Advertisement

A Pioneer in Transition: Horizon Scanning of Emerging Issues in Germany’s Sustainable Wind Energy Development

  • Johann KöppelEmail author
  • Juliane Biehl
  • Volker Wachendörfer
  • Alexander Bittner
Chapter

Abstract

With both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, certainly no-one anticipated the challenging trade-offs between renewable energy development and conservation of biological diversity. Densely populated Germany ranks third in worldwide installed wind energy capacity, only outpaced by China and the USA so far. However, power and interest shifts via well-organised civil and political opposition indicate that efforts to reconcile climate protection and wildlife conservation cannot be taken for granted.

Funded by the German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU), the horizon scan aimed at identifying the emerging need for collaborative action, based on the viewpoints of various stakeholders and the state of research in wildlife conservation and wind energy development. We applied a multi-faceted, inclusive, and peer-reviewed research process, building on ca. 50 explorative expert interviews, previous research, and a literature review. Interviewees ranged across academia, agencies, wind developers, consultants, associations, and environmental groups. The process yielded 18 emerging issues at the nexus of wind and wildlife, planning and technologies, and social aspects to cope with the challenges ahead. We present a majority of the issues in this chapter and conclude with guiding follow-up principles.

Keywords

Horizon scanning approach Transformation Sustainable Development Goals Cumulative effects Landscape-scale conservation Knowledge management Planning approaches Adaptive management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Open image in new window The horizon scan was supported by the German Federal Environmental Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, DBU). We particularly thank our interview partners, panellists, and renowned experts for their contributions and valuable comments on earlier versions of the horizon scan study. We want to express our gratitude towards our two reviewers, whom we are highly indebted to for their valuable feedback.

References

  1. 1.
    United Nations (UN): United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    United Nations (UN): United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    United Nations (UN): Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F.S., Lambin, E., Lenton, T., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., Wit, C., de Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R., Fabry, V., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.: Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14(2), 32 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., de Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sörlin, S.: Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science (New York, N.Y.). (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
  6. 6.
    Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A.V., Reyers, B., Rockström, J.: Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. E&S. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341
  7. 7.
    Sutherland, W.J., Allison, H., Aveling, R., Bainbridge, I.P., Bennun, L., Bullock, D.J., Clements, A., Crick, H.Q.P., Gibbons, D.W., Smith, S., Rands, M.R.W., Rose, P., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Warren, M.S.: Enhancing the value of horizon scanning through collaborative review. Oryx. (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605311001724
  8. 8.
    Sutherland, W.J., Woodroof, H.J.: The need for environmental horizon scanning. Trends Ecol. Evol. (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.04.008
  9. 9.
    Sutherland, W.J., Barnard, P., Broad, S., Clout, M., Connor, B., Côté, I.M., Dicks, L.V., Doran, H., Entwistle, A.C., Fleishman, E., Fox, M., Gaston, K.J., Gibbons, D.W., Jiang, Z., Keim, B., Lickorish, F.A., Markillie, P., Monk, K.A., Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Peck, L.S., Pretty, J., Spalding, M.D., Tonneijck, F.H., Wintle, B.C., Ockendon, N.: A 2017 horizon scan of emerging issues for global conservation and biological diversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.11.005
  10. 10.
    Sutherland, W.J., Aveling, R., Brooks, T.M., Clout, M., Dicks, L.V., Fellman, L., Fleishman, E., Gibbons, D.W., Keim, B., Lickorish, F., Monk, K.A., Mortimer, D., Peck, L.S., Pretty, J., Rockström, J., Rodriguez, J.P., Smith, R.K., Spalding, M.D., Tonneijck, F.H., Watkinson, A.R.: A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2014. Trends Ecol. Evol. (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.11.004
  11. 11.
    Sutherland, W.J., Fleishman, E., Mascia, M.B., Pretty, J., Rudd, M.A.: Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy. Methods Ecol. Evol. (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00083.x
  12. 12.
    Sutherland, W.J., Broad, S., Caine, J., Clout, M., Dicks, L.V., Doran, H., Entwistle, A.C., Fleishman, E., Gibbons, D.W., Keim, B., LeAnstey, B., Lickorish, F.A., Markillie, P., Monk, K.A., Mortimer, D., Ockendon, N., Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Peck, L.S., Pretty, J., Rockström, J., Spalding, M.D., Tonneijck, F.H., Wintle, B.C., Wright, K.E.: A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2016. Trends Ecol. Evol. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.007
  13. 13.
    Agora Energiewende: Die Energiewende im Stromsektor. Stand der Dinge 2016. Rückblick auf die wesentlichen Entwicklungen sowie Ausblick auf 2017, Berlin. https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2017/Jahresauswertung_2016/Agora_Jahresauswertung-2016_WEB.pdf (2017). Accessed 16 Nov 2017
  14. 14.
    Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC): Global Wind Report. Annual Market Update 2016, Brussels (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bruns, E., Ohlhorst, D., Wenzel, B., Köppel, J.: Renewable Energies in Germany’s Electricity Market. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Energy Council: Global Energy Transitions. A Comparative Analysis of Key Countries and Implications for the International Energy Debate. Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    EEG: Gesetz für den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz – EEG 2017). Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz vom 21. Juli 2014 (BGBl. I S. 1066), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 17. Juli 2017 (BGBl. I S. 2532) geändert worden ist (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gartman, V., Wichmann, K., Bulling, L., Elena Huesca-Pérez, M., Köppel, J.: Wind of change or wind of challenges: implementation factors regarding wind energy development, an international perspective. AIMS Energy. (2014).  https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2014.4.485
  19. 19.
    Deutsche WindGuard GmbH: Status des Windenergieausbaus an Land in Deutschland 2017. im Auftrag vom Bundesverband Windenergie (BWE) und Verein Deutscher Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Power Systems (VDMA Power Systems) (2018)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jessup, B.: Plural and hybrid environmental values. A discourse analysis of the wind energy conflict in Australia and the United Kingdom. Environ. Polit. (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903396069
  21. 21.
    Walker, C., Baxter, J., Mason, S., Luginaah, I., Ouellette, D.: Wind energy development and perceived real estate values in Ontario, Canada. AIMS Energy. (2014).  https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2014.4.424
  22. 22.
    Dröes, M.I., Koster, H.R.A.: Renewable energy and negative externalities. The effect of wind turbines on house prices. J. Urban Econ. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2016.09.001
  23. 23.
    Reusswig, F., Braun, F., Heger, I., Ludewig, T., Eichenauer, E., Lass, W.: Against the wind. Local opposition to the German Energiewende. Util. Policy. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.02.006
  24. 24.
    Roßnagel, A., Birzle-Harder, B., Ewen, C., Götz, K., Hentschel, A., Horelt, M.-A., Huge, A., Stieß, I.: Entscheidungen über dezentrale Energieanlagen in der Zivilgesellschaft. Vorschläge zur Verbesserung der Planungs- und Genehmigungsverfahren Interdisciplinary Research on Climate Change Mitigation and Adaption, vol. 11. Kassel University Press, Kassel (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Larsen, S.V., Hansen, A.M., Lyhne, I., Aaen, S.B., Ritter, E., Nielsen, H.: Social impact assessment in Europe. A study of social impacts in three Danish cases. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333215500386
  26. 26.
    European Commission: Models of Horizon Scanning. How to integrate Horizon Scanning into European Research and Innovation Policies. https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/ccv/2015/Models-of-Horizon-Scanning.pdf (2015)
  27. 27.
    Amanatidou, E., Butter, M., Carabias, V., Konnola, T., Leis, M., Saritas, O., Schaper-Rinkel, P., van Rij, V.: On concepts and methods in horizon scanning. Lessons from initiating policy dialogues on emerging issues. Sci. Public Policy. (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs017
  28. 28.
    Bulling, L., Köppel, J.: Exploring the tradeoffs between wind energy and biodiversity conservation. In: Geneletti, D. (ed.) Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment, p. 10. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schuster, E., Bulling, L., Köppel, J.: Consolidating the state of knowledge: a synoptical review of wind energy’s wildlife effects. Environ. Manag. (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0501-5
  30. 30.
    Huesca-Pérez, M.E., Sheinbaum-Pardo, C., Köppel, J.: Social implications of siting wind energy in a disadvantaged region – the case of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.310
  31. 31.
    Gartman, V., Bulling, L., Dahmen, M., Geißler, G., Köppel, J.: Mitigation measures for wildlife in wind energy development, consolidating the state of knowledge – part 1. Planning and siting, construction. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333216500137
  32. 32.
    Gartman, V., Bulling, L., Dahmen, M., Geißler, G., Köppel, J.: Mitigation measures for wildlife in wind energy development, consolidating the state of knowledge-part 2. Operation, decommissioning. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333216500149
  33. 33.
    Biehl, J., Bulling, L., Gartman, V., Weber, J., Dahmen, M., Geißler, G., Köppel, J.: Vermeidungsmaßnahmen bei Planung, Bau und Betrieb von Windenergieanlagen – Synoptische Auswertungen zum Stand des Wissens. Naturschutz Landschaftsplanung. 49(2), 63–72 (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Akremi, L.: Stichprobenziehung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. In: Baur, N., Blasius, J. (eds.) Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, pp. 265–282. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Robinson, O.C.: Sampling in interview-based qualitative research. A theoretical and practical guide. Qual. Res. Psychol. (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2013.801543
  36. 36.
    May, R., Gill, A.B., Köppel, J., Langston, R.H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C.C., Hüppop, O., Portman, M.: Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine-wildlife interactions. In: Köppel, J. (ed.) Wind Energy and Wildlife Interactions: Presentations from the CWW2015 Conference, pp. 255–276. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Voigt, C.C., Lehnert, L.S., Petersons, G., Adorf, F., Bach, L.: Wildlife and renewable energy. German politics cross migratory bats. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0903-y
  38. 38.
    Grünkorn, T., Blew, J., Krüger, O., Potiek, A., Reichenbach, M., Rönn, J., von Timmermann, H., Weitekamp, S., Nehls, G.: A large-scale, multi-species assessment of avian mortality rates at land-based wind turbines in Northern Germany. In: Köppel, J. (ed.) Wind Energy and Wildlife Interactions: Presentations from the CWW2015 Conference, pp. 43–64. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    American Wind Wildlife Institute (AWWI): Documents Library. https://awwic.nacse.org/library.php (2017). Accessed 21 Nov 2017
  40. 40.
    Reichenbach, M.: Wind turbines and birds in Germany – examples of current knowledge, new insights and remaining gaps. In: Köppel, J. (ed.) Wind Energy and Wildlife Interactions: Presentations from the CWW2015 Conference, pp. 239–252. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft der Vogelschutzwarten (LAG VSW): Windenergie. http://www.vogelschutzwarten.de/windenergie.htm (2017). Accessed 24 May 2017
  42. 42.
    Beiersdorf, A., Wollny-Goerke, K. (eds.): Ecological Research at the Offshore Windfarm “alpha ventus”. Challenges, Results and Perspectives. Springer, Wiesbaden (2014)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (BSH): Standard. Untersuchung der Auswirkungen von Offshore-Windenergieanlagen auf die Meeresumwelt (StUK4), Hamburg, Rostock (2013)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVerwG): Beschluss vom 15. September 2009 – BVerwG 4 BN 25.09 – BRS 74 Nr. 112 (2009)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVerwG): 9. Juli 2008, 9 A 14.07, „A 30, Bad Oeynhausen“ (2008)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fachagentur Windenergie an Land (FA Wind): Anforderungen an die planerische Steuerung der Windenergienutzung in der Regional- und Flächennutzungsplanung, Berlin. https://www.fachagentur-windenergie.de/fileadmin/files/Veranstaltungen/Dokumentation_Planerseminare_07-2016/FA_Wind_Dokumentation_Planerseminare_07-2016.pdf (2016)
  47. 47.
    Wolters, E.A., Steel, B.S., Lach, D., Kloepfer, D.: What is the best available science? A comparison of marine scientists, managers, and interest groups in the United States. Ocean Coast. Manag. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.01.011
  48. 48.
    Günther, M., Geißler, G., Köppel, J.: Many roads may lead to Rome: selected features of quality control within environmental assessment systems in the US, NL, CA, and UK. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.08.002
  49. 49.
    Grimm, M., Schierozek, M., Koller, M., Köppel, J., Roelcke, T.: Lesefreundliche Dokumente in Umweltprüfungen. Gefördert vom Umweltbundesamt im Rahmen des Vorhabens „Strategische Umweltprüfung und (neuartige) Pläne und Programme auf Bundesebene“. Methoden, Verfahren, Rechtsgrundlagen, FKZ 371316100 (in press)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Linke, S.: Ästhetik der neuen Energielandschaften – oder: “Was Schönheit ist, das weiß ich nicht”. In: Kühne, O., Weber, F. (eds.) Bausteine der Energiewende. RaumFragen: Stadt – Region – Landschaft, pp. 409–430. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fachagentur Windenergie an Land (FA Wind): Umfrage zur Akzeptanz der Windenergie an Land – Herbst 2015, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fachagentur Windenergie an Land (FA Wind): Umfrage zur Akzeptanz der Windenergie an Land – Frühjahr 2016, Berlin (2016)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fachagentur Windenergie an Land (FA Wind): Umfrage zur Akzeptanz der Windenergie an Land – Herbst 2017, Berlin (2017)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Camargo, R., Dienes, B., Ebert, E., Günther, M., Hebrank, M., Jeong, M., Maack, A., Melilli, G., Möller-Lindenhof, T., Renner, S., Rodriguez Sotomayor, A., Rubino, M., Schniete, D., Stachnio, K., Thesen, J., Thomas, L., Tietjen, S., van Ham, F., Weber, J., Willers, A., Wüstenhagen, S., Odparlik, F.L., Köppel, J.: Social acceptance: gone with the wind? http://lehre.umweltpruefung.tu-berlin.de/mapj2016/doku.php (2016). Accessed 21 Nov 2017
  55. 55.
    Bundesinitiative Vernunftkraft e.V.: Vernunftkraft. http://www.vernunftkraft.de/Bundesinitiative/ (2017)
  56. 56.
    European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW): European Platform Against Windfarms. http://www.epaw.org/index.php?lang=en (2008-2017). Accessed 21 Nov 2017
  57. 57.
    Bräuer, M., Wolling, J.: Protest oder Partizipation? Die Rolle der Bürgerinitiativen im Themenfeld Netzausbau. In: Bundesnetzagentur (BNetzA) (ed.) Wissenschaftsdialog 2015, pp. 90–103. Wirtschaft und Technologie, Kommunikation und Planung, Bonn (2015)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Devine-Wright, P.: Rethinking NIMBYism. The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1004
  59. 59.
    Wolsink, M.: Wind power and the NIMBY-myth. Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energy. (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(99)00130-5
  60. 60.
    Petrova, M.A.: From NIMBY to acceptance: toward a novel framework – VESPA – for organizing and interpreting community concerns. Renew. Energy. 86, 1280–1294 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    van der Horst, D.: NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy. (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.012
  62. 62.
    Brunnengräber, A.: Klimaskeptiker im Aufwind. Wie aus einem Rand ein breiteres Gesellschaftsphänomen wird. In: Kühne, O., Weber, F. (eds.) Bausteine der Energiewende. RaumFragen: Stadt – Region – Landschaft, pp. 271–292. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bundesinitiative Vernunftkraft e.V.: Positionen für mehr Weitsicht zum Wohl von Mensch und Natur. http://www.vernunftkraft.de/de/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Positionspapier-Juli-2014.pdf (2014)
  64. 64.
    Eichenauer, E., Reusswig, F., Meyer-Ohlendorf, L., Lass, W.: Bürgerinitiativen gegen Windkraftanlagen und der Aufschwung rechtspopulistischer Bewegungen. In: Kühne, O., Weber, F. (eds.) Bausteine der Energiewende. RaumFragen: Stadt – Region – Landschaft, pp. 633–652. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Roßmeier, A., Weber, F., Kühne, O.: Wandel und gesellschaftliche Resonanz – Diskurse um Landschaft und Partizipation beim Windkraftausbau. In: Kühne, O., Weber, F. (eds.) Bausteine der Energiewende. RaumFragen: Stadt – Region – Landschaft, pp. 653–680. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sullivan, P.J., Acheson, J.M., Angermeier, P.L., Faast, T., Flemma, J., Jones, C.M., Knudsen, E.E., Minello, T.J., Secor, D.H., Wunderlich, R., Zanatell, B.A.: Defining and Implementing Best Available Science for Fisheries and Environmental Science, Policy, and Management. http://fisheries.org/docs/policy_science.pdf (2006). Accessed 27 June 2017
  67. 67.
    Ryan, C.M., Cerveny, L.K., Robinson, T.L., Blahna, D.J.: Implementing the 2012 forest planning rule: best available scientific information in forest planning assessments. For. Sci. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1093/forsci/fxx004
  68. 68.
    Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft der Vogelschutzwarten (LAG VSW): Abstandsempfehlungen für Windenergieanlagen zu bedeutsamen Vogellebensräumen sowie Brutplätzen ausgewählter Vogelarten (Stand April 2015). http://www.vogelschutzwarten.de/downloads/lagvsw2015_abstand.pdf (2015). Accessed 23 May 2017
  69. 69.
    Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVerwG): BVerwG Urteil vom 21.11.2013, 7 C 40.11 (2013)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Williams, B.K., Brown, E.D.: Adaptive management: from more talk to real action. Environ. Manag. (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0205-7
  71. 71.
    Hanna, L., Copping, A., Geerlofs, S., Feinberg, L., Brown-Saracino, J., Bennet, F., May, R., Köppel, J., Bulling, L., Gartman, V.: Results of IEA Wind Adaptive Management White Paper. International Energy Agency Wind Implementing Agreement (2016)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bulling, L., Köppel, J.: Adaptive Management in der Windenergieplanung – Eine Chance für den Artenschutz in Deutschland? Naturschutz Landschaftsplanung. 49(2), 73–79 (2017)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wulfert, K., Lau, M., Widdig, T., Müller-Pfannenstiel, K., Mengel, A.: Standardisierungspotenzial im Bereich der arten- und gebietsschutzrechtlichen Prüfung. FuE – Vorhaben im Rahmen des Umweltforschungsplanes des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz – FKZ 3512 82 2100 (2015). Accessed 16 May 2017Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Brandt, E.: Gutachterliche Stellungnahme zu ausgewählten Fragestellungen im Zusammenhang mit der geplanten Novellierung des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes. im Auftrag des Fördervereins der Koordinierungsstelle Windenergierecht (k:wer) e. V. (2017)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Peste, F., Paula, A., da Silva, L.P., Bernardino, J., Pereira, P., Mascarenhas, M., Costa, H., Vieira, J., Bastos, C., Fonseca, C., Pereira, M.J.R.: How to mitigate impacts of wind farms on bats? A review of potential conservation measures in the European context. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.11.001
  76. 76.
    Sims, C., Hull, C., Stark, E., Barbour, R.: Key learnings from ten years of monitoring and management interventions at the bluff point and Studland Bay wind farms: results of a review. In: Hull, C., Bennett, E., Stark, E., Smales, I., Lau, J., Venosta, M. (eds.) Wind and Wildlife: Proceedings from the Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, October 2012, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 125–144. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (2015)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Grünkorn, T., Rönn, J. von Blew, J., Nehls, G., Weitekamp, S., Timmermann, H., Reichenbach, M., Coppack, T., Potiek, A., Krüger, O.: Ermittlung der Kollisionsraten von (Greif-)Vögeln und Schaffung planungsbezogener Grundlagen für die Prognose und Bewertung des Kollisionsrisikos durch Windenergieanlagen (PROGRESS). Schlussbericht zum durch das Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi) im Rahmen des 6. Energieforschungsprogrammes der Bundesregierung geförderten Verbundvorhaben PROGRESS, FKZ 0325300A-D (2016). Accessed 19 Aug 2016Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region der Staaten von Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin and the American Wind Energy Association: Midwest Wind Energy. Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Public Review Draft (2016)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC): Greater Sage-Grouse. Overview and Effects of Wind Energy Development (2017)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Sudfeldt, C., Dröschmeister, R., Frederking, W., Gedeon, K., Gerlach, B., Grüneberg, C., Karthäuser, J., Langgemach, T., Schuster, B., Trautmann, S., Wahl, J.: Vögel in Deutschland – 2013, Münster (2013)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Department of the Interior (DOI), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Eagle Permits; Revisions to Regulations for Eagle Incidental Take and Take of Eagle Nests. 50 CFR Parts 13 and 22, vol. 81 (2016)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Bald and Golden Eagles: Population demographics and estimation of sustainable take in the United States, 2016 update, Washington, DC (2016)Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Diffendorfer, J., Beston, J., Merrill, M., Stanton, J., Corum, M., Loss, S., Thogmartin, W., Johnson, D., Erickson, R., Heist, K.: A method to assess the population-level consequences of wind energy facilities on bird and bat species. In: Köppel, J. (ed.) Wind Energy and Wildlife Interactions: Presentations from the CWW2015 Conference, pp. 65–76. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Moore, J.E., Curtis, K.A., Lewinson, R.L., Dillingham, P.W., Cope, J.M., Fordham, S.V., Heppell, S.S., Pardo, S.A., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Tuck, G.N., Zhou, S.: Evaluating sustainability of fisheries bycatch mortality for marine megafauna. A review of conservation reference points for data-limited populations. Environ. Conserv. (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291300012X
  85. 85.
    O’Brien, S.H., Cook, A.S.C.P., Robinson, R.A.: Implicit assumptions underlying simple harvest models of marine bird populations can mislead environmental management decisions. J. Environ. Manag. (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.037
  86. 86.
    Pahl-Weber, E., Henckel, D.: The Planning System and Planning Terms in Germany. A Glossary, p. 7. Studies in Spatial Development, Hannover (2008)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Raschke, M.: Die Windenergieerlasse der Länder. In: Müller, T., Kahl, H. (eds.) Energiewende im Föderalismus. Schriften zum Umweltenergierecht, vol. 18, pp. 261–289. NOMOS, Baden-Baden (2015)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Christ, B., Linke, H.J.: Windenergieanlagen in der Raumordnung – landes- und regionalplanerische Ansätze. Flächenmanagement und Bodenordnung (fub)(1) (2014)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Nagel, P.-B., Schwarz, T., Köppel, J.: Ausbau der Windenergie – Anforderungen aus der Rechtsprechung und fachliche Vorgaben für die planerische Steuerung. Umweltmed. Planungsrecht. 10, 371–382 (2014)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Gailing, L.: Die Landschaften der Energiewende – Themen und Konsequenzen für die sozialwissenschaftliche Landschaftsforschung. In: Gailing, L., Leibenath, M. (eds.) Neue Energielandschaften – Neue Perspektiven der Landschaftsforschung. RaumFragen: Stadt – Region – Landschaft, pp. 207–215. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Noori, M., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O.: Economic input–output based sustainability analysis of onshore and offshore wind energy systems. Int. J. Green Energy. (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2014.890103
  92. 92.
    Huang, Y.-F., Gan, X.-J., Chiueh, P.-T.: Life cycle assessment and net energy analysis of offshore wind power systems. Renew. Energy. (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.10.050
  93. 93.
    Hooper, T., Beaumont, N., Hattam, C.: The implications of energy systems for ecosystem services. A detailed case study of offshore wind. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.248
  94. 94.
    Kraemer, A., Carin, B., Gruenig, M., Naves Blumenschein, F., Flores, R., Mathur, A., Brandi, C., Spencer, T., Helgenberger, S., Thielges, S., Vaughan, S., Whitley, S., Ruet, J., Ott, H.: Green Shift to Sustainability: Co-Benefits & Impacts of Energy Transformation on Resource Industries, Trade, Growth, and Taxes. G20 Insights (2017)Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Kraemer, A.: Green shift to sustainability: co-benefits and impacts of energy transformation. Policy Brief, 109 (2017)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    May, R.: Mitigation for birds. In: Perrow, M. (ed.) Wildlife and Wind Farms – Conflicts and Solutions. Volume 1 Onshore: Potential Effects, pp. 124–144. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter (2017)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Bulling, L., Sudhaus, D., Schnittker, D., Schuster, E., Biehl, J., Tucci, F.: Vermeidungsmaßnahmen bei der Planung und Genehmigung von Windenergieanlagen. Bundesweiter Katalog von Maßnahmen zur Vermeidung des Eintritts von artenschutzrechtlichen Verbotstatbeständen nach §44 BNatSchG (2015). Accessed 19 Aug 2016Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Fachagentur Windenergie an Land (FA Wind): Kompensation von Eingriffen in das Landschaftsbild durch Windenergieanlagen im Genehmigungsverfahren und in der Bauleitplanung. Berlin (2016)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Länderausschuss für Immissionsschutz (LAI): Hinweise zur Ermittlung und Beurteilung der optischen Immissionen von Windenergieanlagen (WEA-Schattenwurf-Hinweise). verabschiedet auf der 103. Sitzung (2002)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    European Commission, European Parliament: Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Water Framework Directive (2000)Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    May, R., Hamre, Ø., Vang, R., Nygård, T.: Evaluation of the DTBird video-system at the Smøla wind-power plant. Detection capabilities for capturing near-turbine avian behaviour. NINA Report 910 (2012)Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Hanagasioglu, M., Aschwanden, J., Bontadina, F., de la Puente Nilsson Marcos: Investigation of the effectiveness of bat and bird detection of the DTBat and DTBird systems at Calandawind turbine. Final report (2015)Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Litsgård, F., Eriksson, A., Wizelius, T., Säfström, T.: DTBird system Pilot Installation in Sweden. Possibilities for bird monitoring systems around wind farms. Experiences from Sweden’s first DTBird installation. Ecocom AB. 21-12-2016. Englische Übersetzung durch DTBird (2017). Accessed 7 Mar 2017Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Department of Energy (DoE): 3 Ways Energy Department Research Will Help Coexist with Wind Energy Deployment. https://energy.gov/eere/articles/3-ways-energy-department-research-will-help-eagles-coexist-wind-energy-deployment (2016)
  105. 105.
    DTBird: U.S. Department of Energy Funds Evaluation of DTBird System. http://www.dtbird.com/index.php/es/news-2/item/43-usa-department-energy-evaluate-effectiveness-dtbird-system (2016)
  106. 106.
    Miller, M., Giebel, R.: Rotor-mounted bat impact deterrence system (poster). In: Wind Wildlife Research Meeting XI: Presentation Abstracts, pp. 52–53 (2016)Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Bat Conservation International: Ultrasonic Acoustic Deterrents (UADs). http://www.batcon.org/our-work/regions/usa-canada/wind2/ultrasonic (2017)
  108. 108.
    Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof: Urteil vom 10.03.2016, Az. 22 B 14.1875 und 22 B 14.1876 (2016). Accessed 23 Feb 2017Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN): NATforWINSENT – Naturschutz im Windtestfeld. Entwicklung eines Konzepts zur Naturschutzbegleitforschung im Rahmen des WindForS-Windenergietestfelds Schwäbische Alb. FKZ 3517 86 1600. https://www.natur-und-erneuerbare.de/projektdatenbank/projekte/natforwinsent-naturschutz-im-windtestfeld/ (2017)
  110. 110.
    Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH): Guidance on Methods for Monitoring Bird Populations at Onshore Wind Farms. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/C205417.pdf (2009). Accessed 11 July 2017
  111. 111.
    Ornitela: Ornithology and Telemetry Applications. http://www.ornitela.com/ (2016)
  112. 112.
    Moberg, F., Simonsen, S.H.: What is resilience? An introduction to social-ecological research (2014)Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Folke, C., Lannerstad, M., Barron, J., Enfors, E., Gordon, L., Heinke, J., Hoff, H., Pahl-Wostl, C.: Water Resilience for Human Prosperity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Reed, M., Evely, A., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C., Raymond, C., Stringer, L.: What is social learning? Ecol. Soc. (2010).  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03564-1504r01
  115. 115.
    Bodin, Ö.: Collaborative environmental governance. Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science (New York, N.Y.). (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114
  116. 116.
    Scott, T., Thomas, C.: Unpacking the collaborative toolbox: why and when do public managers choose collaborative governance strategies? Policy Stud. J. 45(1), 191–214 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Wondolleck, J., Yaffee, S.: Making Collaboration Work. Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Davies, W.: The age of post-truth politics. The New York Times (26 August 2016). https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/opinion/campaign-stops/the-age-of-post-truth-politics.html
  119. 119.
    Krane, M.: Alternative Fakten kann jeder. Fake News entlarven. Der Tagesspiegel (20 June 2017). http://www.tagesspiegel.de/themen/freie-universitaet-berlin/fake-news-entlarven-alternative-fakten-kann-jeder/19938682.html

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group, Berlin Institute of Technology (TU Berlin)BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Deutsche Bundesstiftung UmweltOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations