Table 2.

Socio-political acceptance of technical alternatives

Alternative A: Base 2050	Not desired by Government due to fear of impacts on environment and tourism. Not desired by public but due to past policy failures the public expects status quo
Alternative B: ADB sewered	Desired by Government as it reflects Australian/New Zealand conditions reflecting an infrastructure “expectational lock-in.” Desired by public but they perceive there to be very little chance of successful implementation and operation. Economically viable but government not yet willing to undertake loan required for implementation
Alternative C: ADB unsewered	Also desired by government, as it will address urban inundation. Will begin to improve wastewater management without the perceived prohibitive economic capital costs of Alternative B. Supported by public as it removed the nuisance of inundation. Minimal impact on public from wastewater management changes
Alternative D: Source separation; and	These two alternatives (developed by authors prior to the stakeholder engagement processes) reflect the most significant changes in public behavior and therefore would be more challenging to gain political support and community ownership. Engagement with the National Water Advisory Committee suggests that these alternatives would require the most significant non-structural engagement process to develop community acceptance
Alternative E: On-site treatment
Alternative F: PWD—sewered; and	These two alternatives (developed by the Public Works Department (PWD)) are both desired by technical government officials. Politicians and the wider public would likely still prefer B due to perceived risk and lack of knowledge of innovative infrastructure solutions proposed. Similar to Alternative B, the sewer system (Alternative F) is perceived as having minimal chance of implementation. Alternative G is more viable, with extensive support. Innovative components reflect socio-economic ability to implement
Alternative G: PWD—unsewered