The Delphi process

The process starts with inviting the panellists. In this case, the invitations were to the seminar held in April 2013, and the opportunity was used to offer them the option of participating in the panel. The researcher in charge of the Delphi is

referred to as manager, while the manager – in this case, the author - often works together with a working group – as was the case here.

The survey consists of claims about the future of the topic, which are then considered by the experts. Often, the responses are recorded in both a quantitative and qualitative manner: in this case, a 7-step Likert scale was used together with open comments.

The panellists were invited based on their standing in society and active participation in the paradigm of ecological sanitation. The list of invitees was drawn up by a working group, and after the seminar more names were added to the list of people to whom the survey was sent. The goal was to gather people from various disciplines and fields of society from business to research and from policy making to authorities. The invitees were also welcome to suggest additions to the panel.

The invitation to the seminar held in April 2013 was sent to some 100 people, and 44 people attended. In the seminar, the topic was discussed initially with the idea that it would be further handled in the survey as well as in seminars to come.

The group work in the seminar acted as basis for the questions in round 1. (The programme for the seminar can be found as Appendix3 – in Finnish with an English summary.) In the seminar, the most important questions were discussed in working groups, and the discussion continued in the form of the Delphi.

After the seminar, the online survey base and claims were constructed, based on the seminar as well as the knowledge learned during the expert interviews regarding case studies. As no actual Delphi software was available, the Surveymonkey.com online survey internet site was used. A 7-step Likert scale was developed for the experts to evaluate the development of certain claims; the task was to mark down the likelihood as well as the preferability of the stated outcomes, and to comment on why such a response was given. The scale was measured on a scale [-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3], the negative end indicating the lower probability and desirability of the outcomes, while the positive scale meant higher probability and desirability (see the form in Appendix 1). The first round consisted of 23 claims on different topics: i) the use of urine in agriculture, ii) technological development, iii) household sanitation, iv) environmental legislation and v) international aspects. In the second round, there were 9 claims from similar themes based on the answers of the first round. In this way, some interesting claims pointed out by a single expert could be

asked from the entire panel, and more in-depth questions could be formed from those of the first round.

In the first round, the invitation was sent to all the seminar participants (44) as well as those people originally invited to the seminar who could not attend:

altogether about 100 invitations were sent. In total 44 experts replied to the first round, which is 100 % of the seminar participants, and some 40 % of the invitees altogether, showing the high motivation of the participants. The first round took place in May 2013. In the second round, there were 25 respondents, making the total 19 respondents less. In addition, there were two respondents who had not replied in the first round but who wanted to participate in the second round. It is common for a Delphi survey to lose participants, so the results can be deemed quite acceptable as the respondents still represented a variety of sectors and backgrounds. The second round took place at the turn of May – June 2013, and as the consensus on the matters in question was reached, it seemed unnecessary to have a third round at this point.

The topics varied from reuse of urine as fertiliser and related issues, such as health, hygiene, etc. However, also wider questions were tackled, such as the attitudes towards ecological sanitation, the business prospects and logistical difficulties. In addition to the Likert-scale, the respondents were encouraged to comment on their responses. Even though many chose not to comment at all, the anonymous comments were included in the second round as well as the final presentation of the survey in another follow-up seminar in October 2013 (The programme can be found as Appendix 4 – in Finnish only).

After the first round, the outcome was sent to the respondents, together with the claims for the second round. The claims were gathered based on the responses and comments of the first round, in order for the participants to familiarise themselves with the opinions of others and specify their views.

During the second round, the topics were even more detailed and varied. Some respondents found this difficult or unclear, while others found the topics relevant and important. The goal was to tackle the multitude of issues involving ecological sanitation, as it cannot be addressed as one single matter. The topics were kept complex and even somewhat vague, as in this way it was possible to stimulate comments and a wide range of views from the participants. It was possible for the

with this arrangement, although clearer instructions would have produced unified answers. In this way, the respondents were allowed to interpret the claims based on their own knowledge and opinions – as well as to comment on them freely, which is the point of the Delphi method.

The following sections present the results of the Delphi based on themes:

background information, urine as fertiliser, technology and business, legislation, and education. All themes will be covered in their own subsections, including the results from the first as well as the second round. The results are presented as diagrams to visualise better whether the outcome was unified or scattered. Cross referencing was done regarding key questions where opinions were wide-ranging. Most attention, however, is targeted on the qualitative results, i.e. the open comments written by the experts. These were analysed thematically and transformed into futures images (more in Chapter 7).