https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2072-7226
Figures
Abstract
Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions requires the rapid deployment of renewable energy. Yet, renewable energy projects often generate trade-offs or synergies with biodiversity conservation, landscape protection, and local economic interests. While prior research has emphasized objective trade-offs, political debates are often shaped by perceived trade-offs, including second-order perceptions, meaning what stakeholders believe others perceive to be trade-offs and synergies. Despite their importance for political dynamics, these perceptions remain insufficiently analysed. Here, we address this research gap and examine how different forms of participation, local project leadership, and trust influence stakeholder perceptions of trade-offs and synergies in alpine photovoltaic (PV) projects. Drawing on a mixed-methods analysis of two alpine PV projects in Switzerland in Savognin (Sursés) and Sedrun (Tujetsch), we conceptualize trade-offs and synergies and the measurement of second-order beliefs using a scoping review, and track perception shifts using social network analysis based on 11 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. As such, we offer a novel conceptual and methodological tool for detecting shifts in support or opposition over time. This can be useful in many other stakeholder analyses and also for practitioners involved in the planning of renewable energy projects. Substantively, we show that informal, timely, and responsive participatory processes, coupled with trusted local project leadership, reduce perceived trade-offs and increase project acceptance. Overall, our analysis provides a set of tools for mapping stakeholder coalition dynamics based on second-order perceptions and provides important insights into how to adequately balance trade-offs and synergies when harmonizing national-level renewable targets with local needs.
Citation: Feller Valero J, Montfort S, Binder CR (2025) Participatory processes and local project leadership can decrease perceived trade-offs of renewable energy projects. PLOS Clim 4(12): e0000768. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000768
Editor: Ferdous Ahmed, IUBAT: International University of Business Agriculture and Technology, MALAYSIA
Received: July 16, 2025; Accepted: November 4, 2025; Published: December 10, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Feller Valero et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Replication data and replication code are available under https://github.com/SimonMontfort/alpinePV_trade-offs.
Funding: The research published in this publication was carried out with the support of the Swiss Federal Office of Energy as part of the SWEET consortium EDGE (Grant DB n°202481). The authors bear sole responsibility for the conclusions and the results presented in this publication. This publication has received co-funding from the ETH Board as the Joint Initiative (JI) – ENGAGE: Evidence-Based Dialogue on Trade-Offs in Wicked Societal Problems, within the “Engagement and Dialogue with Society” strategic area (Grant DB n°23880). The authors bear sole responsibility for the conclusions and the results presented in this publication. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
To achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and mitigate climate change, energy systems need to transition to renewable energy sources. One key player therein is solar PV. Rooftop PV systems in residential areas often generate surplus energy in summer but struggle to meet winter heating demand [1]. Therefore, a key policy challenge in many European countries is to balance seasonal energy production, thereby better aligning supply and demand during colder months [2]. One emerging solution, particularly in mountainous regions in central European countries like Switzerland, Austria, France, and Italy, is the deployment of alpine PV installations. Such installations can take advantage of higher-altitude phenomena such as snow reflection, colder temperatures, and reduced fog or cloud cover to produce up to three times more energy in winter compared to those in lower-lying areas [3].
Political debates on alpine photovoltaic projects often revolve around the perceived trade-offs and synergies with other societal objectives. A trade-off implies that enhancing one aspect may reduce another, while synergies may increase both [4]. For instance, the parliamentary debates around the European Green Deal highlighted tensions between the need to accelerate renewable energy and concerns over biodiversity protection [5]. In Germany, high-profile controversies around wind energy developments in ecologically sensitive areas, such as the Reinhardswald forest, have sparked public protests, with critics arguing that natural and cultural heritage is being compromised in pursuit of climate targets [6]. Similarly, in the U.S Southwest, the expansion of large-scale solar energy, such as that promoted under the Western solar plan, has threatened wildlife and increased land use conflicts, prompting strong opposition from environmental organizations and local communities [7].
These political debates underscore how the subjective perceptions of trade-offs and synergies by stakeholders in the policy process preceding the implementation of such alpine PV projects influence their support and opposition [8,9]. While existing research has focused mainly on either objectively measurable trade-offs from technical and environmental perspectives [10–12] or on public acceptance [13–15], subjective perceptions remain under-researched. Yet, they are a key element in the formation of individual preferences and eventually the social acceptance of renewable energy deployment. In the trade-off literature, a political process perspective, including stakeholder analysis, is largely absent [16,17]. A few notable exceptions include Stosch et al [18], who investigated stakeholders’ perceptions of utility functions within a trade-off, and Galafassi et al [19], who investigated knowledge coproduction around trade-offs. Yet, to the best of our knowledge, a stakeholder and policy process analysis that explores how participatory procedures and local leadership shape perceptions of renewable energy trade-offs and synergies is lacking. This research gap is significant, as these perceptions influence political discourse and ultimately determine whether renewable energy projects are realized [8].
Second-order perceptions - i.e., how actors view other actors’ positions can complement first-order perception studies, i.e., actors’ own perceptions. Second-order perceptions are critical to capturing social dynamics, like peer pressure, and are often more important predictors of behaviour than first-order perceptions [20]. They may reveal more nuanced insights into coalitions than those disclosed by the actors themselves and detect sensitive changes in actor positions for at least three reasons. First, admitting a past change in position creates cognitive dissonance—a psychological discomfort that arises when one’s past and present perceptions contradict each other [21]. Second, actors want to appear competent, consistent, and principled, especially in public or political settings. Acknowledging a shift may make them seem indecisive, opportunistic, or unreliable [22]. Third, actors tend to exhibit status quo biases, particularly in relation to their own positions. If an actor strongly identifies with a given position, they may reconstruct past attitudes to align with their current stance, making them less likely to acknowledge prior shifts [23]. However, the analysis of such second-order perceptions remains scarce [24], particularly in social network studies. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, they have not been leveraged to study stakeholder coalitions utilizing social network analysis.
1.1. Research goals and contribution
Here, we address these two critical research gaps. The goal of this paper is to understand first- and second-order perceptions of trade-offs and synergies surrounding renewable energy projects, and to investigate whether and how participatory policy processes, trust, and local leadership influence these perceptions.
We analyse two alpine PV projects in Switzerland, applying a mixed-method approach combining social network analysis with qualitative insights, both based on semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. Our findings contribute to understanding the socio-political dynamics shaping stakeholder support and opposition to large-scale renewable energy projects in environmentally sensitive regions.
1.2. Conceptual framework
Fig 1 presents our conceptual framework. The dependent variables in this study—first-order and second-order Perceived Trade-offs and Synergies—are central to understanding actor support or opposition to renewable energy projects. Stakeholders form perceptions about whether such projects align with or contradict other goals, shaping their strategic positions and political engagement, and finally, influencing whether they accept the renewable energy project [8,18]. These perceptions are not merely reflections of technical or environmental realities but can also be shaped by prior experiences, social interactions, and subjective evaluations of the socio-economic environment [24,25]. They play a critical role in shaping actor preferences, public discourse, and ultimately in forming coalitions that support or resist renewable energy projects.
The explanatory variables are:
- (i). Participatory policy processes offer stakeholders a platform to express views, engage with others, and shape the design of renewable energy projects. This enhances both trust and the political legitimacy of the energy transition [26], thus fostering social acceptance [27]. To unpack these dynamics, we distinguish between the participation type [28], frequency [29], formality [30], timing [31,32], and responsiveness. First, the type of participation ranges from information, consultation, and participation, to empowerment [28], whereas processes closer to empowerment, where stakeholders co-decide, are more likely to foster trust and acceptance [13,33]. Second, frequency of contacts, i.e., the number of contacts, can increase trust [29]. Third, informal participation can often create new forms of accountability, allowing stakeholders to pose questions that can foster trust [26]. Fourth, the timing of participation refers to when stakeholders are involved in the policy or project cycle—ranging from early-stage agenda setting to post-decision implementation phases [31]. Early engagement enables stakeholders to shape the process rather than react to predefined solutions, fostering trust, ownership, and legitimacy, while increasing the likelihood that trade-offs are openly negotiated and synergies are co-identified rather than imposed [34], particularly when sustained over time [29].
- (ii). Local leadership refers to the companies and/or individuals within the community who lead the project and communicate with stakeholders. Clear leadership is essential in political processes, as it can help to structure debates and to resolve conflicts that arise during them [26]. Such leadership may also be influenced by who owns the renewable energy projects, such as Alpine PV sites. In the context of renewable energy projects at the municipal level, the key distinction in ownership—often, but not always, aligned with leadership—is whether the project is locally owned. Local ownership was found to have a positive effect on social acceptance of renewable energies [13,35,36]. Local actors are often perceived as being more accountable and attuned to community concerns, which can foster trust and legitimacy. Geographic proximity facilitates more frequent, informal, and face-to-face interactions, which strengthens interpersonal trust [37–39].
- (iii). Trust is our intermediate explanatory variable. It is defined as “the reliance by one person, group, or firm upon a voluntarily accepted duty on the part of another person, group, or firm to recognize and protect the rights and interests of all others engaged in a joint endeavour or economic exchange” [40], p. 393. Trust has been shown to influence perceived risks [41] and to function as a key predictor of perceived risks and benefits of pesticides, nuclear power, or artificial sweeteners. According to one study [42], p. 358, “Social trust had a positive influence on perceived benefits and a negative influence on perceived risks”. Thus, trust influences both first- and second-order perceived trade-offs and synergies of a renewable energy project.
In sum, we hypothesize that participatory policy processes, local leadership, and trust in the project leaders decrease the perceived trade-offs and increase the perceived synergies.
2. Methods
2.1. Scoping review
To establish the foundation of our project, both to ensure that our study addresses a significant research gap and that our operationalization of trade-offs and synergies reflects the key dimensions, we conducted a systematic scoping review [43] of the relevant literature on renewable energy trade-offs and synergies.
On 04.09.2024, we queried Web of Science, a well-established and widely used bibliographic database of peer-reviewed literature, using the following search terms: (“renewable energy” OR “renewable energies”) NEAR/10 ((“trade-off” OR “trade off” OR “trade-offs” OR “trade offs”) OR (“synergy” OR “synergies”)). The NEAR/10 operator was used to limit irrelevant results by ensuring that key terms appeared within ten words of each other. This yielded 394 results.
We then manually screened titles and abstracts, identifying 82 articles that explicitly discussed trade-offs or synergies related to renewable energy projects. We read each article in full and extracted the trade-offs and synergies discussed, then qualitatively grouped them into categories relevant to alpine PV projects. These categories included ecological, economic, technological, and political aspects. The results of this scoping review informed the design and content of the interviews, underpinned the mixed-method network analysis (see below for details), and, in particular, the interview questions concerning the social network analysis of actor constellations around renewable energy trade-offs and synergies.
2.2 Case selection
We selected two Alpine PV projects in Savognin (municipality of Sursés) and Sedrun (municipality of Tujetsch) in the Swiss sub-state—or canton—of Graubünden (Fig 2) based on the expected variation in the explanatory variables following an exploratory newspaper analysis [44]. Our method used a most-similar systems design, meaning that we compared two cases that are similar in many aspects but differ in the explanatory variables [45].
The two cases are sufficiently similar for our comparative case study. Both municipalities held a popular vote on large alpine PV projects embedded in a similar national policy landscape. The political processes that preceded the popular votes unfolded in a similar time frame (starting 6 months apart). Both municipalities’ projects were part of the “Solar Express”, a revision of the Swiss energy law aiming to subsidize alpine PV projects based on the requirement that they would produce a certain amount of energy until the year 2025. Furthermore, both municipalities have direct-democratic instruments in place—allowing the aforementioned popular vote—lie in the same Swiss sub-state, are of comparable size, with 1180 inhabitants in Sedrun and 2377 inhabitants in Savognin [46], and share similar economic structures, with tourism and agriculture being key sectors [47,48]. Moreover, both municipalities have large hydropower reservoirs. In Savognin, the reservoir “Marmorera” was constructed in 1954, and in Sedrun the reservoir “Lai da Nalps” was built in 1962. In both projects, the panels are not visible from Sedrun, respectively, Savognin town, but from some meadow homes.
The two cases differ in key aspects of the explanatory variables, local leadership, and participatory processes, which we expect to influence trust.
First, the Savognin project “Nandro Solar”, planned by Zurich’s electricity company “ewz”, which also manages the water reservoir “Marmorera”, is located near Val Nandro (2759123.9, 1,159,558.9; CH1903/LV95), close to peak Cartas and the ski station. The Sedrun “SedrunSolar” project lies in Scharinas/Cuolm Val (2696833.0, 1168498.0; CH1903/LV95) between avalanche barriers and ski lifts, on a south-facing slope at 1950–2100 m elevation. Like the water reservoir, which is managed by the local company “Kraftwerke Vorderrhein AG”, the alpine PV project “SedrunSolar” is led by the local energy company energia alpina in collaboration with a local avalanche company and an external investor. SedrunSolar was approved unanimously, with no environmental appeals, and construction began in August 2024 [49]. A second, smaller alpine PV project by Axpo was approved on the same day of the popular vote. As the interviewees stated, they received more critical questions but likely benefited from the positive discourse surrounding SedrunSolar. The interviews in Sedrun refer mainly to SedrunSolar.
Second, both projects, “Nandro Solar” and “SedrunSolar”, included participatory political processes, which, however, are expected to vary in type, frequency, formality, timing, and responsiveness due to the different project leadership. In particular, we hypothesize that the participatory process was likely to be more informal in Sedrun than in Savognin because of the local leadership in Sedrun. Add to this, we anticipate a lower responsiveness in Savognin than in Sedrun due to fewer reported adjustments during the project based on the conducted newspaper analysis.
Beyond these differences regarding the explanatory variables, the projects vary in their size. The alpine PV project in Savognin covers 66.3 hectares gross (18.3 net) with nine separate solar panel patches, expected to generate 38 MW and 66 GWh annually, including 29.7 GWh in winter [50]. The project was rejected by 68% of the population [51]. The project in Sedrun covers 33 hectares as one single patch; it is expected to produce 19.3 MW and 29 GWh annually, including 13.6 GWh in winter [50].
2.3 Operationalization of the conceptual framework
Here we present the operationalization of our conceptual framework (Fig 1) in Table 1.
2.4. Data collection
2.4.1. Selection of the stakeholders.
This study is based on semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders involved in the participatory policy processes. To identify them, we first compiled a comprehensive actor list through an analysis of 20 national and regional newspaper articles (2022–2024) covering the Alpine PV projects and stakeholders in both municipalities (full list of newspaper articles in the appendix). In Savognin, an existing stakeholder list [52] closely matched those identified from the media analysis. For Sedrun, selection relied solely on newspaper articles and relevant interest group websites, as such a list was not available.
Actors were selected using positional, decisional, and reputational criteria [53]. Positional criteria considered roles such as elected or executive positions, indicating influence in information networks. Decisional criteria included involvement in making or influencing policy decisions. Reputational criteria identified actors perceived by observers as having the power to significantly affect the system. Stakeholders meeting at least one criterion were included. Identified actors were contacted by email for interviews.
2.4.2. Ethics statement.
Before conducting the interviews, the questionnaire was subject to a data protection review procedure, then approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of EPFL. The application (HREC No: HREC000587/ 12.11.2024) received written approval from Prof. Annalisa Buffa, a member of the HREC board. In compliance with HREC guidelines, all interview partners provided written consent to participate in the interviews via email when we inquired whether they wanted to participate in the interviews and by means of a signature before the interview started. In the introduction text, we notified participants that we would not publish any sensitive information that could lead to the identification of actors from their statements and that EPFL HREC had given ethical clearance for our study and the questionnaire. From 02.01.2025 until 24.01.2025, the interviews were transcribed and anonymised, after which the recordings of the interviews and any personal information were destroyed, meaning that the authors no longer had access to any personal information of the participants.
2.4.3. Interviews.
During the period from the 26th of November 2024 to the 19th of December 2024, we conducted 11 in-person interviews with key stakeholders, four of them for the project in Sedrun and eight for Savognin, with one stakeholder responding for both projects. Participants gave their responses predominantly orally. The responses were recorded and transcribed by a professional transcription company and checked by the first author to ensure reliable coding.
The questionnaire was structured in 4 blocks. The first block focused on the participatory policy process. The second block consisted of a matrix for measuring the first and second-order perceived trade-offs and synergies (dependent variable) at the start (“before”) and end (“after”) of the project vote (Fig 3). In the vertical column of the matrix, the different actors are listed, while in the horizontal rows, the different potential trade-offs or synergies are listed. The latter were informed by the results of the scoping review (see section 2.1). Each interview participant completed a matrix indicating their own perceived trade-offs and synergies (first-order), as well as their perceptions of how other actors view these (second-order). If the participants themselves did not fill in the matrix, this information was sought orally and filled in by the interviewer. If the oral answers of respondents did not match what they filled out (around 2% of all responses), only the direct oral answers were considered.
Actors 1-8 (on the vertical axis) are anonymized in compliance with data protection requirements. Topics to which actors could indicate trade-offs or synergies (on the horizontal axis) are supported by examples. Each actor indicated the trade-offs and synergies for all other actors during the interviews.
The third questionnaire block focused on the role of local involvement and trust, and the fourth block asked about factors influencing public and stakeholder acceptance. The survey concluded with general and personal insights (the full questionnaire can be found in the annex).
2.5. Analysis of first and second-order perceived trade-offs and synergies
We used the responses from the interview questions on first and second-order perceptions of trade-offs and synergies to construct two-mode networks. Two-mode networks are particularly well-suited for analysing the perceptions of synergies and trade-offs because they allow for the representation of relationships between two distinct types of entities—in this case, individual actors and the perceptions of perceptions of synergies and trade-offs they hold. In other words, two-mode networks are based on two sets of nodes, the actors and synergies/trade-offs.
Whenever an actor perceived a topic as a synergy, a positive tie was created in the network. If an actor perceived a topic as a trade-off, a negative tie was created. We asked all actors to indicate their perceived trade-offs and synergies (first order) and those of others (second-order) before the political process started and after it ended (Fig 3). Therefore, two-mode networks provided a rich and nuanced view of the network structure [54]. The resulting networks allowed us to analyse how actors cluster around specific trade-offs and synergies. Additionally, we calculated the mean degree statistics, which captured the number of ties indicating trade-offs and synergies before the project started and when it ended to detect temporal changes.
3. Results
We show the results by presenting the explanatory variables “Participatory policy processes” (section 3.1), “Local leadership” (section 3.2), and “Trust” (section 3.3). In each section, we first measure the variable itself and then describe how it influenced the other explanatory variables as well as the dependent variable “Perceived trade-offs and synergies”, which is presented in (section 3.4).
3.1. Participatory policy processes
Fig 4 shows the policy process in the two municipalities Sursés (Savognin) and Tujetsch (Sedrun), allowing for a comparison of the type, frequency, formality, and timing. First, the type of participation was similar in both municipalities, involving three elements of Davidson’s wheel of participation [28]: information, consultation, and participation. Savognin featured slightly more consultation than Sedrun.
Follow-up contacts are not depicted, but occurred in both projects similarly.
Second, interaction frequency differed: In Savognin, slightly fewer key events were carried out compared to Sedrun. In the latter, interactions were more frequent, with updates every 2–4 weeks via the municipal newspaper and WhatsApp.
Third, the process varied regarding the formality of participation. In Savognin, most of the participation process was carried out formally. It consisted of events such as round tables, panel discussions, and regular meetings with all relevant stakeholders. In Sedrun, the participation process was a mix of a few large, formal, information and consulting events combined with informal information activities via WhatsApp and a high number of personal exchanges focusing on the most affected stakeholders, such as farmers, meadow owners, and environmental organisations. Media interactions were limited, and no formal media conference with national outreach was held. Overall, the participatory policy process was significantly more formal in Savognin than in Sedrun.
Fourth, the process varied significantly in the timing of participation. In Savognin, the stakeholders were integrated progressively across the project process, and several exchanges (negotiations, consultations, and information) with the affected parties, farmers, tourism, and environmental associations took place before official media information was released. However, the population was informed only after media coverage, by which time opposition had already formed, and public opinion was largely made, limiting the impact of later engagement, such as the October 2023 population orientation. The population was officially informed 6 months after the project began. In contrast, in Sedrun, the stakeholders and the population were informed together at the beginning of the project, before any media announcements took place. Therefore, the sequence of population and media orientation, and the general timing of the involvement of stakeholders, differed significantly between Savognin and Sedrun.
The fact that in Savognin the media was informed before the stakeholders, fuelled exaggerated concerns while hindering productive dialogue. The effect of the participatory process on public acceptance was limited as it was perceived, primarily, as a tool to generate public support for a predetermined project, mobilizing opposing coalitions, in line with outcomes reported in comparable cases [55]. In contrast, Sedrun’s timely and consistent communication prevented such rumour cycles, illustrating the critical role of sequencing and clarity in public engagement. “Because in Tujetsch (Sedrun) the difference is that it is the locals who plan and know […] how to deal with the people and talk to the people […]” (Own translation). This led stakeholders to perceive the process as fair and thus were more likely to accept it [56,57].
Finally, the responsiveness of both participatory policy processes to stakeholder needs differed. In Savognin, project adjustments attempted to mitigate the visual and environmental impacts of the proposed project with a decrease in perimeter of 15%, and decreased helicopter flights for material transports (Table 2). In October 2023, additional proposed modifications allowed for open livestock passages, preventing interference with agriculture. Project proponents reassured farmers that agricultural activities could continue alongside PV installations, despite lacking supportive studies at that moment. This ultimately raised doubts about the credibility of the project and diminished trust.
In contrast, in Sedrun, the adjustments were strongly driven by environmental concerns (Table 2). The adjusted project proposal explicitly excluded ecologically sensitive areas, including wetlands, marshlands, and habitats for orchids and wild animals. In compensation, the perimeter was extended eastward at the upper boundary, thus leaving the total area unchanged. Sedrun abandoned the idea of dual use from the beginning. Instead, farmers were provided a financial compensation. Additionally, stakeholder-driven co-benefits were incorporated, such as a water pipeline for farmers and meadow owners, which are especially valuable in this dry area.
3.2. Local project leadership
Local project leadership varied significantly regarding geographical and social proximity and accountability for the two municipalities. First, in Savognin, the geographical and social proximity of the project leaders to stakeholders was moderate. The energy company, based in Zurich, was geographically distant from the Alpine municipality, which also limited social proximity due to fewer interactions and less overlap in social networks. Combined with the urban-rural divide between the alpine regions and the cities, these factors did not allow to build high trust (it is important to note that “distant” should not be equated with the company being foreign or unfamiliar in the region; ewz has, in fact, maintained a longstanding presence in the region through its hydropower plants like many other large energy companies such as Axpo or BKW [58]). Given that the project was led by a Zurich-based electricity company, local stakeholders saw few tangible benefits. The energy and financial gains were seen as flowing outward to urban centres rather than staying in the community. As one stakeholder put it: “The most important thing was the winter electricity supply. But that didn’t come across anymore. At that point, it didn’t matter anymore.” Economic advantages were likewise viewed as benefiting Zurich disproportionately.
In contrast, in Sedrun, both proximity dimensions were high. As the local company “Energia Alpina” was based in the same municipality, this resulted in shared social networks, more frequent interactions, and thus larger social proximity and greater trust. An interviewee stated: “I believe that the entire project there was much better accepted, because it is a local energy company that is planning it. They can see that they benefit directly from it” (Own translation). This local leadership made energy security and economic synergies more visible and credible to stakeholders, reinforcing a sense of community benefit.
Second, accountability varied across the two municipalities. In Savognin, less frequent face-to-face interactions led to a perceived diffuse responsibility of the project lead. In Sedrun, interviewees perceived the project leadership as having high accountability. This was because the project leader had a strong personal reputation. Furthermore, the stakeholders shared similar social networks, which could also enhance the effect of reputation.
3.3 Trust
Trust in the project leaders also varied significantly for the two municipalities. In Savognin, interview participants reported, on average, a moderate level of trust in the project leadership. While all stakeholders highly trusted the technical competence and knowledge of the energy company, there was less trust towards the project governance by the large energy company due to the urban-rural divide and the related perceived top-down structure of the Swiss solar offensive, i.e., socially remote urban actors imposing national energy projects in mountainous regions. This was very different in Sedrun, where no notable scepticism was observed toward the project leadership. All interviewees affirmed that they had very high trust in the local project leaders.
Moreover, in Savognin, interviews revealed that financial documents such as the Wirtschaftlichkeitsrechnung (economic feasibility study) were not made publicly available. This lack of transparency limited stakeholders’ ability to evaluate the risks and benefits of the project, eroding trust and giving rise to speculation. Opponents capitalized on this uncertainty, campaigning on potential trade-offs and amplifying public concern. The resulting political discourse was emotionally charged, opposing political mobilisation was high; financial incentives carried less weight than in Sedrun. In contrast, in Sedrun, key documents such as the Baurechtsvertrag (land lease agreement) were accessible to the public, which likely contributed to a more informed, calmer debate.
Additionally, informing the media before the local population of Savognin was widely seen as a major error that significantly undermined trust. Stakeholders noted they would have preferred access to project visualizations before any media coverage. As one interviewee stated: “Several projects have failed because they did not develop a good communication concept. That is vital, that one does not feel betrayed. That you don’t get the feeling that they are mixing something behind your back and bringing something already finished, and we are not involved in the process.” This underscores the importance of early, transparent engagement to avoid feelings of exclusion, consistent with previous findings [57,59]. Timing and responsiveness also shaped perceptions of trade-offs and synergies. In Savognin, delayed public involvement enabled misinformation and distrust to spread. As one stakeholder put it: “The population (was informed) relatively late […]. In such small places […] something like that spreads like wildfire. Sometimes this creates a special dynamic. You really have these unnecessary conversations about semi-truths and storytelling, where everyone feels they know a bit more. And at the end, an ant turns into an elephant” (Own translation).
3.4. Changes in perceived trade-offs and synergies from the project start to the end.
Next, we compare the two-mode network linking stakeholders (first node set) to first-order perceived trade-offs and synergies (second node set) at the project start and after municipal voting (Figs 5–6) for Savognin and Sedrun.
The green nodes represent the topics, which are potential perceived first-order trade-offs or synergies. The light blue nodes represent the different actors. A red line indicates that an actor perceives a trade-off with a specific topic, while a blue line indicates a perceived synergy. The node size of topics is based on the number of trade-offs depicted on a logarithmic scale. “Before” was defined as the point in time the project process started, and “after” is defined as the moment immediately after the municipal vote on the project.
In Savognin, our results show a growing concern among stakeholders about the direct impacts of the project. Stakeholders perceived an increase in first-order trade-offs during the participatory process, rising by +11% (Fig 5A), while first-order synergies stayed constant. Second-order trade-offs, capturing others’ perceptions of trade-offs, increased more markedly by 27%, while perceived second-order synergies decreased by 33% (Fig 5C).
In contrast, in Sedrun, stakeholders increasingly perceived synergies with the project. First-order trade-offs remained stable throughout the process, while perceived synergies almost doubled (increased by 45%). Second-order trade-offs decreased by 22% while second-order synergies doubled.
Across both municipalities, landscape impact was the most frequently mentioned trade-off (Fig 6). In Savognin, concerns extended beyond visual impacts for locals and tourists to include the fragmented arrangement of PV patches and their lack of integration into the landscape, particularly due to the open terrain chamber setting (Table 3). In Sedrun, landscape trade-offs were also most prominent, though they focused more narrowly on the visual impact.
Other important trade-offs included biodiversity and agriculture (Fig 6). In Savognin, biodiversity concerns primarily involved the potential ecological disturbance of alpine terrain, while agricultural trade-offs related to land use conflicts (Table 3). In Sedrun, biodiversity and agriculture were generally perceived as neutral at the beginning. By the end of the process, biodiversity was viewed as a synergy by most stakeholders, likely due to the exclusion of ecologically sensitive areas (Fig 6). Agriculture remained mostly neutral, though two stakeholders described it as a synergy due to the water pipeline construction adjustment (see Table 3), which benefited farming in dry areas. In Savognin, some respondents perceived a synergy with “municipal revenues”, as a certain amount of money was to be provided to the municipality in case the alpine PV project was built. Others in Savognin stated that the expected municipal revenues were insufficient compared to the perceived high environmental and visual impacts. Thus, they saw a trade-off with municipal revenues. Additionally, the same respondents argued that the impacted landscape would also negatively affect the tourism sector, resulting in a further perceived trade-off.
In Sedrun, respondents primarily perceived synergies regarding municipal revenues, as the municipal revenues were perceived as sufficiently high. One respondent acknowledged that municipal revenues were substantial but still perceived a remaining trade-off with “finances”, since the high municipal investments for the alpine PV project would pose a serious financial risk for the municipality in the context of volatile energy prices (Table 3).
4. Discussion
This study investigates how perceptions of trade-offs and synergies in renewable energy projects—specifically contested alpine photovoltaic (PV) installations—are shaped by participatory processes, local leadership, and trust. Our findings confirm that inclusive, responsive governance and trusted local leadership reduce perceived trade-offs, enhance perceived synergies, and foster acceptance of renewable energy projects. These results advance existing literature on procedural legitimacy, coalition dynamics, and just energy transitions by emphasizing the socially constructed and relational nature of stakeholder perceptions.
4.1. Conceptual and methodological contributions
Our central contribution is both conceptual and methodological: we extend stakeholder and policy process theory by introducing second-order perceptions—how stakeholders believe others perceive trade-offs and synergies—into stakeholder analysis. This novel lens allows us to detect subtle but meaningful shifts in coalition dynamics over time. By incorporating both first-order (direct) and second-order (perceived perceptions of others) assessments, we develop a toolbox that reveals how stakeholder attitudes are socially constructed and recalibrated within policy networks.
This approach offers at least three key advantages: it helps identify evolving actor positions that may not be explicitly stated due to psychological factors such as cognitive dissonance [21], inconsistent positioning over time [22], or imperfect recall of past attitudes [23]; it enables a dynamic understanding of coalition formation; and it enhances the explanatory power of social network and stakeholder analysis. To our knowledge, such second-order perceptions have not been utilized for stakeholder analyses.
4.2. Implications of the results for renewable energy projects
Our analysis has the following four implications for renewable energy projects. First, trust by stakeholders in the project and project leadership is associated with lower perceived trade-offs. It was repeatedly mentioned as a decisive factor influencing how stakeholders assessed trade-offs and synergies. A lack of transparency limits stakeholders’ ability to evaluate project risks and benefits, eroding trust and giving rise to speculations, which allows opponents to capitalize on this uncertainty. By contrast, transparent communication, particularly regarding financial documents, can help mitigate perceptions of trade-offs. Individuals who trust relevant institutions or experts are more likely to accept communicated information regarding technological outcomes, leading them to perceive potential benefits more readily. In contrast, those with lower levels of trust tend to interpret such actions as conflicting with their personal interests or collective goals. Thus, the degree of trust by stakeholders in the project leadership has an effect on first-order and second-order perceived trade-offs and synergies.
Second, the timing, frequency, and formality of communication proved critical. Informing all stakeholders about the plans at the project start avoids rumours, which may increase perceived trade-offs and mobilise counter coalitions (as stated by interviewees). Following our analyses and as shown in the literature, a mix between formal and informal communication, allowing the population to stay regularly informed, generates social proximity and trust [29].
Third, responsiveness to stakeholder concerns can reduce perceived trade-offs and increase trust. In this case, the critical aspect of dual land use for agriculture and solar infrastructure played a key role. Whereas this dual use was favoured in Savognin, where farmers were sceptical about this, Sedrun abandoned the idea of dual use from the beginning and instead offered financial compensation to farmers, which had notable effects on perceived trade-offs and trust. This suggests that when designing the project, alternative options to address stakeholder concerns should be offered to increase trust and find an optimal solution suiting all parties. Previous studies have similarly shown that early engagement and offering flexibility in the planning can significantly increase acceptance of renewable energy projects [57,59].
Fourth, local leadership significantly influenced stakeholder perceptions. Although we cannot fully rule out other factors that also influence the outcome beyond our explanatory variables, the contrast between the two cases suggests that local leadership played an important role in shaping both trust and perceived trade-offs and synergies. This aligns with recent findings on popular voting around alpine photovoltaic (PV) projects, which suggest that local ownership structures can foster a “collective action logic,” in which communities perceive the project as contributing to a common good. Although local ownership differs from local leadership, it shares the common local element of the project. In contrast, projects initiated by large external companies may activate a “veto-player logic,” where powerful stakeholders are more likely to resist change due to perceived external control or unequal distribution of benefits [58]. Thus, the type of leadership can shape how perceptions change and is thus an important factor that should be considered besides objectively quantifiable trade-offs and synergies.
4.3. External validity
The dynamics of local leadership, trust, and perceived trade-offs observed here apply beyond these cases. Similar patterns appear in wind, hydropower, and other solar power developments, where decentralized decision-making and early local engagement influence acceptance [35,60–64]. Debates on hydropower licenses often mirror the urban-rural divides and economic distribution issues highlighted by interviewees. Sometimes, issue linkages and cross-issue mobilization occur, underscoring the importance of transparent benefit-sharing. Beyond renewable energy, our insights on participation and trust are relevant for designing climate policies addressing distributional barriers [65], a core concern in energy research [66].
4.4. Limitations
Finally, our paper also has limitations. The alpine projects differ in size and environmental context, influencing real and perceived trade-offs. Rather than directly comparing perceived trade-offs across municipalities, we focus on their evolution over time. Additionally, the six-month gap between the two popular votes coincided with a shifting national discourse on energy security, potentially affecting perceptions. Taking a temporal perspective helps account for such external influences. These contextual differences inform but do not undermine broader insights into trust, leadership, and participatory processes in renewable energy projects. Future research should explore more cases and renewable technologies across countries to examine if similar dynamics arise.
5. Conclusion
This study advances understanding of public acceptance of renewable energy projects by showing that perceived trade-offs are not mere reflections of technical or ecological facts but are socially constructed and relational, shaped by trust, leadership, and procedural fairness. By distinguishing between first- and second-order perceptions, we introduce a dynamic framework for analyzing coalition formation and evolution in contested infrastructure projects, with broad theoretical implications for stakeholder analysis, coalition theory, and environmental governance.
Our core conceptual contribution is the introduction of second-order perceptions into stakeholder and policy process theory. This dynamic lens captures how stakeholders interpret not only their own interests but also those of potential allies and opponents, reshaping coalition dynamics in contested infrastructure development. It enables deeper insight into shifting alignments over time and why certain projects gain or lose public support. Understanding coalition formation hinges on whether stakeholders believe potential allies’ positions align with their own—that is, second-order beliefs about others’ beliefs. Incorporating these perceptions is critical for analyzing political network dynamics, but has been rarely used in stakeholder and policy process studies.
We recommend that policymakers and project developers assess both first-order (direct) and second-order (indirect) perceived trade-offs before initiating renewable energy projects. To facilitate this, we offer a practical toolbox including: (1) systematic identification of potential trade-offs and synergies, especially regarding land use, visibility, and economic distribution; (2) mapping stakeholder perceptions; and (3) theoretical explanations of how procedural choices influence trust and fairness perceptions.
Practically, our results convey a clear message: early, transparent, and responsive engagement—not mere consultation—is vital. Building trust and legitimacy is central, not peripheral, to renewable energy projects. Stakeholders should be engaged early—ideally before media coverage and technical planning—to shape agendas rather than react to fixed proposals. Transparent, continuous, and responsive communication, including timely disclosure of key documents (e.g., feasibility studies, land lease agreements) and fair compensation mechanisms, is essential. External project leadership could also employ more informal, face-to-face interactions to foster trust and enable timely stakeholder involvement.
As countries scale renewable energy to meet net-zero targets, socially grounded governance will be as crucial as technological or financial feasibility. Our framework offers a transferable tool for designing participatory, context-sensitive approaches to energy infrastructure planning, especially in environmentally or politically sensitive settings.
Supporting information
S1 Text. Questionnaire English.
The data are used for the analyses underpinning this study.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000768.s001
(PDF)
References
- 1. Creutzig F, Agoston P, Goldschmidt JC, Luderer G, Nemet G, Pietzcker RC. The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change. Nat Energy. 2017;2(9).
- 2. Frischholz Y, Schilt U, Sharma V, Kahl A, Strebel S, Anderegg D, et al. Confirmation of the power gain for solar photovoltaic systems in alpine areas and across scales. Front Energy Res. 2024;12.
- 3. Kahl A, Dujardin J, Lehning M. The bright side of PV production in snow-covered mountains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(4):1162–7. pmid:30617063
- 4. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 2009;12(12):1394–404. pmid:19845725
- 5.
European Parliament. Verbatim report of proceedings - Renewable Energy Directive (debate) - Monday, 11 September 2023. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-9-2023-09-11-ITM-020_EN.html
- 6. Arifi B, Winkel G. Wind energy counter-conducts in Germany: understanding a new wave of socio-environmental grassroots protest. Environmental Politics. 2020;:1–22.
- 7. Mulvaney D. Identifying the roots of Green Civil War over utility-scale solar energy projects on public lands across the American Southwest. Journal of Land Use Science. 2017;12(6):493–515.
- 8. Díaz P, van Vliet O. Drivers and risks for renewable energy developments in mountain regions: a case of a pilot photovoltaic project in the Swiss Alps. Energ Sustain Soc. 2018;8(1).
- 9. Montfort S. Key predictors for climate policy support and political mobilization: The role of beliefs and preferences. PLOS Clim. 2023;2(8):e0000145.
- 10. Santangeli A, Di Minin E, Toivonen T, Pogson M, Hastings A, Smith P, et al. Synergies and trade‐offs between renewable energy expansion and biodiversity conservation – a cross‐national multifactor analysis. GCB Bioenergy. 2016;8(6):1191–200.
- 11. Picchi P, van Lierop M, Geneletti D, Stremke S. Advancing the relationship between renewable energy and ecosystem services for landscape planning and design: A literature review. Ecosystem Services. 2019;35:241–59.
- 12. Agha M, Lovich JE, Ennen JR, Todd BD. Wind, sun, and wildlife: do wind and solar energy development ‘short-circuit’ conservation in the western United States?. Environ Res Lett. 2020;15(7):075004.
- 13. Vuichard P, Stauch A, Wüstenhagen R. Keep it local and low-key: Social acceptance of alpine solar power projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2021;138:110516.
- 14. Visschers VHM, Siegrist M. Find the differences and the similarities: Relating perceived benefits, perceived costs and protected values to acceptance of five energy technologies. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2014;40:117–30.
- 15. Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy. 2007;35(5):2683–91.
- 16. Kosenius A-K, Ollikainen M. Valuation of environmental and societal trade-offs of renewable energy sources. Energy Policy. 2013;62:1148–56.
- 17. Gulbrandsen LH, Inderberg THJ, Jevnaker T. Is political steering gone with the wind? Administrative power and wind energy licensing practices in Norway. Energy Research & Social Science. 2021;74:101963.
- 18. Stosch KC, Quilliam RS, Bunnefeld N, Oliver DM. Quantifying stakeholder understanding of an ecosystem service trade-off. Sci Total Environ. 2019;651(Pt 2):2524–34. pmid:30340188
- 19. Galafassi D, Daw TM, Munyi L, Brown K, Barnaud C, Fazey I. Learning about social-ecological trade-offs. E&S. 2017;22(1).
- 20. Jachimowicz JM, Hauser OP, O’Brien JD, Sherman E, Galinsky AD. The critical role of second-order normative beliefs in predicting energy conservation. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2(10):757–64. pmid:31406290
- 21.
Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. 1st ed. Evanston: Row, Peterson. 1957.
- 22.
Goffman E. The presentation of self in everyday life. 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. 1959.
- 23.
Bem DJ. Self-Perception Theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Elsevier. 1972. 1–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60024-6
- 24. Mildenberger M, Tingley D. Beliefs about Climate Beliefs: The Importance of Second-Order Opinions for Climate Politics. Brit J Polit Sci. 2017;49(4):1279–307.
- 25.
Ebner M, Kachi A, Montfort S. Persistent Climate Policy Opinion Despite Corrected Job Risk Misconceptions. Elsevier BV. 2024. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4919490
- 26. Montfort S, Fesenfeld L, Ingold K, Lamb WF, Andrijevic M. Political enablers of ambitious climate policies: a framework and thematic review. NPJ Clim Action. 2025;4(1):14. pmid:39959135
- 27. Dubo T, Palomo I, Zingraff-Hamed A, Bruley E, Collain G, Lavorel S. Levers for transformative nature-based adaptation initiatives in the Alps. PLOS Clim. 2023;2(11):e0000193.
- 28.
Davidson S. Spinning the wheel of empowerment. https://participationpool.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Davidson-S.-1998-Spinning-the-wheel-of-empowerment.pdf. 1998. 2025 May 27.
- 29. Binder CR, Fritz L, Hansmann R, Balthasaar A, Roose Z. Increasing the relevance of science for practice and practice for science: Quantitative empirical insights. Science and Public Policy. 2020;47(6):772–87.
- 30. Newig J, Haberl H, Pahl-Wostl C, Rothman DS. Formalised and Non-Formalised Methods in Resource Management—Knowledge and Social Learning in Participatory Processes: An Introduction. Syst Pract Action Res. 2008;21(6):381–7.
- 31. Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Krütli P, Scholz RW. Analytic and Dynamic Approach to Collaboration: A Transdisciplinary Case Study on Sustainable Landscape Development in a Swiss Prealpine Region. Syst Pract Action Res. 2008;21(6):409–22.
- 32. Campfens JKEK, Duygan M, Binder CR. A review of participatory modelling techniques for energy transition scenarios. Advances in Applied Energy. 2025;17:100215.
- 33. Langer K, Decker T, Menrad K. Public participation in wind energy projects located in Germany: Which form of participation is the key to acceptance?. Renewable Energy. 2017;112:63–73.
- 34. Späth L, Scolobig A. Stakeholder empowerment through participatory planning practices: The case of electricity transmission lines in France and Norway. Energy Research & Social Science. 2017;23:189–98.
- 35. Walker C, Baxter J. Procedural justice in Canadian wind energy development: A comparison of community-based and technocratic siting processes. Energy Research & Social Science. 2017;29:160–9.
- 36. Devine-Wright P. Local aspects of UK renewable energy development: exploring public beliefs and policy implications. Local Environment. 2005;10(1):57–69.
- 37. Nilsson M. Proximity and the trust formation process. European Planning Studies. 2019;27(5):841–61.
- 38. Granovetter M. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology. 1985;91(3):481–510.
- 39.
Serra Coch G. Spaces of interface: proximity in the diffusion of energy innovations. Lausanne: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne School of Architecture. 2025.
- 40. Hosmer LT. Trust: The Connecting Link between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics. The Academy of Management Review. 1995;20(2):379.
- 41.
McGuire WJ. Attitudes and attitude change. In: Lindzey G, Aronson E. The handbook of social psychology. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Random House. 1985. 233–346.
- 42. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal. 2000;20(3):353–62. pmid:10949414
- 43. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32.
- 44.
King G, Keohane RO, Verba S. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Student ed. ed. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. 1994.
- 45.
Pickel G. Adam Przeworski/Henry Teune, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, Mallabar 1970. Schlüsselwerke der Politikwissenschaft. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 375–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90400-9_100
- 46.
Bundesamt für Statistik. Bevölkerungsdichte nach Gemeinde, Schweiz 2022. https://www.atlas.bfs.admin.ch/maps/13/de/17492_72_71_70/27090.html. 2022. 2025 May 19.
- 47.
Amt für Wirtschaft und Tourismus Graubünden. NRP-Umsetzungsprogramm Graubünden 2024–2027. Chur. 2023. https://www.gr.ch/DE/institutionen/verwaltung/dvs/awt/Regionen/Documents/NRP-Umsetzungsprogramm_Graub%C3%BCnden_2024%E2%80%922027.pdf
- 48.
Amt für Raumentwicklung Graubünden. Teilbericht 3: Siedlungsverträglichkeit – Raumkonzept Graubünden. Chur: Kanton Graubünden. 2020. https://www.gr.ch/DE/institutionen/verwaltung/dvs/are/Grundlagen/Teilbericht_3_SV.pdf
- 49.
Bradley S. Construction starts on first large-scale solar park in Swiss Alps. SWI swissinfo.ch. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/alpine-environment/construction-starts-on-first-large-scale-solar-park-in-swiss-alps/87531886. 2024. 2025 May 16.
- 50.
Verband Schweizerischer Elektrizitätsunternehmen VSE. Erneuerbare Energien: Das sind die Ausbauprojekte. https://www.strom.ch/de/schwerpunkte/erneuerbare-energien-das-sind-die-ausbauprojekte. 2025. 2025 May 19.
- 51. Bundi S. Surses sagt nein und zieht grossem ewz-solarpark den stecker. Tages-Anzeiger. 2024.
- 52.
Elektrizitätswerk der Stadt Zürich (EWZ). Präsentation des Projekts Nandro-Solar an der Medienorientierung vom 26.09.2023. https://www.ewz.ch/de/ueber-ewz/newsroom/aus-aktuellem-anlass/hochalpine-photovoltaikanlagen/hochalpine-pv-anlage-im-val-nandro.html. 2023. 2025 May 16.
- 53. Bonjean CM, Olson DM. Community leadership: directions of research. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1964;9(3):278–300.
- 54.
Borgatti SP, Halgin DS. Analyzing Affiliation Networks. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis [Internet]. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2024. 417–33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238797464_Analyzing_Affiliation_Networks
- 55. Perlaviciute G, Squintani L. Time to talk about values, time to say no: What drives public participation in decision-making on abstract versus concrete energy projects?. PLOS Clim. 2023;2(8):e0000228.
- 56. van der Horst D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy. 2007;35(5):2705–14.
- 57. Stadelmann-Steffen I, Dermont C. Acceptance through inclusion? Political and economic participation and the acceptance of local renewable energy projects in Switzerland. Energy Research & Social Science. 2021;71:101818.
- 58.
Stadelmann-Steffen I, Imobersteg C, Heim M. Voting on renewable energy infrastructure as collective action problem – the case of alpine photovoltaic projects in Swiss municipalities. 2025.
- 59. Susskind L, Chun J, Gant A, Hodgkins C, Cohen J, Lohmar S. Sources of opposition to renewable energy projects in the United States. Energy Policy. 2022;165:112922.
- 60. Gross C. Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy. 2007;35(5):2727–36.
- 61. Warren CR, McFadyen M. Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy. 2010;27(2):204–13.
- 62. Stadelmann-Steffen I, Rieder S, Strotz C. The Politics of Renewable Energy Production in a Federal Context: The Deployment of Small Hydropower in the Swiss Cantons. The Journal of Environment & Development. 2019;29(1):75–98.
- 63. Enserink M, Van Etteger R, Stremke S. The life and death of good intentions? Unravelling participatory design processes of three Dutch solar power plants. Energy Research & Social Science. 2024;114:103620.
- 64. Enserink M, Van Etteger R, Stremke S. Seeing is believing, experiencing is knowing: The influence of a co-designed prototype solar power plant on local acceptance. Solar Energy. 2023;262:111739.
- 65.
Montfort S, Fesenfeld L, Ingold K, Repke T, Callaghan M. The Rising Importance of Distributional Barriers to the Adoption of Climate Change Mitigation Policies. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 2025. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6476964/v1
- 66. Brückmann G, Berger S, Caviola H, Hahnel UJJ, Piana V, Sahakian M, et al. Towards more impactful energy research: The salient role of social sciences and humanities. PLOS Clim. 2023;2(2):e0000132.