Gesellschaftliche Entscheidungsfindung

Many public environmental decisions are wicked problems due to high complexity and uncertainty. We test a participatory value-based framework based on multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to tackle such problems. Our framework addresses two important gaps identified in reviews of MCDA applications to environmental problems: including stakeholders and treating uncertainty. We applied our framework in two complex real-world cases concerning a paradigm shift in the wastewater sector; the transition from centralized wastewater systems to decentralized non-grid systems. Non-grid systems may solve some problems of centralized systems by reducing costs, increasing flexibility, and addressing growing demands on environmental issues, especially in rural areas. But non-grid systems have rarely been implemented in OECD countries, because it is unclear whether a transition is recommendable, and whether stakeholders would accept this shift. This problem allows addressing several fundamental research questions. As theoretical contribution, we found that stakeholder participation in MCDA is necessary, because different preferences of stakeholders can lead to different best-performing options in the assessments. Compared to the typical integrated assessment (IA) approach that excludes stakeholders' preferences, the MCDA process led to clearer outcomes. Results indicate that including the uncertainty of predicted consequences of options with Monte Carlo simulation helped discriminate between options and identify best-performing options. Challenging the uncertainty of elicited stakeholder preferences with sensitivity analyses, we found that best-performing options were especially sensitive to the MCDA aggregation model. Despite the high uncertainty, it was possible to suggest robust consensus options that would perform reasonably well for all stakeholders. As practical contribution, results indicated that a transition from the centralized to decentralized non-grid systems seems feasible. Most stakeholders assigned highest weights to environmental protection objectives in decision-making workshops. These stakeholder preferences implemented in MCDA led to a generally better assessment of innovative non-grid systems, especially when including urine source separation. Stakeholders perceived the MCDA process as beneficial and found results plausible. We conclude that the proposed participatory value-based framework is rigorous, but still feasible in practice. The framework is certainly transferable to any context and is open to testing and refinement in various applications to wicked decision problems.

Transitioning toward more sustainable livelihoods requires tackling complex challenges in innovative ways. Positioned at the intersection of innovation and transition studies, transdisciplinary research (TD) has surfaced as a method to confront sustainability challenges by integrating various scientific disciplines and engaging non-academic stakeholders. Currently, there is a growing call from both policy makers and research funders to assess the effects of TD research, especially its societal impacts. However, TD research typically involves local projects where the context may substantially shape the effects of the research conducted. In this paper we explore how understanding the context factors of a TD project contributes to the understanding of its effects. We built a working model, based on different established concepts from policy studies to conceptualize context and effects of TD project. We applied the model to a comparative case study of two regional sub-projects of one large TD project on circular bioeconomy for sustainable agriculture in Sub Saharan Africa. The core concept and design were the same for both subprojects, but they achieved different effects. We studied the differences in context factors to explain this variation. We found that a strongly developed public and private sector and access to a variety of action resources such as political support or laws, supported the implementation of innovations as well as dialogue with policy. Nevertheless, a strong public sector can also hinder a project's success, if the interest of the government is not in line with the interests of the project. Further, we found that TD projects may achieve learning and social effects by tackling certain gaps in action resources. Our findings highlight that taking the context of a project into account is key to understanding the scope of action and possibilities of a project. Thus, the context should be considered not only when planning but also - and especially - when evaluating a TD project.

Throughout the world, climate change, rapid population growth, and urbanisation raise the need for reducing freshwater consumption. One solution are on-site systems that treat wastewater for non-potable reuse near its source of generation, for example within a building. Policies mandating their installation can effectively increase installation rates and have been implemented in several cities. Yet, such policies have the potential to impair distributive fairness in society and therefore also policy acceptance, because usually they cover only part of the population, which then has to carry most costs and risks. On the example of Bengaluru, India, where such a policy exists, this online study (N = 350) analysed whether policy acceptance can be explained by the perceived policy outcome for different groups of society (i.e. the distribution of the policy's costs, risks, and benefits among these groups), and whether this relation is mediated by perceived fairness. We further investigated whether these relations differed between participants covered and those not covered by the policy, since being personally affected may influence perceptions. Specifically, the outcomes for the following six groups were included: 1) participants themselves, 2) people covered by the policy, 3) people with a low income who are covered by the policy, 4) people vulnerable to water insecurity who are covered by the policy, 5) all inhabitants of Bengaluru taken together, and 6) the environment and future generations. A moderated mediation analysis showed that higher acceptance of the policy was explained by a higher perceived fairness, which, in turn, was explained by a better perceived outcome of the policy for different groups of society. Covered and non-covered participants differed with regard to which groups of society they considered for evaluating fairness. While a better perceived outcome for residents covered by the policy (compared with the outcome for those not covered) explained perceived fairness among all participants, it explained acceptance only among participants not covered by the policy. Further, and only among participants covered by the policy, perceived fairness was additionally explained by better perceived outcomes for the environment and future generations, which also explained higher acceptance among covered participants. It is discussed whether in the specific context, collective considerations may be more relevant than self-centred considerations to the perception of fairness and acceptance of the policy.