Table 1.
Details in Table B.3 in S1 File. O&M: operation and maintenance.
Table 2.
Five experimental evaluation model layouts L1–5.
Table 3.
Overall value and ranking of alternatives using two integrated assessment models (L1 and L2) without stakeholder preferences.
Table 4.
Distinguishability, improvement potential, and rank stability of the alternatives in five evaluation model layouts (L1–5).
Fig 1.
Overall value of alternatives under different preference assumptions for ten stakeholders and two future scenarios using evaluation model layouts L3, L4b, and L5 (cf. Table 2).
Lines represent the median (50% quantile), uncertainty bands in corresponding colors the 5–95% quantiles. Alternative A0 (black solid line): current water supply system. The uncertainty in L3 and L4 is entirely due to the uncertainty of the attribute predictions; in L5 additionally also due to uncertain preferences of stakeholders. AT: Acceptance Thresholds.
Fig 2.
Risk profiles of the expected value of the alternatives for evaluation layout L5 by individual stakeholders (SH1–10) under two scenarios.
P(x): cumulative probability. First order stochastic dominance holds if the curve of one alternative is to the right of another.
Fig 3.
Outcomes for 24 attributes (in boxes) for the 11 non-dominated alternatives (A1b–A0) in the Boom and Status quo scenarios.
Horizontal lines (crosses) mark the median (50% quantile), solid, vertical lines the interquartile ranges (25–75% quantiles) and dotted, vertical lines the 5–95% quantiles. The direction of improvement is indicated by + and—signs on the grey labels carrying the abbreviated attributes (explained in Table B.1 in S1 File). Dominated alternatives (A1a, A8a) and attributes without detailed predictions (no3_dw, no3_hw, pest_dw, pest_hw, bta_dw, bta_hw) are not shown. Distributional assumptions are given in Table B.4 in S1 File.