CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Who wants to get involved? Determining citizen willingness to participate in German renewable energy cooperatives

Fischer, Beate, Gutsche, Gunnar, Wetzel, Heike·2021·Energy Research & Social Science
DOI 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102013

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Bauwens, 2016, Explaining the diversity of motivations behind community renewable energy, Energy Policy, 93, 278, 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.017 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Huybrechts, 2014, The Relevance of the cooperative model in the field of renewable energy, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 85, 193, 10.1111/apce.12038 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Holstenkamp, 2016, What are community energy companies trying to accomplish? An empirical investigation of investment motives in the German case, Energy Policy, 97, 112, 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.010 · DOI
  4. Bauwens, 2019, Analyzing the determinants of the size of investments by community renewable energy members: Findings and policy implications from Flanders, Energy Policy, 129, 841, 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.067 · DOI
  5. Bamberg, 2015, Collective climate action: Determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 155, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.006 · DOI
  6. Kalkbrenner, 2016, Citizens’ willingness to participate in local renewable energy projects: The role of community and trust in Germany, Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 60, 10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.006 · DOI
  7. Koirala, 2018, Trust, awareness, and independence: Insights from a socio-psychological factor analysis of citizen knowledge and participation in community energy systems, Energy Research & Social Science, 38, 33, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.009 · DOI
  8. Masson, 2015, Mitglieder-Zuwachspotenzial für Energiegenossenschaften in Deutschland, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Genossenschaftswesen, 65, 191, 10.1515/zfgg-2015-0304 · DOI
  9. Rogers, 2008, Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects, Energy Policy, 36, 4217, 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.07.028 · DOI
  10. International Energy Agency: Germany 2020. Energy Policy Review, URL: https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/G/germany-2020-energy-policy-review.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4 (accessed 05 February 2021).
  11. Baker, 2021, Power struggles: Governing renewable electricity in a time of technological disruption, Geoforum, 118, 93, 10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.12.006 · DOI
  12. Yildiz, 2015, Renewable energy cooperatives as gatekeepers or facilitators? Recent developments in Germany and a multidisciplinary research agenda, Energy Research & Social Science, 6, 59, 10.1016/j.erss.2014.12.001 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Falk, 2018, Global evidence on economic preferences, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133, 1645, 10.1093/qje/qjy013 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Gutsche, 2019, Which private investors are willing to pay for sustainable investments? Empirical evidence from stated choice experiments, Journal of Banking & Finance, 102, 193, 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2019.03.007 · DOI
  15. Seyfang, 2013, A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of community energy in the UK, Energy Policy, 61, 977, 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.030 · DOI
  16. Walker, 2008, Community renewable energy: What should it mean?, Energy Policy, 36, 497, 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019 · DOI
  17. Yildiz, 2014, Financing renewable energy infrastructures via financial citizen participation – The case of Germany, Renewable Energy, 68, 677, 10.1016/j.renene.2014.02.038 · DOI
  18. Centgraf, 2018, Supporting civic engagement in German energy cooperatives – Transdisciplinary research based on the reflection of individual needs, Energy Research & Social Science, 44, 112, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.003 · DOI
  19. Herbes, 2017, Responding to policy change: New business models for renewable energy cooperatives – Barriers perceived by cooperatives’ members, Energy Policy, 109, 82, 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.051 · DOI
  20. Brummer, 2018, Of expertise, social capital, and democracy: Assessing the organizational governance and decision-making in German Renewable Energy Cooperatives, Energy Research & Social Science, 37, 111, 10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.039 · DOI
  21. Wierling, 2018, Statistical Evidence on the Role of Energy Cooperatives for the Energy Transition in European Countries, Sustainability, 10, 3339, 10.3390/su10093339 · DOI
  22. Klagge, 2018, Energy cooperatives in Germany – an example of successful alternative economies?, Local Environment, 23, 697, 10.1080/13549839.2018.1436045 · DOI
  23. Bauwens, 2018, Positive energies? An empirical study of community energy participation and attitudes to renewable energy, Energy Policy, 118, 612, 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.062 · DOI
  24. Bauwens, 2017, Exploring the links between community-based governance and sustainable energy use: Quantitative evidence from Flanders, Ecological Economics, 137, 163, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.006 · DOI
  25. Bauwens, 2016, What drives the development of community energy in Europe? The case of wind power cooperatives, Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 136, 10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.016 · DOI
  26. Mignon, 2016, The impact of systemic factors on the deployment of cooperative projects within renewable electricity production – An international comparison, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 65, 478, 10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.026 · DOI
  27. Magnani, 2016, Does civil society matter? Challenges and strategies of grassroots initiatives in Italy’s energy transition, Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 148, 10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.012 · DOI
  28. Pellicer-Sifres, 2018, Learning, transformative action, and grassroots innovation: Insights from the Spanish energy cooperative Som Energia, Energy Research & Social Science, 42, 100, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.001 · DOI
  29. Capellán-Pérez, 2018, Renewable Energy Cooperatives as an instrument towards the energy transition in Spain, Energy Policy, 123, 215, 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.064 · DOI
  30. Kahla, 2017, Entwicklung und Stand von Bürgerenergiegesellschaften und Energiegenossenschaften in Deutschland, Working Paper Series in Business and Law No., 27
  31. Fischer, 2018, Trotz verschlechterter gesetzlicher Rahmenbedingungen stabilisieren sich Energiegenossenschaften auf hohem Niveau, Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen, 68, 78
  32. Rommel, 2018, Community renewable energy at a crossroads: A think piece on degrowth, technology, and the democratization of the German energy system, Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1746, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.114 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Ebers Broughel, 2018, Community financing of renewable energy projects in Austria and Switzerland: Profiles of potential investors, Energy Policy, 123, 722, 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.054 · DOI
  34. Salm, 2016, What are retail investors’ risk-return preferences towards renewable energy projects? A choice experiment in Germany, Energy Policy, 97, 310, 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.042 · DOI
  35. Radtke, 2014, A closer look inside collaborative action: civic engagement and participation in community energy initiatives, People, Place and Policy Online, 8, 235, 10.3351/ppp.0008.0003.0008 · DOI
  36. Fraune, 2015, Gender matters: Women, renewable energy, and citizen participation in Germany, Energy Research & Social Science, 7, 55, 10.1016/j.erss.2015.02.005 · DOI
  37. Yoeli, 2013, Powering up with indirect reciprocity in a large-scale field experiment, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 10424, 10.1073/pnas.1301210110 · DOI
  38. Dohmen, 2009, Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes, The Economic Journal, 119, 592, 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02242.x · DOI
  39. Gächter, 2017, Reciprocity and the tragedies of maintaining and providing the commons, Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 650, 10.1038/s41562-017-0191-5 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Gutsche, 2019, On the relevance of contextual factors for socially responsible investments: an econometric analysis, Oxford Economic Papers, 71, 756, 10.1093/oep/gpy051 · DOI
  41. Kaustia, 2011, Stock market aversion? Political preferences and stock market participation, Journal of Financial Economics, 100, 98, 10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.10.017 · DOI
  42. Hong, 2012, Red and blue investing: Values and finance, Journal of Financial Economics, 103, 1, 10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.01.006 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Dohmen, 2008, Representative trust and reciprocity: prevalence and determinants, Economic Inquiry, 46, 84, 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00082.x · DOI
  44. Dohmen, 2012, The intergenerational transmission of risk and trust attitudes, The Review of Economic Studies, 79, 645, 10.1093/restud/rdr027 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Ziegler, 2017, Political orientation, environmental values, and climate change beliefs and attitudes: An empirical cross country analysis, Energy Economics, 63, 144, 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.01.022 · DOI
  46. Whitmarsh, 2008, Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response, Journal of Risk Research, 11, 351, 10.1080/13669870701552235 · DOI
  47. Lanzini, 2017, Shedding light on the psychological and behavioral determinants of travel mode choice: A meta-analysis, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 48, 13, 10.1016/j.trf.2017.04.020 · DOI
  48. Rausch, 2021, Bridge the gap: Consumers’ purchase intention and behavior regarding sustainable clothing, Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123882 · DOI
  49. Echegaray, 2017, Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic waste recycling: the case of Brazil, Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 180, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.064 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Espín, 2019, Patience predicts cooperative synergy: The roles of ingroup bias and reciprocity, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 83, 10.1016/j.socec.2019.101465 · DOI
  51. Schleich, 2019, A large-scale test of the effects of time discounting, risk aversion, loss aversion, and present bias on household adoption of energy-efficient technologies, Energy Economics, 80, 377, 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.12.018 · DOI
  52. Ziegler, 2020, Heterogeneous preferences and the individual change to alternative electricity contracts, Energy Economics, 91
  53. Fischer, 2017, Transformationsbeitrage von Energiegenossenschaften zu einem nachhaltigen Energiesystem: Am Beispiel von drei Energiegenossenschaften, EnGeno Working Paper
  54. E.D. Groh, C. v. Möllendorff, What shapes the support of renewable energy expansion? Public attitudes between policy goals and risk, time, and social preferences, Energy Policy 137 (2020) 111171. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111171. · DOI
  55. Fuhrmann-Riebel, 2021, The role of preferences for pro-environmental behaviour among urban middle class households in Peru, Ecological Economics, 180, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106850 · DOI
  56. Walker, 2010, Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy, Energy Policy, 38, 2655, 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.055 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 69

Metadata

Authors
Fischer, B., Gutsche, G., & Wetzel, H.
Venue
Energy Research & Social Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
76
Pages
102013
ISSN
2214-6296
DOI
10.1016/j.erss.2021.102013
Cited by
69
References
4
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (03KF0044B)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review