Environmental Science and Policy 130 (2022) 36–46

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Designing synergetic and sustainable policy mixes - a methodology to

address conflictive environmental issues
Hannah Kosow *, Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle , Christian D. León , Fabienne Minn
ZIRIUS - Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies, University of Stuttgart, Seidenstraße 36, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Environmental governance often requires fulfilling different objectives at the same time, as environmental but
Policy design also economic and social objectives of different actors and on different scales. That means, it needs to address
Policy mix (potential) goal conflicts. This challenge of how to achieve policy coherence is currently discussed regarding the
Cross-impact balances (CIB)
United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). It also touches on questions of policy design in general,
Consistency
Synergy
on how to avoid contradiction and foster synergies between interdependent policy tools. This paper presents a
Sustainable development goals (SDG) new interdisciplinary methodology to design synergetic and sustainable policy mixes. It contributes a new
Conflict, water use management approach for policy design processes addressing goal conflicts of sustainable development. The methodology uses
cross-impact balance analysis (CIB), a qualitative form of systems analysis: A policy-interaction model is built by
iterating between desk research and expert consultation regarding different objectives, policies to achieve them,
and directed interactions between these policies. Analyzing the model allows identifying alternative policy
mixes, which optimize different objectives at the same time, are free of internal contradictions and use synergies
between policies. The methodology provides easy operationalizations for synergy and consistency and allows
assessing sustainability performance and robustness of policy mixes. The methodology is suitable for both ex post
evaluation of status quo and ex ante evaluation of alternative policy mixes. The methodology is applied to the
water management in the Lurín river basin, Peru. We argue that the approach is transferable to further envi­
ronmental issues and to SDG interactions on the policy level and supports policy coherence for sustainable
development.

1. Introduction
Environmental governance and management often require fulfilling
multiple objectives (e.g., economic, ecological, social etc.) of different
actors and sectors (e.g., water, energy, food) as well as on different
geographical and temporal scales. Objectives can be understood as
potentially conflicting, if pursuing one objective hinders achieving
others (Nilsson et al., 2012: 396). Objectives show synergies, if moving
towards one objective supports achieving others (ibid.). Dealing with
multiple, potentially conflicting objectives and their complex in­
teractions is prominently discussed on the one hand regarding the UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Bennich et al., 2020) and with
regard to policy coherence for sustainable development (Koff, 2021).
This research shows that new policy design tools offer new opportunities
for environmental governance in order to promote transformative sus­
tainable development (Kirsop-Taylor ans Hejnowicz, 2020; Koff, 2021).
On the other hand, the issue is also dealt with by political science
research on policy mixes, considering not only interactions between
objectives themselves but also between policy tools to reach these ob­
jectives (e.g., Flanagan, 2011, Howlett/ Rayner, 2013, Kern et al.,
2019). Various definitions of ‘coherence’ or ‘consistency’ of policies
have been proposed (Rogge/Reichardt, 2016), but their operationali­
zation is mostly weak and qualitative. Overall, new methodologies are
required that support policy making to address goal conflicts related to
environmental issues. As Nilsson and Weitz: 258) (2019) state: “Systems
thinking and cross-impact analysis have the potential to strengthen the
input stage of policy-making in a way that is needed to respond to the
reinforced challenge of governing trade-offs in the era of the 2030
Agenda – both in terms of improving the information base but also in
equipping policy-makers (…) for (a) better governance of trade-offs
throughout all stages of policy making.”
This paper explores the question of how to design policy mixes that

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hannah.kosow@zirius.uni-stuttgart.de (H. Kosow), wolfgang.weimer-jehle@zirius.uni-stuttgart.de (W. Weimer-Jehle), christian.leon@zirius.
uni-stuttgart.de (C.D. León), minn.fabienne@zirius.uni-stuttgart.de (F. Minn).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.01.007
Received 30 March 2021; Received in revised form 14 December 2021; Accepted 11 January 2022
Available online 25 January 2022
1462-9011/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Kosow et al.
fulfill the multiple objectives related to environmental issues, reduce
goal conflicts, and optimize synergies? We propose a new methodology
to design synergetic, consistent, sustainable, and robust policy mixes
that are able to reach diverging objectives at the same time. The
methodology is based on qualitative systems analysis CIB (cross-impact
balances, Weimer-Jehle, 2006). It transfers CIB for the first time from its
original field of scenario development to the field of policy design. It
combines desk research with expert and stakeholder involvement. This
paper presents a methodological contribution to i) the toolbox of ap­
proaches for professionals dealing with conflictive environmental issues,
ii) policy design research, and iii) research on SDG interactions and
finally contributes to policy coherence for sustainable development. We
apply the methodology step by step at the example of water manage­
ment in the Lurín river basin, Lima, Peru; a prosperous region facing
water shortage.1 We argue that the methodology is transferable to water
management in other parts of the world and to policy design processes -
regarding other conflictive environmental management issues - striving
for policy coherence.
Section 2 gives a brief overview on current debates on interactions
between sustainability goals and policies. Section 3 briefly introduces
the demonstration case. Section 4 presents the new methodology to
design and assess policy mixes. Section 5 highlights central results.
Section 6 discusses contributions and limits before concluding with a
short résumé in Section 7.
2. Interactions between sustainability goals and policies
Many environmental issues are marked by goal conflicts or trade-
offs. These imply interactions between different objectives and be­
tween policies within and between sectors (Kirschke and Kosow, 2021).
These interactions are part of the wickedness (e.g., Head, 2008) of many
environmental management problems. Currently, scholars discuss in­
teractions regarding environmental and sustainability objectives and
policies in two discourses. One is concerned with interactions between
SDGs in the broader context of policy coherence for sustainable devel­
opment, the other with the design of policy mixes in general. We briefly
present both, identify research gaps, and sketch our approach.
2.1. Interactions between SDGs and policy coherence for sustainable
development
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the (United Na­
tions, 2015), is a normative agenda for transformation (e.g., Koff and
Maganda, 2016). It comprises 17 SDGs which are further detailed into a
total of 196 targets. SDGs and their targets are highly interrelated and
thus, reaching all SDGs requires considering their interactions. An
overview on SDG interaction research is given by Bennich et al. (2020).
Several methodological approaches for identifying conflicting targets
(“trade-offs”) and “synergies” have been proposed and discussed (e.g.,
Le Blanc 2016, IGES 2017, ICSU, 2017) and also Weitz at al, 2018,
2019). Weitz et al. (2018) propose to use systems analysis, and more
specifically network analysis and cross-impact assessment, to analyze
interrelations on the level of SDG targets. Nilsson and Weitz (2019)
search for policy coherence, i.e., coherence in policy making avoiding
trade-offs and dealing adequately with goal conflicts in particular be­
tween different sectors (Nilsson et al., 2012). Overall, they argue for the
need of policy making approaches combining technical expertize with
participation. In their view, cross impact analysis is particularly
1 g., Kern/Howlett, 2009, Rogge and Reichardt, 2016, de Boon et al.,
The demonstration is based on the first empirical application of the method
in the research project TRUST ‘Sustainable, fair and ecologically sound drinking
water supply for prosperous water-scarce regions’ funded by the German Fed­
eral Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (2017–2021) within the
funding measure ‘Water as a Global Resource’ (GRoW). Please visit www.trust-
grow.de, Leon et al. (2019, 2021).
37
Environmental Science and Policy 130 (2022) 36–46
appropriate to enhance the information and knowledge input into policy
processes regarding goal and policy interactions. While the potential of
classical cross-impact analysis has been demonstrated by Weitz et al.
(2018), cross-impact balance analysis (CIB) (Weimer-Jehle, 2006), an
approach well established in scenario analysis (e.g., Weimer-Jehle et al.,
2020, ElSawah et al., 2020) has not been applied to SDG interrelations
yet. Furthermore, the analysis of SDG interrelations mostly remained on
the level of SDG objectives and targets (Bennich et al., 2020) but only
rarely touched upon the interrelations between policies to reach these
objectives (exceptions are, e.g., Matsumoto et al., 2018). In contrast,
interrelations between policies in different sectors and on different
scales are considered in development studies regarding policy coherence
for (sustainable) development (PCD/PCSD) (Koff et al., 2020; Koff,
2021; de Jong and Vijge, 2021). PCD initially referred to the synergetic
interaction between foreign aid and all other development-related pol­
icy areas (Carbone and Keijzer, 2016). Coined in the EU, the concept has
been extended to a globally acknowledged approach, focusing on global
partnership and broadening the concept to all policies (Jong and Vijge,
2021). This is reflected in the term of Policy Coherence for Sustainable
Development (PCSD), which is part of the UN Agenda 2030 itself in form
of Target 17.14 (Koff, 2021). More recently, the normative dimension of
policy coherence itself has been emphasized (NPCD) (Koff and Maganda,
2016; Häbel, 2020; Koff, 2021), which focusses on the coherence of
norms and values and “addresses the trade-offs that characterize trans­
formative development and promotes a ’whole of government’ approach
to sustainable development policy making.” (Koff, 2021: 2). Koff pro­
poses to use PCD “as a policy methodology to be applied to existing
instruments, such as EIA [Environmental Impact Assessment] to
re-direct them towards transformative development” (Koff, 2021: 8) and
to develop new, more appropriate tools for the domestic implementation
of the SDGs.
2.2. Policy mixes and policy design
Policy mixes in a narrow sense are defined as combinations of policy
tools (instruments and measures) (Capano and Howlett, 2020), some­
times also called “policy packages” (Justen et al., 2014). Within policy
mixes, interrelations need to be considered to avoid contradiction and to
foster mutual support between policies (del Río, 2010). Rogge and
Reichardt (2016) define policy mixes as an analytical concept linking
combinations of policy tools to policy strategies. This extended concept
claims comprising the policy process at large, i.e., policy making and
policy implementation. The policy mix concept is used by most authors
to analyze existing policy mixes ex post (e.g., Verweij et al., 2021;
Schmidt and Sewerin, 2019). Still, there also is a more design-oriented
perspective by authors focusing on how to create new policy solutions
(e.g., Alpizar et al., 2020) and/or to assess them ex ante (e.g., Kirschke
and Kosow, 2021). In this second line, Taeihagh et al., (2009, 2014,
2017) propose a policy mix design approach considering policy in­
teractions by combining network analysis and multi criteria decision
analysis (MCDA).
To assess the quality or performance of policy mixes, authors often
focus on effectiveness and efficiency (e.g., del Río, 2010, van den Bergh,
2020). Effectiveness means, how successful policy mixes are in reaching
their objective(s), whereas efficiency is understood as the combination
of effectiveness and implementability (Givoni et al., 2014). Still, further
criteria have been considered to assess policy mixes ex post and ex ante
(for overviews see Howlett and Rayner, 2013, Rogge/Reichardt, 2016,
de Boon et al., 2020). Criteria related to the challenges of goal conflicts
and policy interactions (Kirschke and Kosow, 2021) are “consistency” (e.
2020); “coherence” (e.g., Jones, 2002, Nilsson and Weitz, 2019, de Boon
et al., 2020, Koff et al., 2020) and “congruence” (e.g., Howlett and
Rayner, 2013). The definitions of these characteristics by different au­
thors overlap only in part or even diverge - and their operationalization,
i.e., how to measure these criteria, is mostly weak and qualitative.
H. Kosow et al.
2.3. Our approach to interactions between sustainability objectives and
policies
The discourse on SDG interactions focusses on conflicts on the level
of SDG goals and targets (objectives); whereas the discourse on policy
mixes rather focusses on the level of policy tools (in the following short
‘policies’) and their interactions. Still, both levels are closely connected
and in fact overlap (Rogge and Reichardt, 2016), as reflected by the
literature on PCD (Häbel, 2020; Koff et al., 2020). Our approach ad­
dresses (potential) conflicts between objectives through analyzing the
interactions within policy mixes which address these objectives. We thus
address goal conflicts indirectly on the level of policy interactions. We
do so, because the choice of policies to achieve an objective can be
conflictive even if the objective itself is agreed upon. At the same time,
focusing on the level of policies allows finding policy solutions that serve
multiple objectives at the same time.
We understand policy mixes as combinations of policies (Capano and
Howlett, 2020). Still, we assume that these are embedded into broader
policy processes and are oriented by strategies (Rogge and Reichardt,
2016) and normative agendas (Koff, 2021). We build on ideas of policy
mix design and (ex-ante) evaluation by methods as those created by
Taeihagh (2017). Methodologically, our approach builds on the pro­
posals by Weitz et al. (2018) and Nilsson and Weitz (2019) of using
cross-impact approaches and explores the potential of CIB to design
policy mixes. With CIB, we introduce a balance algorithm into the field
of policy design, which supports a systematic screening of all theoreti­
cally thinkable combinations of individual policy tools. Our methodol­
ogy focusses on the (relative) effectiveness of policies and how this
effectiveness is influenced through policy interactions. Using CIB allows
assessing policy mixes regarding four characteristics, namely consis­
tency, synergy, sustainability performance, and robustness. How we
define and operationalize these characteristics is further detailed in the
method Section (4). While CIB itself as a technical tool is neutral with
regard to normative perspectives, we chose to link the policy-interaction
analysis with CIB to the (conflictive) normative objectives of different
actors and to overarching goals defined by the SDGs. This link explores
the potential of CIB as a new and innovative methodology to reveal goal
conflicts in sustainability issues (analytical function) and to promote the
normative 2030 Agenda (normative function). With this methodology,
we offer a new opportunity to environmental governance in order to
promote transformative sustainable development policies (cf. Kirsop-­
Taylor and Hejnowicz, 2020).
3. The case: the Lurín River Basin, Peru
3.1. Water management in a prosperous metropolitan region facing water
scarcity
Our case deals with water management in the catchment area of the
river Lurín, Peru (León et al., 2021). The case reveals a typical example for
a conflictive environmental issue: how to achieve sustainable water
management in a region facing water shortage - while population and
economy are growing and water related ecosystems are at risk? The
catchment area of the river Lurín is located in the south of the megacity
Lima, capital of Peru, and stretches from the Andean mountains to the
desert coast of the Pacific. Seasonal rainfall is limited to the upper,
sparsely populated and rural part. In the lower, densely populated and
urban part, the river only carries water temporarily. Water use patterns
and water management structures in the upper and lower parts differ
significantly. In the upper part, rainwater is stored in artificial reservoirs
and mainly surface water is used for irrigation in agriculture and as a
source of drinking water. In the lower part the main water source, espe­
cially in the dry season, is groundwater, which is extracted through wells
and used for drinking water, irrigation for agriculture and green areas,
and by diverse industries. Regarding water governance, upper and lower
parts belong to two different administrative provinces. In the upper part,
38
Environmental Science and Policy 130 (2022) 36–46
drinking water supply, wastewater disposal, and irrigation in agriculture
are organized by rural self-government. In the lower part, drinking water
supply and wastewater disposal are organized centrally by a public water
supply company, irrigation in agriculture by user associations. Overall,
water governance structures are fragmented (León and Kosow, 2019).
3.2. Objectives and alternative policies of different water users
Actors in the Lurín catchment have various objectives, i.e., goals
related to water use, and prefer different policies, i.e., lines of action to
realize their respective objectives. Based on actor mapping, we identi­
fied and locally validated central objectives for the upper and lower
catchment part as well as various policy alternatives to reach them. This
was done by reviewing policy documents of key local, regional and
national actors as the public water supply company (SEDAPAL), the
national water authority (ANA), the regional governments, the gov­
ernment of the city of Lima as well as of the watershed council (CRHC
CHIRILU) as well as studies on reports on water use conflicts in Lurín (e.
g., Defensoria del Pueblo, 2015, Felipe-Morales, 2010, 2013, Segura
Urrunaga, 2016; Villaneueva Vargas, 2016; Zucchetti and Chirinos,
2001). We also carried out interviews and stakeholder workshops,
thereby including the local perspective and preference into the analysis.
Results were compiled in a catalog defining n = 14 objectives with 2–5
alternative policies each, in total n = 47 policies (see Table 1 and Sup­
plement A). For methodological reasons, policies were formulated as
mutually excluding alternatives. This means, combinations of alterna­
tive policies regarding one and the same objective cannot be considered
jointly in our analysis. Instead, we assume each policy to be mainly
implemented all over the upper or lower catchment part. We used CIB to
combine these policies into mutually supportive combinations by
considering their interactions as described in the next section.
4. Methodology: using CIB for policy design
To use CIB for policy mix design (4.1), we set up a conceptual policy-
interaction model (4.2), assess impacts between policies (4.3), and
prepare data for analysis (4.4.). Methods of data analysis are explained
in the results section.
4.1. CIB to identify and assess policy mixes
CIB is a qualitative, yet semi-formalized form of systems analysis.
The method requires identifying system elements and exploring the in­
terrelations between them. It results in a conceptual (impact network)
model. A specific balance algorithm (Weimer-Jehle, 2006) then iden­
tifies Nash Equilibria of the impact network (Weimer-Jehle et al., 2016,
2020) and thus provides a method of multi-objective optimization. A
brief introduction into CIB is given in Supplement B. Initially, CIB has
been developed and used to construct future scenarios (e.g., Kemp-Be­
nedict et al., 2014, Wachsmuth et al., 2015, Weimer-Jehle et al., 2016,
Schneider and Gill, 2016, Schütze et al., 2019, Norouzi et al., 2019). But
CIB also proved useful for qualitative forms of systems analysis (e.g.,
Renn et al., 2009, Weimer-Jehle et al., 2012).
The main idea of the new application consists in considering goal
conflicts on the level of policies to reach these goals - and in using the
CIB balance algorithm to optimize all goals at the same time. In total, the
approach comprises four steps (see Supplement D for detail and guiding
questions):
1. Identify and define central objectives as well as alternative policies to
reach these;
2. Assess directed hindering and fostering impacts between policies
(pairwise) through expert or stakeholder judgements, or literature
review;
3. Identify policy mixes with a high level of internal consistency and
synergy;
H. Kosow et al. Environmental Science and Policy 130 (2022) 36–46

Table 1
Central water use related objectives and policies in the Lurín catchment.
No Symbol Water user Main objective Alternative policies

Upper part
1 Households Ensure sufficient 1a) Own resources 1b) Supply from 1c) Water metering 1d) Drinking water
and tourism drinking water (including remote resources and tariffs saving technology
(quantity) reservoirs)
2 Households Ensure the quality of 2a) Treatment in 2b) Central drinking 2c) Prevention of
and tourism drinking water for households water treatment contamination
health protection (local)
(quality)
3 Households Safe treatment and 3a) Infiltration or 3b) Central treatment 3c) Treatment with
and disposal of domestic direct disposal material flow
commerce and commercial (status quo) separation
wastewater
4 Agriculture Ensure sufficient 4a) Reservoirs 4b) Traditional means 4c) Increasing 4d) Reuse of treated
water availability to (Andenes, Cochas water efficiency wastewater
expand agricultural etc.)
areas
5 Ecosystems Long-term 5a) Green 5b) Regulation of
conservation of infrastructure water resources
water-related (Protected areas and
ecosystems in the near to nature
upper catchment outflow)
area.
Lower part
6 Households Ensure the access and 6a) Water trucks 6b) Public drinking 6c) Local drinking
and tourism the distribution of the water and wastewater water and
drinking water for the network wastewater
growing population network
7 Households Ensure sufficient 7a) Ground water 7b) River water 7c) River water 7d) Unconventional 7e)
and tourism drinking water to transfer (from other alternatives Artificial
supply the growing catchment areas) aquifer
population (quantity) recharge
8 Households Ensure the quality of 8a) Treatment in 8b) Central drinking 8c) Prevention of
and tourism the drinking water for households water treatment (level contamination
health protection of wells) (local)
(quality).
9 Households Water saving and 9a) Water metering 9b) Drinking water 9c) Water culture
and tourism efficient use of the and tariffs saving technology in and behavioral
drinking water households change
10 Households Safe treatment and 10a) Central 10b) Central 10c) Central 10d) Decentralized
and tourism disposal of domestic primary treatment secondary treatment tertiary treatment treatment with
wastewater (==> Pacific) (==> River) multiple use
11 Agriculture Ensure sufficient 11a) Ground water 11b) River water 11c) Increasing 11d) Reuse of
and green water for irrigation in water efficiency treated wastewater
areas agriculture and of
green areas.
12 Industry Ensure sufficient 12a) Private ground 12b) Private 12c) Treated waste 12d) Public
process water for water wells desalinization of sea water (multiple drinking water
(agro-) industrial water use) network
activities (quantity)
13 Industry Safe treatment and 13a) Disposal 13b) Internal 13c) Decentralized
disposal of industrial through municipal pretreatment and treatment and
wastewater treatment plants indirect discharge direct discharge
without
pretreatment
14 Ecosystems Long-term 14a) Conservation 14b) Regulation of
conservation of of green areas water resources
water-related (protected areas and
ecosystems. regulation of
extractions)

4. Assess the sustainability of policy mixes as well as their robustness
under different contexts.
Table 2 summarizes how we define, operationalize and interpret
central measures regarding policy mixes in this new application of CIB.
4.2. Set up of the policy-interaction model
The main system elements of our CIB policy-interaction model are
objectives and policies (see Table 1 in 3.2). All objectives and policies are
confronted to each other in form of a matrix (see Fig. 1 in 5.1). This CIB
matrix structure can be added with i) sustainability criteria and ii)
context scenarios. Normative criteria for sustainable development are
defined in the CIB model as (mainly) passive factors, receiving but not
exerting direct impact onto the effectiveness of policies - but potentially
on each other. In our case, two criteria operationalize the attainment of
SDG 6 ‘Water for all’ in the Lurín catchment closely based on the SDG
targets 6.1 and 6.6 (UN 2015). As to target 6.1, we omitted two di­
mensions (namely “equitable” and “affordable”) and concentrated on
“universal” and “safe”, allowing for a more manageable assessment:
• SDG 6.1 Lurín: By 2030, achieve universal access to safe drinking
water for all in the water catchment area of the river Lurín.

39
H. Kosow et al.
Table 2
Characterizing policy mixes with CIB.
Concept Definition
Synergetic policy Policy mix that combines many fostering relations
mixa and avoids hindering relations between policies.
This is a relative statement, i.e., policy mix X is
more synergetic than policy mix Y.
Consistent (Nash- A policy tool is considered consistent within a mix,
stable) policy if its choice is stable given the policy tool choices
regarding all other objectives. This means, no
change of policy can improve the synergy gains
regarding this objective.
Internally Policy mixes that contain only consistent policy
consistent choices. This means, they are stable in the sense
(Nash-stable) that all objectives are reached by an optimal
policy mix policy tool (given the policy choices regarding all
other objectives), causing Nash-stability also for
the set of tools (policy mix).
Since the policy mix is composed of a set of
policies to reach different objectives, each of them
maximizing their individual synergy gains, the
mix can be expected to develop high, though not
necessarily maximal synergy gains in total.
Sustainable policy Policy mix with a high performance regarding
mix sustainability criteria/ indicators.
Robust policy mix Policy mixes that are (Nash-) stable under
different context conditions, e.g., governance,
climate change.
a
In this paper, synergy is considered on the level of the system of policies, i.e., on the level of comprehensive policy mixes only. Other authors also discuss synergy
between two policies (see e.g., Capano and Howlett, 2020).
• SDG 6.6 Lurín: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems
in the catchment area of the river Lurín, including mountains, for­
ests, wetlands, rivers and aquifers, and also natural and artificial
lakes and reservoirs in the upper catchment as well as and Lomas
(hills) and wetlands in the lower catchment.
Contexts are added as external and active factors into the CIB matrix
structure. They exert impact on policies but do not receive impact
themselves. In our case, in addition to the assumption of ‘governance as
usual’, we introduced two forms of improved governance:
• Authority: Governance with improved capacity to impose rules as
well as to control and sanction them.
• Concertation: Governance with improved responsibility, cooperation
and conflict resolution between actors.
4.3. Impact assessment
Next, interrelations between the system elements are assessed. In­
teractions between policies are understood as changes of the effective­
ness of a policy through other policies. If effectiveness is hindered, an
objective can be fulfilled only in part or it is more difficult to do so. If
effectiveness is promoted, an objective is more likely or more easily to be
achieved through a policy.
In our case, to assess interrelations, we carried out interviews with
n = 10 researchers from different disciplines.2 Interviews were sup­
ported by a catalog defining objectives and policies in detail
2
The sample covered a variety of disciplines as hydrology, geo-ecology,
biology, environmental and agricultural engineering, water and sanitation en­
gineering, geography, social sciences. When interviewed, experts had 5–25
years of experience regarding water issues and had been working for around
two years on the case. Every interviewee considered interrelations regarding
one or two objectives.
Environmental Science and Policy 130 (2022) 36–46
Measurement in CIB Relevance for policy design
Synergy index (Total impact sum, TIS, in CIB Maximizing synergies in policy mixes allows to
parlance). The TIS counts the net value of impacts benefit from supportive policy interactions.
(i.e., cross-objective supports and conflicts) Information on the overall effectiveness of a policy
between the chosen policies of a certain mix. mix.
The sum of impacts speaking in favor of this policy Striving for consistent policies supports their
choice is at least as high as for its alternatives (CIB effectiveness regarding individual goal
consistency definition). The policy choice is in achievement. Information on stability and
accordance with the balance arguments of the CIB effectiveness of an individual policy.
impact network.
CIB (in)consistency (IC) score. Consistent policy mixes avoid conflicting impacts
IC= 0 no incentives to opt for an alternative policy among all policies and maximize all related
tool. objectives, individually but at the same time.
IC = 1 weak incentive to change the policy mix Information on the stability of a policy mix.
regarding at least one objective and to opt for a
different policy option than the one pre-described
by the mix. Since the incentive is weak, it is
possible that actors refrain from switching their
policy because they would gain only a small
advantage, or that moderate transfers can be
implemented to compensate their disadvantage.
IC> 1 considerable incentive to change the policy
choice regarding at least one objective.
Sustainability index summing up impact scores of Information on sustainability performance of
a policy mix of different sustainability criteria/ policy mixes.
indicators, including assumed interaction effects
between criteria.
Overlap between the lists of stable policy mixes Information on performance of policy mixes under
under different context conditions. context uncertainty.
(Supplement A) and guided by a questionnaire that was isolating the
impacts to be considered (Supplement C). We asked, whether there
might be a direct impact from one policy on the effectiveness of another
policy for fulfilling another objective. We further asked whether the
impact is hindering or a promoting, and how strong this impact is. In
addition, we requested the experts to explain and justify the underlying
mechanisms through which one policy influences the effectiveness of
another policy (Fig. 3 Section 5.2.1 gives an example). Regarding sus­
tainability criteria, the impact of all policies to achieve both SDG 6
targets have been assessed, as well as potential interrelations between
targets 6.1 and 6.6. Impacts of improved governance contexts on all
policies and SDG targets have been assessed, too. The interviewers
coded the impacts as seen by the interviewees. We used the 7-point scale
by Weimer-Jehle (2006) (− 3 strongly hindering impact, 0 no impact, +3
strongly promoting impact) and supplemented it by the category of
canceling relationships (− 99) (Nilsson et al., 2016; Meylan et al., 2013).
Then, the coding and qualitative justifications of impact assessments
were transferred into a joint CIB matrix. Important points of dissent were
resolved through a Delphi-style procedure; case specific impacts (Wei­
mer-Jehle, 2022) were defined.
5. Results
We present the policy-interaction model of the Lurín catchment
(5.1), and analyze it with the help of the CIB software (www.cross-
impact.org). This allows identifying synergetic and internally consistent
policy mixes to manage the water use in the entire catchment (5.2), as
well as assessing these alternative mixes regarding their sustainability
and robustness (5.3).
5.1. The conceptual policy-interaction model
Fig. 1 shows the conceptual policy-interaction model containing all
assumed interactions between water management policies and (poten­
tial) conflicts between them. The symbols representing the 14 objectives
40
H. Kosow et al.
Fig. 1. Policy-interaction model (CIB matrix Lurín) (visualization inspired by Weitz et al., 2019).
are explained in Table 1.
The experts saw main interrelations (in number and strength) be­
tween policies to reach the different objectives of different users within
the upper and within the lower catchment part. Thus, most synergetic
but also most conflicting relations are internal to policy combinations
within each catchment part. The qualitative argumentations behind the
impact scores revealed central conflict structures between policies: On
the one side, the effectiveness of many policies is negatively or positively
affected through interrelations related to rather classical (potential)
water use conflicts regarding water quantity and quality. These are
competitive use of water sources by different users (households, agri­
culture, industry) and insufficient treatment and/or insecure disposal of
domestic and industrial wastewaters threatening the quality of water
sources. On the other side, impact assessments also reveal that new
policy solutions may introduce new conflicts: Safely treated wastewaters
might induce competition over reuse (e.g., for irrigation, artificial
aquifer recharge, human consumption). Finally, policies transferring
water (i.e., of remote reservoirs or other rivers) transform the conflict
from an internal conflict between users of different sectors within the
Lurín basin to a cross-basin conflict between users in the Lurín basin and
users of the providing basin.
Considerably fewer – but nevertheless momentous – interactions are
seen between policies in the upper and lower catchment part. Main
impacts from policies in the upper part on the effectiveness of policies in
the lower part are seen through hydrological coupling. Minor impacts
from policies in the lower part on policies in the upper part are justified
through two arguments. First, experts see pressures from the lower onto
the upper part to implement certain policies, which are based on the
perceived and anticipated hydrological dependency of the lower from
the upper part. Second, the lower catchment is seen as a technological
41
Environmental Science and Policy 130 (2022) 36–46
role model, and new policies are brought to the upper catchment by
central personalities (as district mayors) traveling between urban Lima
and the Andean highlands.
5.2. Internally consistent and synergetic policy mixes
The CIB balance algorithm allows, first, analyzing whether the
existing policy mix is internally consistent (ex post evaluation) (5.2.1).
Second, the algorithm can identify all internally consistent policy mixes
of a given matrix and classify, how well they mobilize synergies (ex ante
evaluation). We use this feature to identify a diverse set of six internally
consistent and synergetic policy mixes (5.2.2). For both applications, we
apply a strong consistency criterion, allowing only policy mixes with an
inconsistency level of IC0. This means, that a mix is not allowed to
contain any policy that does not strictly follow the balance arguments of
the impact networks (see 4.1).
5.2.1. Why the status quo policy mix is no optimal solution
The combination of 14 policies that corresponds most closely to
current official practices of the water users in the Lurín catchment is
considered the status quo mix. We apply CIB balance analysis to indicate
which policies are consistent or inconsistent within a selected policy
mix, regarding the impact arguments of the impact network (ex post
evaluation) (see Fig. 2). Fig. 3 then gives an example for a single
inconsistent policy out of this status quo mix, calculates its inconsistency
score and reveals the qualitative justifications behind the numerical
impact assessments.
Overall, the status quo mix is not internally consistent. The effec­
tiveness of many policies is undermined by the (side-)effects of other
policies of the mix: when considered individually, each policy is
H. Kosow et al.
Fig. 2. Policy mix ‘status quo’ (CIB matrix Lurín).
Fig. 3. Impact logics of individual inconsistent policies, example policy 12a
‘Private ground water wells” to achieve objective 12 ‘Ensure sufficient process
water for industrial activities’.
considered more or less effective to achieve its objective – however,
when considering all 14 objectives together, the mix is neither optimally
maximizing the relative effectiveness of its policies nor optimally
mobilizing synergies. Mixes that are more successful in promoting the
effectiveness of its policies and reducing conflicts will need to imple­
ment policies that go beyond status quo solutions.
5.2.2. Synergetic and consistent policy mixes
Which policy mixes are effective in reaching all 14 objectives at the
same time in a consistent (Nash-stable) and synergetic manner? The
matrix offers a high number of theoretical combinations, around
14,9 × 106 different possible policy mixes, 6 × 106 of them obeying the
canceling rules (cf. 4.4 and 5.1). The number of synergetic and internally
consistent policy mixes however, is considerably lower, as we will
explain in the following.
Regarding synergies, the synergy index (i.e., the distribution of the
Total Impact Score (TIS), summing up the positive and negative impacts
between the policies within a mix) across all 6 × 106 possible configu­
rations (most of them inconsistent) varies in a broad range (see Fig. 4).
This indicates that synergies between policies strongly depend on how
mixes are composed. The bulk of mixes lies in a range from approx.
42
Environmental Science and Policy 130 (2022) 36–46
Fig. 4. Synergy index (TIS-distribution) of inconsistent and consistent pol­
icy mixes.
30–50 index points. The status quo mix with a TIS of + 2 (and in
addition breaking a canceling rule) is very far away from what can be
achieved by consistent mixes and still far away from the bulk of the
distribution.
Regarding consistency, the CIB analysis identifies n = 62 fully
consistent policy mixes (IC0), in which each objective is optimized
individually. The internally consistent mixes tend to achieve high or
very high TIS values, indicating high or very high synergy gains. The
relation between consistency and synergy is the following: CIB solutions
imply that each objective is ‘choosing’ its policy in an attempt to opti­
mize its own synergy gains and the TIS represents the sum of all indi­
vidual synergy gains. Nevertheless, the concept of Nash-stability implies
that consistent mixes can lead to suboptimal global synergy gains, when
no objective (or the actors behind it) can pave the way to a globally
better solution by its own one-sided policy portfolio. However, Fig. 4
also shows that synergy losses caused by such lock-in effects are limited
in our case and that striving for individual optimization (consistency)
can be expected to find reasonable global solutions (synergy).
H. Kosow et al.
5.2.3. Selecting maximally diverse policy mixes
The number of n = 62 internally consistent (and synergetic) policy
mixes identified by the CIB balance algorithm is too high to be easily
cognitively discernable and to provide useful advice for policy pro­
cesses. Diversity sampling (e.g., Tietje, 2005; Carlsen et al., 2016a,
2016b) allowed selecting six highly diverse policy mixes. Each of the six
mixes contains between one and four unique policies, i.e., policies that
are not present in any other mix, and combines the other policies, which
they share with other mixes, in a rather individual way (see Supplement
E for details). We named these policy mixes: A ‘High-tech’, B ‘Reuse’, C
‘Water Transfer’, D ‘Between progress, muddling through and free
riding’, E ‘River water for the urban population’, comprising the variants
E1 and E2. Considering these six highly different policy mixes jointly, we
observe that in these internally consistent solutions, in the lower
catchment, groundwater can be maximally used by one user group: In
mix A and B by households, in mix D and E1 by the industry and in mix
E2 for irrigation of green areas and in agriculture. All six mixes contain
ambitious wastewater treatment policies regarding municipal and do­
mestic wastewater for the upper and the lower catchment. They vary
between central (3b, 10c) and more decentralized solutions (3c, 10d),
but all mixes provide treated water in a quality allowing a safe reuse for
irrigation purposes. Both observations hold true for the sample of n = 62
mixes, too. The six mixes vary mainly according to the policies chosen to
fulfill objective 7 ‘sources for drinking water for the growing population
in the lower catchment’. Supplement F gives more detailed verbal de­
scriptions of these mixes and their internal logics. For an additional
cluster analysis confirming our selection, see Supplement G.
5.3. Sustainability and robustness of policy mixes
When actors do policy planning, avoiding inconsistencies and
fostering synergies are only some of the aspects they need to consider. In
the following, we show how to use CIB to assess the sustainability per­
formance (5.3.1) as well as robustness (5.3.2) of policy mixes.
5.3.1. Sustainability
Summing up the sustainability performances of individual policies
(impact scores regarding SDG targets 6.1 and 6.6) gives an indication, on
how sustainable a mix is, namely how effective it is in reaching the
respective SDG 6 targets. Fig. 5 shows the performance of the selected
policy mixes A-E and of the status quo mix in attaining SDG 6.1 and 6.6.
All mixes, and this also applies to all n = 62 internally consistent
mixes, foster SDG targets 6.1 and 6.6. However, the impact on 6.1 is
rated higher than on 6.6: There is no policy mix, in which target 6.6
performs better than target 6.1. This is due to the higher number of
policies that is directed towards 6.1 than those explicitly directed to­
wards 6.6. There is only one mix, in which both SDG targets are fostered
equally (albeit weakly): D ‘Free-riding’. Mix B ‘Reuse’ is the best policy
Fig. 5. SDG6 attainment of selected policy mixes.
43
Environmental Science and Policy 130 (2022) 36–46
mix when arguing that the weaker aspect (SDG 6.6) performs best. Mix A
‘High-tech’ scores highest in assuring safe access to drinking water to all
but is less performant regarding ecosystem conservation. In the same
line, mix C ‘Transfer’ is rather strong in assuring 6.1 (social sustain­
ability) but clearly weaker regarding its ecological sustainability. All in
all, mixes A and B are Pareto-optimal within the selected scenarios, the
Pareto-Front of the complete set of 62 mixes performs slightly better.3
The status quo mix (P) performs significantly weaker regarding both
SDG 6 dimensions. It is still - albeit very weakly - able to supply the
population of Lurín with safe drinking water but visibly harms the
conservation of ecosystems.
5.3.2. Context sensitivity and robustness
The robustness of policy mixes depends, among other things, on its
performance under different contexts. Robustness (Dryzek, 1983) under
different future conditions might be most relevant for policy makers to
find good solutions coping with the fundamental uncertainty of future
developments (Weimer-Jehle et al., 2016). To assess the influence of
contexts on policy mixes, we test the effects of assumed changes in
governance styles (‘Authority’ and ‘Concertation’) on the set of mixes
and assess the performance of the mixes regarding synergies and sus­
tainability under different governance styles. This indicates, which
mixes are robust under a range of different contexts – or most adequate
under specific context developments.
Overall, governance styles do matter: policy mixes are sensitive to
assumed governance conditions. When adding contexts of improved
governance to the matrix, n = 41 new fully consistent (IC0) policy mixes
are possible, of which n = 34 additional policy mixes result from
‘Improved authority’ and n = 7 from ‘Improved concertation’. Consid­
ering the context uncertainty outlined by the governance variants, we
ask, how the mixes perform against the two key quality aspects: synergy
and sustainability. For each of the in total n = 103 fully consistent policy
mixes, we measure their performance regarding their sustainability and
synergy indices, namely by summing all impacts exerted by the policies
on both SDG6 targets as well as the assumed interactions between target
6.1 and target 6.6 (sustainability index); and by summing all impacts
between the policies of a policy mix (synergy index TIS).
Fig. 6 shows that both types of reformed governance convey signif­
icant gains for both synergy and sustainability indices. Improved
governance encourages policy choices that, besides promoting their own
objective, carry high potentials of positive side effects on other policies
(synergy) and on the SDG 6 goals (sustainability). Besides shifting the
performance ranges on a higher ground, improved governance is a game
changer with respect to the relation between synergy and sustainability
goals: While both goals seem competing in case of governance as usual
(negative correlation), both goals are mutual supportive (positive cor­
relation) in case of improved governance. This should ease the task of
pursuing both goals at the same time.
For gaining insight about the robustness of the policy mixes under
uncertain contexts, we analyzed, which policy mixes are consistent
under more than one assumed governance style. Of the six most diverse
‘governance as usual’ mixes (see 5.2.2), none is consistent under both
improved governance assumptions. Still, Mix B ‘Reuse’ remains consis­
tent under ‘improved authority’, and mix C ‘Transfer’ under ‘improved
concertation’. Under ‘improved authority’, n = 10 out of the n = 34
mixes are identical with mixes under ‘governance as usual’. Under
‘improved concertation’, six out of the seven possible mixes differ from
mixes under ‘governance as usual’. Improved authority thus stabilizes
some of the mixes already consistent under current governance
3P­
lease replace "Fudenberg/Tirole" by "Fudenberg and Tirole"
Pareto-optimality implies that there exists no other mix that performs better for
at least one index and at least equivalent for all other indices. All Pareto-
optimal mixes together form the Pareto Front (Fudenberg/Tirole, 1991).
H. Kosow et al.
Fig. 6. Performance and robustness of consistent policy mixes under different
governance styles.
conditions and also allows new mixes, whereas improved concertation
seems to point more strongly into new directions.
Jointly considering all new information gained on policy mixes for a
more effective water use management in the Lurín catchment (see
Supplement E) indicates the following: Under governance as usual, the
mix with highest synergy gains ‘River water, reuse in agriculture’ (E1) is
not too strong regarding SDG6 target attainment. In contrast, the mix
with the lowest degree of synergies ‘High-tech’ (A) performs very well
regarding sustainability (especially regarding target 6.1). Still, as mix
‘Reuse’ (B) shows, there are mixes combining both, high synergies and
very high scores of SDG attainment – and B has the highest total SDG6
target performance among all six mixes. In addition, mix B is robust
under the context assumptions of governance as usual and of improved
authority.
6. Discussion
6.1. CIB to address conflictive environmental issues
Our methodology can be considered a valuable source for integrated
water resources planning, policy design, and multi-stakeholder dialog
processes. The methodology combines multiple perspectives into policy
mixes that optimize the attainment of multiple objectives at the same
time. It points at inconsistencies and gives advice, on how policy mixes
seize synergies best. The analysis points out that the status quo approach
in the Lurín basin is neither consistent nor optimal in maximizing syn­
ergies, nor sustainable. Instead, sustainable water management requires
important changes to the status quo. According to the policy-interaction
model, the key to transformation lays in ameliorated forms of safe
wastewater treatment and reuse. From there, various alternative policy
mixes are consistent and synergetic, which could better meet the
different water quality and quantity related needs of households, agri­
culture, industry and ecosystems in the Lurín basin by implementing
policies optimally supporting each other. Analyses of characteristics of
these policy mixes, namely sustainability performance regarding SDG6
and robustness, provide stakeholders and local decision makers with
additional information on the transformative character of different so­
lutions. Further assessments that might be required (e.g., financing,
affordability, and acceptability) require other approaches.
As to limitations, first, impact assessments are made in semi-
quantitative form and rely on expert judgments. Second, the analysis
presented here served as a first application of the methodology only: CIB
matrices are highly sensitive to the selection of interview partners, their
specific expertize, and the quality of their assessments. Including local
stakeholders’ knowledge into the impact assessment would increase the
validity of the analysis; create ownership and increase local impact.
Therefore, in addition, cross-impact interviews with n = 19 local
stakeholders have been carried out and analyzed (Kosow et al., 2020).
44
Environmental Science and Policy 130 (2022) 36–46
Third, the methodology is able to make (potential) goal conflicts more
explicit and point at contradictions within policy mixes. But they do not
solve distributional conflicts in practice, as e. g. the question, what sec­
tors or users change their policies from the status quo. Finally, CIB
permits multi-goal optimization through Nash-equilibria, optimizing
each goal individually. It shares this approach with game theory. Adding
other approaches to general optima would provide contrasting
considerations.
Our methodology seems applicable to analyze policy mixes for water
use conflicts of other river catchments. It might be especially relevant for
more conflictive situations than the one in Lurín. This entails situations
with more intense socio-economic activities upstream, including addi­
tional water users as hydropower and mining activities. Second, we also
assume the methodology to be transferable to other conflicts dealing
with multiple objectives as energy, land use and others. It might be
particularly well suited to deal with nexus issues (e.g., water-energy-
food). In sum, the methodology constitutes a general policy-
interaction modeling approach applicable within and across sectors,
for domestic as well as for foreign and international policies - and their
interplay.
6.2. Relevance for research on policy mix design
The methodology provides a new approach to design policy mixes
and to evaluate them ex ante. In comparison to earlier network ap­
proaches, as by Taeihagh (2017), it adds a systematic and comprehen­
sive analysis of different types of directed interactions between policies
targeted at multiple goals, and the CIB balance algorithm. Further
research could explore combinations of our approach with MCDA and
with addressing temporal factors as proposed by Taeihagh (2017).
The methodology helps understanding non-intended policy effects
(cf. Justen et al., 2014) by considering indirect effects of policies within
a system of interconnected policies through the CIB balance algorithm.
The Total Impact Score (TIS) provides an easy operationalization and
measurement of (relative) synergy of policy mixes. The balance algo­
rithm provides a simple operationalization and measurement of internal
consistency of policy mixes that currently is dealt with qualitatively in
the policy mix literature (Rogge and Reichardt, 2016). Adding context
factors as governance styles also allows analyzing consistency between
governance styles and policies.
Analyzing the status quo mix indicates that the approach might be
useful to analyze and assess existing de-facto policy mixes and their
(conflictive) interactions ex post. Still, we consider our methodology to
be useful in particular for pro-active policy design and ex ante evalua­
tion. The methodology can provide ideas for policy mix design (prod­
ucts) and also be used to structure strategic and integrated policy-design
thinking processes. The latter especially applies when integrating not
only experts but also local stakeholders - and ideally decision makers -
into the different process steps. The methodology can then be under­
stood as a form of transdisciplinary policy impact assessment, with the
added value of focusing on (non-intended) interactions and indirect
effects between policies either within or across sectors. While the
methodology - as applied in this case - focusses mainly on policy content,
it is not blind to actors and interests behind the objectives and policy
alternatives. Future applications could put more emphasis on the actors’
perspective, and test the approach to support a search for balance be­
tween actors’ interests.
6.3. Relevance for research on SDG interactions and policy coherence for
sustainable development
Finally, the methodology proposes a new approach to support policy
coherence by dealing with SDG interactions in new ways. First, SDG
targets can be added as normative performance criteria to a CIB-based
policy-interaction model. This study considered criteria built on two
SDG 6 targets only. When a more comprehensive sustainability
H. Kosow et al.
assessment is strived for, further targets of other - potentially also
internally interrelated - SDGs can be added to the CIB matrix. Also, SDG
target-based criteria could also comprise their respective indicators.
Including (multiple) SDG targets (and indicators) then allows assessing
the relative performance of policy mixes by taking interactions between
policies, their effects on criteria and also interactions between criteria
into account (“indicator-indicator interactions” in the sense of Bennich
et al. (2020). Second, our methodology complements systems analysis
on SDG as proposed by Weitz et al. (2018) to deal with SDG and SDG
target interactions. It might be fruitful to consider “policy-policy in­
teractions” (Bennich et al., 2020) between concrete tools to reach these
targets. Further research should test our assumption that CIB could be
applied to identify synergetic policy mixes that effectively optimize
several SDGs at the same time. If this is the case, it provides a new and
innovative methodology for policy assessment in the light of the SDGs
and for the promotion of the 2030 Agenda for sustainability
transformations.
7. Conclusion
This paper presents a four-step methodology to design policy mixes
that fulfill multiple objectives related to environmental issues, reduce
goal conflicts, and optimize synergies. We demonstrate that the meth­
odology can considerably enrich the knowledge base on existing and
alternative policy mixes at the example of water use management in the
Lurín catchment, Lima, Peru. The methodology provides easy oper­
ationalization of consistency and synergy criteria and allows assessing
sustainability performance and robustness of policy mixes. We assume
our methodology to be easily transferable and usable in other areas of
the world, and also regarding other environmental issues within and
across sectors, regarding domestic and international policies, dealing
with potentially conflictive objectives, as e.g., nexus issues and SDG
interactions - and policy coherence in general. The approach does not
claim to present a full and ready-to-use decision support system (e.g.,
Marakas, 2003) or to feed technical expertize directly into policy de­
cisions. Instead it might be one building block of policy processes
co-created by various experts - as researchers, consultants and admin­
istrators - and local stakeholders. The methodology, however, seems
suitable to be implemented in different empirical forms and frameworks.
Future applications as a new and innovative methodology for policy
assessment in the light of the SDGs to promote the 2030 Agenda seem
particularly promising.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hannah Kosow: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Data Curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing, Visualization, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle: Methodology, Software, Formal analysis,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization.
Christian D. León: Methodology, Investigation, Investigation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing, Project administration,
Funding acquisition. Fabienne Minn: Data Curation, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Funding: This work was part of the research project TRUST (“Sus­
tainable, fair and environmentally sound drinking water supply for
prosperous regions with water shortage: Developing solutions and
45
Environmental Science and Policy 130 (2022) 36–46
planning tools for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals using
the river catchments of the region Lima/Peru as an example”,
2017–2021). It was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education
and Research (BMBF) within the funding measure “Water as a Global
Resource” (GRoW) [grant number 02WGR1426A-G]. We thank our
project partners from the TRUST project and in particular our interview
partners, as well as our two anonymous reviewers.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2022.01.007.
References
Alpizar, F., Carlsson, G., Lanza, B., Carney, R.C., Daniels, M., Jaime, T., Ho, Z., Nie, C.,
Salazar, B., Tibesigwa, S.Wahdera, 2020. A framework for selecting and designing
policies to reduce marine plastic pollution in developing countries. Environ. Sci.
Policy 109, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.007.
Bennich, T., Weitz, N., Carlsen, H., 2020. Deciphering the scientific literature on SDG
interactions: a review and reading guide. Sci. Total Env. 728, 138405 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138405.
Bergh, van den J., 2020. Systemic assessment of urban climate policies worldwide:
decomposing effectiveness into 3 factors. Environ. Sci. Policy 114, 35–42. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.07.011.
Capano, G., Howlett, M., 2020. The knowns and unknowns of policy instrument analysis:
policy tools and the current research agenda on policy mixes. SAGE Open 10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900568.
Carbone, M., Keijzer, N., 2016. The European Union and policy coherence for
development: reforms, results, resistance. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 28 (1), 30–43. https://
doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.72.
Carlsen, H., Eriksson, E.A., Dreborg, K.H., Johansson, B., Bodin, Ö., 2016. Systematic
exploration of scenario spaces. Foresight 18, 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-02-
2015-0011.
Carlsen, H., Lempert, R., Wikman-Svahn, P., Schweizer, V., 2016. Choosing small sets of
policy-relevant scenarios by combining vulnerability and diversity approaches.
Environ. Modell. Softw. 84, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsoft.2016.06.011.
de Boon, A., Sandström, C., Arbieu, U., Hansen, I., Lehnen, L., Marion, A., Pohja-
Mykrä, M., Risvoll, C., Strand, G.H., Ronningen, K., 2020. Governing dual objectives
with single policy mixes: an empirical analysis of large carnivore policies in six
European countries. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1523908X.2020.1841614.
de Jong, E., Vijge, M., 2021. From millennium to sustainable development goals:
evolving discourses and their reflection in policy coherence for development. Earth
Syst. Gov. 7, 100087 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100087.
Defensoria del Pueblo, 2015. Conflictos sociales y recursos hídricos. Inf. De. Adjuntía N◦
001–201.
del Río, P., 2010. Analysing the interactions between renewable energy promotion and
energy efficiency support schemes: the impact of different instruments and design
elements. Energy Policy 38, 4978–4989.
Dryzek, J.S., 1983. Don’t toss coins in garbage cans: a prologue to policy design. J. Public
Policy 3, 345–367.
ElSawah, S., Hamilton, S., Jakeman, A., Rothman, D., Schweizer, V., Trutnevyte, E.,
Carlsen, H., Drakes, C., Frame, B., Fu, B., Guivarch, C., Haasnoot, M., Kemp-
Benedict, E., Kok, K., Kosow, H., Ryan, M., van Delden, H., 2020. Scenario processes
for socio-environmental analysis: a review of recent efforts and a salient research
agenda to support decision making. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.138393.
Felipe-Morales, C. 2010. Diagnostico participativo sobre la gestion del agua en la cuenca
del río. Consultoría para las ONG CGDD/CIED.
Felipe-Morales, C. 2013. Lineamientos de politica para la gestion del agua en la cuenca
alta y media del río Lurín. URL:〈https://www.academia.edu/24217946/Manual_
para_Gestores_del_Agua_de_la_Cuenca_del_R%C3%ADo_Lur%C3%ADn_CGDD_CIED_
FOMIN-BID_Manual_para_Gestores_del_Agua_de_la_Cuenca_del_R%C3%ADo_Lur%
C3%ADn〉.
Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., Laranja, M., 2011. Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for
innovation. Res. Policy 40, 702–713.
Fudenberg, D., Tirole, J., 1991. Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Givoni, M., 2014. Addressing transport policy challenges through policy-packaging.
Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 60, 1–8.
Häbel, S., 2020. Normative policy coherence for development and policy networks. Reg.
Cohes. 10 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3167/reco.2020.100102.
Head, B.W., 2008. Wicked problems in public policy. J. Public Policy 3, 101.
Howlett, M., Rayner, J., 2013. Patching vs packaging: complementary effects. Goodness
of Fit, Degrees of Freedom and Intentionality in Policy Portfolio Design. ESEE
Meetings, Lille, France.
ICSU, 2017. A guide to SDG interactions: From science to implementation. International
Council for Science. 〈https://council.science/publications/a-guide-to-sdg-interac
tions-from-science-to-implementation〉.
Jones, T., 2002. Policy coherence, global environmental governance, and poverty
reduction. Int. Environ. Agreem.: Polit. Law Econ. 2, 389–401.
H. Kosow et al.
Justen, A., Schippl, J., Lenz, B., Fleischer, T., 2014. Assessment of policies and detection
of unintended effects: guiding principles for the consideration of methods and tools
in policy-packaging. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pr. 60, 19–30.
Kemp-Benedict, E., de Jong, W., Pacheco, P., 2014. Forest futures: Linking global paths to
local conditions, in: Katila, P., Galloway, G., de Jong, W., Pacheco, P., Mery, G.
(Eds.), Forest under pressure - Local responses to global issues. Part IV - Possible
future pathways. IUFRO World Series Vol. 32.
Kern, F., Howlett, M., 2009. Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a
case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sci. 42, 391–408.
Kern, F., Rogge, K., Howlett, M., 2019. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: new
approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. Res. Policy
48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103832. Keywords: Cities; Climate
change; CO2 emissions; Transport; Buildings; Infrastructure.
Kirschke, S., Kosow, H., 2021. Designing policy mixes for emerging wicked problems.
The case of pharmaceutical residues in freshwaters. J. Environ. Policy Plan. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1960808.
Kirsop-Taylor, N.A., Hejnowicz, A.P., 2020. Designing public agencies for 21st century
water-energy-food nexus complexity: the case of natural resources wales. Public
Policy Adm. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076720921444.
Koff, H., 2021. Why serve soup with a fork?: how policy coherence for development can
link environmental impact assessment with the 2030 sustainable development
agenda. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 86, 106477.
Koff, H., Challenger, A., Portillo, I., 2020. Guidelines for operationalizing policy
coherence for development (PCD) as a methodology for the design and
implementation of sustainable development strategies. Sustainability 12 (10), 4055.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104055.
Koff, H., Maganda, C., 2016. The EU and the human right to water and sanitation:
normative coherence as the key to transformative development. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 28
(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.77.
Kosow, H., Leon, C., Minn, F., Acevedo, A., Bondy, J., Castro, S., Krauss, M., Miranda, L.,
Sturm, S., Prehofer, S., Weimer-Jehle, W., 2020. Integrating local knowledge and
technical expertise in water research: Experiences from the Río Lurín catchment,
Peru. 10th International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software iEMSs,
Brussels, Belgium.
León D., C., Brauer, F., Hügler, M., Keller, S., Kosow, H., Krauss, M., Wasielewski, S.,
Wienhöfer, J., 2021. Integrated Water Management Solutions in the Lurín
Catchment, Lima, Peru – Supporting United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal
6.. University of Stuttgart ISBN 978-3-00-068498-2. https://doi.org/10.18419/opus-
11390.
León, C., Kosow, H., 2019. Wasserknappheit in Megastädten am Beispiel Lima. In:
Lozán, J., Breckle, S.W., Kuttler, B. (Eds.), Warnsignal Klima: Die Städte.
Wissenschaftliche Auswertungen, Hamburg, pp. 191–196.
Marakas, G.M., 2003. Decision Support Systems in the 21st Century, 2nd ed.,. Pearson
Education.
Matsumoto, K., Hasegawa, T., Morita, K., Fujimori, S., 2018. Synergy potential between
climate change mitigation and forest conservation policies in the Indonesian forest
sector: implications for achieving multiple sustainable development objectives.
Sustain. Sci. 114, 1657–1672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0650-6.
Meylan, G., Seidl, R., Spoerri, A., 2013. Transitions of municipal solid waste
management. Part I: ccenarios of Swiss waste glass-packaging disposal. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 74, 8–19.
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., Visbeck, M., 2016. Map the interactions between sustainable
development goals. Nature 534, 320–322.
Nilsson, M., Weitz, N., 2019. Governing trade-offs and building coherence in policy-
making for the 2030 agenda. Polit. Gov. 7, 254–263.
Nilsson, M., Zamparutti, T., Petersen, J.E., Nykvist, B., Rudberg, P., McGuinn, J., 2012.
Understanding policy coherence: analytical framework and examples of
sector–environment policy interactions in the EU. Environ. Pol. Gov. 22, 395–423.
Norouzi, N., Fani, M., Ziarani, Z.K., 2019. The fall of oil age: a scenario planning
approach over the last peak oil of human history by 2040. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106827.
Renn, O., Deuschle, J., Jäger, A., Weimer-Jehle, W., 2009. A normative-functional
concept of sustainability and its indicators. IJGEnvI 9, 291–317.
46
Environmental Science and Policy 130 (2022) 36–46
Rogge, K., Reichardt, K., 2016. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended
concept and framework for analysis. Res. Policy 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2016.04.004.
Schmidt, T.S., Sewerin, S., 2019. Measuring the temporal dynamics of policy mixes – an
empirical analysis of renewable energy policy mixes’ balance and design features in
nine countries. Res. Policy 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.012.
Schneider, M., Gill, B., 2016. Biotechnology versus agroecology - Entrenchments and
surprise at a 2030 forecast scenario workshop. Sci. Public Policy 43, 74–84. https://
doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv021.
Schütze, M., Seidel, J., Chamorro, A., León, C., 2019. Integrated modelling of a megacity
water system – the application of a transdisciplinary approach to the Lima
metropolitan area. J. Hydrol. 573, 983–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2018.03.045.
Segura Urrunaga, C. 2016. La dimensión interlegal de la gestión del agua en San Andrés
de Tupicocha, Huarochirí, Lima, Perú, pp. 1942–2015.
Taeihagh, A., 2017. Network-centric policy design. Policy Sci. 50, 317–338. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11077-016-9270-0.
Taeihagh, A., Bañares-Alcántara, R., Givoni, M., 2014. A virtual environment for the
formulation of policy packages. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 60, 53–68. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.017.
Taeihagh, A., Bañares-Alcántara, R., Millican, C., 2009. Development of a novel
framework for the design of transport policies to achieve environmental targets.
Comput. Chem. Eng. 33, 1531–1545.
Tietje, O., 2005. Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 162, 418–432.
United Nations, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015.
New York (A/RES/70/1), https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/
transformingourworld.
Verweij, S., Busscher, T., van den Brink, M., 2021. Effective policy instrument mixes for
implementing integrated flood risk management: an analysis of the ‘Room for the
River’ program. Environ. Sci. Policy 116, 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2020.12.003.
Villaneueva Vargas, J. 2016. La gobernanza de los recursos hidricoe en la cuenca del río
Lurín en el marco de la creación del consejo de recursos hidricos de cuenca Chillón,
Rímac, Lurín. Tesis. Pontifica Universidad Católica del Perú; https://tesis.pucp.edu.
pe/repositorio/handle/20.500.12404/7159.
Wachsmuth, J., 2015. Cross-sectoral integration in regional adaptation to climate change
via participatory scenario development. Clim. Change 132, 387–400. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10584-014-1231-z.
Weimer-Jehle, W., 2006. Cross-impact balances: a system-theoretical approach to cross-
impact analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 73, 334–361. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2005.06.005.
Weimer-Jehle, W., 2022. Introduction to Cross-Impact Balance Analysis. manuscript in
press.
Weimer-Jehle, W., Buchgeister, J., Hauser, W., Kosow, H., Naegler, T., Pregger, T.,
Poganietz, W., Prehofer, S., Rieder, A., Schippl, J., Vögele, S., 2016. Context
scenarios and their usage for the construction of socio-technical energy scenarios.
Energy 111, 956–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.05.073.
Weimer-Jehle, W., Deuschle, J., Rehaag, R., 2012. Familial and societal causes of
juvenile obesity - a qualitative model on obesity development and prevention in
socially disadvantaged children and adolescents. J. Public Health 20, 111–124.
Weimer-Jehle, W., Vögele, S., Hauser, W., Kosow, H., Poganietz, W.P., Prehofer, S., 2020.
Socio-technical energy scenarios: State of the art and CIB-based approaches. Clim.
Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02680-y.
Weitz, N., Carlsen, H., Nilsson, M., Skanberg, K., 2018. Towards systemic and contextual
priority setting for implementing the 2030 agenda. Sustain. Sci. 13, 531–548.
Weitz, N., Carlsen, H., Trimmer, C., 2019. SDG synergies: an approach for coherent 2030
agenda implementation. SEI Policy Brief. 2019. 〈https://www.sei.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/04/sei-brief-2019-sdg-synergies-2.pdf〉.
Zucchetti A., Chirinos, C. 2001. Manejo alternativo de conflictos vinculados al uso de
suelo en la cuenca del río Lurín, Lima, Perú. Informe final.