Multi-criteria decision analyses (MCDAs) have been developed to support and evaluate decision-making on multi-layered problems. The benefit lies in creating transparency, among other benefits, especially in tackling divergent stakeholder interests. Within the energy transition, area shortage can lead to sustainability trade-offs, calling for the reconciliation of planning processes and satisfactory compromises. While ex ante MCDAs complement planning, the ex post consideration of processes has been less widely studied. Using a case study of offshore wind energy (OWP) within German marine spatial planning, we investigated the shifting weights of sustainability criteria and stakeholder interests. A multi-criteria approach (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment of Evaluations (PROMETHEE)) addressed how decision-making can be iteratively traced, and the winners and losers indicated in sustainability dilemmas, such as between climate and biodiversity implications. Findings illustrate that stakeholders are divided in the green-on-green dilemma. The ‘winners’ embrace the branches of energy and climate protection. It remains a question though for ‘losers’ how weighting decisions of sustainability goals can be detrimental, such as ‘good environmental status’, and what kind of balancing occurs. How compromises are found, such as through transparency and solid justification, is crucial in satisfactorily solving trade-offs for public interests. PROMETHEE makes revealing stakeholder constellations within policy dynamics feasible, though assuming there is the will to work multidisciplinarily within future planning decisions.

No abstract

Wicked problems occur when decision-makers face constant change or unprecedented challenges and when uncertainty, complexity, and stakeholder divergence are high. We shed light on wicked problems in the German energy transition. Our methods consist of a multiple-case study and comparative multi-criteria analysis, utilising the wicked problems theoretical framework introduced by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber (1973). Based on four exemplary cases, our research covers four core energy transition sectors: energy supply (developing onshore wind power), heating/cooling (using shallow geothermal energy systems), transport (decarbonising the transport sector), and industry (decarbonising the chemical industry sector). Cross-case results illustrate where and how the 10-point frame of wicked problems manifests in the German energy transition. We do not argue that the German energy transition is inherently wicked, yet we stress the need to consider potentially wicked facets of energy transition challenges. Our results show that the four cases exhibit more wicked tendencies in the governance domain than in the technical dimension. All cases exhibit wicked facets in the governance dimension, given strong normative assumptions, value divergence, and complex governance structures with a plurality of actors. From a technical perspective, the four cases still exhibit some wicked tendencies, e.g. raw material provision, skilled workforce, and waste management. The cases differ in technology maturity, state of knowledge, and degree of policy output and regulations. In applying the wickedness lens, we acknowledge that energy transition problems cannot be solved merely by technical measures but need to be tamed. Our work reflects which challenges and main barriers pertain to the four cases of the German energy transition. Understanding the elements of wickedness in a specific problem in the first step offers insights for addressing and managing these challenges in the next step.

Um die Qualität von komplexen Entscheidungen zu erhöhen, findet sich ein Best-Available-Science/Information-(BAS/I-)Wissenschaftsmandat unmittelbar im US-amerikanischen Umweltrecht adressiert, prominent auch im Artenschutzrecht. BAS/I wird zugesprochen, die Schnittstelle zwischen (wissenschaftlichen) Informationen (science push) und dem handlungsorientierten (policy pull) Arten-und Naturschutz und seiner Planungsund Genehmigungspraxis transparent zu machen. Wir haben in einem exemplarischen Überblick untersucht, welchen Fokus das BAS/I-Mandat in den USA hat und wie es in der Rechtssetzung, der öffentlichen Verwaltung sowie in Leitfäden ausgefüllt wird. Dazu zählen z. B. das stete Aufzeigen von verbleibenden Unsicherheiten und eine ausgeprägte Peer-Review-Praxis wichtiger Dokumente und Entscheidungen. Zwar können mit diesem Überblick noch keine Aussagen zur Breite, Tiefe und Effektivität der Umsetzung des BAS/I-Mandats in der US-amerikanischen Praxis getroffen werden, wir beschreiben diesen Ansatz jedoch als Good-Practice-Beispiel, um das evidenzbasierte Wissenschaftsmandat zukünftig auch in Deutschland expliziter diskutieren zu können und Eingang in einschlägige Routinen finden zu lassen. Gewinnen könnte dabei in jedem Fall die Transparenz unserer Planungs-und Genehmigungsverfahren.