sustainability

Article
Measurement of Fairness Perceptions in Energy
T ransition Research: A Factorial Survey Approach
Ulf Liebe 1 , * and Geesche M. Dobers 2
1 Department of Sociology , University of W arwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
2 Institute of Landscape Architectur e and Environmental Planning, T echnische Universität, 10623 Berlin,
Germany; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Received: 24 August 2020; Accepted: 26 September 2020; Published: 30 September 2020
     
  

Abstract:
Justice and fairness ar e increasingly popular concepts in ener gy resear ch and comprise
several justice dimensions, including distributive and procedural justice, r elated to energy pr oduction
and consumption. In this paper , we used factorial survey experiments—a method employed in
sociological justice r esearch—for ener gy transition resear ch. In a factorial survey , r espondents
evaluated one or mor e situations described by several attributes, which varied in their levels.
The experimental setup of factorial surveys is one of its advantages over simple survey items,
as based on this, the r elative importance of each attribute for justice evaluations can be determined.
W e employed the method in a study on the perceived fairness of r enewable ener gy expansion projects
r elated to wind energy , solar ener gy , and biomass in Germany , and consider ed aspects of procedural
and distributive justice. W e show that the e ff ects of these justice dimensions can be separated and
the heter ogeneity in justice evaluations can be explained. Compar ed to previous studies applying
factorial survey experiments to explain the acceptance of renewable ener gy pr ojects, we employed
the method to dir ectly measure justice concerns and asked r espondents to evaluate the vignettes in
terms of per ceived fairness. This is important because acceptance and fairness as well as inequality
and injustice ar e di ff erent phenomena.
Keywords: causal e ff ects; justice; factorial surveys; r enewable energy; vignette study
1. Introduction
While much r esearch on ener gy production and consumption is concerned with the concept
of justice [
1
–
4
], there is little empirical quantitative r esearch that dir ectly measures citizens’ justice
concerns and fairness per ceptions. For example, in r esearch on the acceptance of ener gy infrastructure,
most r esearchers frame their work in the context of justice but empirically measur e acceptance [
5
–
8
].
A dir ect measurement of justice per ceptions is important because social inequalities related to ener gy
pr oduction and consumption do not necessarily imply injustice: inequality and perceived injustice
r egarding the exposur e to environmental harms and goods ar e two di ff erent phenomena. Inequalities
in exposur e to renewable ener gy projects, for example, an unequal distribution of power plants acr oss
geographical ar eas or social strata, might be accepted by citizens because they perceive such unequal
distributions as unavoidable. At the same time, support or opposition do not automatically imply
that r enewable energy pr ojects and policies are per ceived as fair or unfair , respectively . Although
support and fairness per ceptions can be gathered under the same umbr ella term of social acceptance [
9
],
they r efer to distinct concepts [
10
]. Therefor e, the direct measur ement of fairness perceptions is an
important aspect of empirical justice r esearch in sociology and other social sciences [ 11 ].
Resear ch on environmental justice di ff er entiates between distributive justice (distribution of
envir onmental harms / goods in society), procedural justice (participation of citizens in envir onmental
Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084; doi:10.3390 / su12198084 www .mdpi.com / journal / sustainability

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 2 of 14
decision-making), and recognition (attention to gr oup di ff erences in society) [
3
,
12
,
13
]. W ith regar d
to justice concerns, the envir onmental justice movement typically strives for an equal distribution of
envir onmental harms and goods across social gr oups in society . This means that all groups in society
ar e equally a ff ected, for example, by r enewable energy pr oduction. On the other hand, it is well known
that ther e are many di ff er ent justice theories and principles, and the question that emerges is which
principle is supported by whom and how this depends on the social context [
14
–
17
]. For example,
not all socioeconomic gr oups might perceive an equal exposur e to renewable power plants or equal
bur den of rising energy costs as equally fair . Also, citizens in di ff erent countries might evaluate an
equal shar e of the costs of climate change mitigation across countries di ff er ently . The same can be true
for aspects of pr ocedural justice, that is, citizens’ participation opportunities.
While the literatur e on energy pr oduction and consumption suggests that many aspects are
r elevant for fairness judgements [
1
–
3
,
11
], including distributive and procedural justice, it is empirically
challenging to disentangle the e ff ects of these aspects. For example, using standar d survey items it is
di ffi cult to clarify whether distributive justice is more r elevant than procedural justice, or vice versa,
for the per ceived fairness and local acceptance of renewable–ener gy projects.
In a factorial survey experiment (FSE), also called a vignette experiment, respondents evaluate
a situation (i.e., vignette) which is described by experimentally manipulated attributes (i.e., actors)
which vary in their levels [
18
]. The r espondents are then asked to evaluate these situations accor ding
to criteria such as support, agr eement, or per ceived fairness. Given that typically more than one
attribute is manipulated, FSEs belong to multifactorial methods, which allow for the identification
of causal e ff ects due to the experimental setup [
18
,
19
]. The method was intr oduced in Sociology by
Rossi and Lazarsfeld in the 1950s [
20
] and, since the 1970s, has become an important tool for the study
of many phenomena, including social norms and justice concerns [
18
,
19
,
21
–
23
]. The FSE employs
multiple factors and r espondents have to make trade-o ff s, and ther efore it lowers socially desirable
r esponse behavior [
24
]. FSEs ar e similar to stated choice experiments, which are often employed in
ener gy resear ch [
6
,
25
,
26
]. In stated choice experiments, r espondents compare alternatives that vary
in multiple attributes and choose the alternative they prefer most. This method has advantages for
measuring citizens’ pr eferences and estimating welfar e measures, for example, citizens’ willingness
to pay for r enewable energy expansion, but it is less suitable for measuring attitudes, (normative)
beliefs, and (fairness) perceptions. In social science r esearch the latter ar e instead examined using FSEs,
wher e respondents can expr ess their fairness concerns on an ordinal or rating scale [ 18 , 23 ].
T o our knowledge, there ar e two previous studies applying FSEs in the context of r enewable energy
expansion, more specifically on the social acceptance of wind ener gy projects [
27
,
28
]. Y et, in these
applications the explanandum is acceptance and not fairness. W e go beyond these pr evious applications
of FSEs and dir ectly measure fairness per ceptions related to r enewable energy pr ojects and compar e
this with an acceptance measure of such pr ojects. W e uncover the causal e ff ects of di ff erent justice
dimensions, taking the heter ogeneity of justice concerns into account. Mor eover , we consider thr ee
r enewable energy sour ces—wind energy , solar energy , and biomass—and compare the importance of
justice dimensions and fairness per ceptions across the di ff er ent energy sour ces.
2. Factorial Survey Experimental Design and Data
2.1. Experimental Design
In designing and conducting an FSE (see [ 18 ] for state-of-the art guidelines), r esearchers have to
decide on the number of attributes (factors or characteristics) of a situation, and attribute levels have
to be assigned. In our example on r enewable ener gy projects, we described projects to constr uct a
r enewable energy site in r espondents’ vicinity (10-km radius from their place of r esidence) and were
inter ested in how unfair or fair the respondents per ceive these projects to be. W e varied four attributes
acr oss vignettes. First, the pr oject referr ed with (1) a wind farm (10 turbines), (2) a photovoltaic power
station, or (3) a biogas plant to di ff er ent types of renewable ener gy and, second, with (1) one, (2) three,

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 3 of 14
or (3) five power plants to di ff er ent magnitudes of exposure to power plants . Thir d, based on the literature
on envir onmental justice, we included the attributes procedural justice , that is, citizens have (1) no say in
the planning pr ocess, (2) partial say in the planning process, or (3) a say at every step in the planning
pr ocess, and fourth, distributive justice —with the planned pr oject respondents have (1) fewer power
plants, (2) the same number , or (3) more power plants in their r egion than in other r egions in Germany .
Combining all possible attribute combinations—3
×
3
×
3
×
3—gave a the so-called full factorial of 81
vignettes and hence 81 di ff erent pr oject descriptions. W e employed the full factorial and each respondent
answer ed one vignette which was randomly chosen from the full factorial. Using randomization and
the full factorial, we were able to experimentally isolate all main e ff ects, two-way e ff ects, and thr ee-way
e ff ects between attributes. If a factorial survey study comprises mor e attributes or attribute levels,
the full factorial is often too lar ge to consider all vignettes. Thus, an experimental design is used to
r educe the number of vignettes that respondents face, but at the same time, to maintain the possibility
of separating the e ff ects of single factors. Resear chers also have to choose a response scale for r ecor ding
r espondents’ judgments (e.g., four -point, five-point, seven-point, or eleven-point r esponse scales).
While the literatur e suggests longer response scales [
18
], in this study we opted for a four -point scale
because we wanted to fully label each category of the scale using the wor ds “fair” and “unfair”.
Figur e 1 provides an example of a vignette as used in the study .
Sustainability 2020 , 12 , x FOR PEER REVI EW 3 of 16
(2 ) thr ee, or ( 3 ) five power plan ts to di ff erent m a gnit udes of e x p o s u re to po wer plan ts . Thir d, based
on the l i te ra t u re on env i r o nm enta l j u s t ice , we inc l uded the a t tr ib ut es proced ural jus tice , t h at i s ,
cit i z e ns h a ve (1 ) no s a y in t h e plan n i ng p r ocess, (2) p a r t ial say in the plannin g pro c ess, o r (3) a s a y at
every step in the planni ng process, and fourth , distr i bu tive justice — w i th the p l anned p r oject
responden t s have (1) fewe r power p l an ts, (2) the same number, or (3) more p o wer plan ts in the i r
region th an in other reg i o n s in German y.
Combining a l l pos s ibl e at tr ibut e combin at ions — 3 × 3 × 3 × 3 — g a ve a th e so -c al le d f u l l fac t or ia l
of 81 v i gne t te s an d hence 81 d i fferen t pr oject d e scr i ptions. We employed the full factor ial and each
responden t answered one vignette wh ich was ra n d omly chose n from the f u ll f a ctor i a l. Usin g
randomi z at io n an d the f u l l fac t or ia l, we were able t o experi menta lly isolat e al l ma i n eff e ct s, t w o- way
effec t s, and th ree-w a y effec t s betwe e n attributes. If a factorial surve y stud y co mprises more at tribut es
or a t trib ute le vels, th e fu ll f a cto r i a l i s o f t e n too l a r ge t o cons ider a l l vigne t tes . Th us, an exper i menta l
desi gn w a s u s ed to reduc e the num b er of v i gnet te s t h at resp on de nts f a ce, b u t at th e s a m e t i m e , t o
m a in ta in the p o ssib i li ty of sep a r a ting th e ef fec t s of single factor s. Rese arche r s also h a ve to ch oose a
response sc ale for record ing respond e nts’ j u dgmen t s (e. g ., fo ur - p oint, f i ve-p oint, seven - p o int, or
eleven-po i nt response scales). Whil e the li ter a ture s u gges t s longe r resp onse scales [18], in th is study
we opted for a fo ur-po i nt s c ale bec a use we wan t ed to fully label e a ch category o f the sc ale using the
words “f ai r” and “un f air ” . Fig u re 1 p r o v ides an exa m p l e of a v i g n ett e as use d in th e s t u d y.

Figure 1. Example of a v i gnette used in the fa ctorial surv ey. Note: Attribute s and attribute levels tha t
varied a c ross v i gnettes are un derlined .
2 . 2 . D a t a a nd Va r i ab l e s
We embedde d the F S E in an on line sur v ey on ren e wable energ y expansion in Germany . T h e
surv ey w a s c o nduct e d in Sep t em b e r an d Octob e r 20 13 [ 2 9] . P a r t ic ip an ts were m e m b ers of a n acce ss
panel wh o were actively recr uited by phone (n o opt-in p a n e l) and repr esented the German
p o p u la tion t h at use s the i n terne t a t l e a s t once a we ek. We used quo t a samp ling represen ting the
German pop u lation reg a r d ing gend er and age as c l os e as p o s s ib l e . Af ter in sp e c tion of the d a t a , o u t
of 3 400 c o mple t e d qu es ti onna i r e s , 31 9 9 u s abl e inte rvie ws rem a in ed for an aly z ing the f a ctor i a l s u rvey
(due to m i ss i n g v a l u es an d im p l aus i b l e answer s) . The response r a te (stand ard RR1, [30]) w a s 26%.
Prior to the s u rv ey, s i x foc u s group s an d two pretest survey s wer e conducted.
In our s a mple , women ( 4 5 % in th e sam p le, 5 1 % in th e popul a tion ) an d those l i v i ng in mid - s i z e d
cit i es (3 3% in the s a mple , 42% in the p o pul a t i on) w e re unde rrep r esen ted and those w i th higher
educ at ion, i.e ., a univ er si ty entr ance dip l om a or high e r , overrepr es ented ( 61% in the s a mple, 3 1 % in
the p o p u l a tio n ). The m e an v a l u es for a g e (4 3 ye ar s, S D = 1 4 ) and h o useho l d ne t incom e ( 3 0 4 8 Euro,
SD = 1.519) w e re fairly c l ose to th e aver age v a lues for the Germ an population [31]. While the sample
w a s c l ea rl y no t re pr e s e n ta ti v e , it c o nta i ne d su ff i c i e nt v a r i a n c e o n so c i o d e m o g raph i c s i n or d e r t o ta ke
heterog e nei t y in popu la t i o n ch arac ter i s t ics in to acco u n t. Indiv i du a l s in rur a l are a s are more af f e cted

Figure 1. Example of a vignette used in the factorial survey .
Note: Attributes and attribute levels that varied acr oss vignettes are underlined.
2.2. Data and V ariables
W e embedded the FSE in an online survey on renewable ener gy expansion in Germany . The survey
was conducted in September and October 2013 [
29
]. Participants were members of an access panel
who wer e actively recruited by phone (no opt-in panel) and r epresented the German population that
uses the internet at least once a week. W e used quota sampling repr esenting the German population
r egarding gender and age as close as possible. After inspection of the data, out of 3400 completed
questionnair es, 3199 usable interviews remained for analyzing the factorial survey (due to missing
values and implausible answers). The response rate (standar d RR1, [
30
]) was 26%. Prior to the survey ,
six focus gr oups and two pretest surveys wer e conducted.
In our sample, women (45% in the sample, 51% in the population) and those living in mid-sized
cities (33% in the sample, 42% in the population) were underr epresented and those with higher
education, i.e., a university entrance diploma or higher , overrepr esented (61% in the sample, 31% in
the population). The mean values for age (43 years, SD = 14) and household net income (3048 Euro,
SD = 1.519) wer e fairly close to the average values for the German population [
31
]. While the sample
was clearly not r epresentative, it contained su ffi cient variance on sociodemographics in or der to take
heter ogeneity in population characteristics into account. Individuals in rural areas ar e mor e a ff ected by

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 4 of 14
r enewable energy expansion compar ed to those in urban areas, and our data also show considerable
variance along the rural-urban continuum (31% rural ar eas, 33% mid-sized cities, 36% lar ge cities).
The survey also included questions on place attachment, which we consider ed in the regr ession
models on heter ogeneity of fairness evaluations. The corr esponding variable was an additive index of
answers to the following four survey items, all answered on a four -point response scale (1 = str ongly
disagr ee to 4 = strongly agr ee): “I like to be in the landscape next to my place of residence”, “Often,
I spend my fr ee time in the landscape next to my place of residence”, “The landscape around my
place of r esidence is a part of me”, “It is very important to me that the landscape around my place of
r esidence does not change”. Cronbach’s alpha for the index was 0.7714; the index ranged between 4
and 16 with a mean of 13.085 and standar d deviation of 2.233.
In the survey we considered thr ee r enewable energy sour ces: wind ener gy , solar ener gy ,
and biomass. At the beginning of the survey , r espondents were shown pictograms and definitions
of these r enewables (see T able 1 ). It was also clarified that the survey focused on renewables in the
open landscape and did not consider ener gy production in urban ar eas, for example, through solar
panels on r oofs. In contrast to wind and solar energy the ener gy source is not unboundedly available
in the case of biomass. Therefor e, we asked respondents to consider the cultivation of raw material
and the power plant when rating the r enewable energy biomass. For the most part, biomass is used for
electricity generation at the place of pr oduction.
The survey also included a question r egarding the general acceptance of the construction of
r enewable power plants in respondents’ vicinity . The exact wor ding of this acceptance question
was as follows: “How strongly would you support or oppose the construction of the following
r enewable power plants [solar energy , wind energy and biomass] within a 10 km radius of your place
of r esidence?” Respondents answered this question on a four -point response scale (str ongly oppose,
somewhat oppose, somewhat support, str ongly support).
T able 1. Definition of renewable ener gy sources as used in the survey .
W ind Energy
refers to electricity
generation with single wind
turbines and wind farms
onshore only .
Solar Energy refers exclusively to
the production of electricity with
photovoltaic systems in the open
landscape, i.e., solar fields.
Biomass refers to the pr oduction
of biogas and its electricity and
includes both the biogas plant and
the cultivation of the requir ed
biomass (such as corn).
3. Results
3.1. Overall Fairness Evaluation and Acceptance Figur es
T able 2 shows the fairness evaluations regar ding the construction of new power plants in
r espondents’ vicinity across all vignettes and per r enewable energy type. The figur es indicate
that ther e was remarkable variance on the fairness scale. However , for each energy type the
majority of r espondents perceived the construction of an additional plant as rather fair or very
fair . The corresponding figur es were 81% for solar ener gy , 67% for wind ener gy , and 56% for biomass.
W e can compare these figur es with those fr om the question on the general acceptance of the construction
of additional power plants in citizens’ vicinity . Both fairness perception and acceptance wer e measur ed
on four -point scales. While ther e was a substantial positive correlation between the fairness and

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 5 of 14
acceptance measur e (all significant at p < 0.001), both wer e not perfectly correlated (Pearson corr elations
of r = 0.529 for wind ener gy , r = 0.350 for solar energy , and r = 0.514 for biomass). In other wor ds:
these measur es discriminated to some extent, even if they correlated with each other . On the other
hand, it needs to be kept in mind that the fairness question r eferred to “concr ete” project descriptions
pr esented in the vignettes, while the acceptance question referr ed to the construction of power plants
in general; yet both questions were r elated to a 10 km radius of the respondents’ place of r esidence.
This could explain that, in T able 2 , the mean values of the per ceived fairness of the construction of
“concr ete” wind energy and solar ener gy plants are lower than the corr esponding mean values of
general acceptance. However , for biomass we found the opposite pattern—that is, mean fairness
values for concr ete projects wer e higher than mean general acceptance values. This can be interpr eted
as another indication that fairness per ceptions and agreement ar e conceptually di ff erent. Further ,
the corr elations between fairness and acceptance in the present study ar e similar to the ones presented
in a vignette study on airport expansion scenarios, which included both measures at the vignette
level [ 10 ], supporting our claim that fairness and acceptance ar e not (entirely) the same.
T able 2. Fairness evaluations and acceptance levels per type of renewable ener gy plant.
Plant T ype
V ery Unfair
(Strongly
Oppose) (1)
Rather Unfair
(Somewhat
Oppose) (2)
Rather Fair
(Somewhat
Support) (3)
V ery Fair
(Strongly
Support) (4)
Mean (SD)
W ind
( n = 1051)
7%
(8%)
26%
(19%)
54%
(47%)
13%
(26%)
2.73 (0.78)
(2.91 (0.88))
Solar
( n = 1075)
3%
(2%)
16%
(9%)
60%
(50%)
21%
(39%)
2.97 (0.71)
(3.26 (0.70))
Biomass
( n = 1073)
13%
(15%)
31%
(34%)
48%
(41%)
8%
(10%)
2.51 (0.81)
(2.46 (0.87))
Note: First number in each cell refers to r esponses to the vignette / fairness question and the second number in
parentheses to the acceptance question.
3.2. E ff ects of V ignette Attributes on Fairness Evaluations
In the following, we pr esent plots for linear regr ession models on fairness evaluations per
r enewable energy type: first for models only including the vignette attributes (Figure 2 ) and second for
models including the vignette attributes and additional variables to explain heter ogeneity in fairness
evaluations (Figur e 3 ). The full r egression models underlying Figur es 2 and 3 can be found in T able A1
in the Appendix A . Further , T able A2 in the Appendix A contains for each renewable ener gy type a
comparison of the r esults of a linear regr ession model, an order ed logit model and a binary logit model.
In the latter , the dependent variable has value of 1 for the categories “very fair” and “rather fair”, and 0
for the categories “rather unfair” and very unfair” on the four-point fairness scale. Since the results ar e
similar acr oss the di ff erent modeling variants, we pr esent the results of linear r egression models.
The r esults in Figure 2 (also T able A1 ) show that the number of renewable power plants does not
have a significant e ff ect on fairness evaluations regar ding wind power and solar ener gy . Ther e was
only one negative and statistically significant e ff ect for biomass indicating that the construction of five
plants compar ed to one plant is associated with lower fairness perceptions. There ar e clear indications
that pr ocedural and distributive justice matter . W ith r espect to all the renewable ener gies, having no
say in the planning pr ocess was perceived as mor e unfair than having a partial say in the planning
pr ocess. The corr esponding e ff ects were statistically significant and amounted to 0.3 points on the
four -point fairness scale. Y et, there was no statistically significant di ff er ence for having a say in all
steps of the planning pr ocess compared to having a partial say in the planning pr ocess. It seems
that r espondents valued the general possibility of participating in the planning pr ocess and not so
much the extent of it. Regar ding the distributive justice, respondents per ceived more unfairness if
the new power plants lead to overall mor e renewable power plants in their r egion as compared to

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 6 of 14
other r egions. The e ff ects had a similar size to the ones for procedural justice and wer e all highly
statistically significant. Only for solar energy did r espondents perceive mor e unfairness also if they
had fewer power plants in their r egion as compared to other r egions. For wind energy and biomass,
we found no statistically significant di ff erences between less exposur e and equal exposure to power
plants acr oss regions.
W e also checked interaction e ff ects between vignette attributes. T aking all possible two-way
and thr ee-way interaction e ff ects into account, we only found one statistically significant two-way
interaction and thr ee-way interaction in the model for wind energy . They showed that the construction
of five plants was evaluated as less unfair if respondents still had fewer r enewable energy plants in
their r egion compared to other r egions. Y et, this interaction was evaluated to be less fair if r esidents
had a say in the planning pr ocess compared to having a partial say .
Figure 2. Regression models for fairness evaluations and vignette attributes.
Note: unstandardized coe ffi cients and 95% confidence intervals of linear r egression models with the
four -point fairness scale as dependent variable and the vignette attributes as independent variables.
The model characteristics are as follows: for wind ener gy , F(6, 1044) = 10.85, Prob > F = 0.000,
R 2 = 0.0596,
n = 1051; for solar energy , F(6, 1068) = 15.12, Prob > F = 0.000,
R 2 = 0.0844,
n = 1075;
for biomass, F(6, 1066) = 13.99, Pr ob > F = 0.000, R 2 = 0.0746, n = 1073.
3.3. E ff ects of Respondent Characteristics on Fairness Evaluations
Figur e 3 presents models that include additional variables to explain heter ogeneity in fairness
evaluations; the figur e only depicts variables that had statistically significant e ff ects on fairness
evaluations at the 5% level (full models are pr esented in T able A2 in the Appendix A ). The main
insights ar e that, as already shown above, the general acceptance of new renewable power plants
in r espondents’ vicinity did have a positive e ff ect on the per ceived fairness; yet, causation can go in
both dir ections, i.e., acceptance can a ff ect fairness and vice versa. The e ff ect sizes for a unit change
ranged between 0.36 (solar ener gy) and 0.46 (wind energy and biomass) on the four -point fairness

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 7 of 14
scale. Higher education was significantly associated with higher levels of perceived fairness at the 5%
level in the models on wind and solar ener gy .
Rural ar eas are mor e a ff ected by renewable ener gy expansion than urban areas. However , we did
not find r emarkable di ff erences in fairness evaluations between r espondents living in medium-sized
or lar ge cities and those living in villages. Y et, there was one exception: compared to those living
in villages, respondents r esiding in lar ge cities perceived the construction of biomass power plants
as rather fair . The e ff ect amounted to 0.15 points on the four -point fairness scale. Place attachment
did not significantly a ff ect fairness concerns regar ding solar and biomass but it had a negative and
statistically significant e ff ect on the perceived fairness of the constr uction of new wind energy plants.
Of note, a 10-point incr ease on the place-attachment scale, with a minimum value of 4 and a maximum
value of 16, is associated with a 0.25 decrease on the four -point fairness scale. This e ff ect for wind
ener gy might be due to the higher visibility of wind farms as compared with solar and biomass plants.
Figure 3.
Regression models for fairness evaluations, vignette attributes, and r espondents’
characteristics.
Note: unstandardized coe ffi cients and 95% confidence intervals of linear r egression models with
the four -point fairness scale as dependent variable, and the vignette attributes and respondents’
characteristics as independent variables. Not all respondent characteristics ar e shown; the underlying
models also included gender , age, income, but these characteristics had statistically insignificant
e ff ects in all three models depicted. The model characteristic are as follows: for wind energy ,
F(14, 1036) = 44.12,
Pr ob > F = 0.000, R
2
= 0.3617, n = 1051; for solar ener gy , F(14, 1060) = 18.18,
Pr ob > F = 0.000, R 2 = 0.2226,
n = 1075; for biomass, F(14, 1058) = 44.63, Pr ob > F = 0.000, R
2
= 0.3504,
n = 1073.

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 8 of 14
4. Discussion and Conclusion
4.1. Heter ogeneity of Justice Concerns
Justice is a multi-dimensional concept and it is challenging to disentangle the importance of
each of the dimensions for justice / fairness evaluations. In this paper , we focused on distributive and
pr ocedural justice related to r enewable energy expansion. Both dimensions are commonly discussed
in the envir onmental justice and energy-r elated literature [
2
,
4
,
12
,
32
,
33
]. W e demonstrated how using
factorial surveys can contribute to resear ch on ener gy production. By directly measuring justice / fairness
per ceptions and varying justice-related attributes acr oss vignettes, we examined and disentangled the
r elevance of di ff erent justice dimensions for ener gy-related pr ojects. Our study showed, for example,
that the number of r enewable energy plants is less important than aspects of pr ocedural and distributive
justice. The latter justice dimensions ar e equally important, which is in contrast to previous FSE
r esearch on the local acceptance of wind ener gy plants [
27
], indicating that participatory justice might
be mor e important than distributive justice. Y et, this r esearch measur ed acceptance and not fairness
and also included mor e vignette attributes. It is not clear whether the relative importance of justice
dimensions depends on the outcome measur e (fairness versus acceptance) and / or the information
pr ovided about renewable ener gy projects. For example, it could be that distributive justice related to
the number of power plants acr oss regions becomes less r elevant if further information about a project
is given, such as who is investing in the pr oject and how benefits are allocated.
Our application of FSEs r evealed heterogeneity r egarding justice concerns. First, it is noteworthy
that in terms of fairness, r espondents evaluated having more power plants in their r egion than in other
r egions di ff erently than having fewer power plants than in other r egions. If outcome equality holds,
r espondents should also have disvalued a disproportionately lower exposur e to renewable ener gy
power plants. This was clearly not the case and only for solar energy did we find a significant e ff ect that
lower exposur e levels were per ceived as rather unfair compared to equal exposur e levels. However ,
compar ed with equal exposure acr oss regions, the e ff ect for lower exposur e levels was weaker than the
one for higher exposur e levels. The fact that there was an e ff ect for solar ener gy might be associated
with its lar ge general support as compared with wind ener gy and especially biomass, as well as with
our finding that place attachment is not a significant determinant of fairness perceptions r elated to
photovoltaic power stations (compar ed to wind turbines). Such perceptions of distributive justice
ar e likely to a ff ect not only the acceptance of renewable ener gy projects at the local level but also the
spatial allocation of power plants at the country level, where depending on the underlying justice
principle e ffi cient allocations can vary r emarkably [ 34 ].
Second, we found a heter ogeneity in justice concerns a ff ected by education, place of residence,
and place attachment as well as the type of r enewable energy pr oduction. For all energy sour ces
we found a positive e ff ect of education on fairness perceptions r elated to the construction of new
power plants. Education is positively related to knowledge about envir onmental issues, which in
turn can positively a ff ect envir onmental attitudes and pro-envir onmental behavior [
35
], as well as
fairness concerns r elated to renewable ener gy expansion. W e found that placement attachment
was important for fairness perceptions r elated to the construction of wind turbines but not for
photovoltaic power stations and biogas plants; this could be explained by the higher visibility of
wind turbines as well as the fact that, at the time of the survey , respondents wer e more likely to be
actually exposed to wind turbines compar ed with photovoltaic power stations and biogas plants.
The place-attachment e ff ect could be consider ed in decision-making processes and explicitly taken into
account by addr essing corresponding concerns when discussing with citizens, and in the framing of
wind ener gy projects. As the place-attachment e ff ect was specific for wind power it illustrates that the
r elevance of determinants of fairness concerns can di ff er across ener gy sources.
While our survey was carried out over five years ago and meanwhile r enewable energy expansion
has pr ogressed in Germany , many of our findings are in line with mor e recent studies on the acceptance
of r enewable energy expansion in Germany . This includes the citizens’ overall higher support of solar

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 9 of 14
ener gy , followed by wind power and biomass [
36
], as well as the finding that the place of residence
does not have str ong e ff ects regar ding wind turbine acceptance [
27
]. Y et, in our study citizens living in
lar ge cities evaluated biogas plants more positively than those in rural ar eas.
4.2. The Merits of FSEs
T urning to the merits of FSEs as a methodological tool in energy r esearch, FSEs have several
advantages over standar d survey items to measure justice concerns. Based on Liebig et al. [
19
],
T able 3 provides an overview of common pr oblems in quantitative resear ch on ener gy production and
consumption and r efers to advantages of using FSEs to solve these problems. A standard survey item
does not consider context information and this might pr ompt specific answers. In FSEs, respondents
r eceive more context information, for example by combining di ff er ent attributes of wind power plants
and hence pr ompting, such as overstating the importance of one attribute (e.g., distributive justice),
should be less likely . Using standard survey items, it is di ffi cult to determine the r elative importance
of justice dimensions such as participatory and distributive justice r elated to wind power plants.
The experimental design underlying FSEs makes it possible to single out the r elative importance of each
dimension. Responses to standard survey items might lead to biased r esponse behavior . For example,
r enewable energy expansion might be per ceived as socially desirable and hence respondents might
tend to agr ee with survey items in favor of r enewable energy expansion. This cannot be completely
ruled out in FSEs but should be less likely because r espondents have to consider and make trade-o ff s
between several attributes. Further , in resear ch on justice concerns related to ener gy production,
r esearchers explicitly or implicitly assume causal e ff ects of justice dimensions on outcomes r elated
to ener gy production and consumption. Y et, causal e ff ects cannot be studied based on standard
survey items and cr oss-sectional data. They can be examined, however , in factorial surveys and other
population-based survey experiments [ 37 ].
T able 3.
Advantages of factorial survey experiments (FSEs) in resear ch on energy pr oduction
and consumption.
Problems of Empirical Research Advantages of Using FSEs
Single-item measures lack context-information on
di ff erent ener gy-related attributes and might pr ompt
certain answers, such as overstating the importance
of an attribute.
FSEs consider several energy-r elated attributes, e.g.,
regar ding renewable ener gy power plants and hence
include more context information. Respondents have
to make trade-o ff s. This should make prompting
less likely .
Uncovering the r elative importance of factors relevant
for justice evaluations regar ding energy-r elated issues
Based on a multifactorial design and trade-o ff s
between justice attributes / factor , the e ff ect / importance
of each factor for justice evaluations can
be determined.
Justice as a normative concept might be prone to
socially desirable r esponse behavior , e.g., overstating
support for renewable ener gy production
By presenting several factors at the same time, socially
desirable responses ar e less likely . Respondents need
to make trade-o ff s between attributes.
Causal e ff ects, e.g., regar ding renewable ener gy
power plant attributes on fairness evaluations, cannot
be identified.
By randomly varying vignette attributes causal e ff ects
can be estimated.
Note: This table is based on [ 19 ].
W e believe that FSEs can complement the resear cher ’s toolbox in ener gy resear ch as a useful
tool to measur e justice beliefs, fairness perceptions, attitudes, and normative beliefs. In this r egard
they have clear advantages over single survey items or (multifactorial) stated choice experiments,
which can be employed to measure pr efer ences and to obtain welfare measur es [
38
]. FSEs should
be combined with qualitative methods such as focus gr oups to develop valid vignette scenarios and
attributes and to obtain an impr ession on how respondents handle the vignettes in or der to check their
suitability . As any other method, FSEs are not fr ee of methodological issues, such as the complexity

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 10 of 14
of vignettes, the r ole of the response format (e.g., closed-ended versus open-ended question format),
and or der e ff ects and fatigue, if multiple vignettes are pr esented per respondent [
39
,
40
]. These need to
be consider ed when planning an FSE.
4.3. Desiderata for Futur e Research
In this paper , we presented a rather simple application of FSEs. As already mentioned above,
in another study on the local acceptance of wind power pr ojects in Germany and Poland, Liebe et al. [
27
]
also included attributes on the type of investor , the use of electricity (in the region versus for export),
and the tax r evenue resulting fr om the power plant. This means more justice dimensions and context
factors can and possibly should be considered in FSEs. It would be important in future r esearch to
apply such mor e comprehensive FSEs in a multi-country context or multi-r egional context within
countries to systematically explor e how cultural di ff erences, social and economic contexts a ff ect justice
evaluations. For example, it could be examined whether higher economic inequality at the country or
r egional level leads to di ff erences in the r elevance of distributive justice related to r enewable energy
pr ojects. Also, it can be studied how the evaluation of distributive and participatory justice changes if
mor e information is given about the renewable ener gy project at hand. Complementing other empirical
appr oaches, such as case studies, FSE resear ch can help decision-makers to better predict which
contexts might r esult in higher or lower levels of perceived fairness of ener gy transition initiatives.
Pr evious applications of FSEs [
27
] measur ed justice / fairness concerns indirectly; they used an
acceptance scale to measur e respondents’ evaluation of r enewable energy pr ojects. In future r esearch it
should be consider ed that, even if correlated, acceptance is not the same as justice, and mor e generally ,
that envir onmental inequality does not equal environmental injustice. Ther efore, it is important to
further explor e di ff erences between acceptance and justice measur ement instruments, as well as under
which conditions per ceived unfairness results in non-acceptance of ener gy transition projects. In other
wor ds: similar to inequality , unfairness does not necessarily mean non-acceptance / opposition and
subsequently pr otesting against renewable ener gy projects. There is a need for a better understanding
of conditions and mechanisms that link justice and social acceptance, including fairness perceptions,
support, and protest behavior , both at the country and r egional level. Again, insights from basic r esear ch
in this r egard can be helpful in shaping ener gy transition projects with higher (local) acceptance levels.
Finally , besides energy pr oduction, FSEs can also be applied to justice concerns regar ding energy
poverty , involuntary resettlement, fossil fuel pollution, nuclear waste, climate change, etc. The method
is also applicable in the global south [
41
]. The pr esent paper paves the way for employing FSEs
for dir ect measurement of justice concerns and for disentangling the importance of di ff erent justice
dimensions and ther eby complementing existing resear ch on energy pr oduction and consumption and
subsequently informing (political) decision making.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, U.L. and G.M.D.; methodology , U.L. and G.M.D.; investigation, U.L.
and G.M.D.; writing—original draft preparation, U.L. and G.M.D.; funding acquisition, U.L. All authors have r ead
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
“This resear ch was funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Resear ch, grant number
01LA1110C (Research Pr oject “E ffi cient and fair allocation of renewable ener gy production at the n ational level”
(EnergyEFF AIR)).
Acknowledgments: W e thank our colleagues from the Ener gyEFF AIR project for kind collaboration.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declar e no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpr etation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 11 of 14
Appendix A
T able A1. Full linear regr essions models underlying Figures 2 and 3 in the main text.
Figure 2 Figure 3
W ind Solar Biomass W ind Solar Biomass
Three plants (vs. one plants) − 0.0177
( − 0.32)
− 0.0127
( − 0.25)
− 0.0457
( − 0.80)
− 0.0746
( − 1.67)
− 0.0233
( − 0.51)
− 0.0601
( − 1.23)
Five plants (vs. one plant) − 0.0660
( − 1.15)
− 0.0753
( − 1.48)
− 0.123 *
( − 2.08)
− 0.0915
( − 1.88)
− 0.0540
( − 1.13)
− 0.117 *
( − 2.37)
No say (vs. partial say) − 0.242 ***
( − 4.14)
− 0.319 ***
( − 6.00)
− 0.276 ***
( − 4.74)
− 0.239 ***
( − 4.99)
− 0.320 ***
( − 6.46)
− 0.264 ***
( − 5.21)
Say in every step (vs. partial say) 0.0526
(0.95)
0.000746
(0.02)
− 0.0122
( − 0.21)
0.0636
(1.41)
− 0.0184
( − 0.43)
0.00744
(0.16)
Less in region (vs. same) − 0.0290
( − 0.51)
− 0.105 *
( − 2.06)
0.0101
(0.18)
− 0.0422
( − 0.88)
− 0.113 *
( − 2.36)
− 0.00116
( − 0.02)
More in r egion (vs. same) − 0.307 ***
( − 5.35)
− 0.334
( − 6.50)
− 0.360 ***
( − 6.09)
− 0.316 ***
( − 6.71)
− 0.360 ***
( − 7.69)
− 0.341 ***
( − 6.99)
Acceptance of plant in vicinity 0.459 ***
(19.16)
0.359 ***
(11.40)
0.457 ***
(17.96)
W oman (vs. man) − 0.0356
( − 0.89)
− 0.00455
( − 0.12)
− 0.00282
( − 0.07)
Age in years − 0.000910
( − 0.60)
− 0.00266
( − 1.83)
− 0.00359 *
( − 2.32)
Higher education (vs. less education) 0.142 ***
(3.39)
0.130 **
(3.06)
0.0823
(1.86)
Net income in Euro 0.00000384
(0.18)
0.0000278
(1.34)
0.00000583
(0.26)
Medium-sized city (vs. small city) 0.0179
(0.35)
− 0.0583
( − 1.19)
0.0812
(1.53)
Large city (vs. small city) 0.0823
(1.66)
0.0203
(0.43)
0.151 **
(2.92)
Place attachment − 0.0251 **
( − 2.75)
− 0.00297
( − 0.31)
− 0.00954
( − 0.90)
Constant 2.931 ***
(49.33)
3.256 ***
(58.16)
2.779 ***
(43.85)
1.879 ***
(11.03)
2.132 ***
(11.92)
1.777 ***
(9.76)
R 2 0.060 0.084 0.075 0.362 0.223 0.350
n 1051 1075 1073 1051 1075 1073
Note: t statistics in parentheses; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 12 of 14
T able A2. Comparison of linear regr ession, order ed logit, and binary logit models.
W ind W ind W ind Solar Solar Solar Biomass Biomass Biomass
Linear Ordered Binary Linear Ordered Binary Linear Ordered Binary
Three plants (vs. one plants) − 0.0177
( − 0.32)
− 0.0594
( − 0.42)
− 0.149
( − 0.89)
− 0.0127
( − 0.25)
− 0.0137
( − 0.09)
− 0.0646
( − 0.32)
− 0.0457
( − 0.80)
− 0.173
( − 1.24)
− 0.332 *
( − 2.11)
Five plants (vs. one plant) − 0.0660
( − 1.15)
− 0.169
( − 1.16)
− 0.293
( − 1.75)
− 0.0753
( − 1.48)
− 0.213
( − 1.44)
− 0.292
( − 1.50)
− 0.123 *
( − 2.08)
− 0.311 *
( − 2.18)
− 0.321 *
( − 2.05)
No say (vs. partial say) − 0.242 ***
( − 4.14)
− 0.632 ***
( − 4.31)
− 0.764 ***
( − 4.58)
− 0.319 ***
( − 6.00)
− 0.928 ***
( − 5.90)
− 1.135 ***
( − 5.77)
− 0.276 ***
( − 4.74)
− 0.659 ***
( − 4.75)
− 0.667 ***
( − 4.30)
Say in every step (vs. partial say)
0.0526
(0.95)
0.0978
(0.68)
− 0.102
( − 0.59)
0.000746
(0.02)
− 0.0464
( − 0.33)
− 0.114
( − 0.52)
− 0.0122
( − 0.21)
− 0.00331
( − 0.02)
0.0499
(0.32)
Less in region (vs. same) − 0.0290
( − 0.51)
− 0.102
( − 0.69)
− 0.155
( − 0.89)
− 0.105 *
( − 2.06)
− 0.380 *
( − 2.48)
− 0.238
( − 1.13)
0.0101
(0.18)
0.0279
(0.20)
0.0149
(0.09)
More in r egion (vs. same) − 0.307 ***
( − 5.35)
− 0.849 ***
( − 5.70)
− 0.965 ***
( − 5.76)
− 0.334 ***
( − 6.50)
− 1.046 ***
( − 6.77)
− 0.924 ***
( − 4.66)
− 0.360 ***
( − 6.09)
− 0.873 ***
( − 6.11)
− 0.943 ***
( − 6.00)
Constant 2.931 ***
(49.33)
1.562 ***
(7.96)
3.256 ***
(58.16)
2.454 ***
(9.66)
2.779 ***
(43.85)
0.979 ***
(5.68)
Cut point 1 − 3.233 ***
( − 15.71)
− 4.387 ***
( − 17.72)
− 2.709 ***
( − 14.75)
Cut point 2 − 1.318 ***
( − 8.17)
− 2.385 ***
( − 12.82)
− 0.908 ***
( − 5.63)
Cut point 3 1.414 ***
(8.91)
0.590 ***
(3.58)
1.919 ***
(10.91)
R 2 / Pseudo R 2 0.060 0.0289 0.0513 0.084 0.0427 0.0671 0.075 0.0339 0.0566
n 1051 1051 1051 1075 1075 1075 1073 1073 1073
Note: t statistics in parentheses; * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 13 of 14
References
1.
Sovacool, B.K.; He ff ron, R.J.; McCauley , D.; Goldthau, A. Energy decisions r eframed as justice and ethical
concerns. Nat. Energy 2016 , 1 , 16024. [ CrossRef ]
2.
W olsink, M. W ind Power wind power: Basic Challenge Concerning Social Acceptance wind power social
acceptance. In RENEW ABLE Energy Systems: 3 V olumes ; Kaltschmitt, M., Ed.; Springer: New Y ork, NY , USA,
2013; ISBN 978-1-4614-5819-7.
3.
Jenkins, K.; McCauley , D.; He ff ron, R.; Stephan, H.; Rehner , R. Energy justice: A conceptual review . Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 2016 , 11 , 174–182. [ CrossRef ]
4.
Perlaviciute, G.; Steg, L. Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of
energy alternatives: Integrated review and r esearch agenda. Renew . Sustain. Ener gy Rev .
2014
, 35 , 361–381.
[ CrossRef ]
5.
Langer , K.; Decker , T .; Menrad, K. Public participation in wind energy pr ojects located in Germany:
Which form of participation is the key to acceptance? Renew . Energy 2017 , 112 , 63–73. [ CrossRef ]
6.
Lienhoop, N. Acceptance of wind energy and the role of financial and pr ocedural participation:
An investigation with focus groups and choice experiments. Energy Policy 2018 , 118 , 97–105. [ CrossRef ]
7.
W alker , C.; Baxter , J. “It’s easy to thr ow rocks at a corporation”: W ind energy development and distributive
justice in Canada. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2017 , 19 , 754–768. [ CrossRef ]
8.
W alker , B.J.A.; Russel, D.; Kurz, T . Community Benefits or Community Bribes? An Experimental Analysis of
Strategies for Managing Community Perceptio ns of Bribery Surrounding the Siting of Renewable Ener gy
Projects. Envir on. Behav . 2016 , 49 , 59–83. [ CrossRef ]
9.
Wüstenhagen, R.; W olsink, M.; Bürer , M.J. Social acceptance of renewable ener gy innovation: An intr oduction
to the concept. Energy Policy 2007 , 35 , 2683–2691. [ CrossRef ]
10.
Liebe, U.; Preisendörfer , P .; Bruderer Enzler , H. The social acceptance of airport expansion scenarios:
A factorial survey experiment. T ransp. Res. Part D T ransp. Envir on. 2020 , 84 , 102363. [ CrossRef ]
11. Baxter , J. Energy justice: Participation pr omotes acceptance. Nat. Energy 2017 , 2 , 17128. [ Cr ossRef ]
12.
Schlosberg, D. Defining Envir onmental Justice. Theories, Movements, and Nature ; Oxford University Pr ess:
Oxford, UK, 2007; ISBN 9780199286294.
13.
Fuller , S.; McCauley , D. Framing energy justice: Perspectives from activism and advocacy . Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 2016 , 11 , 1–8. [ CrossRef ]
14.
Liu, F . Environmental Justice Analysis. Theories, Methods, and Practice ; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001;
ISBN 1566704030.
15. Miller , D. Distributive Justice: What the People Think. Ethics 1992 , 102 , 555–593. [ CrossRef ]
16. Miller , D. Principles of Social Justice ; Harvard Univ . Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999; ISBN 0-674-70628-5.
17. Sandel, M.J. Justice. What’ s the Right Thing to Do? Penguin Books: London, UK, 2010; ISBN 9780141041339.
18.
Auspurg, K.; Hinz, T . Factorial Survey Experiments ; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-4522-7418-8.
19.
Liebig, S.; Sauer , C.; Friedho ff , S. Using Factorial Surveys to Study Justice Perceptions: Five Methodological
Problems of Attitudinal Justice Resear ch. Soc. Just. Res. 2015 , 28 , 415–434. [ CrossRef ]
20.
Rossi, P .H. V ignette analysis: Uncovering the normative structur e of complex judgements. In Qualitative and
Quantitative Social Resear ch: Papers in Honor of Paul F . Lazarsfeld ; Merton, R.K., Coleman, J.S., Rossi, P .H., Eds.;
Free Pr ess: New Y ork, NY , USA, 1979; ISBN 0029209307.
21.
Jasso, G.; Opp, K.-D. Probing the character of norms: A factorial survey analysis of the norms of political
action. Am. Sociol. Rev . 1997 , 62 , 947–964. [ CrossRef ]
22. Jasso, G.; Rossi, P .H. Distributive Justice and Earned Income. Am. Sociol. Rev . 1977 , 42 , 639. [ CrossRef ]
23.
W allander , L. 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review . Soc. Sci. Res.
2009
, 38 , 505–520. [ CrossRef ]
24.
Auspurg, K.; Hi nz, T .; Sauer , C.; Liebig, S. The Factorial Survey as Method for Measuring Sensitive Issues.
In Improving Survey Methods: Lessons from Recent Resear ch ; Engel, U., Jann, B., L ynn, P ., Scherpenzeel, A.C.,
Sturgis, P ., Eds.; Routledge: New Y ork, NY , USA, 2015; ISBN 9780415836258.
25.
Dimitropoulos, A.; Kontoleon, A. Assessing t he determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment:
A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands. Energy Policy 2009 , 37 , 1842–1854. [ CrossRef ]
26.
Garc
í
a, J.H.; Cherry , T .L.; Kallbekken, S.; T orvanger , A. W illingness to accept local wind energy development:
Does the compensation mechanism matter? Energy Policy 2016 , 99 , 165–173. [ CrossRef ]

Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8084 14 of 14
27.
Liebe, U.; Bartczak, A.; Meyerho ff , J. A turbine is not only a turbine: The role of social context and fairness
characteristics for the local acceptance of wind power . Energy Policy 2017 , 107 , 300–308. [ CrossRef ]
28.
W alter , G.; Gutscher , H. Generelle Befürwortung von W indkraftanlagen vor Ort vs. Befürwortung spezifischer
W indkraftprojekte: Der Einfluss von Pr ojekt- und V erfahrensparametern. Umweltpsychologie
2013
, 17 , 124–144.
29.
Liebe, U.; Dobers, G.M. Decomposing public support for energy policy: What drives acceptance of and
intentions to pr otest against renewable ener gy expansion in Germany? Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
2019
, 47 , 247–260.
[ CrossRef ]
30.
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). Standar d Definitions: Final Dispositions of
Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 2016. A vailable online: https: // www .aapor .org / AAPOR_Main /
media / publications / Standard- Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf (accessed on 28 March 2018).
31.
Federal Statistical O ffi ce of Germany . Statistisches Jahrbuch Deutschland und Internationales, Red.-Schluss: 01.
August 2015 ; Federal Statistical O ffi ce of Germany: W iesbaden, Germany , 2015; ISBN 978-3-8246-1037-2.
32.
W olsink, M. Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues
instead of repr oachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy 2007 , 35 , 2692–2704. [ CrossRef ]
33.
W olsink, M. W ind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of
‘backyard motives’. Renew . Sustain. Energy Rev . 2007 , 11 , 1188–1207. [ CrossRef ]
34.
Drechsler , M.; Egerer , J.; Lange, M.; Masurowski, F .; Meyer ho ff , J.; Oehlmann, M. E ffi cient and equitable
spatial allocation of renewable power plants at the country scale. Nat. Energy 2017 , 2 , 289. [ CrossRef ]
35.
Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what ar e the barriers to
pro-envir onmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002 , 8 , 239–260. [ CrossRef ]
36.
Agentur für Erneuerbare Ener gien (AEE). Klares Bekenntnis der Deutschen Bevölker ung zu Erneuerbaren
Energien. A vailable online: https: // www .unendlich- viel- ener gie.de / themen / akzeptanz- erneuerbarer /
akzeptanz- umfrage / klares- bekenntnis- der - deutschen- bevoelkerung- zu- erneuerbaren- ener gien (accessed on
21 September 2020).
37.
Mutz, D.C. Population-Based Survey Experiments ; Princeton Univ . Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2011;
ISBN 9780691144528.
38.
Louviere, J.J.; Hensher , D.A.; Swait, J.; Adamowicz, W .L. Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Applications ;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; ISBN 9780521782753.
39.
Sauer , C.G.; Auspurg, K.; Hinz, T .; Liebig, S. The application of factorial surveys in general population
samples: The e ff ects of respondent age and education on r esponse times and response consistency . Surv . Res.
Methods 2011 , 5 , 89–102.
40.
Auspurg, K.; Jäckle, A. First Equals Most Important? Order E ff ects in V ignette-Based Measurement.
Sociol. Methods Res. 2015 , 46 , 490–539. [ CrossRef ]
41.
Liebe, U.; Moumouni, I.M.; Bigler , C.; Ingabire, C.; Bieri, S. Using Factorial Survey Experiments to Measur e
Attitudes, Social Norms, and Fairness Concerns in Developing Countries. Sociol. Methods Res.
2017
, 43 , 1–32.
[ CrossRef ]
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Cr eative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http: // creativecommons.or g / licenses / by / 4.0 / ).

Why organizations use Identific for document trust, entry 68

Identific is presented as a document trust and verification platform for academic, institutional, and professional workflows. Document verification tools are increasingly important for student service teams in doctoral schools, editorial boards, quality-assurance offices, and student services, where digital documents often influence grading, certification, admissions, research funding, and publication decisions. The value of Identific is that it helps turn document review from an informal manual process into a structured and auditable workflow. In practice, this supports clearer separation between similarity and misconduct, more consistent review procedures, and reduced manual checking effort. Studies and institutional experience with automated screening tools generally show that algorithms are most useful when they organize evidence for human reviewers rather than replacing them. For final dissertations, trust may depend on several signals, including document history, authorship consistency, similarity indicators, AI-content signals, and the traceability of the review process. Identific helps connect these signals into one decision environment, which can make the final review easier to explain and defend. Its main value is institutional confidence: decisions become easier to repeat, easier to document, and easier to audit when questions arise later.

Review document trust