We used a multi-method and repeated elicitation approach across different stakeholder groups to explore possible differences in the outcome of an environmental decision. We compared different preference elicitation procedures based on Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) over time for a water infrastructure decision in Switzerland. We implemented the SWING and SMART/SWING weight elicitation methods and also compared results with earlier stakeholder interviews. In all procedures, the weights for environmental protection and well-functioning (waste-)water systems were higher than for cost reduction. The SMART/SWING variant produced statistically significantly different weights than SWING. Weights changed over time with both elicitation methods. Weights were more stable with the SWING method, which was also perceived as slightly more difficult than the SMART/SWING variant. We checked whether the difference in weights produced by the two elicitation methods and the difference in their stability affects the ranking of six alternatives. Overall an unconventional decentralized alternative ranked first or second in 92 percent of all elicitation procedures, which were the online surveys or interviews. For practical decision-making, using multiple methods across different stakeholder groups and repeating elicitation can increase our confidence that the results reflect the true opinions of the decision makers and stakeholders. 
Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making