IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i20p7654-d944515.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica Weber

    (Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group, Berlin Institute of Technology (TU Berlin), Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Johann Köppel

    (Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group, Berlin Institute of Technology (TU Berlin), Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica Weber & Johann Köppel, 2022. "Can MCDA Serve Ex-Post to Indicate ‘Winners and Losers’ in Sustainability Dilemmas? A Case Study of Marine Spatial Planning in Germany," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-30, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:20:p:7654-:d:944515
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/20/7654/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/20/7654/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giuseppe Munda, 2016. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis and Sustainable Development," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 1235-1267, Springer.
    2. Ainhoa Gonzalez & Álvaro Enríquez-de-Salamanca, 2018. "Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis in Environmental Assessment: A Review and Reflection on Benefits and Limitations," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-24, September.
    3. J. A. Finn & F. Bartolini & D. Bourke & I. Kurz & D. Viaggi, 2009. "Ex post environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts' judgements and multicriteria analysis," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 717-737.
    4. Konstantina Anastasiadou, 2021. "Sustainable Mobility Driven Prioritization of New Vehicle Technologies, Based on a New Decision-Aiding Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-27, April.
    5. Ph. Nemery & K. Lidouh & B. Mareschal, 2011. "On the usefulness of taking the weights into account in the GAIA visualisations," International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(3), pages 228-251.
    6. Atici, Kazim Baris & Simsek, Ahmet Bahadir & Ulucan, Aydin & Tosun, Mustafa Umur, 2015. "A GIS-based Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis approach for wind power plant site selection," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 86-96.
    7. Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    8. Leslie Carnoye & Rita Lopes, 2015. "Participatory Environmental Valuation: A Comparative Analysis of Four Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-23, July.
    9. Mourmouris, J.C. & Potolias, C., 2013. "A multi-criteria methodology for energy planning and developing renewable energy sources at a regional level: A case study Thassos, Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 522-530.
    10. Frank Hanssen & Roel May & Jiska van Dijk & Jan Ketil Rød, 2018. "Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool Suite for Consensus-Based Siting of Renewable Energy Structures," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-28, September.
    11. Al-Yahyai, Sultan & Charabi, Yassine & Gastli, Adel & Al-Badi, Abdullah, 2012. "Wind farm land suitability indexing using multi-criteria analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 80-87.
    12. Carbone Anna & Caswell Julie & Galli Francesca & Sorrentino Alessandro, 2014. "The Performance of Protected Designations of Origin: An Ex Post Multi-Criteria Assessment of the Italian Cheese and Olive Oil Sectors," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 121-140, January.
    13. J. P. Brans & Ph. Vincke, 1985. "Note---A Preference Ranking Organisation Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 647-656, June.
    14. De Brucker, Klaas & Macharis, Cathy & Verbeke, Alain, 2013. "Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: A stakeholder management approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(1), pages 122-131.
    15. Indre Siksnelyte & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Dalia Streimikiene & Deepak Sharma, 2018. "An Overview of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Dealing with Sustainable Energy Development Issues," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, October.
    16. Latinopoulos, D. & Kechagia, K., 2015. "A GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation for wind farm site selection. A regional scale application in Greece," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 550-560.
    17. Viaggi, Davide & Finn, John Anthony & Kurz, Isabelle & Bartolini, Fabio, 2011. "Multicriteria analysis for environmental assessment of agri-environment schemes: How to use partial information from Mid-Term Evaluations?," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 12(1).
    18. Lerche, Nils & Wilkens, Ines & Schmehl, Meike & Eigner-Thiel, Swantje & Geldermann, Jutta, 2019. "Using methods of Multi-Criteria Decision Making to provide decision support concerning local bioenergy projects," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    19. Jean-Francois Guay & Jean-Philippe Waaub, 2019. "SOMERSET-P: a GIS-based/MCDA platform for strategic planning scenarios’ ranking and decision-making in conflictual socioecosystem," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 301-325, November.
    20. Chaouachi, Aymen & Covrig, Catalin Felix & Ardelean, Mircea, 2017. "Multi-criteria selection of offshore wind farms: Case study for the Baltic States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 179-192.
    21. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    22. Zeng, Qingcheng & Lu, Tingyu & Lin, Kun-Chin & Yuen, Kum Fai & Li, Kevin X., 2020. "The competitiveness of Arctic shipping over Suez Canal and China-Europe railway," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 34-43.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pilar Díaz-Cuevas, 2018. "GIS-Based Methodology for Evaluating the Wind-Energy Potential of Territories: A Case Study from Andalusia (Spain)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Xu, Ye & Li, Ye & Zheng, Lijun & Cui, Liang & Li, Sha & Li, Wei & Cai, Yanpeng, 2020. "Site selection of wind farms using GIS and multi-criteria decision making method in Wafangdian, China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    3. David Severin Ryberg & Martin Robinius & Detlef Stolten, 2018. "Evaluating Land Eligibility Constraints of Renewable Energy Sources in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, May.
    4. Paweł Ziemba, 2019. "Inter-Criteria Dependencies-Based Decision Support in the Sustainable wind Energy Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-29, February.
    5. Mentis, Dimitrios & Siyal, Shahid Hussain & Korkovelos, Alexandros & Howells, Mark, 2016. "A geospatial assessment of the techno-economic wind power potential in India using geographical restrictions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 77-88.
    6. Yildiz, S.S., 2024. "Spatial multi-criteria decision making approach for wind farm site selection: A case study in Balıkesir, Turkey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    7. Asadi, Meysam & Pourhossein, Kazem, 2021. "Wind farm site selection considering turbulence intensity," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    8. Joram Schito & Joshu Jullier & Martin Raubal, 2019. "A framework for integrating stakeholder preferences when deciding on power transmission line corridors," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 159-195, November.
    9. Lehmann, Paul & Ammermann, Kathrin & Gawel, Erik & Geiger, Charlotte & Hauck, Jennifer & Heilmann, Jörg & Meier, Jan-Niklas & Ponitka, Jens & Schicketanz, Sven & Stemmer, Boris & Tafarte, Philip & Thr, 2021. "Managing spatial sustainability trade-offs: The case of wind power," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    10. Anne A. Gharaibeh & Deema A. Al-Shboul & Abdulla M. Al-Rawabdeh & Rasheed A. Jaradat, 2021. "Establishing Regional Power Sustainability and Feasibility Using Wind Farm Land-Use Optimization," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-32, April.
    11. Konstantinos Ioannou & Georgios Tsantopoulos & Garyfallos Arabatzis & Zacharoula Andreopoulou & Eleni Zafeiriou, 2018. "A Spatial Decision Support System Framework for the Evaluation of Biomass Energy Production Locations: Case Study in the Regional Unit of Drama, Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    12. Shao, Meng & Han, Zhixin & Sun, Jinwei & Xiao, Chengsi & Zhang, Shulei & Zhao, Yuanxu, 2020. "A review of multi-criteria decision making applications for renewable energy site selection," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 377-403.
    13. Lehmann, Paul & Ammermann, Kathrin & Gawel, Erik & Geiger, Charlotte & Hauck, Jennifer & Heilmann, Jörg & Meier, Jan-Niklas & Ponitka, Jens & Schicketanz, Sven & Stemmer, Boris & Tafarte, Philip & Thr, 2020. "Managing spatial sustainability trade-offs: The case of wind power," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2020, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    14. Jarosław Wątróbski & Paweł Ziemba & Jarosław Jankowski & Magdalena Zioło, 2016. "Green Energy for a Green City—A Multi-Perspective Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-23, July.
    15. Konstantinos, Ioannou & Georgios, Tsantopoulos & Garyfalos, Arabatzis, 2019. "A Decision Support System methodology for selecting wind farm installation locations using AHP and TOPSIS: Case study in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace region, Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 232-246.
    16. Paula Donaduzzi Rigo & Graciele Rediske & Carmen Brum Rosa & Natália Gava Gastaldo & Leandro Michels & Alvaro Luiz Neuenfeldt Júnior & Julio Cezar Mairesse Siluk, 2020. "Renewable Energy Problems: Exploring the Methods to Support the Decision-Making Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    17. Mohammed Ifkirne & Houssam El Bouhi & Siham Acharki & Quoc Bao Pham & Abdelouahed Farah & Nguyen Thi Thuy Linh, 2022. "Multi-Criteria GIS-Based Analysis for Mapping Suitable Sites for Onshore Wind Farms in Southeast France," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-26, October.
    18. Baseer, M.A. & Rehman, S. & Meyer, J.P. & Alam, Md. Mahbub, 2017. "GIS-based site suitability analysis for wind farm development in Saudi Arabia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1166-1176.
    19. Yasir Ahmed Solangi & Qingmei Tan & Muhammad Waris Ali Khan & Nayyar Hussain Mirjat & Ifzal Ahmed, 2018. "The Selection of Wind Power Project Location in the Southeastern Corridor of Pakistan: A Factor Analysis, AHP, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS Application," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-26, July.
    20. Sun, Yanwei & Ai, Hongying & Li, Ying & Wang, Run & Ma, Renfeng, 2024. "Data-driven large-scale spatial planning framework for determining size and location of offshore wind energy development: A case study of China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 367(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:20:p:7654-:d:944515. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.