Thank you very much for the detailed response. It will definitely help to improve the quality of the article. First of all, there is a lot of critics about chapter 2 concerning theoretical concepts of acceptance. Actually, this chapter wasn’t intended to tell something about the “true nature” of acceptance. It was simply intended to give a very short overview about known concepts that are used in the context I do research in the field. I tried to connect these concepts analytically, but according to revier#1 I failed doing so. For example, socio-political acceptance definitely encompasses more than just public attitudes towards a technology and is not an object. Institutional elements (see below) play an important role, too. Fortunately, these connections are not really necessary here and I will now simply list the concepts as an overview before my own definition used in the article (and omit the “theoretical”, which has perhaps invoked too high expectations).

Indeed, I have a mainly sociopsychological perspective and my focus is on public (or individual) acceptance of wind energy, wind turbines and wind farms. There are many more perspectives as reviewer#1 rightly points out. But this would be on the one hand too much material for the article and on the other hand isn’t really in my expertise. So, public acceptance is indeed only a part of the puzzle and I will certainly acknowledge that in the second version of the article. The concepts I briefly described fit to the empirical data used. Of course, this data is also limited. So, a suggestion could be to do more studies in a comprehensive framework consisting of institutional context (financial system, support programs, legislation etc.) and culture. This would be a promising approach for the future and I will add this to the discussion section. I certainly make no normative judgement about the role of public/individual acceptance on the successful realization of wind park projects that goes beyond the statement that it has some effect. I do not state how big this effect is (and I will revise the criticized sentence in line 30 to make it more suitable to that position). Certainly, there are many impact factors and public/individual acceptance is just one of them. I wonder about the critics on the term “social acceptance” since I do not use it in the article. I just speak of acceptance in general and then of acceptance by the public or parts of it (e. g. residents of wind parks, stakeholders, so individuals, see endnote I).

To make it clear, in this article, acceptance refers to the objects of wind energy in general and especially to wind energy projects (wind parks, wind farms, wind turbines) and the subjects of the public or parts of it (e. g. individuals like residents of wind parks, stakeholders). These are elements used in the empirical data available to me at the point of writing the article. Maybe I made a mistake at the beginning of the final paragraph on chapter 2 since this could imply some sort of “true nature” of acceptance. This is certainly not the case. The definition proposed at the end of the chapter is just the one suitable in my view for the following analyses. Since a lot of studies build on independent and dependant variables using multivariate modelling approaches the focus on individual attitudes and (self-reported) behaviour in the definition of acceptance lies near. Because reviever#2 also had some problems with the definition I now expanded it to encompass possibly all types of attitudes and non-attitude:

“Acceptance means a positive evaluation of a topic (like wind energy, wind turbines or wind parks) by individuals under certain circumstances (e. g. cultural or institutional context) that can have consequences for individual behaviour. Correspondingly, non-acceptance means a negative evaluation of a topic by individuals under certain circumstances that can have consequences for individual behaviour. If there is no clear positive or negative attitude towards the topic (e.g. ambivalence, non-attitude), we speak of tolerance that can have consequences for individual behaviour (but perhaps not so much as the endpoints of the continuum).”

Although I do not investigate the cultural or institutional context in much detail (because it is not the focus of the article), it is of course present (at least in a theoretical perspective) and should be part of the definition. Additionally, the empirical studies come from many different countries and so the institutional and cultural context is indeed varying. This definition implies two dimensions (attitudes and behaviour) and because of that, different forms of measurement. This is meant with the quote in line 338 (“The theoretical concept of acceptance is complex as well as multidimensional. It encompasses attitudinal and behavioural elements and can be measured in many different ways”). These elements are also part of the definitions of Upham et al. and Schweizer-Ries et al. and makes them at least two-dimensional in my view. In addition, Upham et al. incorporate “socio-technical system” as a possible acceptance object and in this way acknowledge the social dimension of technology.

I absolutely agree with the reviewer that acceptance is dynamic. Actually, this dynamic was shown in my presentation on the WES 2021 with respect to the different concepts of acceptance (analyses, feelings, behaviour). Of course, the weighting of benefits and risk is a process as is the formation of feelings towards a new technology or the way to the decision about protest or support of a local project, respectively. But at the end, there stands a judgement and this judgement can be measured by survey techniques (with all the methodological advantages and disadvantages, of course). So, it is advisable to look at acceptance at different points in time and this is done in the article by referring to data from a longer time span. Important to say, longitudinal research is of high value with respect to the dynamic nature of acceptance. Because of that, the case of the U-shaped form of acceptance (see line 180ff.) is of special interest and mentioned in the discussion. By the way, at least in the German case, public acceptance of wind energy is relatively stable over the past years, so although acceptance can be dynamic this doesn’t mean it actually has to be. It is an empirical question.

The sentence “The further development of wind energy is of major importance for the success of the energy system transformation in Germany and elsewhere” (line 21-22) in the introduction induced some critics by both reviewer #1 and reviewer #2. What is meant is that wind energy is from a technical perspective the most promising and cost-efficient form of green energy today (at least this is what I have learned in interdisciplinary projects about the German energy transformation). Other technologies like solar power or biomass have more disadvantages. Of course, I could outline this using the respective literature but it would take some time to do it properly and (even more problematic) it would take too much space in the article. The focus is on the empirical drivers and I do not want make shortages there. So, I would prefer simply to add the technical perspective (since the social one is represented by the public acceptance) to the sentence: “From a technical perspective, the further development of wind energy is of major importance for the success of the energy system transformation in Germany and elsewhere”.

There seems to be a problem with the term “Utility-scale wind” in line 267. This is a quota from the Boudet-Article. It does not mean introducing a new concept or something like that. I understood it as representing great wind parks and their benefits and risks. And this is what chapter 3.4 is all about.

The question of ownership/initiator/operator is certainly of high relevance. I incorporated it in the chapter about trust as well as participation because there are strong empirical relationships (see the cited literature in lines 251f and 316ff) and also for brevity. I am not sure if it really needs an own chapter because there would be some redundancy and it would make the article longer (and by the way it is long enough in my view thinking of the reader). Please let me know how you think about that.

Concerning the remark on noise influence I will try to incorporate the findings of Eja Pedersen. I have a question here: If I understand you right, the visual assessment has some effect on noise annoyance. So, noise is only important if the object can be seen. Is that right? If so, I think it would be in accordance with the results of Pedersen and Persson Waye (2004). Concerning the importance of the subjective assessment of the visual impact of the landscape change, that’s what I mean in line 126.

Thank you too very much for the detailed response. It will also definitely help to improve the quality of the article. Especially because your review takes a different focus on the text than reviewer#1.

There is actually only one representative telephone survey with a sample size of 2006 that asked for the acceptance of solar farms, wind farms and high-tension power lines in 500 m distance to the respondents’ home. The acceptance typology of Schweizer-Ries et al. was applied on this data using corresponding items.

I revised the acceptance definition to be more comprehensive: “Acceptance means a positive evaluation of a topic (like wind energy, wind turbines or wind parks) by individuals under certain circumstances (e. g. cultural or institutional context) that can have consequences for individual behaviour. Correspondingly, non-acceptance means a negative evaluation of a topic by individuals under certain circumstances that can have consequences for individual behaviour. If there is no clear positive or negative attitude towards the topic (e.g. ambivalence, non-attitude), we speak of tolerance that can have consequences for individual behaviour (but perhaps not so much as the endpoints of the continuum).” I hope this is better now.

Of course, it must be “decades” and not “centuries”. That was a translation error. Thank you for the hint.

The reasons for the different positive or negative perceptions of the visual effects of wind turbines (line 112) are not very much detailed in the literature as far as I know it. Here are some examples:

“Whether wind turbines spoil or enrich the scenery, is a matter of taste” (Krohn and Dambourg 1999: 956).

“Existing empirical studies have indicated public support for turbines that are painted neutral colours and merge with the landscape. […] In an extensive study of seven UK wind farm locations with 1286 respondents, they noted that 62% of respondents agreed that wind turbines symbolized ‘a sign of progress’, whereas 15% agreed that they symbolized a ‘harking back to the past’ and 16% agreed that turbines represented a combination of bot” (Devine-Wright 2005: 128f).

“Perhaps the issue revolves not around seeing a turbine per se, but rather around more aesthetic and socially constructed phenomena that account for how individuals evaluate a turbine's appearance and fit within the landscape. Based on our regression analysis, attitudes move from negative to positive as respondent attitudes move from not liking the look of the turbines and thinking they fit badly within the landscape to liking the look and believing they fit well” (Hoen et al. 2019: 9)

“The visual impact of a wind energy landscape is indeed important, but this impact will fluctuate greatly across unique locations and societies. Levels of environmental concern will surely differ by location and will depend greatly on local context and place attachment” (Swofford and Slattery 2010: 2514).

But I believe that the information about the possibility of negative as well as positive perception of the visual effects is indeed of some value because it highlights the variability of evaluations.

Thank you very much for the hint concerning the Pasqualetti paper. Indeed, it is a more qualitative description of the situation back in 2001 and explicitly marked as an essay. In that sense it may not be directly comparable to the other studies used in the review. But I found it to be very enriching especially because of the detailed descriptions in it (and he gives good reasons for his opinion). In addition, the results do not contradict other research results but complement them. And yes, the paper is not up to date but I think it is useful in a review process to incorporate data from many points in time, especially to see if there is some variation associated with the time dimension. For example, articles from 1999 to 2019 mention the different positive or negative perceptions of the visual effects of wind turbines (see citations above), so the finding can be seen as very robust. But I will make a notice to the subjective dimension of the Pasqualetti paper and see if I find some other, more up to date work concerning the perceptions of wind farms in Europe and the US. I would be thankful for hints with respect to literature from this special field.

I find it difficult to judge about the relative importance about the main factors discussed in my paper. That’s why I list them equally in the discussion section. Wolsink makes a clear judgement that may be right (and his work is very prominent and often cited, so the finding may have stood the test of time). Other researchers point to other factors (e.g. benefits or financial participation that fit to the economic dimension you mentioned). Taking into consideration that wind turbines become bigger and move closer to residential areas, the visual impact may become even more important.

Cultural theory is definitely transferable across countries. This is maybe the main purpose of it: Comparing different cultural biases in different countries and the consequences for risk perception. I didn’t mean anything else with mentioning it at that point of the article. But if there are clear different biases, the national research results are not transferable or at least not that easy transferable. I hope I could clarify this possible misunderstanding.

Yes, offshore in the sense “somewhere on the ocean” means not to be seen or at least only seen as a very small, non-disturbing part of the horizon. I will add this.

Thank you for the remark about on NIMBY. Actually, I was wondering to mention it at all because there has been so much discission about it and readers could say “Oh my god, not again, please”. But I decided to incorporate the main arguments and counter-arguments as short as I could because it is still important. This importance lies in my view especially in the argument of Bell at al. For reasons of brevity, I would prefer to let it stand as it is.

Definitions or concepts of trust within the referenced literature:

„Throughout its development, social trust was based on similarity of cultural values, and this was communicated within cultural groups by narratives constructed by community leaders. Social trust was socially based. […] Social trust, in our interpretation, can be based on any values-whatever happens to be salient to a person at a certain time, in a given context.“ (Earle and Cvetkovich 1995: 19 / 105).

Butler et al.: No own definition of trust.

„Three types of factors that might affect trust – competence, care and consensual values – are proposed. Alliteration aside, these encompass the factors hypothesized in the literature. The first two are means to the ends (e.g. health and safety) that principals (e.g., citizens) presumably want agents (e.g. corporate or government officials) to achieve on their behalf, and for which trust in the agent might be warranted or needed. Consensual values can be either means or ends: means to the extent that (for example) someone with egalitarian values believes that egalitarian groups are most able to achieve health and safety; ends to the extent that equality is desirable regardless of health and safety trends.“ (Johnson 1999: 326)

„Trust in communication refers to the generalized expectancy that a message received is true and reliable and that the communicator demonstrates competence and honesty by conveying accurate, objective, and complete information.“ (Renn and Levine 1991: 179, accentuation in original)

Slovic 1993: No own definition of trust.

Wüstenhagen et al. 2007: No own definition of trust.

„Soziales Vertrauen wird dabei als Bereitschaft verstanden, sich auf andere zu verlassen und dabei das Risiko einer Enttäuschung in Kauf zu nehmen. In diesem Sinne ist Vertrauen immer "grundlos. […] Vertrauen kann als Persönlichkeitsmerkmal betrachtet werden […] Gewisse Personen zeigen eine stärkere Neigung, Vertrauen zu schenken als andere Personen. […] Interpersonelles Vertrauen basiert auf direkten Interaktionen. Der Interaktionspartner kann beobachtet werden; Feedback ist also möglich. Dieses Merkmal fehlt beim sozialen Vertrauen.".“ (Siegrist 2001: 22 / 28 / 30, please let me know if there is a transition necessary)

„These results are not contrary to our perspective that trust should be viewed as a unidimensional construct ranging from trust to distrust.“ (Siegrist 2000: 196)

„Social trust is acquired actively in a repeating mutual process. In contrast to confidence, it is based on continued experience distinguished by certain qualities, e.g. credibility, honesty, reliability, a feeling of responsibility etc. […] institutional trust is based on the perception and evaluation of specific performance: social institutions - industry, politics and authorities, the media, science and experts, but also environmental and consumer agencies - fulfill specific functions respectively, where the origin, research and communication, regulation and control of risks is concerned. According to his opinion, trust is not based on ›vague‹ faith, but, more robustly, on experienced performance, based upon which trust is granted or withdrawn.“ (Zwick and Renn 2002: 45 / 46)

I hope this helps for a better understanding. For reasons of brevity I couldn‘t incorporate them into the chapter. Because of that, the short definition of Bellaby was used. Of course, a detailed discussion of trust would be worthwhile, but there is simply not enough room here.

One possible explanation for the contradicting results with respect to the big energy companies (in fact the big four in Germany, E.ON, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall) could be the perception that these companies don’t really support the energy transition. Actually, we had this result in focus groups (see Ruddat, M. / Sonnberger, M. (2015): Wie die Bürgerinnen und Bürger ihre Rolle bei der Energiewende sehen. In: et – Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen, 1/2 / 2015, S. 121-125). I will add this in a footnote.

As far as I know there are no differences between the creation or function of trust in the domain of wind energy compared to other technologies simply because trust is a general concept. The factors influencing the building of trust (for example showing or proving competence, objectivity in communication, see Renn and Levine 1991) can be used in any domain. But there are certain components in the chapter about fairness and participation that can have special impacts on trust. I will try to make these connections a little bit more clearer.

Concerning a risk-based approach again I find it difficult to judge about the relative importance about the main factors discussed in my paper. I see them all in all as being equally important. And yes, of course, there are qualitative risk characteristics that are important for the perception and evaluation of risks (see the work in the tradition of the psychometric paradigm). But these incorporate personal and societal risks and benefits, respectively, as well. The question is how big have the benefits to be to outweigh the risks? And does benefit always mean monetary benefit or something else? There are some connections to the point in the discussion when it comes to distributional fairness (line 374ff.). So, I have that in mind.

The studies cited in the paragraph about participation are mainly with respect to wind energy (from line 313 up to line 329 at least). The results reported here are the things they have to add to the participation point. Of course, it is a rather rough overview, but for reasons of brevity I had to make a selection. Or did you mean something else with your question?

Schweizer-Ries and colleagues report results of three focus groups conducted with citizens, planers investors as well as administrators and politicians in Germany in 2009. The question was how citizens could best participate financially in local as well as regional renewable energy projects (wind, solar, biomass and water) and what effects this participation has for acceptance. Results showed that trust in the developer, the approval of the project by the administration before advertising the possibility of financial contribution, a robust calculation of the project, regularly information about the returns and the setting of a minimum and a maximum value, respectively, for the individual contribution are some of the success factors. Although lower minimum values can lead to a broader participation, this may be a problem for the robust calculation of the project. Special projects for small and big investors, respectively, seem to be advisable. One example for financial participation formats are regional customer funds initiated by the regional energy supplier. These funds are exclusively for customers and guarantee a return without a risk for the customers. The saving deposit normally lies between 500 Euro and 10.000 Euro for five years enabling nearly everyone to participate in the project (Schweizer-Ries et al. 2010: 97ff.).

Krohn and Dambourg write with respect to financial participation: “In Denmark there is a tradition for wind co-operatives, where a group of people share a wind power plant. In that respect Sydthy municipality is quite unique with 58 pet. of the households having one or more shares in a cooperatively owned wind turbine. Regarding the general attitude towards wind turbines, the picture is clear. People who own shares in a turbine are significantly more positive about wind power than people having no economic interest in the subject. Members of wind co-operatives are more willing to accept that their neighbour erect a turbine” (Krohn and Dambourg 1999: 956).

Hübner et al. refer to the possibility of citizens to buy shares on local energy projects (e.g. wind parks). This possibility should be communicated early and transparently. Like Schweizer-Ries and colleagues they argue that lower minimum values for the individual contribution are better for a broader participation. Collectives allow for equal participation of every member irrespective of the individual contribution. This is a gain in fairness and can have positive effects on acceptance of local energy projects (Hübner et al. 2020: 27f).

ELM and SARF are simply two examples for models or frameworks that try to incorporate different research findings (ELM) or approaches (SARF). The question is if it is possible to develop a corresponding model for the acceptance of wind energy.

I totally agree with you stating a need for more social science research in the field of acceptance of wind energy since the solutions for a lot of research problems have not yet been found. But I am not sure if a review article is the right place for such a normative statement. Additionally, I myself am a social scientist and would perhaps profit from such funding, so I am of course biased. But maybe the editors could give a short information about whether or not such a statement they see as appropriate.

I think, my view on central open questions is being described in the discussion section already. For example, the development of suitable types of participation concepts for certain siting processes would be a great advancement in my view since it would help to give more structure and reliability in the social aspect of siting processes and probably help in gaining local support. So, this is one example for further research.

You are definitely right with the dominance of onshore wind in the literature. Like my review shows, there is some research done with offshore wind, so some of the results may apply to this, too (e.g. in case of the proximity hypothesis). But, yes, I will point to this discrepancy in the discussion section.

Thank you very much for your response. It will surely help to improve the quality of the article.

Maybe it would be good to explain how this article came into being since you are questioning the necessity of it. I was asked to present an overview about the acceptance of wind energy at the WESC 2021. I did it and based the overview on my scientific knowledge about the topic at that time. There were no complaints by the attendees (some of them with considerable experience in social science research in this field), about the (narrow) sociopsychological perspective or the main empirical drivers of acceptance. Since I assume that readers of WES and attendees of the WESC session could have at least some overleaps there was no reason for me to change a lot for the article (important to mention that presenters were given the opportunity to publish a written version of the presentation in WES). Of course, it has some gaps like every review article has. Maybe, my one can fill some of the gaps in the reviews you mentioned. In addition, my open questions from the discussion section are still not addressed in the literature (as far as I know it) and can be seen as a contribution to the ongoing scientific research process in this field. With respect to the perspective and scope of the article (especially with respect to social acceptance), see also my comments on the text of reviewer#1.

You are absolutely right that the statement “The further development of wind energy is of major importance for the success of the energy system transformation in Germany and elsewhere” is in a sense normative and needs some explanation. What is meant is that as far as I know it, wind energy is “technically” necessary for the success of the energy system transformation in Germany and elsewhere since it is more technically advanced than most other renewable technologies, is most economically profitable (so relatively cheap) and can be easily exploited. I forgot the relevant literature here and I apologize for that. I just wanted to be very brief at this point. The statement is supported for example by Cohen at al. 2014 (p. 4), Devine-Wright 2005 (p. 125), Ellis and Ferraro 2016 (p. 2 and 6) and Hagett 2011 (p. 503). Especially Ellis and Ferraro summarize it in a pretty good way: “Europe has some of the best wind resources in the world, providing a relatively cheap and exploitable renewable resource that has been core to many Member States’ strategies for climate change and energy transition” (Ellis and Ferraro 2016: 2). The “problem of resistance” with effects like local conflicts, delay of implementation or abandonment of projects is also mentioned in the relevant literature many times (e.g. Breukers and Wolsink 2007, Cohen et al. 2014, Haggett 2011, Harper at al. 2019). I do not mark opposition to be deviant behaviour. This is why I also define non-acceptance. But if one takes the normative perspective of reaching a sustainable energy system, renewables are a main part of it. This leads to the question: “What are the factors that have an impact on local acceptance?”. And this is the focus of my article (or at least one of them since I also deal with public acceptance).

Distributional fairness contains a social element since the question is how risks and benefits are distributed between different groups in society (e.g. residents, stakeholders). Risks and benefits are simply lists of (more or less probable) negative and positive effects, respectively. Fairness and participation have indeed some connections and because of that I discuss them in the same chapter.

Some of the definitions cited use the term “risk acceptance” and some “acceptance” and this is why I set the “risk” here in brackets. Of course, the description is rather brief and the relationship between risk perception and risk acceptance could be presented in more detail (if I only had enough room for that) but it would not give much more interesting insights in the topic. Additionally, in the psychometric paradigm, risk perception (e.g. perceived catastrophic potential, perceived social hazard) is sometimes hard to sperate from risk acceptance.

Cultural and institutional context are only two examples for circumstances. The context of the locality is surely another example and I can add this. And yes, like reviewer#1 already correctly remarked, social acceptance is complex, multidimensional and dynamic and dependent on myriads of variables (financial system, support programs, legislation, culture, local context et.). But I do not see a single study that encompasses all or at least many of these variables. There are serious problems of measurement as well as conceptualization (e.g. integration of qualitative and quantitative data, setting of adequate boundaries for the research area). This seems to be a big challenge for social science research that I cannot adequately address this in my article. This is why I concentrate on a mainly sociopsychological perspective and my focus is on public (or individual) acceptance of wind energy, wind turbines and wind farms. There are many more perspectives as reviewer#1 had already rightly pointed out. But this would be on the one hand too much material for the article and on the other hand isn’t really in my expertise. So, public acceptance is indeed only a part of the puzzle and I will certainly acknowledge that in the second version of the article.

The summary cited (“In general, […]”) is based on the last part of chapter two. I cite several empirical studies to come to that conclusion (Devine-Wright, 2005; 2007, European Commission 2011, FA Wind, 2020; Krohn and Damborg, 1999; Liebe and Dobers 2019, Ruddat and Sonnberger 2019, Steentjes et al., 2017). Of course, this research (like every research) has limitations but these are not in the focus of my article because it is not a methodological one.