Triple-bottom-line assessment of stormwater quality projects: advances in practicality, flexibility and rigour

Decision-support frameworks that help users to consider financial, social and ecological costs and benefits (i.e., ‘triple-bottom-line’ decision frameworks) are increasingly being used by water managers. This paper describes the outcomes of a project that was undertaken to assist stormwater managers to complete triple-bottom-line assessments of proposed urban stormwater quality management measures. The primary outcomes have been: a set of guidelines that clearly define a twelve step assessment process; and the results of a trial that was used to test and refine the guidelines in Brisbane, Australia. A brief overview of the twelve step assessment process is provided. The strengths and weaknesses of typical triple-bottom-line assessment processes are highlighted through the trial, where seven alternative stormwater treatment and reuse options for new, medium density, residential estates were assessed and ranked to help inform broad policy and local design decisions. For managers of urban stormwater quality, we conclude that the guidelines are more tailored, practical and flexible than existing decision support frameworks, whilst maintaining a high degree of assessment rigour. The trial confirmed their value in building the capacity of local stakeholders and making more informed and carefully considered decisions.

[1]  T D Fletcher,et al.  "Triple-bottom-line" assessment of urban stormwater projects. , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[2]  M. Young Managing Externalities: Opportunities to improve urban water use , 2000 .

[3]  John Elkington,et al.  Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business , 1998 .

[4]  F A Memon,et al.  A decision support framework for sustainable urban water planning and management in new urban areas. , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[5]  Jenny Pope,et al.  Sustainability Assessment: What is it and how do we do it? , 2003 .

[6]  Lian N. L. Scholes,et al.  The DayWater decision support approach to the selection of sustainable drainage systems , 2006 .

[7]  S. Al-Athel,et al.  Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: "Our Common Future" , 1987 .

[8]  R. Ashley,et al.  Sustainable Water Services: a Procedural Guide , 2004 .

[9]  Js Marks Negotiating change in urban water management: Attending to community trust in the process , 2004 .

[10]  Daniel P. Loucks,et al.  Sustainable Water Resources Management , 2000 .

[11]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure , 1993, Policy Sciences.

[12]  M. Sagoff Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing , 1998 .

[13]  George Kuczera,et al.  Sustainable urban water resource planning in Australia: A decision sciences perspective , 2004 .

[14]  Tony Prato,et al.  Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management , 1999 .

[15]  H. D. Klerk,et al.  Fynbos (fine bush) vegetation and the supply of water: a comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis , 1997 .

[16]  Grace Mitchell,et al.  Triple-bottom-line Assessment of Water Sensitive Design Options in a Greenfield Residential Area , 2006 .