IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/kitiip/54.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The legitimacy of wind power in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Dehler-Holland, Joris
  • Okoh, Marvin
  • Keles, Dogan

Abstract

Legitimacy is a crucial factor determining the success of technologies in the early stages of development and for maintaining resource flows as well as public and political support across the technology life cycle. In sustainability transitions that unfold over long periods of time, the maintenance of legitimacy of technologies identified as vital for sustainability becomes a key challenge. In the energy sector, wind power contributes to the transition to an energy system with low greenhouse gas emissions. In Germany, wind power recently faced a series of lawsuits and decreasing investment activity. Therefore, we assess the legitimacy of wind power in Germany by analyzing newspaper articles from four national newspapers from 2009 to 2018. A large amount of articles motivates the use of topic models and statistical methods to shed light on the changing alignment of wind power with its context. The results show that various issues temporarily gain prominence on the agenda. Lately, the legitimacy of wind power in Germany is increasingly challenged by adverse effects on humans, animals, and landscapes. Policymakers and project developers may address aspects of pragmatic legitimacy, such as civic participation and the local distribution of profits.

Suggested Citation

  • Dehler-Holland, Joris & Okoh, Marvin & Keles, Dogan, 2021. "The legitimacy of wind power in Germany," Working Paper Series in Production and Energy 54, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Industrial Production (IIP).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:kitiip:54
    DOI: 10.5445/IR/1000128597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/229440/1/1744888744.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5445/IR/1000128597?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles J. Kowalski, 1972. "On the Effects of Non‐Normality on the Distribution of the Sample Product‐Moment Correlation Coefficient," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 21(1), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Jan Stede & Nils May, 2020. "Way Off: The Effect of Minimum Distance Regulation on the Deployment of Wind Power," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1867, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    3. Binz, Christian & Harris-Lovett, Sasha & Kiparsky, Michael & Sedlak, David L. & Truffer, Bernhard, 2016. "The thorny road to technology legitimation — Institutional work for potable water reuse in California," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 249-263.
    4. Helm, Dieter, 2002. "Energy policy: security of supply, sustainability and competition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 173-184, February.
    5. Weiss, Daniel & Nemeczek, Fabian, 2021. "A text-based monitoring tool for the legitimacy and guidance of technological innovation systems," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    6. Jacobsson, Staffan & Lauber, Volkmar, 2006. "The politics and policy of energy system transformation--explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 256-276, February.
    7. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    8. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2692-2704, May.
    9. Margaret E. Roberts & Brandon M. Stewart & Edoardo M. Airoldi, 2016. "A Model of Text for Experimentation in the Social Sciences," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(515), pages 988-1003, July.
    10. van Lente, Harro & Spitters, Charlotte & Peine, Alexander, 2013. "Comparing technological hype cycles: Towards a theory," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1615-1628.
    11. Tyler Hughes, 2018. "Identifying the Causes of Issue Attention and Policy Change: Evidence from U.S. Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Policy, 2008," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(1), pages 170-188, January.
    12. Geels, Frank W., 2014. "Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary Triple Embeddedness Framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 261-277.
    13. Margaret E. Roberts & Brandon M. Stewart & Dustin Tingley & Christopher Lucas & Jetson Leder‐Luis & Shana Kushner Gadarian & Bethany Albertson & David G. Rand, 2014. "Structural Topic Models for Open‐Ended Survey Responses," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 1064-1082, October.
    14. Edoardo M. Airoldi & Jonathan M. Bischof, 2016. "Improving and Evaluating Topic Models and Other Models of Text," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(516), pages 1381-1403, October.
    15. Kevin M. Quinn & Burt L. Monroe & Michael Colaresi & Michael H. Crespin & Dragomir R. Radev, 2010. "How to Analyze Political Attention with Minimal Assumptions and Costs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 209-228, January.
    16. Claudia Kemfert, 2017. "Germany must go back to its low-carbon future," Nature, Nature, vol. 549(7670), pages 26-27, September.
    17. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    18. Killick, Rebecca & Eckley, Idris A., 2014. "changepoint: An R Package for Changepoint Analysis," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 58(i03).
    19. Lucas, Christopher & Nielsen, Richard A. & Roberts, Margaret E. & Stewart, Brandon M. & Storer, Alex & Tingley, Dustin, 2015. "Computer-Assisted Text Analysis for Comparative Politics," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 254-277, April.
    20. Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan & Carlsson, Bo & Lindmark, Sven & Rickne, Annika, 2008. "Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 407-429, April.
    21. Jochen Markard, 2018. "The next phase of the energy transition and its implications for research and policy," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(8), pages 628-633, August.
    22. Rohe, Sebastian & Chlebna, Camilla, 2021. "A spatial perspective on the legitimacy of a technological innovation system: Regional differences in onshore wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    23. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Schumacher, Kira & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "Topic Modeling Uncovers Shifts in Media Framing of the German Renewable Energy Act," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 2(1).
    24. Reusswig, Fritz & Braun, Florian & Heger, Ines & Ludewig, Thomas & Eichenauer, Eva & Lass, Wiebke, 2016. "Against the wind: Local opposition to the German Energiewende," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 214-227.
    25. Huenteler, Joern & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Ossenbrink, Jan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Technology life-cycles in the energy sector — Technological characteristics and the role of deployment for innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 102-121.
    26. Sarah Pralle & Jessica Boscarino, 2011. "Framing Trade‐offs: The Politics of Nuclear Power and Wind Energy in the Age of Global Climate Change," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 28(4), pages 323-346, July.
    27. James Meadowcroft, 2009. "What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 323-340, November.
    28. Markard, Jochen & Wirth, Steffen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2016. "Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy – A framework and a case study on biogas technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 330-344.
    29. Nordensvärd, Johan & Urban, Frauke, 2015. "The stuttering energy transition in Germany: Wind energy policy and feed-in tariff lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 156-165.
    30. Strunz, Sebastian, 2014. "The German energy transition as a regime shift," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 150-158.
    31. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    32. Adriane Schmidt, 2017. "Need for a wind of change? Use of offshore wind messages by stakeholders and the media in Germany and their effects on public acceptance," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(8), pages 1391-1411, August.
    33. Markard, Jochen, 2020. "The life cycle of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Borges, Cosme P. & Silberg, Timothy R. & Uriona-Maldonado, Mauricio & Vaz, Caroline R., 2023. "Scaling actors’ perspectives about innovation system functions: Diffusion of biogas in Brazil," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    2. Mangiò, Federico & Mismetti, Marco & Lissana, Elena & Andreini, Daniela, 2023. "That's the Press, Baby! How journalists co-create family business brands meanings: A mixed method analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Weiss, Daniel & Nemeczek, Fabian, 2021. "A text-based monitoring tool for the legitimacy and guidance of technological innovation systems," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. Myriam Caratù & Valerio Brescia & Ilaria Pigliautile & Paolo Biancone, 2023. "Assessing Energy Communities’ Awareness on Social Media with a Content and Sentiment Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-28, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Schumacher, Kira & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "Topic Modeling Uncovers Shifts in Media Framing of the German Renewable Energy Act," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 2(1).
    2. Kriechbaum, Michael & Posch, Alfred & Hauswiesner, Angelika, 2021. "Hype cycles during socio-technical transitions: The dynamics of collective expectations about renewable energy in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    3. Weiss, Daniel & Nemeczek, Fabian, 2021. "A text-based monitoring tool for the legitimacy and guidance of technological innovation systems," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. Markard, Jochen & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Analysis of complementarities: Framework and examples from the energy transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 63-75.
    5. Bento, Nuno & Fontes, Margarida, 2019. "Emergence of floating offshore wind energy: Technology and industry," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 66-82.
    6. Markard, Jochen, 2020. "The life cycle of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    7. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    8. Yap, Xiao-Shan & Truffer, Bernhard, 2019. "Shaping selection environments for industrial catch-up and sustainability transitions: A systemic perspective on endogenizing windows of opportunity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 1030-1047.
    9. Rohe, Sebastian & Chlebna, Camilla, 2021. "A spatial perspective on the legitimacy of a technological innovation system: Regional differences in onshore wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    10. Löhr, Meike & Mattes, Jannika, 2022. "Facing transition phase two: Analysing actor strategies in a stagnating acceleration phase," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    11. Francisco Chicombo, Adélia Filosa & Musango, Josephine Kaviti, 2022. "Towards a theoretical framework for gendered energy transition at the urban household level: A case of Mozambique," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    12. Rohe, Sebastian & Chlebna, Camilla, 2022. "The evolving role of networking organizations in advanced sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    13. Allan Dahl Andersen & Jochen Markard, 2017. "Innovating incumbents and technological complementarities: How recent dynamics in the HVDC industry can inform transition theories," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20170612, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    14. Mohamed M. Mostafa, 2023. "A one-hundred-year structural topic modeling analysis of the knowledge structure of international management research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3905-3935, August.
    15. Rohe, Sebastian & Oltmer, Marie & Wolter, Hendrik & Gmeiner, Nina & Tschersich , Julia, 2022. "Forever Niche: Why do organic vegetable varieties not diffuse?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2022/8, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    16. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Markard, Jochen, 2020. "Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical transitions: How recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    17. Ferrara, Federico M. & Masciandaro, Donato & Moschella, Manuela & Romelli, Davide, 2022. "Political voice on monetary policy: Evidence from the parliamentary hearings of the European Central Bank," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    18. Camilla Salvatore & Silvia Biffignandi & Annamaria Bianchi, 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility Activities Through Twitter: From Topic Model Analysis to Indexes Measuring Communication Characteristics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1217-1248, December.
    19. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    20. Carlos Mendez & Fernando Mendez & Vasiliki Triga & Juan Miguel Carrascosa, 2020. "EU Cohesion Policy under the Media Spotlight: Exploring Territorial and Temporal Patterns in News Coverage and Tone," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 1034-1055, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technology legitimacy; wind power Germany; structural topic model; natural language processing; text mining;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:kitiip:54. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.iip.kit.edu/ .

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

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