Document [original]

Johann Köppel, Juliane Biehl, Volker Wachendörfer, Alexander

Bittner

A Pioneer in Transition: Horizon Scanning of

Emerging Issues in Germany’s Sustainable Wind

Energy Development

Open Access via institutional repository of Technische Universität Berlin

Document type

Book chapter | Accepted version

(i. e. final author-created version that incorporates referee comments and is the version accepted for

publication; also known as: Author’s Accepted Manuscript (AAM), Final Draft, Postprint)

This version is available at

https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-19779

Citation details

Köppel, J., Biehl, J., Wachendörfer, V., & Bittner, A. (2019). A Pioneer in Transition: Horizon Scanning of

Emerging Issues in Germany’s Sustainable Wind Energy Development. In Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts

(pp. 67–91). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05520-2_5.

This work is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this work in any way permitted by

the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your usage. For other uses, you must obtain

permission from the rights-holder(s).

A Pioneer in Transition: Horizon Scanning of Emerging

Issues in Germany’s Sustainable Wind Energy

Development

Abbreviated running title: Wind Energy’s Emerging Issues in Germany

Johann Köppel1 [0000-0002-9372-773X], Juliane Biehl1 [0000-0002-3613-0670],

Volker Wachendörfer2 [0000-0002-9590-332X], Alexander Bittner2 [0000-0003-2765-6627]

1 Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 145, 10623 Berlin

johann.koeppel@tu-berlin.de

juliane.biehl@tu-berlin.de

2 Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, An der Bornau 2, 49090 Osnabrück

[email protected]

Abstract. With both the Framework Convention to Combat Climate Change

(UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted at the

Rio Summit in 1992, certainly no-one anticipated the challenging trade-offs be-

tween renewable energy development and conservation of biological diversity.

Densely populated Germany ranks third in worldwide installed wind energy ca-

pacity, only outpaced by China and the U.S. so far. However, power and inter-

est shifts via well-organized civil and political opposition indicate that efforts to

reconcile climate protection and wildlife conservation cannot be taken for

granted.

Funded by the German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU), the hori-

zon scan aimed at identifying the emerging need for collaborative action, based

on the viewpoints of various stakeholders and the state of research in wildlife

conservation and wind energy development. We applied a multi-faceted, inclu-

sive, and peer-reviewed research process, building on ca. 50 explorative expert

interviews, previous research, and a literature review. Interviewees ranged

across academia, agencies, wind developers, consultants, associations, and envi-

ronmental groups. The process yielded 18 emerging issues at the nexus of wind

and wildlife, planning and technologies, and social aspects to cope with the

challenges ahead. We present a majority of the issues in this chapter and con-

clude with guiding follow-up principles.

Keywords: Horizon scanning approach, Transformation, Sustainable Devel-

opment Goals, Cumulative effects, Landscape-scale conservation, Knowledge

management, Planning approaches, Adaptive management.

1 Introduction

1.1 Framing and Motivation

With the 1992 Rio Earth Summit both the Biodiversity Convention [1] and the Cli-

mate Change Convention [2] two paramount agreements were initiated. Certainly, the

effort it would take to achieve both aspirations could not have been foreseen 25 years

ago and are still pending in the 21st century. The contemporary 17 United Nations

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set tangible global goals and targets, includ-

ing ‘affordable and clean energy’ (SDG 7) and ‘climate action’ (SDG 13) [3]. All

parties to the resolution need to “increase substantially the share of renewable energy

in the global energy mix by 2030” (goal 7.2 Agenda 2030) and to “integrate climate

change measures into national policies, strategies and planning” (goal 13.2 Agenda

2030).

In analogy to the SGDs, Rockström et al.’s ‘planetary boundaries’ [4, 5] focus on

sustainability challenges, for instance, biosphere integrity (i.e. biodiversity and func-

tionality of ecosystems), climate and land use change. The concept identifies ‘tipping

points’ (e.g. melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet or the decay of coral reefs), whose

trespassing could shift the entire earth system into instability.

Staying in a ‘safe operative space’ (i.e. within the planetary boundaries) offers the

opportunity for development in a sustainable way while maintaining the biosphere

integrity as an essential precondition [4, 5]. Folke et al. [6] stated that the SDGs ‘life

on land’ (SDG 15), ‘life below water’ (SDG 14), ‘clean water and sanitation’ (SDG 6)

and ‘climate action’ (SDG 13) are providing a basis for biosphere integrity and for all

the other 13 SDGs, which belong to the societal and economic sectors (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Combination of the SDGs with the Planetary-Boundaries-Concept resulting in the so-

called ”Wedding Cake“ with biosphere integrity and the adjacent SDGs as base for sustainabil-

ity and resilience (Copyright: Azote Images for Stockholm Resilience Centre).

The German Energiewende contributes significantly to extending renewable energy

and to staying within a safe operative space. However, designing the transformation

of the energy sector as a complex system proved not to be an easy assignment, since

many of the agents participating in these processes are used to thinking and acting in

rather sectoral ways. In contrast, it is necessary to refer to regional landscapes and the

relations between agents and sub-agents in ‘socio-ecological systems’ (SES).

Referring to the planetary boundaries and to the SDGs, the German Environmental

Foundation (DBU) updated their guidelines in 2016, including new concepts and

environmentally sound solutions for renewable energy. Against this background, the

DBU decided to launch a horizon scan, conducted by Berlin Institute of Technology’s

(TU Berlin’s) co-authors of this chapter. At the nexus of wildlife conservation, plan-

ning and technologies, and social issues (e.g. fair allocation processes), the horizon

scan involved stakeholders from academia, agencies, the wind energy sector, consult-

ants, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Previously, horizon scans were

elaborated for a variety of issues, such as nature conservation and biological diversity,

with the latter annually undertaken by Sutherland et al. [7–12].

1.2 The Challenged Pioneer in Transition

In 2016, renewable energies contributed 29.5% to the German electric power produc-

tion (of which land-based wind energy amounted to 10.3% and offshore 2%) [13].

With respect to cumulative installed wind energy capacity, Germany ranks third after

the People's Republic of China (168 GW) and the United States (U.S.) of America (82

GW), totalling 50 GW in 2016 [14].

Yet, considering the installed capacity per land area, the relative density in Germa-

ny (or the CWW 2017 host Portugal) outpaces the ones in the U.S. or China (Fig. 2).

The challenges at hand even increase when considering the actual suitability of land

for siting wind energy facilities (e.g. due to wind conditions, distance to settlements,

wildlife, amongst other relevant planning concerns).

Fig. 2. Installed wind capacity and density in selected countries, as of 2016

(Data sources: Cumulative installed capacity – Global Wind Energy Council 2016, p. 12;

Land area – Statistisches Bundesamt, Destatis1)

Whilst the German pioneering-phase started as early as in the mid-1970s, the provi-

sion of subsidies under the Electricity Feed-in-Act 1991 paved the way for wind ener-

gy operators to enter the market in the early 1990s [15]. With the Renewable Energies

Act (EEG) in 2000 and its amendments in 2004 and 2009, feed-in-tariffs for land-

based wind turbines were reduced but renewable electricity was given feed-in priority

into the transmission grid over conventional sources. The loss of public acceptance

for nuclear energy and the subsequent decision to phase-out nuclear power entirely by

2022 is another driver for the German energy transition [16]. Yet, Germany as one of

the Energiewende pioneers is undergoing substantial transitions, since the latest EEG

amendment 2017 introduced a market-oriented auctioning-system for renewable en-

ergy projects. At the same time, the EEG 2017 set trajectories, which targeted the

installation of land-based wind energy in 2017–2019 at annually 2,800 MW and in

2020 at 2,900 MW. Offshore trajectories were set to 6,500 MW by 2020 and 15,000

MW by 2030 [17].

Yet, the SDGs equally comprise conservation goals of terrestrial and marine eco-

systems–‘life below water’ (SDG 14) and ‘life on land’ (SGD 15) [3]. Achieving

both, biodiversity and climate protection goals, highlights the necessity to engage in

balancing so-called “green vs. green” dilemmas [cf. 18] and to overcome unintended

1 https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/CountriesRegions/InternationalStatistics/Country/Country.html.

trade-offs between SDGs. While Germany has installed more than 28,000 wind tur-

bines [19], it has become increasingly difficult to further make the Energiewende a

success. Inter alia, concerns address assumed decreases in property values [20–22] or

fuel equity debates on sharing revenues from wind energy projects. Opposition groups

engage in planning processes at various governance tiers and campaign against further

wind energy development. Yet, whilst local opposition addresses, for example, land-

scape scenery impacts [23], opponents tend not always to reveal such latent motives

[24] but pinpoint legally stronger enforced wildlife concerns [25].

Emerging issues in the German wind energy and wildlife arena apply as well on an

international scale, since eventually other countries will face similar challenges when

developing wind energy. Thus, the horizon scan aimed at identifying emerging issues

for a sustainable wind energy development and applied a multi-faceted, inclusive, and

peer-reviewed research process.

2 Methods

2.1 Horizon Scanning

Horizon scanning is–according to the European Commission–a technique “for detect-

ing early signs of potentially important developments” [26]. We pursued a ‘manual-

combined approach’ [27] to horizon scans by using expert interviews, surveys (using

SurveyMonkey), expert workshops and a final symposium, as well as a targeted lit-

erature review and by attending conferences and seminars (inter alia NWCC 2016,

CWW 2017) (Fig. 3). Thus, we adopted an ‘issue-centred’ scanning approach [27],

starting from a wider range of predefined emerging issues to either verify these issues,

identify modifications, or reveal new topics [27].

Fig. 3. Workflow and process steps of horizon scanning for emerging issues in sustainable

wind energy development

Our research initiated from seven preliminary meta-topics (population modelling

and impact assessment, deterrence, repowering and planning, cumulative impacts,

adaptive management, social impact assessment, and sustainability appraisal) based

on prior research at TU Berlin’s Environmental Assessment and Planning Research

Group [e.g. 15, 18, 28–33] and relevant funding experience of the DBU

(https://www.dbu.de/2535.html).

Over the course of 18 months, the research team conducted 51 semi-structured,

narrative expert interviews with key stakeholders from academia, agencies, wind

energy sector, consultants, and the civil society (Fig. 4). Experts were selected by

snowball-sampling–a convenience sampling technique allowing researchers to ask

participants for additional peers [34, 35]. Jointly, the horizon scan assisted in identify-

ing 18 nascent issues at the nexus of wind and wildlife, planning and technologies,

and social aspects.

Fig. 4. Number of expert interviews by stakeholder groups (n=51)

Several involved experts (n=24) convened in a workshop in April 2017 to discuss

preliminary results and identified emerging issues. A supplementary online survey

(19–28 April 2017) contributed in prioritising the issues. Subsequently, the research

team clustered the identified emerging issues into three categories: fact-checking,

model approaches, and proof of concept. These clusters indicate overarching tenden-

cies in the need for action. A final symposium took place in September 2017, offering

a forum for discussions and for drawing conclusions collaboratively with involved

stakeholders. Participants and further peers were invited to comment on the publicly

available draft version of the final research report (in German), thus safeguarding an

inclusive and peer-reviewed process.

2.2 Study Limitations

The horizon scan was not necessarily a representative study, yet based on viewpoints

of multiple stakeholders and the state of research. It cannot claim to be exhaustive and

exclusive. Interviews with experts in the financial and banking sector were beyond the

scope and might require further investigations. Specific judicial aspects were not con-

sidered either, since such limitations should not affect the genesis of visionary ideas

in this horizon scanning process. Nevertheless, our research design offered various

opportunities to comment and engage, to attract additional experts or stakeholder

groups, and to add further emerging issues to the agenda.

The horizon scan predominantly focused on land-based wind energy, as this ap-

proach initially strived at a decentralised Energiewende. Additionally, various re-

search programmes have been conducted in recent years in the offshore realm. For the

time being, an integral view of the three dimensions (wildlife conservation, planning

and technologies, as well as societal aspects and participation) seemed most profitable

and achievable for land-based wind energy in a German context.

A larger and more far reaching horizon scan could be achieved by including novel

scanning technologies, e.g. blogging and micro-blogging (Twitter and other social

media) [27]. Searching through these social media platforms might facilitate obtaining

new information faster and in real time [27]. In using both micro-blogging and Del-

phi-like scoring approaches, an international team identified 15 nascent issues in na-

ture conservation in 2017, for example, covering new developments in energy storage

and the offshore wind energy sector (floating wind turbines) [9].

3 Results and Discussion

Both the expert interviews and the literature review yielded a meta-structure of 18

emerging issues, spanning the three dimensions of wildlife conservation, planning and

technologies, as well as societal aspects and participation (Fig. 5). Each emerging

issue addresses various options, constituting a catalogue that might contribute either

per se or favourably within integrated programmes.

Consequently, the research team clustered the nascent issues into three categories:

fact-checking, model approaches, and proof of concept. These clusters indicate over-

arching tendencies in the need for action:

 The cluster ‘fact-checking’ comprises topics that require evidence-based scrutiny

and empirical corroboration of commonly held assumptions.

 The cluster ‘model approaches’ addresses issues that require innovative and model

approaches and often demand collaborative action of multiple stakeholders. Reality

laboratories and other innovative solutions would come handy to address the is-

sues.

 With the cluster ‘proof of concept’, we aggregated all issues that require prototyp-

ing and pilot studies to eventually test and verify hypotheses–last but not least in a

German context.

Fig. 5. The horizon scan yielded 18 emerging issues in sustainable wind energy development

spanning the three dimensions of wildlife conservation, planning and technologies, as well as

societal aspects and participation (as of December 2017).

In the following, eleven emerging issues address a wind and wildlife community and

offer insights of relevance for an international audience. The remaining seven issues

were not introduced here as they focus explicitly on the German context and revolve

primarily around socio-economic aspects of wind energy. The complete report (in

German) is available online at https://www.dbu.de/projekt_33315/01_db_2409.html.

3.1 Fact-Checking

Meta-analyses and Cumulative Impacts. The possibility to provide added value in

aggregating data and conducting meta-analyses was highlighted [36, 37]–notably for

assisting cumulative impact analyses. For calculating the net footprint of wind energy

development on wildlife for instance, a holistic overview and at best nationwide data

would be required. Still questions remain whether data were gathered standardised in

pre- and post-construction assessments, and whether further data (weather, land cover,

etc.) are available [38], e.g. to derive cumulative, indirect, and multi-variate impacts.

Our findings are in line with the prior discourse on aggregating pre- and post-

construction data (e.g. from ornithological assessments) and monitoring results [39,

40]. The German Ornithological Stations have been collecting information on bird

and bat collision at wind farms [41]; yet, working with a data-set comprised of both

random sampling and standardised fatality searches. Further experts voiced concerns

over the feasibility of these meta-analyses for land-based wind energy impacts due to

the heterogeneity of available datasets, notwithstanding relevant guidance documents.

In contrast, a more standardised approach was adopted offshore: Developers are

obliged to conduct standardised monitoring during the construction of all offshore

wind turbines, whilst monitoring during the operational phase can be an additional

requirement from the permitting authority(e.g. via substantiating permit requirements)

[42, 43]. The transboundary analysis of data could prove beneficial–especially with

respect to cumulative impacts pertaining to relevant offshore wind farm clusters. Ex-

perts addressed the lack of harmonised approaches in conducting such analyses across

borders.

Planning and Jurisdiction Interfaces. The establishment of exchange interfaces

between planners and jurisdiction has been identified as another notable remit. Litiga-

tion in Germany has risen substantially over the years, with new and often abstract or

even vague legal terms arising from settled case-law, e.g. the so-called ‘soft no-go

areas’ for wind energy [44] or an approach to a ‘significant increase in collision risk’

for wildlife [45]. Critique has been voiced that jurisdictions were not always consider-

ing planning feasibility [46], often leaving practitioners and (regional) planners in the

dark to find appropriate indicators in operationalising new rulings. With the goal of

uncovering efficient interfaces, a planning and jurisdiction platform was proposed to

regularly engage and sensitise judges for a planners’ expertise.

Unbiased Knowledge Management. Interviewees revealed to struggle with suspect

of partiality and mistrust among stakeholders, e.g. with respect to the contracting of

consultants. Often, neither wildlife agencies nor environmental NGOs felt comforta-

ble with consultants appointed by wind developers, presuming vested interests. In

turn, wind developers were not feeling content either once they encountered agency

officials, who were members of opposing environmental NGOs at the same time.

Collaborative boards–i.e. a jointly established group of people both from the wind

energy sector and wildlife conservation arena–might serve in appointing the experts

and consultants together. Closer cooperation–early-on in the wind energy project

design and planning phase–might increase transparency and reveal hidden resent-

ments [cf. 47]. Additionally, such collaborative boards might also assist in reviewing

interim and major findings–at least in disputed or sensitive cases, as e.g. Canadian

law offers for the application of Review Panels in certain environmental assessment

processes on federal and provincial levels [48].

With respect to the management and dissemination of knowledge, various interest

groups engage in diffusing study insights, by disseminating spread- and ‘fact’-sheets,

for instance. However, such ‘third-party’ communication raises some scepticism

when diffusing meta-information derived from original scientific findings, particular-

ly with respect to limitations of scientific findings and the transferability of results.

Findings by Wolters et al. [47] confirm that “the scientist's ability to communicate

effectively with people both within and outside of the scientific field is important”.

The researchers themselves are most qualified to reach out and communicate their

insights, case-specific limitations, and transferability of their findings. Consequently,

relevant outreach work packages need to be embedded within research and develop-

ment projects, e.g. in supporting communication and dissemination–if necessary with

plain language summaries and writing toolboxes [49].

Integrating Wind Energy into Landscapes.

Landscape Narratives. The question arose if and when wind turbines will ever be

perceived as constituting elements of our cultural landscapes [cf. 50]. This is closely

linked to various questions: How do residents perceive landscapes before and after the

construction of wind turbines? Which societal framings (familiarisation patterns, aspi-

rations, experience, and recollection) can be identified, for both residents and visitors?

Do the actual nuisances for residents prove to be as strong as previously envisaged in

the permitting phase? These issues might matter substantially for the repowering of

wind farms.

Albeit studies with relevant mid- or long-term perspectives are missing yet, repre-

sentative, annual, and recurring opinion polls [e.g. 51–53] give first insights and may

detect trends. Nonetheless, a study project from a TU Berlin Masters’ course [54]

offered a methodological approximation to the topic. Based on a baseline survey from

2005, students conducted a follow-up survey in 2016: The working hypothesis–that

the residents’ acceptance decreases with increasing numbers of wind farms in their

neighbourhood–was rejected. The study further indicated that younger respondents

seemed more accustomed to wind farms and showed higher acceptance levels than

senior generations [54].

Further research might address this in more depth, aiming to identify relevant ‘tip-

ping points’ (i.e. a moment of pivotal change) of residents’ perceptions. These in-

sights might assist in understanding whether wind turbines might eventually consti-

tute an integral part of our cultural landscapes.

Citizens’ Opposition against Wind Energy Development. Another emerging issue

pertains to the question of citizens’ initiatives and wind energy opponents. Local citi-

zens’ groups in Germany are usually well organised in regional, supra-regional, na-

tional [55], and even European [56] umbrella organisations. The latter provide leaf-

lets, scripted arguments against wind energy, and a professionalised network of ex-

perts from various disciplines (medical doctors, ornithologists, engineers, lawyers,

politicians, etc.). Recent studies of citizens’ initiatives against the transmission grid

expansion reflect the broad political and social spectrum of such groups [57]. Such

findings question the ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY)-concept [58–61] and whether

opposition against wind energy still can be considered a local phenomenon. Nonethe-

less, climate change- and Energiewende-sceptics can be identified behind the leading

and resourceful umbrella organisations [cf. 62]. It became apparent that local level

approaches are not sufficient in resolving conflicts over wind energy development.

For instance, overarching mechanisms (e.g. the Renewable Energy Act, EEG or the

privilege for wind development in peripheral areas according to the Federal Building

Code, BauGB) became subject to protest from a German umbrella initiative against

wind energy [63], thus calling into question the energy system’s transformation (En-

ergiewende) [64]. Hence, a genuine and all-encompassing societal discourse on cli-

mate change and the energy transition would still be required [65], calling for a decent

arena besides the wind-wildlife discourse.

3.2 Model Approaches

Best Available Science and Adaptive Management.

Best Available Science (BAS) Mandate. A set of regulations governing environmental

conservation and management in the U.S. stipulate that Best Available Science (BAS)

be used as the basis for policy- and decision-making [66]. This BAS mandate aims at

achieving high-quality scientific results, defined by Sullivan et al. [66] in e.g. apply-

ing standardised methods for gathering data and clearly documenting the research

process, safeguarding statistical rigor and concise logic, and enabling peer review of

scientific insights. Consequently, a study’s limitations and the transferability of re-

sults should be clearly stated [47]. The mandate requires also to differentiate to which

degree results and conclusions are based on expert judgement on the one hand, or

empirical evidence on the other hand. A similar BAS-mandate, as it is applied e.g. in

the context of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the U.S. [67], has not been estab-

lished in Germany.

For example, it is of major interest to which degree species-specific buffer zones

around breeding and resting sites to wind energy facilities [68] are based on empirical

research results. Expert judgement is neither an inferior approach per se nor are expert

opinions and prerogatives disregarded by the courts. German settled case-law ruling

allows thus far for expert prerogatives in cases, where neither methods nor scientific

evidence have been established [69]). Yet, a sound BAS-mandate also in Germany

would presumably serve well to inform the decision-making processes better.

Adaptive Management (AM) in a German Context. Adaptive Management [70] con-

tributes as well to the BAS-mandate, in pinpointing the uncertainties in, inter alia

collision risk estimation, displacement risk assessments, and the success of mitigation

measures [71].

Uncertainties pertaining to both the actual impacts of wind energy on wildlife and

to mitigation measures remain [72]. For instance, natural dynamics (e.g. fluctuating

populations or alternating roosting sites of birds of prey) have received little attention

in prior planning and approval procedures [72]. In contrast, the current legal frame-

work seems to challenge experts with respect to the question whether additional mor-

tality would significantly influence the (local) population’s well-being [40, 73, 74]. In

building on ongoing learning and adaptation processes, AM provides means to recog-

nise and overcome uncertainties [70, 75, 76]. Yet, permitting authorities would re-

quire supplementary capacities to supervise and effectively test AM. The major ques-

tion revolves around judicial aspects and the degree of permits’ flexibility. To con-

trive a dynamic (i.e. conditional but valid) permit does not allow for simply trial-and-

error approaches [72].

Model projects might be of assistance in exploring AM in practice. Ideally, all rel-

evant stakeholders should engage in collaborative action, trying to create mutual trust

and at best win-win situations for all parties concerned [72]. Sound AM approaches

should not generate burdens for one party only (e.g. intensified curtailment regimens),

but also consider scenarios with benefits for wind farm operators (in case of alleviat-

ing monitoring results) [71].

Landscape-Scale Conservation Approaches. Recent research indicated a possible

risk for a significant population decline for Red kite (Milvus milvus) [40, 77] or even

Common buzzard (Buteo buteo) [38, 77], raising the question whether further wind

energy development needs to be restricted. To achieve both biodiversity and climate

protection targets, supplementary approaches might assist so far established mitiga-

tion measures at wind farm/turbine/project level. Establishing conservation approach-

es at larger scales, e.g. at a landscape level, was identified as a relevant topic over the

horizon scan discourses. Exploring concepts to stabilise populations at a supra-local

scale might prove of value in case the local mitigation sequence and site-specific

measures cannot provide remedy alone. In addition, cumulative impacts might be

addressed at the supra-local level by means of landscape-scale approaches. This has

been conducted for the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus) in the U.S.-Midwestern wind energy multi-species Habitat Conserva-

tion Plan (HCP) [78]. In another effort, the NWCC Sage-grouse Collaborative was

established [79]–funded from agencies, the wind industry, and NGOs.

These examples illustrate that a change in perspective is required, centring ap-

proaches on the target species in question and working collectively with all land-

users, who possibly influence the target species’ well-being. Such model projects

require an un-biased broker, working collaboratively with contributing land-users

(e.g. agricultural sector, forestry, transmission grid operators, renewable energy in-

dustry, etc.). One feasible model to sustain efforts financially could be a common

fund pooling financial resources from all developers in the region (and–at best–further

funds from third parties).

Another issue in this context highlighted the need to address (regionally or–in

some cases–state-wide) increasing populations of endangered species. Such species,

e.g. the Eurasian eagle-owl (Bubo bubo) in Germany [80], hold the same (strict) legal

protection status as species with seriously declining populations. In the U.S., popula-

tion trajectories and a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) model [81–83] were ap-

plied for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In estimating the “number of

individuals that could be killed before a population will fall below a size considered

sustainable” [cf. 83], PBR is a ‘reference point’ approach to assessing and setting

limits on human-induced mortality to species [84]. At the same time, O’Brien et al.

[85] raise critique on PBR models as they rely “on a number of implicit assumptions,

particularly around density dependence and population trajectory that limit its ap-

plicability in many situations”.

Planning Approaches. Germany has an ambitious planning and zoning system that

serves in governing the spatial development of wind energy. It follows a decentralised

approach with several planning levels [86]. The states can set renewable development

trajectories [87], and regional planning entities contribute a vital link between the

state’s objectives and local perspectives. Planning regions designate priority areas for

wind development [86], whilst the municipalities can further zone the actual sites

(concentration zones) [88]. Hot spots of protected wildlife, recreational areas, distanc-

es to settlements, heritage sites among others are considered early in the planning

processes [89].

As an outcome, concentration zones have been identified, to counteract an all-too-

scattered wind energy development [88, 89]. However, in some regions this led to

critical concentrations and stigmatic “energy landscapes”, i.e. visually dominant ener-

gy facilities, raising relevant public concerns [90]. Thus, planners seemed no longer

convinced that the concentration paradigm for wind energy constitutes a one-and-only

approach. Alternative models need to be explored and/or prototyped in scenario anal-

yses. The puzzling question of a ‘least impact wind farm’ siting concept was high-

lighted as an emerging issue, rethinking the established planning domain with explor-

ing legal ramifications of other approaches, too.

Ecosystem Services & Sustainability Appraisals. Sustainability appraisals might

provide a means to balance the ‘net footprint’ of wind energy development and ac-

count for debits and credits at the same time [91, 92]. However, German permitting

processes so far consider primarily adverse impacts pertaining to wind farms. Down-

sides are debited, whilst beneficial ecosystem services are not credited yet. Manufac-

turers, developers, and operators therefore voiced an interest in addressing this ‘blind-

spot’ of permitting processes and crediting the benefits of wind energy (e.g. decarbon-

isation) as well. Scholarly work emphasises an integrated ecosystem services (ESS)

approach [91–93], identifying debits and credits for wind farms. Yet, these approach-

es bear certain risks of over-simplification and still require a more in-depth assess-

ment of ESS. Nevertheless, sustainability appraisals assist in transparently communi-

cating not only the inherent trade-offs but also co-benefits of renewable energy (e.g.

job and regional added value creation) [94, 95]. This emerging issue still needs to be

discussed thoroughly and further grounded. It could serve as well to explore cross-

sectoral sustainability appraisals, for example via interlinking the German Ener-

giewende and the proclaimed Verkehrswende (transport and mobility transition).

3.3 Proof of Concept

Efficacy of Mitigation Measures

Efficacy of Measures to Avoid, Minimise, and Reduce Impacts. In Germany, there is

an ongoing controversy whether only careful planning and siting measures constitute

proper mitigation approaches (i.e. avoiding according to May [96], for example, by

establishing buffer zones around breeding sites) or to which degree more detailed

measures matter as well (e.g. land use management to luring birds away to more at-

tractive foraging sites near-by). Much is governed in Germany by mostly state-wide

guidance [97], which sets up standards for baseline surveys and relevant methods but

also recommends sequential mitigation measures (avoid, minimise, reduce, cf. May

[96]). Nevertheless, no proof of concept, i.e. the mitigation measures’ actual efficacy,

has been widely established yet [31, 32, 96]. In turn, interviewed wind energy devel-

opers and operators stated that they must be able to rely on the feasibility of recom-

mended mitigation approaches in relevant guidance. At the end of the day, proof for

efficacy of mitigation measures has been strongly longed for in the horizon scan from

different stakeholder groups, from both conservation and industry sides. In turn, com-

pensatory mitigation has been given a second-rate treatment in contemporary German

practice in the wind energy context. This would require an incidental take permit. To

date, such permits are not regularly practiced, since proponents have to justify the

non-existence of reasonable alternatives (mostly other locations). In contrast, impacts

on landscape scenery are considered unavoidable per se and require in-lieu-fees for

any compensatory measures [98].

Cost-Effectiveness. This emerging issue pinpoints the question of maximum operating

restrictions, which might still be tolerable for operators. Therefore, the cost-

effectiveness of mitigation measures might be of relevance as well. In Germany, cur-

tailment is required not only for bat species but also for specific bird events, for ex-

ample, during and after mowing to minimise collisions of raptors. Additional limits

for human health protection set standards e.g. on the maximum exposure to the peri-

odical shadowing effect of wind turbines (annually max. 30 hrs, daily max. 30 min

[99]). The cost-effectiveness of various curtailment measures (bat algorithms, emis-

sion control standards, etc.) would be of interest beyond their wildlife and health ben-

efits. The Water Framework Directive respectively requires Member States to “make

judgements about the most cost-effective combination of measures” [100] in an eco-

nomic analysis; possibly a similar approach might be explored for wind energy as

well.

Another emerging issue addressed “retrofit” mitigation measures for approved and

operating wind farms. For instance, the re-location of less ideally-sited turbines (e.g.

high fatality rates on-site) might matter in specific cases and be supported by using

abound in-lieu fee money. In Germany in-lieu fees often need to be paid by develop-

ers for the lack of effective landscape scenery compensation [98].

Deterrence. Albeit recent studies on the efficacy of deterrence measures are underway

(e.g. DTBird in Norway [101], Switzerland [102], Sweden [103], and the U.S. [104,

105]; Frontier Wind [106]; RNRG deterrent [107]; IdentiFlight [104]), a proof of

concept for Germany is pending. One of the studies on the efficacy of deterrence

measures (Department of Energy, DoE-funded) aims at comparing the reduction lev-

els of an ultrasonic acoustic (RNRG) deterrent with operational minimisation (i.e.

curtailment by feathering blades to 5.0 m/s, or 2.0 m/s above the pre-set operating

conditions) [107]. This approach addresses the combination of both mitigation

measures to test “whether there is an additive effect, furthering the reduction in bat

fatalities” [107]. Another DoE-funded project evaluates a camera-based eagle detec-

tion system (IdentiFlight deterrent). It aims at determining how this technology com-

pares to biological observers in identifying and in reducing collision risks for eagles

[104]. Yet, research results and deterrent technologies might not easily be transferable

to other settings, e.g. due to the on average higher wind turbines in Germany and

settings in various land covers and rugged terrains (e.g. forests, forested Midlands).

Contemporary settled case-law rulings refer to a missing proof of concept and have

denied relevant permits so far [108]. Yet, an automated bird detection system will be

tested in Southern Germany as part of a recent wind energy research cluster [109].

Population Models. In the U.S., population models have been widely applied by

wildlife agencies (US FWS), e.g. for conceptualising eagle management [82]. Lately,

matrix models were set up in Germany for some raptor species [77]. This recent Ger-

man matrix modelling approach [cf. 38] stressed the need for further elaboration of

population models in conservation, i.e. to support the modelling approaches’ feasibil-

ity, accountability, and limits. To inform modelling, the relevant data base needs to be

improved substantially and sound Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) studies would

be required, whilst focusing on the actual comparability of pre- and post-construction

studies as well [110]. This emerging issue is also linked to the cost-efficiency topic,

since advanced and contemporary telemetry technologies [e.g. 111] might prove less

resource-intensive compared to customary methods. Interviewees mentioned that a

comparative study could collate wind concentration zones with reference zones with

fewer installed turbines. Without advancements in population modelling, the still

challenging issue of identifying significant mortality thresholds in permitting proce-

dures might hardly become better elaborated.

Efficacy of Participatory Approaches. The horizon scan revealed interest in meas-

uring the efficacy of mitigation measures not only in wildlife conservation. Inclusive

and good-practice participatory approaches were addressed as well. Developers have

a legitimate interest in learning whether extensive participation in the planning pro-

cess or financial participation models can actually foster local wind farm acceptance.

Furthermore, radar-based on-demand turbine lighting technologies for approaching

aircrafts can avoid permanent night-time lighting near settlements. Since they are

rather costly, their actual efficacy in increasing residents’ well-being was of interest in

the horizon scan as well.

4 Conclusions

To sum up, the window of opportunity is very narrow to cap the global CO2 emissions

and we need to decide now about the transformation of the energy sector, notwith-

standing challenging dilemmas such as climate protection vs. biodiversity conserva-

tion, or “green vs. green”. Consequently, the planetary boundaries and the SDGs need

to be addressed in co-operation and at best collaboration with all relevant agents,

building regional stewardships [6, 112, 113]. At the end of the day, local and regional

actions should result in significant climate mitigation effects even on a higher scale

(national, global). Our horizon scan indicates that only inter- and transdisciplinary

approaches will have the potential to facilitate a sustainable energy transition within

this window of opportunity. From our point of view, common, sector-bridging con-

cepts from the following criteria (Table 1) can lead to overcoming the recent dilem-

mas associated with the transformation of our still-too-fossil-driven energy systems.

Moreover, as far as the supportive CWW series is concerned, opening up to involved

societal topics might help to further paving the road towards a sustainable wind ener-

gy development worldwide.

Table 1. Criteria for co-operative research and development projects, derived from the horizon

scan

Criteria for co-operative research and development projects

Collaborative action

Collaborative action of wildlife conservationists and

climate actors (e.g. the renewable energy sector)

requires creating trust and win-win situations for all

stakeholders involved. This allows experts from

various disciplines (both from research and prac-

tice) to better integrate knowledge from different

disciplines [114] and engage on a regular basis. An

un-biased discussion forum should be established

by collaborative approaches, assisting in generating

and diffusing comprehensible and credible results

[115]. Advantages include the opportunity to lever-

age funds (e.g. contribution of non-monetary re-

sources, technology and co-payments) [116], access

to (interim) research results, and fostering transpar-

ency [47, 117].

Perception of Sustainable

Development Goals and

Planetary Boundaries

To address the different dimensions (wildlife con-

servation, planning and technologies, and societal

issues), research and development projects should

address the SDGs and planetary boundaries candid-

ly. Conflicting goals should be well considered and

reflected, for example, in case wind energy was to

be precluded from forest habitats, which other re-

newable energy could be developed in the same

region?

Early on solution-

orientation

Albeit a project might intend to explore basic em-

pirical findings or set up ambitious modelling ef-

forts, for example, conceivable solutions should be

envisaged from the very beginning. To sum up,

research foci should be solution-oriented, early on,

and can become further adjusted over the research

and development process.

Cost-benefit effectiveness

Taking into account cost-benefit considerations for

mitigation measures might–albeit their benefits for

wildlife or health protection–prove relevant, as well.

The Water Framework Directive, for example, re-

quires Member States to “make judgements about

the most cost-effective combination of measures”

[100].

Best Available Science

(BAS) mandate

To increase credibility and safeguard quality in

research and development as well as good practice,

a thorough application of the BAS mandate is par-

amount. Proponents, responsible agencies, and ex-

perts involved must commit to reproducibility and

data availability, include peer-review processes, and

indicate exactly whether specific findings are evi-

dence-based or primarily reflect expert judgement.

Communication

Recent experiences with false assertions (so called

‘alternative facts’) in a post-truth era illustrates that

the fine line between false assertion and facts is

often hard to illustrate [cf. 118, 119]. The altered

use of media often assists in circulating commonly

held assertions [116]. This demonstrates the need

for clearly communicated limitations and transfera-

bility of studies and results [64]. Often, this can

only be adequately done by the authors of the study

themselves, pinpointing the potential of integrated

communication modules in research projects.

Acknowledgements

The horizon scan was supported by the German Federal En-

vironmental Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt,

DBU). We particularly thank our interview partners, panel-

lists, and renowned experts for their contributions and valua-

ble comments on earlier versions of the horizon scan study. We want to express our

gratitude towards our two reviewers, whom we are highly indebted to for their valua-

ble feedback.

References

1. United Nations (UN): United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD) (1992)

2. United Nations (UN): United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) (1992)

3. United Nations (UN): Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustaina-

ble Development. A/RES/70/1 (2015)

4. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S., III, Lambin,

E., Lenton, T., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., Wit, C.

de, Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P., Costanza,

R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R., Fabry, V., Hansen, J.,

Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.: Planetary

Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and

Society 14(2), 32 (2009)

5. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett,

E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., Vries, W. de, Wit, C.A. de, Folke, C., Gerten,

D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sörlin,

S.: Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a

changing planet. Science (New York, N.Y.) (2015). doi:

10.1126/science.1259855

6. Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A.V., Reyers, B., Rockström, J.: Social-

ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. E&S (2016).

doi: 10.5751/ES-08748-210341

7. Sutherland, W.J., Allison, H., Aveling, R., Bainbridge, I.P., Bennun, L., Bull-

ock, D.J., Clements, A., Crick, H.Q.P., Gibbons, D.W., Smith, S., Rands,

M.R.W., Rose, P., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Warren, M.S.: Enhancing the value of

horizon scanning through collaborative review. Oryx (2012). doi:

10.1017/S0030605311001724

8. Sutherland, W.J., Woodroof, H.J.: The need for environmental horizon scan-

ning. Trends in ecology & evolution (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.04.008

9. Sutherland, W.J., Barnard, P., Broad, S., Clout, M., Connor, B., Côté, I.M.,

Dicks, L.V., Doran, H., Entwistle, A.C., Fleishman, E., Fox, M., Gaston, K.J.,

Gibbons, D.W., Jiang, Z., Keim, B., Lickorish, F.A., Markillie, P., Monk, K.A.,

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Peck, L.S., Pretty, J., Spalding, M.D., Tonneijck, F.H.,

Wintle, B.C., Ockendon, N.: A 2017 Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues for

Global Conservation and Biological Diversity. Trends in ecology & evolution

(2017). doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.11.005

10. Sutherland, W.J., Aveling, R., Brooks, T.M., Clout, M., Dicks, L.V., Fellman,

L., Fleishman, E., Gibbons, D.W., Keim, B., Lickorish, F., Monk, K.A., Morti-

mer, D., Peck, L.S., Pretty, J., Rockström, J., Rodriguez, J.P., Smith, R.K.,

Spalding, M.D., Tonneijck, F.H., Watkinson, A.R.: A horizon scan of global

conservation issues for 2014. Trends in ecology & evolution (2014). doi:

10.1016/j.tree.2013.11.004

11. Sutherland, W.J., Fleishman, E., Mascia, M.B., Pretty, J., Rudd, M.A.: Methods

for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science

and policy. Methods in Ecology and Evolution (2011). doi: 10.1111/j.2041-

210X.2010.00083.x

12. Sutherland, W.J., Broad, S., Caine, J., Clout, M., Dicks, L.V., Doran, H.,

Entwistle, A.C., Fleishman, E., Gibbons, D.W., Keim, B., LeAnstey, B., Lick-

orish, F.A., Markillie, P., Monk, K.A., Mortimer, D., Ockendon, N., Pearce-

Higgins, J.W., Peck, L.S., Pretty, J., Rockström, J., Spalding, M.D., Tonneijck,

F.H., Wintle, B.C., Wright, K.E.: A Horizon Scan of Global Conservation Issues

for 2016. Trends in ecology & evolution (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.007

13. Agora Energiewende: Die Energiewende im Stromsektor. Stand der Dinge

2016. Rückblick auf die wesentlichen Entwicklungen sowie Ausblick auf 2017,

Berlin. https://www.agora-

energiewen-

de.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2017/Jahresauswertung_2016/Agora_Jahresauswertun

g-2016_WEB.pdf (2017). Accessed 16 November 2017

14. Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC): Global Wind Report. Annual Market

Update 2016, Brussels (2016)

15. Bruns, E., Ohlhorst, D., Wenzel, B., Köppel, J.: Renewable Energies in Germa-

ny’s Electricity Market. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (2011)

16. World Energy Council: Global Energy Transitions. A comparative analysis of

key countries and implications for the international energy debate, Berlin (2014)

17. EEG 2017. Gesetz für den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien (Erneuerbare-

Energien-Gesetz - EEG 2017). Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz vom 21. Juli 2014

(BGBl. I S. 1066), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 17. Juli 2017

(BGBl. I S. 2532) geändert worden ist

18. Gartman, V., Wichmann, K., Bulling, L., Elena Huesca-Pérez, M., Köppel, J.:

Wind of Change or Wind of Challenges: Implementation factors regarding wind

energy development, an international perspective. AIMS Energy (2014). doi:

10.3934/energy.2014.4.485

19. Deutsche WindGuard GmbH: Status des Windenergieausbaus an Land in

Deutschland 2017. im Auftrag vom Bundesverband Windenergie (BWE) und

Verein Deutscher Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Power Systems (VDMA Power

Systems) (2018)

20. Jessup, B.: Plural and hybrid environmental values. A discourse analysis of the

wind energy conflict in Australia and the United Kingdom. Environmental Poli-

tics (2010). doi: 10.1080/09644010903396069

21. Walker, C., Baxter, J., Mason, S., Luginaah, I., Ouellette, D.: Wind energy de-

velopment and perceived real estate values in Ontario, Canada. AIMS Energy

(2014). doi: 10.3934/energy.2014.4.424

22. Dröes, M.I., Koster, H.R.A.: Renewable energy and negative externalities. The

effect of wind turbines on house prices. Journal of Urban Economics (2016).

doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2016.09.001

23. Reusswig, F., Braun, F., Heger, I., Ludewig, T., Eichenauer, E., Lass, W.:

Against the wind. Local opposition to the German Energiewende. Utilities Poli-

cy (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.jup.2016.02.006

24. Roßnagel, A., Birzle-Harder, B., Ewen, C., Götz, K., Hentschel, A., Horelt, M.-

A., Huge, A., Stieß, I.: Entscheidungen über dezentrale Energieanlagen in der

Zivilgesellschaft. Vorschläge zur Verbesserung der Planungs- und Genehmi-

gungsverfahren. Interdisciplinary Research on Climate Change Mitigation and

Adaption, vol. 11. Kassel University Press, Kassel, Hess (2016)

25. Larsen, S.V., Hansen, A.M., Lyhne, I., Aaen, S.B., Ritter, E., Nielsen, H.: Social

Impact Assessment in Europe. A Study of Social Impacts in Three Danish Cas-

es. J. Env. Assmt. Pol. Mgmt. (2015). doi: 10.1142/S1464333215500386

26. European Commission: Models of Horizon Scanning. How to integrate Horizon

Scanning into European Research and Innovation Policies.

https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/ccv/2015/Models-of-

Horizon-Scanning.pdf (2015)

27. Amanatidou, E., Butter, M., Carabias, V., Konnola, T., Leis, M., Saritas, O.,

Schaper-Rinkel, P., van Rij, V.: On concepts and methods in horizon scanning.

Lessons from initiating policy dialogues on emerging issues. Science and Public

Policy (2012). doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs017

28. Bulling, L., Köppel, J.: Exploring the tradeoffs between wind energy and biodi-

versity conservation. In: Geneletti, D. (ed.) Handbook on Biodiversity and Eco-

system Services in Impact Assessment, p. 10. Edward Elgar Publishing (2016)

29. Schuster, E., Bulling, L., Köppel, J.: Consolidating the State of Knowledge: A

Synoptical Review of Wind Energy’s Wildlife Effects. Environmental Man-

agement (2015). doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0501-5

30. Huesca-Pérez, M.E., Sheinbaum-Pardo, C., Köppel, J.: Social implications of

siting wind energy in a disadvantaged region – The case of the Isthmus of Te-

huantepec, Mexico. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2016). doi:

10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.310

31. Gartman, V., Bulling, L., Dahmen, M., Geißler, G., Köppel, J.: Mitigation

Measures for Wildlife in Wind Energy Development, Consolidating the State of

Knowledge — Part 1. Planning and Siting, Construction. J. Env. Assmt. Pol.

Mgmt. (2016). doi: 10.1142/S1464333216500137

32. Gartman, V., Bulling, L., Dahmen, M., Geißler, G., Köppel, J.: Mitigation

Measures for Wildlife in Wind Energy Development, Consolidating the State of

Knowledge-Part 2. Operation, Decommissioning. J. Env. Assmt. Pol. Mgmt.

(2016). doi: 10.1142/S1464333216500149

33. Biehl, J., Bulling, L., Gartman, V., Weber, J., Dahmen, M., Geißler, G., Köppel,

J.: Vermeidungsmaßnahmen bei Planung, Bau und Betrieb von Windenergiean-

lagen - Synoptische Auswertungen zum Stand des Wissens. Naturschutz und

Landschaftsplanung 49(2), 63–72 (2017)

34. Akremi, L.: Stichprobenziehung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. In: Baur,

N., Blasius, J. (eds.) Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, pp.

265–282. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2014)

35. Robinson, O.C.: Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research. A Theoret-

ical and Practical Guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology (2013). doi:

10.1080/14780887.2013.801543

36. May, R., Gill, A.B., Köppel, J., Langston, R.H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat,

M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C.C., Hüppop, O., Portman, M.: Future Research Di-

rections to Reconcile Wind Turbine‐Wildlife Interactions. In: Köppel, J. (ed.)

Wind Energy and Wildlife Interactions: Presentations from the CWW2015 Con-

ference, pp. 255–276. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017)

37. Voigt, C.C., Lehnert, L.S., Petersons, G., Adorf, F., Bach, L.: Wildlife and re-

newable energy. German politics cross migratory bats. Eur J Wildl Res (2015).

doi: 10.1007/s10344-015-0903-y

38. Grünkorn, T., Blew, J., Krüger, O., Potiek, A., Reichenbach, M., Rönn, J. von,

Timmermann, H., Weitekamp, S., Nehls, G.: A large-scale, multi-species as-

sessment of avian mortality rates at land-based wind turbines in Northern Ger-

many. In: Köppel, J. (ed.) Wind Energy and Wildlife Interactions: Presentations

from the CWW2015 Conference, pp. 43–64. Springer International Publishing,

Cham (2017)

39. American Wind Wildlife Institute (AWWI): Documents Library.

https://awwic.nacse.org/library.php (2017). Accessed 21 November 2017

40. Reichenbach, M.: Wind turbines and birds in Germany - examples of current

knowledge, new insights and remaining gaps. In: Köppel, J. (ed.) Wind Energy

and Wildlife Interactions: Presentations from the CWW2015 Conference, pp.

239–252. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017)

41. Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft der Vogelschutzwarten (LAG VSW): Windenergie.

http://www.vogelschutzwarten.de/windenergie.htm (2017). Accessed 24 May

2017

42. Beiersdorf, A., Wollny-Goerke, K. (eds.): Ecological research at the offshore

windfarm “alpha ventus”. Challenges, results and perspectives. Springer, Wies-

baden (2014)

43. Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (BSH): Standard. Untersu-

chung der Auswirkungen von Offshore-Windenergieanlagen auf die Mee-

resumwelt (StUK4), Hamburg, Rostock (2013)

44. Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVerwG): Beschluss vom 15. September 2009 -

BVerwG 4 BN 25.09 - BRS 74 Nr. 112 (2009)

45. Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVerwG): 9. Juli 2008, 9 A 14.07, „A 30, Bad

Oeynhausen“ (2008)

46. Fachagentur Windenergie an Land (FA Wind): Anforderungen an die planeri-

sche Steuerung der Windenergienutzung in der Regional- und Flächennutzungs-

planung, Berlin. https://www.fachagentur-

windener-

gie.de/fileadmin/files/Veranstaltungen/Dokumentation_Planerseminare_07-

2016/FA_Wind_Dokumentation_Planerseminare_07-2016.pdf (2016)

47. Wolters, E.A., Steel, B.S., Lach, D., Kloepfer, D.: What is the best available

science? A comparison of marine scientists, managers, and interest groups in the

United States. Ocean & Coastal Management (2016). doi:

10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.01.011

48. Günther, M., Geißler, G., Köppel, J.: Many roads may lead to Rome: Selected

features of quality control within environmental assessment systems in the US,

NL, CA, and UK. Environmental Impact Assessment Review (2017). doi:

10.1016/j.eiar.2016.08.002

49. Grimm, M., Schierozek, M., Koller, M., Köppel, J., Roelcke, T.: Lesefreundli-

che Dokumente in Umweltprüfungen. Gefördert vom Umweltbundesamt im

Rahmen des Vorhabens „Strategische Umweltprüfung und (neuartige) Pläne

und Programme auf Bundesebene“. Methoden, Verfahren, Rechtsgrundlagen,

FKZ 371316100 (in press)

50. Linke, S.: Ästhetik der neuen Energielandschaften – oder: „Was Schönheit ist,

das weiß ich nicht“. In: Kühne, O., Weber, F. (eds.) Bausteine der Energiewen-

de. RaumFragen: Stadt – Region – Landschaft, pp. 409–430. Springer VS,

Wiesbaden (2018)

51. Fachagentur Windenergie an Land (FA Wind): Umfrage zur Akzeptanz der

Windenergie an Land - Herbst 2015, Berlin (2015)

52. Fachagentur Windenergie an Land (FA Wind): Umfrage zur Akzeptanz der

Windenergie an Land - Frühjahr 2016, Berlin (2016)

53. Fachagentur Windenergie an Land (FA Wind): Umfrage zur Akzeptanz der

Windenergie an Land - Herbst 2017, Berlin (2017)

54. Camargo, R., Dienes, B., Ebert, E., Günther, M., Hebrank, M., Jeong, M.,

Maack, A., Melilli, G., Möller-Lindenhof, T., Renner, S., Rodriguez Sotomayor,

A., Rubino, M., Schniete, D., Stachnio, K., Thesen, J., Thomas, L., Tietjen, S.,

van Ham, F., Weber, J., Willers, A., Wüstenhagen, S., Odparlik, F.L., Köppel,

J.: Social acceptance: gone with the wind? http://lehre.umweltpruefung.tu-

berlin.de/mapj2016/doku.php (2016). Accessed 21 November 2017

55. Bundesinitiative Vernunftkraft e.V.: Vernunftkraft.

http://www.vernunftkraft.de/Bundesinitiative/ (2017)

56. European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW): European Platform Against

Windfarms. http://www.epaw.org/index.php?lang=en (2008-2017). Accessed 21

November 2017

57. Bräuer, M., Wolling, J.: Protest oder Partizipation? Die Rolle der Bürgerinitiati-

ven im Themenfeld Netzausbau. In: Bundesnetzagentur (BNetzA) (ed.) Wissen-

schaftsdialog 2015. Wirtschaft und Technologie, Kommunikation und Planung,

pp. 90–103, Bonn (2015)

58. Devine-Wright, P.: Rethinking NIMBYism. The role of place attachment and

place identity in explaining place-protective action. J. Community. Appl. Soc.

Psychol. (2009). doi: 10.1002/casp.1004

59. Wolsink, M.: Wind power and the NIMBY-myth. Institutional capacity and the

limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy (2000). doi:

10.1016/S0960-1481(99)00130-5

60. Petrova, M.A.: From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework –

VESPA – For organizing and interpreting community concerns. Renewable En-

ergy 86, 1280–1294 (2016)

61. van der Horst, D.: NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the

politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Exploring

the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy

siting controversies. Energy Policy (2007). doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.012

62. Brunnengräber, A.: Klimaskeptiker im Aufwind. Wie aus einem Rand ein brei-

teres Gesellschaftsphänomen wird. In: Kühne, O., Weber, F. (eds.) Bausteine

der Energiewende. RaumFragen: Stadt – Region – Landschaft, pp. 271–292.

Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2018)

63. Bundesinitiative Vernunftkraft e.V.: Positionen für mehr Weitsicht zum Wohl

von Mensch und Natur. http://www.vernunftkraft.de/de/wp-

content/uploads/2014/07/Positionspapier-Juli-2014.pdf (2014)

64. Eichenauer, E., Reusswig, F., Meyer-Ohlendorf, L., Lass, W.: Bürgerinitiativen

gegen Windkraftanlagen und der Aufschwung rechtspopulistischer Bewegun-

gen. In: Kühne, O., Weber, F. (eds.) Bausteine der Energiewende. RaumFragen:

Stadt – Region – Landschaft, pp. 633–652. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2018)

65. Roßmeier, A., Weber, F., Kühne, O.: Wandel und gesellschaftliche Resonanz –

Diskurse um Landschaft und Partizipation beim Windkraftausbau. In: Kühne,

O., Weber, F. (eds.) Bausteine der Energiewende. RaumFragen: Stadt – Region

– Landschaft, pp. 653–680. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2018)

66. Sullivan, P.J., Acheson, J.M., Angermeier, P.L., Faast, T., Flemma, J., Jones,

C.M., Knudsen, E.E., Minello, T.J., Secor, D.H., Wunderlich, R., Zanatell, B.A.:

Defining and Implementing Best Available Science for Fisheries and Environ-

mental Science, Policy, and Management.

http://fisheries.org/docs/policy_science.pdf (2006). Accessed 27 June 2017

67. Ryan, C.M., Cerveny, L.K., Robinson, T.L., Blahna, D.J.: Implementing the

2012 Forest Planning Rule: Best Available Scientific Information in Forest

Planning Assessments. Forest Science (2018). doi: 10.1093/forsci/fxx004

68. Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft der Vogelschutzwarten (LAG VSW): Abstandsemp-

fehlungen für Windenergieanlagen zu bedeutsamen Vogellebensräumen sowie

Brutplätzen ausgewählter Vogelarten (Stand April 2015).

http://www.vogelschutzwarten.de/downloads/lagvsw2015_abstand.pdf (2015).

Accessed 23 May 2017

69. Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVerwG): BVerwG Urteil vom 21.11.2013, 7 C

40.11 (2013)

70. Williams, B.K., Brown, E.D.: Adaptive management: from more talk to real

action. Environmental Management (2014). doi: 10.1007/s00267-013-0205-7

71. Hanna, L., Copping, A., Geerlofs, S., Feinberg, L., Brown-Saracino, J., Bennet,

F., May, R., Köppel, J., Bulling, L., Gartman, V.: Results of IEA Wind Adap-

tive Management White Paper. International Energy Agency Wind Implemen-

ting Agreement (2016)

72. Bulling, L., Köppel, J.: Adaptive Management in der Windenergieplanung -

Eine Chance für den Artenschutz in Deutschland? Naturschutz und Land-

schaftsplanung 49(2), 73–79 (2017)

73. Wulfert, K., Lau, M., Widdig, T., Müller-Pfannenstiel, K., Mengel, A.: Standar-

disierungspotenzial im Bereich der arten- und gebietsschutzrechtlichen Prüfung.

FuE - Vorhaben im Rahmen des Umweltforschungsplanes des Bundesministeri-

ums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit im Auftrag des Bundesam-

tes für Naturschutz – FKZ 3512 82 2100 (2015). Accessed 16 May 2017

74. Brandt, E.: Gutachterliche Stellungnahme zu ausgewählten Fragestellungen im

Zusammenhang mit der geplanten Novellierung des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes.

im Auftrag des Fördervereins der Koordinierungsstelle Windenergierecht

(k:wer) e. V. (2017)

75. Peste, F., Paula, A., da Silva, L.P., Bernardino, J., Pereira, P., Mascarenhas, M.,

Costa, H., Vieira, J., Bastos, C., Fonseca, C., Pereira, M.J.R.: How to mitigate

impacts of wind farms on bats? A review of potential conservation measures in

the European context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review (2015). doi:

10.1016/j.eiar.2014.11.001

76. Sims, C., Hull, C., Stark, E., Barbour, R.: Key Learnings from Ten Years of

Monitoring and Management Interventions at the Bluff Point and Studland Bay

Wind Farms: Results of a Review. In: Hull, C., Bennett, E., Stark, E., Smales, I.,

Lau, J., Venosta, M. (eds.) Wind and Wildlife: Proceedings from the Conference

on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, October 2012, Melbourne, Australia, pp.

125–144. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (2015)

77. Grünkorn, T., Rönn, J. von, Blew, J., Nehls, G., Weitekamp, S., Timmermann,

H., Reichenbach, M., Coppack, T., Potiek, A., Krüger, O.: Ermittlung der Kolli-

sionsraten von (Greif-)Vögeln und Schaffung planungsbezogener Grundlagen

für die Prognose und Bewertung des Kollisionsrisikos durch Windenergieanla-

gen (PROGRESS). Schlussbericht zum durch das Bundesministerium für Wirt-

schaft und Energie (BMWi) im Rahmen des 6. Energieforschungsprogrammes

der Bundesregierung geförderten Verbundvorhaben PROGRESS, FKZ

0325300A-D. (2016). Accessed 19 August 2016

78. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region der Staaten von Iowa, Illinois,

Indinana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin and the American

Wind Energy Association: Midwest Wind Energy. Multi-Species Habitat Con-

servation Plan. Public Review Draft (2016)

79. National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC): Greater Sage-Grouse.

Overview and Effects of Wind Energy Development (2017)

80. Sudfeldt, C., Dröschmeister, R., Frederking, W., Gedeon, K., Gerlach, B., Grü-

neberg, C., Karthäuser, J., Langgemach, T., Schuster, B., Trautmann, S., Wahl,

J.: Vögel in Deutschland – 2013, Münster (2013)

81. Department of the Interior (DOI), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Ea-

gle Permits; Revisions to Regulations for Eagle Incidental Take and Take of

Eagle Nests. 50 CFR Parts 13 and 22, vol. 81 (2016)

82. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Bald and Golden Eagles: Population de-

mographics and estimation of sustainable take in the United States, 2016 update,

Washington, D.C. (2016)

83. Diffendorfer, J., Beston, J., Merrill, M., Stanton, J., Corum, M., Loss, S., Thog-

martin, W., Johnson, D., Erickson, R., Heist, K.: A Method to Assess the Popu-

lation-Level Consequences of Wind Energy Facilities on Bird and Bat Species.

In: Köppel, J. (ed.) Wind Energy and Wildlife Interactions: Presentations from

the CWW2015 Conference, pp. 65–76. Springer International Publishing, Cham

(2017)

84. Moore, J.E., Curtis, K.A., Lewinson, R.L., Dillingham, P.W., Cope, J.M., Ford-

ham, S.V., Heppell, S.S., Pardo, S.A., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Tuck, G.N., Zhou,

S.: Evaluating sustainability of fisheries bycatch mortality for marine megafau-

na. A review of conservation reference points for data-limited populations. En-

vir. Conserv. (2013). doi: 10.1017/S037689291300012X

85. O’Brien, S.H., Cook, A.S.C.P., Robinson, R.A.: Implicit assumptions underly-

ing simple harvest models of marine bird populations can mislead environmen-

tal management decisions. Journal of Environmental Management (2017). doi:

10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.037

86. Pahl-Weber, E., Henckel, D.: The Planning System and Planning Terms in

Germany. A Glossary. Studies in Spatial Deveoplment, 7, Hannover (2008)

87. Raschke, M.: Die Windenergieerlasse der Länder. In: Müller, T., Kahl, H. (eds.)

Energiewende im Föderalismus. Schriften zum Umweltenergierecht, vol. 18, pp.

261–289. NOMOS (2015)

88. Christ, B., Linke, H.J.: Windenergieanlagen in der Raumordnung – landes- und

regionalplanerische Ansätze. Flächenmanagement und Bodenordnung (fub)(1)

(2014)

89. Nagel, P.-B., Schwarz, T., Köppel, J.: Ausbau der Windenergie - Anforderungen

aus der Rechtsprechung und fachliche Vorgaben für die planerische Steuerung.

Umwelt- und Planungsrecht(10), 371–382 (2014)

90. Gailing, L.: Die Landschaften der Energiewende – Themen und Konsequenzen

für die sozialwissenschaftliche Landschaftsforschung. In: Gailing, L., Lei-

benath, M. (eds.) Neue Energielandschaften – Neue Perspektiven der Land-

schaftsforschung. RaumFragen: Stadt – Region – Landschaft, pp. 207–215.

Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2013)

91. Noori, M., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O.: Economic Input–Output Based Sustaina-

bility Analysis of Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Systems. International

Journal of Green Energy (2015). doi: 10.1080/15435075.2014.890103

92. Huang, Y.-F., Gan, X.-J., Chiueh, P.-T.: Life cycle assessment and net energy

analysis of offshore wind power systems. Renewable Energy (2017). doi:

10.1016/j.renene.2016.10.050

93. Hooper, T., Beaumont, N., Hattam, C.: The implications of energy systems for

ecosystem services. A detailed case study of offshore wind. Renewable and Sus-

tainable Energy Reviews (2017). doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.248

94. Kraemer, A., Carin, B., Gruenig, M., Naves Blumenschein, F., Flores, R., Ma-

thur, A., Brandi, C., Spencer, T., Helgenberger, S., Thielges, S., Vaughan, S.,

Whitley, S., Ruet, J., Ott, H.: Green Shift to Sustainability: Co-Benefits & Im-

pacts of Energy Transformation on Resource Industries, Trade, Growth, and

Taxes. G20 Insights (2017)

95. Kraemer, A.: Green Shift to Sustainability: Co-benefits and Impacts of Energy

Transformation. Policy Brief, 109 (2017)

96. May, R.: Mitigation for birds. In: Perrow, M. (ed.) Wildlife and Wind Farms -

Conflicts and Solutions. Volume 1 Onshore: Potential Effects, pp. 124–144.

Pelagic Publishing, Exeter (2017)

97. Bulling, L., Sudhaus, D., Schnittker, D., Schuster, E., Biehl, J., Tucci, F.: Ver-

meidungsmaßnahmen bei der Planung und Genehmigung von Windenergieanla-

gen. Bundesweiter Katalog von Maßnahmen zur Vermeidung des Eintritts von

artenschutzrechtlichen Verbotstatbeständen nach §44 BNatSchG (2015). Acces-

sed 19 August 2016

98. Fachagentur Windenergie an Land (FA Wind): Kompensation von Eingriffen in

das Landschaftsbild durch Windenergieanlagen im Genehmigungsverfahren und

in der Bauleitplanung, Berlin (2016)

99. Länderausschuss für Immissionsschutz (LAI): Hinweise zur Ermittlung und

Beurteilung der optischen Immissionen von Windenergieanlagen (WEA-

Schattenwurf-Hinweise). verabschiedet auf der 103. Sitzung (2002)

100. European Commission, European Parliament: Directive 2000/60/EC of the Eu-

ropean Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a frame-

work for Community action in the field of water policy. Water Framework Di-

rective (2000)

101. May, R., Hamre, Ø., Vang, R., Nygård, T.: Evaluation of the DTBird video-

system at the Smøla wind-power plant. Detection capabilities for capturing near-

turbine avian behaviour. NINA Report 910 (2012)

102. Hanagasioglu, M., Aschwanden, J., Bontadina, F., de la Puente Nilsson, Mar-

cos: Investigation of the effectiveness of bat and bird detection of the DTBat

and DTBird systems at Calandawind turbine. Final report (2015)

103. Litsgård, F., Eriksson, A., Wizelius, T., Säfström, T.: DTBird system Pilot In-

stallation in Sweden. Possibilities for bird monitoring systems around wind

farms. Experiences from Sweden’s first DTBird installation. Ecocom AB. 21-

12-2016. Englische Übersetzung durch DTBird (2017). Accessed 7 March 2017

104. Department of Energy (DoE): 3 Ways Energy Department Research Will Help

Coexist with Wind Energy Deployment. https://energy.gov/eere/articles/3-ways-

energy-department-research-will-help-eagles-coexist-wind-energy-deployment

(2016)

105. DTBird: U.S. Department of Energy Funds Evaluation of DTBird System.

http://www.dtbird.com/index.php/es/news-2/item/43-usa-department-energy-

evaluate-effectiveness-dtbird-system (2016)

106. Miller, M., Giebel, R.: Rotor-mounted Bat Impact Deterrence System (Poster).

In: Wind Wildlife Research Meeting XI: Presentation Abstracts, pp. 52–53

(2016)

107. Bat Conservation International: Ultrasonic Acoustic Deterrents (UADs).

http://www.batcon.org/our-work/regions/usa-canada/wind2/ultrasonic (2017)

108. Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof: Urteil vom 10.03.2016, Az. 22 B 14.1875

und 22 B 14.1876 (2016). Accessed 23 February 2017

109. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN): NATforWINSENT – Naturschutz im Wind-

testfeld. Entwicklung eines Konzepts zur Naturschutzbegleitforschung im Rah-

men des WindForS-Windenergietestfelds Schwäbische Alb. FKZ 3517 86 1600.

https://www.natur-und-erneuerbare.de/projektdatenbank/projekte/natforwinsent-

naturschutz-im-windtestfeld/ (2017)

110. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH): Guidance on Methods for Monitoring Bird

Populations at Onshore Wind Farms. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/C205417.pdf

(2009). Accessed 11 July 2017

111. Ornitela: Ornithology and Telemetry Applications. http://www.ornitela.com/.

(2016)

112. Moberg, F., Simonsen, S.H.: What is resilience? An introduction to social-

ecological research (2014)

113. Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Folke, C., Lannerstad, M., Barron, J., Enfors,

E., Gordon, L., Heinke, J., Hoff, H., Pahl-Wostl, C.: Water Resilience for Hu-

man Prosperity. Cambridge University Press (2014)

114. Reed, M., Evely, A., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Par-

rish, B., Prell, C., Raymond, C., Stringer, L.: What is Social Learning? Ecology

and Society (2010). doi: 10.5751/ES-03564-1504r01

115. Bodin, Ö.: Collaborative environmental governance. Achieving collective action

in social-ecological systems. Science (New York, N.Y.) (2017). doi:

10.1126/science.aan1114

116. Scott, T., Thomas, C.: Unpacking the Collaborative Toolbox: Why and When

Do Public Managers Choose Collaborative Governance Strategies? The Policy

Studies Journal 45(1), 191–214 (2017)

117. Wondolleck, J., Yaffee, S.: Making Collaboration Work. Lessons from Innova-

tion in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C. (2000)

118. Davies, W.: The age of post-truth politics. The New York Times, 26 August

2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/opinion/campaign-stops/the-age-of-

post-truth-politics.html

119. Krane, M.: Alternative Fakten kann jeder. Fake News entlarven. Der Tagesspie-

gel, 20 June 2017. http://www.tagesspiegel.de/themen/freie-universitaet-

berlin/fake-news-entlarven-alternative-fakten-kann-jeder/19938682.html

Source attributions

Icons by Flaticon Basic License (Creative Commons) CC 3.0

Search free by Freepik

Studying by Freepik

Chat by Good Ware

Network by Smashicons

Crowd of users by Freepik

List by Freepik

Contract by Freepik

Approval by Freepik

Classroom by Freepik