Can MCDA Serve Ex-Post to Indicate ‘Winners and Losers’ in Sustainability Dilemmas? A Case Study of Marine Spatial Planning in Germany

Abstract

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.

Coordination Challenges in Wind Energy Development: Lessons from Cross-Case Positive Planning Approaches to Avoid Multi-Level Governance ‘Free-Riding’

“…However, recent advances have indicated that, contrary to the intended sequence, the Area Development Plan went ahead of marine spatial planning [53,68]. Attaining a balance between all interests, including energy and shipping goals, has proven to be challenging and has created some difficulties in negotiating interests [126,127]. Swedish Onshore Wind Energy-Case B Sweden's onshore wind energy planning is supplemented by an informal approach of aligning the national energy target with the lower planning level.…”

“…A holistic and multidisciplinary planning approach thus appears necessary beside positive planning to balance the needs of various stakeholder interests and coordinate efforts through a consensus-driven planning process as far as possible, while such a process is not always easy to achieve [127,159,169]. Stakeholder willingness to discuss and collaborate might also be necessary in achieving energy targets and establishing strategies for 'high-hanging fruit' areas for wind energy.…”

“…Nevertheless, it is likely that there remains a challenge to achieve an appropriate weighting of other land-use interests and to reach compromises, even within the framework of a positive planning approach [159]. As seen in the offshore case, spatial planning still struggles to adequately negotiate and address different interests [126,127,151,176,177]. Perceived inequalities caused by encouraged wind energy development may still generate opposition [127,176,178].…”

Coordination challenges in wind energy development: Lessons from cross-case positive planning approaches to avoid multi-level governance ‘free-riding’

“…Balancing the effectiveness of formal methods for pushing wind energy development with the need to ensure social acceptability therefore appears crucial. Simply prioritizing wind energy interests in spatial planning without considering the concerns of other stakeholders could lead to a lack of social acceptance, as some countries argue for MSP[125,174,176 for onshore wind energy].…”

“…. Perceived inequalities caused by encouraged wind energy development may still generate opposition[125,174,176 for onshore wind energy]. Balancing the effectiveness of formal methods for pushing wind energy development with the need to ensure social acceptability therefore appears crucial.…”