• No results found

Multi Multi Multi Multi- - - -Criteria Assessment of Criteria Assessment of Criteria Assessment of Criteria Assessment of Water Water Water Water Treatment

Score 3 for Wastewater Treatment Technologies

4.4.3 Multi Multi Multi Multi- - - -Criteria Assessment of Criteria Assessment of Criteria Assessment of Criteria Assessment of Water Water Water Water Treatment

Treatment Treatment

Treatment Technologies Technologies Technologies Technologies

The results of the linear additive multi-criteria assessment of water treatment technologies are presented and discussed in this section. The identities of the technologies have now been hidden and they have been assigned randomly to letters A, B, C, D and E. The results are presented for each of the four different weightings applied to the criteria, as described in Section 3.2.2. The technologies are ranked from 1 (best) to 5 (worst) according to which has performed best in the MCA analysis for that user group with the applied weighting.

4.4.3.1 4.4.3.1 4.4.3.1

4.4.3.1 Weighting 1 Weighting 1 Weighting 1 Weighting 1

The results of the MCA for water treatment technologies using Weighting 1 for different user groups and technologies are shown in Table 33. Weighting 1 represented the results from the telephone survey of user groups to rank the importance of each criterion, normalised to total 1.

Table 33. Rankings of water treatment technologies using Weighting 1

Technology Wt1Sc1 Wt1Sc2 Wt1Sc3 Avg.

A 5 5 4 5

B 2 3 1 2

C 4 4 5 4

D 3 2 3 3

E 1 1 2 1

Technology Wt1Sc1 Wt1Sc2 Wt1Sc3 Avg.

A 5 5 4 5

B 2 3 2 2

C 4 4 5 4

D 3 2 3 3

E 1 1 1 1

Technology Wt1Sc1 Wt1Sc2 Wt1Sc3 Avg.

A 4 4 4 4

B 2 2 1 2

C 5 5 5 5

D 3 3 3 3

E 1 1 2 1

Farmers

Tourism

RICs

In general, technology E was the best performer across all the different user groups.

Technology B was consistently rated the second best performer and Technology D the third best. This result was interesting because it showed that even with the differences in weighting between the different user groups, the same technologies emerged at the top of the rankings.

The main difference that emerged between the groups was that for Indigenous communities, technology C was ranked 5th for every scoring method. For farmers and tourism sites, technology A was more often ranked last. Technology ‘A’ scored well against the ‘complete package’ indicator which was ranked as important by Indigenous communities.

4.4.3.2 4.4.3.2 4.4.3.2

4.4.3.2 Weighting 2 Weighting 2 Weighting 2 Weighting 2

The results using Weighting 2 are shown in Table 34. Weighting 2 was designed to exaggerate the differences between the user groups.

Table 34. Rankings of water treatment technologies using Weighting 2

Technology Wt2Sc1 Wt2Sc2 Wt2Sc3 Avg.

A 5 5 5 5

B 4 4 3 4

C 3 3 4 3

D 2 2 2 2

E 1 1 1 1

Technology Wt2Sc1 Wt2Sc2 Wt2Sc3 Avg.

A 5 5 5 5

B 3 4 3 3

C 4 3 4 4

D 2 2 2 2

E 1 1 1 1

Technology Wt2Sc1 Wt2Sc2 Wt2Sc3 Avg.

A 4 4 3 4

B 2 1 1 1

C 5 5 5 5

D 3 3 4 3

E 1 2 2 2

Farmers

Tourism

RICs

For farmers and tourism sites, Technology E was again the best performer. It was ranked top for both user groups regardless of the scoring mechanism used. Technology D was consistently ranked 2nd for both these groups – a change from the result for Weighting 1 where Technology B was in second place. Technology A was again ranked last for both these groups, irrespective of scoring mechanism.

Therefore Weighting 2 did not have a significant impact in altering the results between tourism sites and farmers. However, these two groups ranked the criteria in a similar manner as shown in Table 25.

There was a difference seen in the ranking of technologies for remote Indigenous communities. Technology B was ranked first or second for all three different scoring methods. It scored well against criteria such as ‘easy to understand’ and environmental

efficiency which were ranked highly by respondents in the telephone survey.

Technology E’s overall good performance saw it ranked second in this group.

Technology C’s poor performance in the categories of being a complete package and environmental efficiency saw it ranked lowest out of the technologies for this user group.

4.4.3.3 4.4.3.3 4.4.3.3

4.4.3.3 Weighting 3 Weighting 3 Weighting 3 Weighting 3

The results using Weighting 3 are shown in Table 35. Weighting 3 was equal for all criteria and therefore there are no differences between the user groups. This weighting should therefore give an indication of the best ‘overall’ technology.

Table 35. Rankings of water treatment technologies using Weighting 3 Technology Wt3Sc1 Wt3Sc2 Wt3Sc3 Avg.

A 4 5 4 4

B 2 2 1 2

C 5 4 5 5

D 3 3 3 3

E 1 1 2 1

The differences in ranking using this weighting reflect the differences in outcomes from the different scoring procedures. Since each score has simply been multiplied by a constant, the ranking of technologies using weighting 3 is the same as the ranking of technologies using the raw scores alone.

Therefore using Scores 1 and 2, Technology E is the best performer and Technology B is ranked 2nd. Using Score 3 these results are reversed. Technology D was ranked 3rd irrespective of scoring mechanism and there were some differences as to whether Technology A or C was ranked lowest.

The average results, obtained by adding the three rankings and dividing by 3, suggest that Technology E is the overall best performer. This mirrors the results seen when using Weighting 1 and Weighting 2, in the case of farmers and tourism sites.

4.4.3.4 4.4.3.4 4.4.3.4

4.4.3.4 Weighting 4 Weighting 4 Weighting 4 Weighting 4

The results using Weighting 4 are shown in Table 36. Weighting 4 was equal for all sustainability dimensions so again there are no differences between the user groups.

This weighting should therefore give an indication of the technology which performs best across the all aspects of water systems sustainability.

Table 36. Rankings of water treatment technologies using Weighting 4 Technology Wt4Sc1 Wt4Sc2 Wt4Sc3 Avg.

A 4 4 4 4

B 1 1 1 1

C 5 5 5 5

D 3 3 3 3

E 2 2 2 2

Interestingly, the best performer across all 3 scoring methods is Technology B. It scored highly against both environmental indicators (waste produced and resource consumption), which had a ranking of 0.1 each. This allowed it to rank higher than Technology E, which scored highly in the technical indicators of which there were 5 – reducing the weighting they received to 0.04.

Technology C was the lowest ranked across all scoring methods due poor performance against the ‘initial cost’ and resource efficiency indicators (which both had a weighting of 0.1).

4.4.3.5 4.4.3.5 4.4.3.5

4.4.3.5 Comparison of All Weighting Results Comparison of All Weighting Results Comparison of All Weighting Results Comparison of All Weighting Results

A summary table showing the best performing water treatment technology for each of the score / weighting / user group combinations is shown in Table 37.

Table 37. Summary Table of Best Performing Water Treatment Technology

Weight 3 Weight 4 Farmers Tourism RICs Farmers Tourism RICs All groups All groups

Score 1 E E E E E E E B

Score 2 E E E E E B E B

Score 3 B E B E E B B B

Weight 1 Weight 2

The results presented provide the answer to the fourth research question:

Which technology performs best when the MCA framework is applied to commercially available water

treatment technologies for remote Australia?

Table 37 shows that the most frequently highest-ranked technology across user groups using Weightings 1, 2 and 3 is Technology E. Weighting 4 generated a different result, ranking Technology B as the highest for every scoring method. Weighting 4 placed less emphasis on the technical criteria which had been mentioned frequently during the scoping study, and more on the environmental, economic, social and institutional criteria against which Technology B scored well – ranking top in 3 out of the 8 non-technical criteria.

The combinations involving Score 3 also tended to favour Technology B, due to the fact that it was the overall best performer when scored this way (with no weighting applied) whereas Scores 1 and 2 had technology E as the best performer. Technologies E and B both performed best against 5 criteria each in total so the closeness between them in the final results reflects this.

The differences seen between user groups were fairly limited, owing to similarities in the ranking of criteria by the groups during the telephone survey. Even the attempt to exaggerate those differences using Weighting 2 generated similar outcomes in terms of technology rankings. Technology B did rank highest in some situations, most commonly for remote Indigenous communities.

These results suggest that whilst user conceptualisations of sustainability in terms of water systems may vary between the user groups, the attributes of technologies which are desirable in remote settings tend to be shared.

In such settings, of the five technologies considered, Technology E has been most frequently ranked as the best performer due to its high scores against technical and economic criteria. Technology B was the next best performer.

4.4.4 4.4.4 4.4.4

4.4.4 Multi Multi Multi Multi- - - -Criteria Assessment of Wastewater Criteria Assessment of Wastewater Criteria Assessment of Wastewater Criteria Assessment of Wastewater