Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1768–1777
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr
Research paper
The human dimensions of a green–green-dilemma: Lessons learned
from the wind energy — wildlife conflict in Germany
Tanja M. Straka a,b,∗, Marcus Fritze a,1, Christian C. Voigt a
aDepartment Evolutionary Ecology, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, 10315 Berlin, Germany
bTechnische Universität Berlin, Institute of Ecology, Rothenburgstr. 12, 12165 Berlin, Germany
article info
Article history:
Received 14 April 2020
Received in revised form 25 June 2020
Accepted 26 June 2020
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Biodiversity conservation
Conflict mitigation
Human dimensions
Renewable energy
abstract
Green–green dilemmas are particularly challenging since they involve two desirable goals, yet with
detrimental counter-effects. Although wind energy production is to some desirable as a form of
renewable energy for reducing global CO2emission, it conflicts with conservation goals when airborne
animals die during collisions. Yet, protecting species with high collision risk may prevent to some
extent the deployment of wind turbines or involve altered operation schemes with lowered energy
production, two constraints impairing the development of wind energy production. Stakeholders
involved in wind turbine projects discuss this dilemma not only based on their knowledge and
interests, but also on their thoughts and emotions about wind turbines or affected animals such
as bats. We studied some of these cognitions and emotions of stakeholders involved in the local
realization of wind turbine projects (e.g. planning or authorization) to shed light on fundamental
aspects of disagreements. We undertook a self-administered online survey (n=537 respondents) with
six stakeholder groups from the wind energy and conservation sector to understand i) their value
orientations, beliefs and emotions, the predictive potential of ii) value orientations, beliefs, emotions
on trust as well as iii) trust among and in stakeholders involved in decision making processes. We
observed that beliefs about the importance of wind turbines and emotions towards wind turbines
differed across stakeholders while emotions towards bats were generally positive. Overall, stakeholders
had low trust in each other. Representatives from the wind energy sector had more trust in politicians
compared to conservationists. Trust was most strongly influenced by beliefs about the importance of
wind turbines. Beliefs about the importance of wind turbines were in turn most strongly influenced
by emotions towards bats and wind turbines. We argue that awareness of different beliefs and
emotions among stakeholders should be acknowledged in this apparent conflict to foster trust among
stakeholders.
©2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction
The worldwide promotion and development of wind energy
production is a controversially discussed topic. While wind tur-
bines promise to reduce CO2emission and thus contribute to
coping with the global climate crisis, the ongoing negative im-
pact of wind turbines on airborne wildlife emerges as an urgent
biodiversity issue (Rydell et al.,2012;Thaker et al.,2018;Voigt
et al.,2015). It is critical in this scenario that both climate change
and biodiversity crisis are acknowledged as two of the major
∗Corresponding author at: Technische Universität Berlin, Institute of Ecology,
Rothenburgstr. 12, 12165 Berlin, Germany.
1Current affiliation: Universität Greifswald, Applied Zoology and Nature
Conservation, Loitzer Str. 26, 17489 Greifswald, Germany.
problems in this century (IPBES,2019;IPCC,2013) and that
each of these pressing issues are recognized as wicked problems.
Wicked problems are ‘ill-defined problems that are too complex
to be solved by rational systematic processes’ (Rittel and Webber,
1973). It is common to many wicked problems that they are mul-
ticausal, i.e. there is no one and clear solution and stakeholders
might have opposing solutions at hand, each influenced largely,
albeit not exclusively by the respective background information
held by the stakeholders. Climate change requires immediate
actions (IPCC,2013), yet at the same time the global biodiver-
sity crisis involves species extinctions at alarming rates as well
(IPBES,2019). Although involved stakeholders may justify their
solutions based on specific knowledge and expertise, suggested
solutions may have no privilege a priori. Moreover, finding con-
sensus about objectives, scale and speed of impacts and how
to handle regional versus global conservation problems is often
challenging, particularly when one party is perceived to assert
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.06.028
2352-4847/©2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
T.M. Straka, M. Fritze and C.C. Voigt / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1768–1777 1769
its interest at the expense of another (Dickman,2010;Young
et al.,2007,2010). The challenge of solving wicked problems
gets even more complex if one has to prioritize the solution of
one wicked problem over the solution of another, which is the
case for wind turbines and the protection of species with high
collision risk. The dilemma of producing green energy at the cost
of the death of thousands of endangered bats and birds each year
turns the wind turbine-wildlife conflict into a typical example
of a green–green dilemma; a dilemma that splits the views of
involved parties and that evokes emotional responses in involved
groups (Voigt et al.,2019). While biodiversity conservation is
to some stakeholders more or at least equal important than
climate change, for others wind energy production is more highly
prioritized than biodiversity goals (Voigt et al.,2019). While there
are certain efforts to align climate change with biodiversity goals
such as turning wind turbines off at sensitive times for wildlife
(Arnett et al.,2011;Arnett and May,2016), clashing values, views
and interests among groups and organizations is likely to affect
the ability to collaborate on conservation goals, initiatives and
actions (Manfredo et al.,2017).
Collaboration among all parties involved is crucial for solv-
ing the green–green dilemma between the wicked problems of
protecting the global climate and the global biodiversity. The out-
come of such collaborations could be improved decision-making
resulting ultimately in conflict resolution (Stern and Coleman,
2015). In the implementation of wind energy production, collabo-
rative processes among stakeholders ranging from environmental
NGOs, wind energy companies and governmental agencies were
found to be most effective if the emphasis was put more on local
issues and less on the interests of the energy sector (Wolsink
and Breukers,2010), yet past studies largely ignored the effect of
beliefs, emotions and trust on stakeholder actions. Collaborative
processes require arguably one factor the most: trust (Young
et al.,2016). Trust is a key feature of the participation and conflict
literature, but also other fields such as social psychology (Young
et al.,2016). Trust is fundamental in social relationships (Möller-
ing,2006), it is beneficial for collaborations, helpful for mitigating
conflict situations and for finding creative solutions among in-
volved parties (Cvetkovich and Winter,2003;Stern and Coleman,
2015;Young et al.,2016). Consequently, the lack of trust can
be a barrier in effective collaborations and hence, hinder finding
creative solutions or even breaking agreements or acting in op-
position to conservation initiatives (Stern,2008). Trust has been
highlighted in a range of studies relevant to conservation such as
invasive species management (Estévez et al.,2015) or restoration
projects (Metcalf et al.,2015). Trust is fragile and much easier to
destroy than to create (Poortinga and Pidgeon,2004). However,
trust among and between actors can also become an outcome of
participation (Young et al.,2016) since repeated interactions are
opportunities to build trust among parties (Ainsworth et al.,2020;
Stern and Coleman,2015). The concept of trust and underlying
drivers has received so far little attention in studies related to the
green–green dilemma of wind turbines and wildlife, yet attention
to trust could guide discussions and potentially alleviate conflicts
among stakeholders by becoming aware of different views and
paradigms.
While trust is an abstract concept that is context specific,
trust assessments can be based on cognitive (e.g. explicit eval-
uations), affective (e.g. emotional judgement) and subconscious
psychological processes (Luhmann,1979;Stern and Coleman,
2015). Theory suggests that shared goals, thoughts, opinions and
values (i.e., perceived similarity) are foundations of trust (Need-
ham and Vaske,2008). Values represent what is important in
people’s lives, they help to select and justify actions and are
used to evaluate other people and events (Rokeach,1973). In
relation to wildlife management and trust, people with higher
scores in their domination values towards wildlife management
(i.e. human mastery over wildlife ) were found to have higher
trust in state-wide agencies, but were also suggested to have
less trust in others based on their desire to maintain primary
representation in decision-making (Manfredo et al.,2017). In re-
lation to the siting of energy development, understanding values
(besides preferences) of residents early in the decision-making
process to limit potential conflicts is increasingly acknowledged
(Pocewicz and Nielsen-Pincus,2013). Further, concepts such as
beliefs (Haselhuhn et al.,2010;Lount and Pettit,2012;Poortinga
and Pidgeon,2004) and emotions (Dunn and Schweitzer,2005)
have also been found to be associated with trust. For instance,
emotions with positive valence, such as happiness and gratitude,
were found to increase trust while emotions with negative va-
lence, such as anger, to decrease trust (Dunn and Schweitzer,
2005). While familiarity with a topic influences people’s belief
(Morris et al.,2012), positive or negative beliefs about an issue
influence how people interpret events or information which is
an important precondition of maintaining trust (Poortinga and
Pidgeon,2004). Key components of trust are further the charac-
teristics of people involved, interactions or relationships among
them and the context in which trust or distrust is developed
(Stern and Coleman,2015).
Understanding human dimensions in relation to energy re-
search and meaningful collaborations are crucial for realizing
future energy systems (Devine-Wright,2014;Sovacool et al.,
2015) and the dimensions of stakeholders which ‘hold a stake’
in the green versus green dilemma of wind turbines and wildlife
play a key part in the decision-making process. We acknowledge
that the broad public as well as local communities play an im-
portant role in the context of wind turbines (e.g. NIMBY) and
the development of renewable energy in general (Devine-Wright,
2014). Particularly since an increasing body of research is focusing
on identifying sites for sustainable wind development on already
developed land (i.e. land degraded by humans) rather than plac-
ing wind turbines in undisturbed habitats (Baruch-Mordo et al.,
2019;Kiesecker et al.,2011,2020). Nevertheless, the number of
such areas in Germany is limited and space for new wind turbines
gets exhausted while the wind energy expansion targets are still
not achieved. Therefore, policy and wind energy planners aim to
develop new sites in areas which were not considered before due
to conservation issues (BDEW,2019;FA Wind,2017). Hence, the
conflict between wind energy and conservation increases. Experts
from the wind energy sector, authorities or conservation orga-
nizations which are directly involved in the practical planning
and realization of wind turbine development have received so
far little attention. Therefore, in this study, we focus on those
stakeholders with expertise in the context of wind energy and
conservation in order to understand their specific views and
opinions. These stakeholders range from companies developing
and operating wind turbine parks or consultants who conduct en-
vironmental assessments. Further, conservation authorities who
oversee the environmental assessment and decide on mitigation
schemes during the authorization process for wind turbine parks
such as implementing species specific curtailments, or even re-
evaluating the site of the wind turbines such as withdrawing or
relocating wind turbines that are too close to sensitive breeding
sites (Arnett and May,2016). But also volunteers from non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) like bird watchers or bat
conservationists and employees of environmental NGOs observ-
ing the planning processes and intervening when they anticipate
detrimental effects for nature conservation (Fritze et al.,2019).
All these stakeholders have their own expertise and knowledge,
but also their own interests and views about wind turbines which
influence their specific actions and their interactions. These dif-
ferent views and expertise can also be a base to build fruitful
1770 T.M. Straka, M. Fritze and C.C. Voigt / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1768–1777
collaborations and solutions for the further development of an
environmentally friendly energy transition — as long as these
stakeholders trust each other.
The aims of our study were to understand (i) value orienta-
tions, beliefs and emotions of stakeholders, the predictive poten-
tial of (ii) value orientations, beliefs, emotions on trust as well as
(iii) trust among and in stakeholders involved in decision making
processes of wind turbine projects. We predicted that values
would have the strongest predictive potential on trust since it is
situated at the base of cognitive processes (Fulton et al.,1996)
and that a lack of trust would be particularly apparent among
stakeholders which had the largest discrepancies in their values.
We further predicted that stakeholders with the most familiarity
about wind turbines (e.g. members of the wind energy sector)
would have the most positive beliefs about them. Understanding
these underlying concepts, their predictive potential on trust and
being aware of different paradigms among stakeholders might
be a starting point for discussions and help to pave the way for
efficient political decision concepts in future.
2. Methods
2.1. Questionnaire design
The questionnaire included (a) a subset of the New Environ-
mental Paradigm (Dunlap et al.,2000;Dunlap and York,2008)
which has been widely and cross-culturally applied to measure
human–nature relationships (Hawcroft and Milfont,2010), (b)
dimensions of emotions, i.e. valence (Jacobs et al.,2014) (c)
specific beliefs about wind turbines i.e. pro-green energy be-
liefs, (d) themes (items) investigating trust in different groups of
stakeholders (Stephenson,2013) and (e) demographic parameters
(e.g. age, gender). Items of the questionnaire can be found in the
Supplementary Material Table A.
2.1.1. Trust (dependent variable)
We measured trust in stakeholder groups involved in the po-
litical and practical aspects of wind turbine development, namely
companies developing and operating wind turbines, conservation
authorities, nature conservation organizations and politicians. We
included politicians in this part since they are the main drivers of
the energy transition and are the elected entities of a society to
work out the practical steps of achieving both the biodiversity and
climate goals. However, we did not include them in our survey
sample since here, we focussed on experts and professionals in
the field of wind energy and conservation to understand their
specific views. We used a composite scale of items representing
three different components of trust (adapted from Stephenson,
2013), specifically: expertise, accessibility and trust in decision
making (see Suppl. Material Table A).
2.1.2. New environmental paradigm (independent variable)
The New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) framework is a psy-
chometric scale to measure environmental concern among peo-
ple (Dunlap et al.,2000;Dunlap and York,2008). Broadly, the
framework measures value orientations or basic beliefs about
two ideologies on human–nature relationships: the Dominant
Social Paradigm (DSP) and the NEP. While the Dominant Social
Paradigm (DSP) reflects an anthropocentric ideology, i.e. prior-
itizing human welfare over environmental concerns, the New
Environmental Paradigm (NEP) is more an ecocentric ideology
focusing on beliefs that humans are part of natural systems and
hence, a sustainable use of nature. Hence, with this framework it
is possible to get a better understanding about where people as-
sess themselves and their own views between these two opposite
and extreme positions. We used a subset from this framework
with three items from each ideology (DSP and NEP, see Suppl.
Material Table A) and respondents could rate on a 7 point scale
how much they agreed with each statement (from 1 =‘strongly
disagree’ to 7 =‘strongly agree with 4 as neutral point). Average
scores were calculated for each ideology to calculate the latent
constructs.
2.1.3. Emotions (valence) (independent variable)
Emotions were measured through a bipolar scale using valence
(four items: do not like–like, unpleasant–pleasant, negative–
positive, not enjoyable–enjoyable) following Jacobs et al. (2014).
Respondents were asked to rate their emotion towards bats (as
representative example for wildlife and relevant in the green–
green dilemma) and wind turbines on a 7- point scale with ‘not at
all’ to ‘very strong’. Hence, higher scores indicated more positive
emotions towards bats or wind turbines, respectively. Although
this valence scale has been used in wildlife related issues (Jacobs
et al.,2014), valence (‘pleasantness’) has also been found to be
relevant for wind turbine assessments (Maehr et al.,2015) and
hence, we selected this category for our survey.
2.1.4. Pro-green energy beliefs (independent variable)
A scale was developed containing six items to measure spe-
cific beliefs about wind turbines, hereafter labelled as ‘pro-green
energy beliefs’ (see Suppl. Material Table A). Beliefs can be dis-
tinguished as beliefs in an object or in beliefs about an object
(Fishbein and Raven,1962). Beliefs in an object refer to the
existence of the object, while beliefs about an object refer to
the way it exists (Fishbein and Raven,1962); in this case the
object is wind turbines. The belief items were developed based
on previous conversations and experiences of two of the authors
who work with stakeholders in the green versus green dilemma.
In detail, two items of this set of beliefs addressed the importance
of wind turbines during the energy transition and superiority
above other renewable energy sources, two items addressed the
superiority of wind energy production above other issues (namely
species conservation and landscape protection) and two items
general beliefs about the climate change crisis and the role of
energy transition. Items were tested in a pilot survey with n
=5 participants for clarity. While the NEP paradigm is a very
broad concept of beliefs about human–nature relationships they
are likely linked to specific beliefs (Corral-Verdugo et al.,2003)
as in this case of wind turbines.
2.2. Study sample
We sent out a self-administered online survey (LamaPoll) to
stakeholders who were familiar with or directly involved in wind
turbine planning processes (hereafter named ‘stakeholders’). Fol-
lowing a snowball sampling (Dragan and Isaic-Maniu,2013), we
asked these stakeholders to forward the online survey to col-
leagues in their respective field. The starting point of this snow-
ball sampling approach was an email distribution list of par-
ticipants who joined a conference in Berlin, Germany on wind
turbines and biodiversity conservation. Respondents could iden-
tify themselves in the questionnaire as agents from the wind
energy sector (hereafter named ‘members of the wind energy
sector’), conservation authorities, employees and volunteers from
NGOs, researchers or other. In total, we received 537 responses
with the most numerous responses from consultants (n =103),
conservation authorities (n =102) and volunteers from NGOs (n
=101) followed by researchers (n =63), employees from NGOs
(n =57) and members of the wind energy sector (n =23) and
88 respondents from other professional backgrounds. The median
age class of participants was between 45–54 years. More male (n
=247) than female respondents (n =170) participated in the
survey (no answer regarding gender=32).
T.M. Straka, M. Fritze and C.C. Voigt / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1768–1777 1771
2.3. Statistical analyses
All analyses were undertaken using R version 3.3.3 (R Core
Team,2018). Internal consistencies of DSP and NEP value ori-
entations, emotions (valence), pro-green energy beliefs and trust
were estimated with Cronbach’s alpha using the psych package
(Revelle,2018). All scales, except for DSP, showed Cronbach’s
alpha against the accepted cutoff point of .70 (see Suppl. Ma-
terial Table A). While a Cronbach’s alpha above .70 is generally
used to indicate acceptable reliability (Bland and Altman,1997),
a generally accepted cut-off point for Cronbach’s alpha is in
question (Vaske,2008). Hence, we included the DSP ideology in
further analyses to understand the predictive potential although
it showed a Cronbach’s alpha below .70 (see Suppl. Material
Table A). The reliability for ‘DSP’ did not increase when items
were deleted and hence, all original items were kept within their
construct.
The relationship between DSP and NEP value orientations,
emotions (valence), pro-green energy beliefs and trust was tested
using a piecewise SEM in the piecewise SEM package (Lefcheck,
2016). Since all variables deviated from a normal distribution
(Shapiro–Wilk test, p<0.001 for trust, valence, beliefs and
DSP and NEP), we fitted generalized linear models. Differences in
DSP and NEP value orientations, emotions (valence), green energy
beliefs and trust among stakeholders were tested using ANOVA
and post hoc Tukey’s HSD.
3. Results
3.1. Value orientations, beliefs and emotions of stakeholders
Except for NEP value orientations (ANOVA, F (5, 440) =0.77,
p=0.57) which was overall high (M=5.1), all other underlying
concepts differed among stakeholders (Fig. 1).
Among NGO employees, consultants and members of the wind
energy sector, we found small, yet significant discrepancies for
DSP value orientations (ANOVA, F (5, 440) =2.6, p<0.05) and
emotions towards bats (ANOVA, F (5, 438) =2.9, p<0.05). While
DSP value orientations were overall moderate (M=3.4), NGO
employees had significant lower DSP value orientation compared
to consultants and members of the wind energy sector (Tukey’s
HSD, p<0.05; Fig. 1). Emotions (valence) towards bats were
overall high and positive (M=6.5). However, members of the
wind energy sector had significantly less positive emotions to-
wards bats compared to NGO employees and consultants (Tukey’s
HSD, p<0.05; Fig. 1).
We found larger discrepancies among stakeholders with re-
spect to pro-green energy beliefs (ANOVA, F (5, 442) =33.3, p<
0.001) and emotions towards wind turbines (ANOVA, F (5, 439) =
2.9, p<0.001). Overall pro-green energy beliefs were moderate
(M=3.2), yet members of the wind energy sector showed the
highest pro-green energy beliefs of all groups (Tukey’s HSD, p
<0.001; Fig. 1). NGO volunteers showed the lowest pro-green
energy beliefs, differing significantly from those of conservation
authorities, researchers and consultants (Tukey’s HSD, p<0.001;
Fig. 1). Pro-green energy beliefs were also significantly lower
for NGO employees compared to consultants (Tukey’s HSD, p<
0.001; Fig. 1).
Although emotions towards wind turbines were overall more
moderate (M=3.7) than emotions towards bats, members of
the wind energy sector stood out among all other stakeholders
by rating their emotions towards wind turbines highest (Tukey’s
HSD, p<0.001; Fig. 1). NGO volunteers rated lowest in their
emotions towards wind turbines which were significantly lower
compared to those of all other stakeholders (Tukey’s HSD, p
<0.01; Fig. 1). Similarly, as for pro-green energy beliefs, NGO
employees showed significantly lower emotions towards wind
turbines compared to consultants (Tukey’s HSD, p<0.01).
3.2. Predictive potential of value orientations, beliefs and emotions
on trust
The piecewise SEM showed significant relationships between
value orientations, emotions, pro-green energy beliefs and trust
(AIC =26; BIC 79.2; Fig. 2). The path between NEP value ori-
entations and trust was, however, not significant (SEM; 0.02,
p=0.58). With the exclusion of this path for trust, the model
fit of SEM improved marginally (AICc =24; BIC =74.2). The
strongest relationships originated from pro-green energy beliefs
influencing trust (SEM; 0.41, p<0.001). The strongest effects on
pro-green energy beliefs came from emotions (valence) towards
bats (SEM; −0.12, p<0.01) and towards wind turbines (SEM;
0.80, p<0.001) while direct effects between emotions and trust
were significant but less strong (bats: SEM; 0.11, p<0.01, wind
turbines: SEM; 0.23, p<0.001). Moreover, the effects of DSP
value orientations were stronger correlated with trust than with
pro-green energy beliefs (SEM; 0.17, p<0.001). Significant and
non-significant effects explained 54% of the variation of trust and
83% of pro-green energy beliefs.
3.3. Trust in stakeholders involved in the planning and erection of
wind turbines
Trust in stakeholders involved in the planning and erection
of wind turbines varied largely (Fig. 3). Across all stakeholders,
the lowest overall trust was found in politicians (M=2.2)
with the second lowest trust in members of the wind energy
sector (M=2.6). The highest overall trust was found in nature
conservation organizations (M=4.2) followed by consultants
(M=3.8) and conservation authorities (M=3.7). Trust in these
groups, however, varied significantly among stakeholders (trust
in politicians: F (5, 442) =7.2, p <0.001; in members of the wind
energy sector: F (5, 442) =32.1, p <0.001; in nature conservation
organizations: F (5, 442) =4.2, p <0.001; in consultants: F (5,
443) =21.5, p <0.001; in conservation authorities: F (5, 442) =
14.5, p <0.001, ANOVA).
Overall, members of the wind energy sector showed the high-
est trust in politicians, their own group (members of the wind en-
ergy sector) and consultants. In contrast, NGO volunteers showed
the lowest trust in politicians and in members of the wind en-
ergy sector (Fig. 3;Table 1). While members of the wind en-
ergy sector trusted politicians significantly more compared to
all other stakeholders except for conservation authorities, NGO
volunteers showed the lowest trust in politicians (Tukey’s HSD,
p<0.05; Fig. 3;Table 1). Further, members of the wind energy
sector trusted their own group (members of the wind energy sec-
tor) significantly more compared to all other stakeholders while
NGO volunteers trusted members of the wind energy sector least
(Tukey’s HSD, p<0.05). NGO employees trusted members of the
wind energy sector significantly less than consultants (Tukey’s
HSD, p<0.05). Lastly, members of the wind energy sector trusted
consultants significantly more compared to all other stakeholders,
except for consultants themselves (Tukey’s HSD, p<0001), while
consultants trusted in their own group (consultants) significantly
more than the remaining four stakeholders (Tukey’s HSD, p<
0.001). NGO volunteers and employees had the lowest trust in
conservation authorities which was significantly different to con-
servation authorities, consultants or researchers (Tukey’s HSD,
p<0.01). Interestingly, trust in nature conservation organizations
only differed between NGO volunteers and consultants, with a
significant higher trust of consultants than volunteers (Tukey’s
HSD, p<0.01).
1772 T.M. Straka, M. Fritze and C.C. Voigt / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1768–1777
Fig. 1. Boxplots showing ratings of environmental value orientations (NSP and DSP), pro-green energy beliefs and valence towards bats and wind turbines among
stakeholders (see Suppl. Material Table B). The box extends from the lower to upper quartile values of the data, with a line at the median; whiskers represent the
range of the data with maximum and minimum and dots show outliers.
Fig. 2. Piecewise SEM with underlying constructs for trust in stakeholders explained by standardized coefficients and p-values represented as p≤.001***, p ≤.01**,
p≤.05*. The path between NEP and trust (dashed line in grey) was excluded from the final model.
4. Discussion
A basic understanding of different perspectives between stake-
holders can lead to a level of trust in collaborating processes
(Sponarski et al.,2014). Here, we investigated the relationships
between and differences in value orientations, pro-green en-
ergy beliefs, emotions (valence) and trust among stakeholders
involved in the green–green dilemma. We found that stakehold-
ers mostly varied in their pro-green energy beliefs and emotions
towards wind turbines with members of the wind energy sectors
T.M. Straka, M. Fritze and C.C. Voigt / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1768–1777 1773
Table 1
Mean ratings and standard deviation (Std) trust of stakeholders in politicians, members of the wind energy sector, conservation authorities, consultants and NGOs.
Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s HSD. Significant differences (at the 0.05 level) shown by letters and marked in light grey.
Stakeholder Trust in
politicians
Trust in members of
the wind energy sector
Trust in Cons.
Authorities
Trust in consultants Trust in nature
conservation organizations
Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std
NGO volunteers 1.8 a, b 0.8 1.9 a, b 1.1 3.0 a, b, c 1.4 3.1 a, b, c 1.5 3.8 a 1.6
NGO employees 2.1 a 1.0 2.3 a, c 1.2 3.2 a, b 1.3 3.1 a, b 1.4 4.4 1.4
Consultants 2.2 a, b 0.9 3.0 a, c 1.2 4.1 b 1.1 4.5 b 1.2 4.5 a 1.1
Researchers 2.2a 1.0 2.5 a, b 1.2 3.7c 1.4 3.7 a, b 1.5 4.4 1.5
Conservation authorities 2.4 b 0.9 2.6 a, b 1.1 4.3 a, b 1.1 3.8 a,b, c 1.2 4.3 1.1
Members of the wind
energy sectors
2.9 a, 1.2 5.1 a 1.1 3.7 1.5 5.4 a 1.0 3.7 1.4
Fig. 3. Average trust of stakeholders involved in the green–green dilemma in politicians, members of the wind energy sectors, consultants, conservation authorities
and nature conservation organizations. Scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The box extends from the lower to upper quartile values of
the data, with a line at the median; whiskers represent the range of the data with maximum and minimum and dots show outliers.
and NGO volunteers on either side of the extremes. In contrast
to our expectations, beliefs had a stronger predictive potential on
trust than value orientations and beliefs were strongly influenced
by emotions. Our results provide applied and theoretical under-
standing of value orientations, beliefs, emotions and trust among
stakeholders involved in the green–green dilemma, particularly
in the conflict between wind energy production and wildlife
conservation. To our knowledge, these concepts have not been
applied before to the wind energy–wildlife conflict.
4.1. Differences in value orientations, emotions and beliefs among
stakeholders
NEP value orientations capture items focusing on sustain-
able use of nature by humans (Dunlap et al.,2000;Dunlap and
York,2008). Overall, NEP value orientations were high among
all stakeholders without significant differences. In contrast, DSP
value orientations reflect statements that humans can modify the
environment to suit their needs as well as an acknowledgement
of human knowledge and ingenuity. While DSP value orientations
were overall moderate, members of the wind energy sector and
consultants rated highest on these items and NGO employees
lowest. Since wind turbines are a man-made modification of the
environment, it does not seem surprising that members of the
wind turbine sector rated high on this scale and support human
intervention in nature more than other stakeholders. Despite
the differences among these three stakeholders (members of the
wind energy sector, consultants and NGO employees), results
of our survey are promising. Value orientations are at the base
of the cognitive hierarchy, i.e. of thought processes. Therefore,
value orientations are more stable (Fulton et al.,1996) and more
difficult to influence or to change than constructs higher in the
cognitive hierarchy such as attitudes (Manfredo et al.,2017). This
suggests that if value orientations would have differed too much
among stakeholders, these quite stable constructs would have
clashed. It is further suggested that shared values might facilitate
1774 T.M. Straka, M. Fritze and C.C. Voigt / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1768–1777
the process of creating definitions about shared problems (Stern
and Coleman,2015) which is an important component in resolv-
ing wicked problems related to natural resource management
(Stern and Coleman,2015;Weber and Khademian,2008). Indeed,
awareness about the alignment that sustainable use of nature
(NEP value orientations) matters equally to all stakeholders in-
volved in the green–green dilemma in Germany might provide
a basis for constructive discussions and collaborations. Interest-
ingly, the highest discrepancies among stakeholders were found
in their pro-green energy beliefs and emotions in relation to
wind turbines. Compared to other stakeholders, members of the
wind energy sector had the most positive emotions towards wind
turbines and beliefs that wind turbines should be promoted above
other renewable sources. Also, they considered wind turbines to
be more important than e.g. landscapes or biodiversity conserva-
tion. This result was anticipated since familiarity with an issue
or object influences beliefs (Morris et al.,2012). NGO volunteers
were on the other side of the extreme. In our previous publication
in which we showed each belief item separately, it was appar-
ent that NGO volunteers, among other stakeholders except for
members of the wind energy sector, did not consider wind energy
production of higher priority than biodiversity goals (Voigt et al.,
2019). Hence, the highest challenge here might be to be aware
of and to find potential ways to mitigate or even to reconcile
contrasting beliefs and emotions in relation to wind turbines of
members of the wind energy sector and NGO volunteers. This
clash of beliefs and emotions towards wind turbines can be a
crucial part to consider in relation to trust or distrust between the
aforementioned groups since these contrasting beliefs and emo-
tions might weaken or even hinder positive interactions between
these groups; though interactions are an important component
during trust building processes.
We chose bats as representative example for wildlife species
affected by wind turbines since they are protected in many coun-
tries and play globally a role in wind turbine planning. Ad-
ditionally, we expected that bats evoke more varied emotions
(Knight,2008), while birds are supposed to be more popular.
Birds are besides bats the most affected airborne wildlife taxon by
wind turbines. In contrast to our expectation, emotions for bats
were consistently high. It might be interesting for future stud-
ies to compare emotions of stakeholders towards different taxa
affected by wind energy development and how this influences
trust and decision-making processes, since arguably no decision
is completely free of emotions (Nelson et al.,2016).
4.2. Relationship between value orientations, emotions, beliefs and
trust in stakeholders involved in the green–green dilemma
Shared values are supposed to be one of the major com-
ponents for trust (Needham and Vaske,2008). However, inter-
estingly, beliefs were stronger predictors for trust than value
orientations Nevertheless, consistent with a previous study of
wildlife agencies in the USA (Manfredo et al.,2017), we found
a significant link between domination value orientations (DSP)
and trust. We further found that beliefs were strongly predicted
by emotions, particularly by positive emotions towards wind
turbines and to a lower extent by negative emotions towards
bats. This confirms the influence of emotions on beliefs (Frijda
et al.,2000) and underpins the fact that emotions should not be
ignored in discussions around wind turbines. Emotions are known
to influence the content and the strength of individual’s beliefs
and ‘beliefs fuelled by emotions’ are known to stimulate people to
action or to approve the actions of others (Frijda et al.,2000). Fur-
ther, in alignment with previous findings that positive emotions
are stronger drivers for trust than negative ones, positive emo-
tions towards bats and wind turbines showed significant effects
on trust (Dunn and Schweitzer,2005). It has to be noted though
that while emotions influence trust, this is likely to be only
possible when individuals are not aware of the source of their
emotions (Dunn and Schweitzer,2005). Certainly, other factors
that influence trust in each other were not captured in our study.
For instance, trust may also be influenced by an individual’s
perception of how controllable a conflict is with higher levels of
(real or perceived) individual control lessening the need to have
trust in another stakeholder (Sponarski et al.,2014). Nevertheless,
our results suggest that understanding particularly beliefs and
emotions and to some extent value orientations of stakeholders
might add to the picture in conflict discussions around wind
turbines.
4.3. Differences in trust among stakeholders
Entities to be trusted may come in various forms, such as
organizations or representatives of an environmental NGO and
in each case, the trustor places faith in something to serve some
predictable service of function (Stern and Coleman,2015). In our
case, we investigated trust among stakeholders in members of
the wind energy sector, consultants, NGOs and politicians. While
NGOs were rated with the highest trust among all stakeholders,
politicians were the least trusted, particularly by NGO volunteers
but not by members of the wind energy sector. This result might
reflect the strong political support of wind energy development
while conservation issues such as bat fatalities are still not suf-
ficiently addressed (Voigt et al.,2015). Disagreements among
stakeholders and their trust were mostly found towards the wind
energy sector and consultants. Interestingly here, members of the
wind energy sector trusted consultants more than consultants
rated trust in their own group. This is surprising since feelings
of social connectedness and assumption of shared values or con-
cerns can be antecedents for trust (Stern and Coleman,2015).
Hence, generally it is more likely to trust a group in which one
belongs. In planning processes, consultants are commissioned by
members of the wind energy sector and members of the wind
energy sector can decide who they hire and trust while consultant
companies compete which could lead into some lack of trust.
However, it has to be noted that we measured trust and lack
of trust (absence of a specific judgement about trust) and not
distrust (trustor believes that the trusted entity will perform an
action that will actually be harmful to the trustor) (Stern and
Coleman,2015).
Interestingly as well, besides members of the wind energy
sector, NGO volunteers showed a low trust in nature conservation
organizations and their decisions in relation to wind turbine
developments. This controversy might be caused by the predica-
ment of some nature conservation organizations when support-
ing both wind energy production and nature conservation. It is
likely that NGO volunteers which specifically work for nature
conservation perceive that NGOs prioritize climate goals over
biodiversity goals which is also currently a point of discussion,
e.g. in Germany (DNR,2020;RGI,2018). Such a lack in trust of
NGO members in nature conservation organizations is unfortu-
nate because NGO volunteers also acknowledge an environmental
friendly energy transition (Voigt et al.,2019). This aspect might
cause a challenge to nature conservation organizations which are
often dependent on volunteers since a lack of trust can lead into
behaviours ranging from disobedience of regulations, reduced
revenues from donations, dropping out from or even protesting
against actions (Stern and Coleman,2015). Local support for wind
turbine planning processes might be difficult if not impossible
to obtain if citizens (of which many might be volunteers in
environmental NGOs) are not included in this process (Pocewicz
and Nielsen-Pincus,2013;Wolsink and Breukers,2010). Collabo-
rative processes such as democratic decision concepts at a local
T.M. Straka, M. Fritze and C.C. Voigt / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1768–1777 1775
scale seems particularly important here, because ‘shared power’
improves trust and increases levels of pro-energy activities (van
der Schoor and Scholtens,2015).
4.4. Building trust by acknowledging cognitive and emotional pro-
cesses
Mismatches between institutional and interpersonal trust are
not uncommon (Stern and Coleman,2015;Young et al.,2016)
and building trust has been of interest to many scholars in the
conflict and conservation literature (Stern and Coleman,2015;
Young et al.,2016). For instance, it is suggested that when the
present knowledge, but also values and interests of all partici-
pants in participatory processes are considered, it is more likely
that new information is accepted (Young et al.,2016). Based
on our results, we would add that it is also crucial to consider
beliefs and emotions in these processes. While there might be
a notion that emotions might cloud people’s judgement, it be-
comes increasingly acknowledged that decisions in conservation
are not free of emotions (Nelson et al.,2016). In fact, decision-
making utilizes both cognitive and emotional processes (Greene
et al.,2004;Kahneman,2011). Trust can also emerge through
increased willingness to share power in terms of knowledge and
decision implementation (Young et al.,2016). Elements such as
collaborative procedure development, transparency in decision-
making and the equitable distribution of benefits and risks where
possible are also suggested to be important in building trust since
these elements can contribute to creating a safe environment for
trust to emerge (Stern and Coleman,2015). Such a process may
also lead to a better understanding of different values, beliefs,
attitudes and goals and the potential to seek shared solutions
for conflicts (Young et al.,2016). It is widely recognized that
different types of knowledge are needed to be integrated in
the management of natural resources and to have a common
understanding of what the conflict is about and what is un-
derstood as the conflict solution (Young et al.,2016). Here, we
argue that different beliefs need to be understood as well in
these processes. While sharing these beliefs might also need a
safe environment, sometimes, a trustworthy champion who is
trusted by all involved stakeholders might not only be able to
make a difference by helping to find compromises (Young et al.,
2016), but also by creating this safe environment. Lastly, getting
to know where each other stands in terms of their thought
and emotions is always an important starting point. Therefore,
being aware of different beliefs, emotions and value orientations
among stakeholders and considering these in discussions should
be better promoted, e.g. in well-organized dialogues and decision
processes, preferably with champions trusted by stakeholders.
5. Conclusion
Building and maintaining trust among stakeholders may be
the most important aspect during the energy transition. Trust-
building requires effort and resources but also opportunities for
dialogues between involved parties to identify shared problems
and shared solutions. Importantly, it may also require recognizing
problems as shared ones and awareness of trade-offs (Redpath
et al.,2013) as well as a willingness to share power in terms of
knowledge and decision implementation (Young et al.,2016). In
this study, we found that stakeholders involved in the green–
green dilemma mostly varied in their beliefs and emotions in
relation to wind turbines of which particularly beliefs were an
important predictor for trust and where influence by emotions.
Based on these findings, we recommend the following:
•Being aware about similar or different beliefs about the ben-
efits and trade-offs of wind turbines during the development
process.
•Creating a safe environment and opportunities to share and
discuss these beliefs besides sharing and exchanging knowl-
edge from evidence-based research on wind turbines as a
step forward to build trust.
•Transparency about trust. While this might be a challenging
and new endeavour to some, if stakeholders better under-
stand and monitor besides beliefs also trust, they may be
able to find ways to build trust among each other (Sponarski
et al.,2014).’
While the question remains what different forms of trust or
distrust may develop in these situations and what their impact is
in relation to process outcomes for natural resource management
(Stern and Coleman,2015) understanding human dimensions
in relation to renewable energy sources is crucial for realiz-
ing future energy systems with the support of involved parties
(Devine-Wright,2014;Sovacool et al.,2015). Here, beliefs, but
also emotions about wind turbines should not be overlooked.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tanja M. Straka: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing -
original draft. Marcus Fritze: Conceptualization, Investigation,
Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Christian C. Voigt:
Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review
& editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We thank all the participants who joined the main survey and
participants who tested the pilot survey and provided valuable
feedback. We further thank the publication fund of the TU Berlin
to cover the Open Access publication fees.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found
online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.06.028.
References
Ainsworth, G.B., Redpath, S.M., Wernham, C.V., Wilson, M.W., Young, J.C., 2020.
Integrating scientific and local ecological knowledge to address conservation
conflicts: towards a practical framework based on lessons learned from a
Scottish case study. Environ. Sci. Policy 107, 46–55.
Arnett, E.B., Huso, M.M.P., Schirmacher, M.R., Hayes, J.P., 2011. Altering turbine
speed reduces bat mortality at wind-energy facilities. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9,
209–214.
Arnett, E.B., May, R.F., 2016. Mitigating wind energy impacts on wildlife:
Approaches for multiple taxa. Human-Wildl. Interactions 10, 28–41.
Baruch-Mordo, S., Kiesecker, J.M., Kennedy, C.M., Oakleaf, J.R., Opperman, J.J.,
2019. From Paris to practice: sustainable implementation of renewable
energy goals. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 (2), 024013.
1776 T.M. Straka, M. Fritze and C.C. Voigt / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1768–1777
BDEW, BWE, VDMA, VKU, WWF, Greenpeace, Germanwatch and DUH, 2019. 10
Punkte für den Ausbau der Windenergie -Vorschläge zur Gewährleistung von
Flächenverfügbarkeit, Handhabbarkeit naturschutzrechtlicher Vorgaben und
Stärkung vor Ort. BDEW, BWE, VDMA, VKU, WWF, Greenpeace, German-
watch and DUH, Berlin, p. 4, URL: https://www.bdew.de/media/documents/
Stn_20190903_10-Punktefuer-Ausbau-Windenergie-Verbaende.pdf.
Bland, J.M., Altman, D.G., 1997. Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 314
(7080), 572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572.
Corral-Verdugo, V., Bechtel, R.B., Fraijo-Sing, B., 2003. Environmental beliefs and
water conservation: An empirical study. J. Environ. Psychol. 23 (3), 247–257.
Cvetkovich, G., Winter, P.L., 2003. Trust and social representations of the
management of threatened and endangered species. Environ. Behav. 35 (2),
286–307.
Devine-Wright, P. (Ed.), 2014. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY
to Participation. Routledge.
Dickman, A.J., 2010. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering so-
cial factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal Conserv.
13 (5), 458–466.
DNR, BUND, DUH, Germanwatch, Greenpeace, NABU and WWF, 2020.
Thesenpapier zum naturverträglichen Ausbau der Windenergie. URL:
https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/energie/wind/200130-
thesenpapier-windenergieausbau.pdf.
Dragan, I.-M., Isaic-Maniu, A., 2013. Snowball sampling completion. J. Stud. Soc.
Sci. 5, 160–177.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E., 2000. New trends in
measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new
ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 425–442.
Dunlap, R.E., York, 2008. The globalization of environmental concern and the lim-
its of the postmaterialist values explanation: New environmental paradigm
scale: From marginality to worldwide use: Evidence from four multinational
surveys. Sociol. Q. 49, 529–563.
Dunn, J.R., Schweitzer, M.E., 2005. Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion
on trust. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 88 (5), 736.
Estévez, R.A., Anderson, C.B., Pizarro, J.C., Burgman, M.A., 2015. Clarifying values,
risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive
species management. Conserv. Biol. 29 (1), 19–30.
FA Wind, 2017. Windenergienutzung und gebietsschutz. Berlin: Fachagentur zur
Förderung eines natur- und umweltverträglichen Ausbaus der Windenergie
an Land e.V. p. 22, URL: https://www.fachagentur-windenergie.de/
fileadmin/files/Veroeffentlichungen/FA_Wind_Best{and}saufnahme_WE_
und_Gebietsschutz_3-2017.pdf.
Fishbein, M., Raven, B.H., 1962. The AB scales: An operational definition of belief
and attitude. Human Relat. 15 (1), 35–44.
Frijda, N.H., Manstead, A.S., Bem, S., 2000. The influence of emotions on
beliefs. In: Frijda, Manstead, Bem (Eds.), Emotions and Beliefs: How Feelings
Influence Thoughts. pp. 1–9.
Fritze, M., Lehnert, L.S., Heim, O., Lindecke, O., Roeleke, M., Voigt, C.C.,
2019. Fledermausschutz im Schatten der Windenergie. In: Naturschutz und
Landschaftsplanung, Vol. 51. pp. 20–27.
Fulton, D.C., Manfredo, M.J., Lipscomb, J., 1996. Wildlife value orientations: A
conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimens. Wild. 1 (2), 24–47.
Greene, J.D., Nystrom, L.E., Engell, A.D., Darley, J.M., Cohen, J.D., 2004. The
neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron
44, 389–400.
Haselhuhn, M.P., Schweitzer, M.E., Wood, A.M., 2010. How implicit beliefs
influence trust recovery. Psychol. Sci. 21 (5), 645–648.
Hawcroft, L.J., Milfont, T.L., 2010. The use (and abuse) of the new environmental
paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol.
30 (2), 143–158.
IPBES, 2019. In: Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E.S., Ngo, E.S.H.T., Guèze, M.,
Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K.A., Butchart, S.H.M.,
Chan, K.M.A., Garibaldi, L.A., Ichii, K., Liu, J., Subramanian, S.M., Midgley, G.F.,
Miloslavich, P., Molnár, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., Polasky, S., Purvis, A., Raz-
zaque, J., Reyers, B., Roy Chowdhury, R., Shin, Y.J., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J.,
Willis, K.J., Zayas, C.N. (Eds.), Summary for policymakers of the global
assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergov-
ernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, p. 56.
IPCC, 2013. In: Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K.,
Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), The Physical Sci-
ence Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p. 1535.
Jacobs, M.H., Vaske, J.J., Dubois, S., Fehres, P., 2014. More than fear: role of
emotions in acceptability of lethal control of wolves. Eur. J. Wild. Res. 60
(4), 589–598.
Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan, New York.
Kiesecker, J., Baruch-Mordo, S., Heiner, M., Negandhi, D., Oakleaf, J., Kennedy, C.,
Chauhan, P., 2020. Renewable energy and land use in India: A vision to
facilitate sustainable development. Sustainability 12 (1), 281.
Kiesecker, J.M., Evans, J.S., Fargione, J., Doherty, K., Foresman, K.R., Kunz, T.H.,
Naugle, D., Nibeelink, P., Niemuth, N.D., 2011. Win-win for wind and wildlife:
a vision to facilitate sustainable development. PLoS One 6 (4).
Knight, A.J., 2008. Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my! how aesthetic and nega-
tivistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection.
J. Environ. Psychol. 28 (1), 94–103.
Lefcheck, J.S., 2016. Piecewisesem: Piecewise structural equation modeling in r
for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7 (5), 573–579.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12512.
Lount, Jr., R.B., Pettit, N.C., 2012. The social context of trust: The role of status.
Organ. Behav. Human Decision Process. 117 (1), 15–23.
Luhmann, N., 1979. In: Burns, T., Poggi, G. (Eds.), Trust and Power. Wiley, New
York.
Maehr, A.M., Watts, G.R., Hanratty, J., Talmi, D., 2015. Emotional response to
images of wind turbines: A psychophysiological study of their visual impact
on the landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 142, 71–79.
Manfredo, M.J., Bruskotter, J.T., Teel, T.L., et al., 2017. Why social values cannot
be changed for the sake of conservation. Conserv. Biol. 31 (4), 772–780.
Metcalf, E.C., Mohr, J.J., Yung, L., Metcalf, P., Craig, D., 2015. The role of trust in
restoration success: public engagement and temporal and spatial scale in a
complex social-ecological system. Restor. Ecol. 23 (3), 315–324.
Möllering, G., 2006. Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity. Elsevier, Oxford, UK.
Morris, P., Knight, S., Lesley, S., 2012. Belief in animal mind: Does familiarity
with animals influence beliefs about animal emotions? Soc. Anim. 20 (3),
211–224.
Needham, M.D., Vaske, J.J., 2008. Hunter perceptions of similarity and trust in
wildlife agencies and personal risk associated with chronic wasting disease.
Soc. Nat. Res. 21 (3), 197–214.
Nelson, M.P., Bruskotter, J.T., Vucetich, J.A., Chapron, G., 2016. Emotions and the
ethics of consequence in conservation decisions: Lessons from cecil the lion.
Conserv. Lett. 9 (4), 302–306.
Pocewicz, A., Nielsen-Pincus, M., 2013. Preferences of wyoming residents for
siting of energy and residential development. Appl. Geogr. 43, 45–55.
Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N.F., 2004. Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role
of prior beliefs. Risk Anal.: Int. J. 24 (6), 1475–1486.
R Core Team, 2018. A language and environment for statisticalcomputing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R-
project.org/.
Redpath, S.M., Young, J., Evely, A., et al., 2013. Understanding and managing
conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28 (2), 100–109.
Revelle, W., 2018. Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research.
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, https://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=psych Version =1.8.12.
RGI, 2018. The renewables grid initiative. URL: https://renewables-
grid.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Files_RGI/RGI_Publications/Factsheets/
20181010_RGI_Factsheet_basic3.pdf.
Rittel, H., Webber, M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. In: Policy
Sciences, Vol. 4. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Inc, Amsterdam, pp.
155–169.
Rokeach, M., 1973. The Nature of Human Values. Free press.
Rydell, J., Engström, H., Hedenström, A., Larsen, J.K., Pettersson, J., Green, M.,
2012. The Effect of Wind Power on Birds and Bats Power - a Synthesis
(Report No. 6511). Report by Vindval, Report for Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Sovacool, B.K., Ryan, S.E., Stern, P.C., Janda, K., Rochlin, G., Spreng, D.,
Pasqualetti, M.J., Wilhite, H., Lutzenhiser, L., 2015. Integrating social science
in energy research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 6, 95–99.
Sponarski, C.C., Vaske, J.J., Bath, A.J., Musiani, M.M., 2014. Salient values, social
trust, and attitudes toward wolf management in south-western alberta,
Canada. Environ. Conserv. 41 (4), 303–310.
Stephenson, Andrew L., 2013. Assessment of Wildlife Value Orientations, State
Agency Credibility, and Tolerance for Mountain Lions in Iowa (Graduate
Theses and Dissertations). Paper 13239.
Stern, M.J., 2008. Coercion, voluntary compliance and protest: the role of trust
and legitimacy in combating local opposition to protected areas. Environ.
Conserv. 35 (3), 200–210.
Stern, M.J., Coleman, K.J., 2015. The multidimensionality of trust: Applications in
collaborative natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Res. 28 (2), 117–132.
Thaker, M., Zambre, A., Bhosale, H., 2018. Wind farms have cascading impacts
on ecosystems across trophic levels. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1854–1858.
van der Schoor, T., Scholtens, B., 2015. Power to the people: Local community
initiatives and the transition to sustainable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 43, 666–675.
Vaske, J.J., 2008. Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation
and Human Dimensions. Venture Publishing, p. 635.
Voigt, C.C., Lehnert, L.S., Petersons, G., Adorf, F., Bach, L., 2015. Wildlife and
renewable energy: German politics cross migratory bats. Eur. J. Wild. Res.
61, 213–219.
Voigt, C.C., Straka, T.M., Fritze, M., 2019. Producing wind energy at the cost
of biodiversity: A stakeholder view on a green-green dilemma. J. Renew.
Sustain. Energy 11 (6), 063303.
T.M. Straka, M. Fritze and C.C. Voigt / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 1768–1777 1777
Weber, E.P., Khademian, A.M., 2008. Wicked problems, knowledge challenges,
and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Adm. Rev. 68
(2), 334–349.
Wolsink, M., Breukers, S., 2010. Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effec-
tive implementation of wind power. an international study of stakeholder
perspectives. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 53 (5), 535–558.
Young, J.C., Marzano, M., White, R.M., et al., 2010. The emergence of biodi-
versity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management
strategies. Biodivers. Conserv. 19 (14), 3973–3990.
Young, J., Richards, C., Fischer, et al., 2007. Conflicts between biodiversity
conservation and human activities in the central and eastern European
countries. AMBIO:J. Human Environ. 36 (7), 545–550.
Young, J.C., Searle, K., Butler, A., Simmons, P., Watt, A.D., Jordan, A., 2016. The role
of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biol. Cons. 195, 196–202.
