A critical investigation of evaluation matrices to inform coastal adaptation and planning decisions at the local scale

Abstract

Local governments are under pressure to tackle an increasing spectrum of complex contemporary problems, such as climate change, while ensuring multiple stakeholder interests are incorporated into decision processes. Multi-criteria decision tools can assist, but challenges remain in creating an enabling environment for incorporating and balancing different stakeholder perspectives. Here, we draw on interview data and a sensitivity analysis to investigate the use of an evaluation matrix to guide local coastal adaptation decision-making in South Africa. We adopt a participatory action research framework and find that decision-making is influenced by individual, departmental and institutional values that are not adequately captured in the matrix approach. Our study reveals the compromise between achieving broad stakeholder representation and utilising technical expertise, and that altering matrix assumptions can imply different decision outcomes. Suggestions are made to improve multi-criteria decision approaches to better facilitate integrated coastal management in responding to local coastal adaptation challenges.

Keywords:

• climate change
• decision analysis
• stakeholder engagement
• complexity
• governance

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Worley Parsons and the members of the PMT for their time. We also thank Anna Taylor, Tristan Hauser and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and input. The work was supported by the Climate System Analysis Group at the University of Cape Town.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Notes

1. It has been acknowledged by the PMT that a more detailed and extensive resource economics study should be undertaken to determine the long term future (>25 years) of the rail and road infrastructure along the SPTC.

2. Some members of the PMT were not familiar with all remedial interventions in the matrix. The PMT therefore requested the service provider for further information on each intervention to aid in the scoring process (see Figure S2, Supplementary Material).

3. Note: MCDA approaches typically adopt a range of one to nine, but it was the choice of the consultant Worley Parsons to adopt a one to five scoring scale.