1. Introduction
It is broadly acknowledged that forest areas play a crucial role in the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability [
1,
2,
3]. Consequently, counteracting deforestation has been an important global sustainability goal for many years [
4,
5]. The creation and maintenance of forests can foster valuable synergies for a possible future in which humans live harmonically in symbiosis with nature. Still, too often, economic decisions and actions impair this potential [
6]. In spite of the broad international acceptance of the sustainable development goals [
7] and international efforts aiming at the protection of existing forests, reforestation of destroyed areas, and planting and creating new additional forest areas, the global forest cover has nevertheless been declining continuously and still is [
8,
9,
10].
Forests are crucial for sustainability as they represent important habitats of animals and plants and hence safeguard biodiversity [
9]. The social benefits of forests include their cultural values and their significance in the preservation of traditions and identity of people [
1,
11]. Forest furthermore provides benefits for human health and well-being and, hence, quality of life, through offering natural spaces for mental restoration, stress reduction and physical activities in the context of nature experiences and tourism [
12,
13,
14]. Economic benefits of forests include the generation of employment and income opportunities and the production of timber as an important basic economic resource.
There are also synergetic benefits that transcend the borders between single sustainability dimensions. For example, social and economic outcomes result from the health benefits for people achieved by the clean air provided through forests by airborne resorption of pollutants in the tree canopy [
15,
16,
17]. Forests also have the potential to clean soils from pollutants via uptake through the root systems of trees and to improve soil quality and fertility [
18,
19,
20] with ecological, social and economic implications. The effects of forests on global and local micro-climate climate are a further example of how forests can provide synergistic sustainability benefits in terms of the social, economic and ecological dimensions [
21]. The environmental cooling effect of forests and trees by providing shade during heatwaves is valuable for human health. The absorption of CO
2 by trees can reduce atmospheric CO
2 concentration which has corresponding social, economic and ecological implications ([
3,
22,
23]). So, in summary, it is obvious that forests synergistically reinforce the three main pillars of the ecological, social and economic dimensions of sustainability [
24]. accordingly summarizes some of the important sustainability benefits of forests.
Table 1. Benefits of forests for different dimensions and aspects of sustainability.
2. Synergetic Sustainability Benefits of Forests Require Their Protection
In consideration of the large synergistic sustainability benefits of forest, deforestation and projects involving deforestation constitute a serious threat to sustainable development. In ecological regard, deforestation is connected to the loss of bio-diversity, has negative climatic implications and deteriorates habitats and living conditions for plants and animals. In social terms, it has tremendous negative implications for human societies [
4]. On the background of the large and synergetic climate and sustainability benefits of forests, a global forest transition that stops deforestation andsupports reforestation and forest creation is highly desirable [
6,
35,
36]. Emerging energy projects involving substantial deforestation, for example, for the construction of large-scale wind energy or solar energy power plants in forests, are at odds with such a transition. They should accordingly be considered with great scepticism. Instead of achieving positive synergetic effects for sustainability, deforestation projects with an isolated focus on CO
2 reduction can involve negative effects on environmental, economic and social aspects of sustainability, including negative climatic effects as outlined previously.
In the current context of a project planning comprising the clearing of 370 hectares of mixed forest to build a photovoltaic plant near Bad Freienwalde in Brandenburg, Germany, therefore, even a representative of the Solar Energy Promotion Association Germany (SFV, Solarenergie-Förderverein Deutschland spoke out publicly ([
37], p.1) against the project stating that: “We at the SFV have been fighting for the rapid expansion of photovoltaics in Germany for 36 years and also support the inclusion of conversion areas in the EEG’s {German Renewable Energies Act} land use plan. But we firmly reject these plans!”.
He provided two main reasons for this rejection. Firstly, the planning needs to be rejected for reasons of nature conservation, even more so as the mixed forest in question seemed particularly valuable in regards to biodiversity, and secondly because “the destruction of such a forest for a ground-mounted photovoltaic plant is likely to jeopardize the high level of acceptance that exists among the population for solar energy. This is a disservice {orig. Proverbial German term: Bärendienst, meaning “serving like a bear”} to the energy transition.” [
37] (p. 1). He thus called upon federal legislators “to clarify the provisions on conversion areas in the EEG, in such a way that the clearing of entire forests for large ground-mounted systems is excluded from the privileged status” not only to protect the forest-environments but also to ensure public acceptance of solar energy plants.
If the construction of large-scale wind turbines and solar power plants is connected to deforestation and destruction of natural, ecologically valuable paces of high biodiversity, such projects run diametrically against important ecological aims of sustainability [
38,
39,
40]. Furthermore, large-scale wind turbines can reduce tourism demand and residential satisfaction [
41,
42,
43] with negative implications for the economy and quality of life in affected regions. Accordingly, tourists’ and locals’ acceptance of renewable energy projects should always be carefully considered before the planning of such projects [
44]. In most cases, better, superior alternative options are viable that can synergistically promote all three dimensions of sustainability as has been recommended for preferable sustainability-oriented measures [
24]. Both solar and wind energy are generally accepted in Switzerland and Germany. Still, instead of acceptance, highly visible large-scale projects in natural areas such as the Alps or forests tend to be rejected by the resident population [
37,
43]. As power can also be harvested from rooftops and wind turbines may also be located offshore or on farm land previously used for monocultures with low biodiversity. Small-scale plants show lower impacts on the landscape and biodiversity and seem to offer more social benefits as ownership may be distributed over more people and social networks may emerge. The possibilities for achieving large-scale economic gains with small-scale energy production projects are limited, and such profits are presumably the main driving force for investors of large-scale projects requiring deforestation. Still, large-scale renewable energy projects that do not involve deforestation may well be equilibrated over the three main sustainability dimensions and may indeed achieve economic gains as well as social and biodiversity benefits. For example, photovoltaic power plants may even be combined with forestation in arboricultural agrivoltaic systems, which integrate PV power generation and, for example, apple-tree [
45] or olive groves [
46] in hot and dry regions where PV-based shading systems could be beneficial. Agrivoltaic systems may offer possibilities for combining food and energy production with positive synergistic effects for economic, social and ecological aspects of sustainability [
47,
48,
49]. Forest gardens combining arboriculture and horticulture with agrivoltaic components may also be possible in this regard [
50]. Achieving positive synergies for sustainability in social, ecological and economic regards through renewable energy projects seems possible.
3. Credible Sustainability Role Models and Public Protests
Further aspect requiring the stop of deforestation in favor of PV-plants and wind parks in progressive Western countries such as Germany is that they could, in this way, act as sustainability role models for other countries. Tropical countries are, to a considerable extent, failing in their efforts to achieve an end to deforestation [
6,
51] even though Northern countries and international NGOs aim to support the protection of forests. However, if Western countries urging tropical countries to protect their forest better, do not protect their forests, this may deteriorate their credibility and may eventually even elicit the impression that these Western countries aim to prevent the Southern countries from achieving the same progress, which they themselves have achieved. In this context, some people may even regard deforestation as progress or at least as an indicator. This raises the question of how a self-proclaimed sustainability-oriented country such as Germany can persuasively showcase the importance of forest protection to a highly forested country such as Brazil if its government and administrations grant permissions to manifold projects involving deforestation. There are many such projects in Germany with diverse aims ranging from highway construction, airport enlargements, flood protection, mining, industrial development, new settlements and city enlargement to solar and wind energy parks. Public protests of people aiming to protectforests have emerged in Germany over a diverse topical range of such projects, as shown in , as some citizens recognize the great ecological, social and cultural value of forests.
Table 2. Some examples of public protests against recent deforestation projects in Germany.
4. Economic and Policy Considerations
It seems clear—based on the previous sections—that the social and ecologic benefits of forests are crucial and therefore, renewable energy production plants should be located outside forests, on land with less biodiversity, where they have similar potential and emission reduction benefits. However, if renewable energy policies and laws do not require encompassing sustainability evaluations of corresponding projects, mechanisms addressing this aspect are missing.
Germany introduced intensive economic subsidies for renewable energy production. Already in 1991, an Act on Supplying Electricity from Renewables [Stromeinspeisegesetz, StrEG] was introduced, which ensured that electricity from renewable energy could be fed-in the electric supply network with fixed remuneration and also granted tax exemptions and direct subsidies to renewable energy projects [
65]. In 2000, this law was replaced by the Renewable Energy Act (REA [German: Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz, EEG]), which has been revised and adapted several times to enhance the funding of renewable energy projects further. Again, a main instrument was to guarantee fixed feed-in tariffs for renewable energy producers. The corresponding incentives proved very effective in promoting the production of wind and solar power. For example, Germany now has the second highest capacity of photovoltaic power production per inhabitant (714 kw/1000 inhabitants in 2021) among all 27 EU countries, surpassed solely by the Netherlands (). This makes Germany the largest solar power producer in the EU by far. Germany’s overall share of electricity produced through renewable energy sources increased more than threefold in 14 years, from 15.2% in 2008 to 46.2% in 2022 (). However, during this period, electricity prices in Germany increased strongly (), and four private households are now the third highest in the EU ().
. Installed photovoltaic energy production capacity (kw) per 1000 inhabitants in the 27 countries of the EU in 2021 (Source: [
66]).
. Contribution of renewable energies to covering the gross electricity consumption in Germany (Source: [
67,
68]) and development of electricity prices for private households in Germany (Source: [
69]).
. Average electricity prices for private households in the 27 countries of the EU in the first half year of 2022 (Source: [
69]).
Despite the increase in the share of renewable energies coinciding with price increases for electricity, studies using resource economic models suggest that the promotion of renewable energy has reduced electricity costs for private households in relative terms, as even higher cost increases would have resulted in Germany without the expansion of renewable energies [
70,
71]. However, this positive economic outcome of the German energy policy for consumers remains, unclear. Some authors nevertheless see the fixed feed-in tariffs of the REA, as well as the termination (respectively fading out) of the German engagement in nuclear energy during the Merkel era (in connection with the Fukushima catastrophe), as the main causes of the observed electricity price increases [
72,
73].
However, without any doubt, the German policy achieved its aim of promoting the production of solar, wind and other types of renewable energy. As a consequence, there resulted in a considerable reduction in the emissions of non-renewable energy production.
Still, the REA policy was not sensitive to the overall sustainability outcomes of single projects. Generally, conducting some form of overall sustainability evaluation for all projects applying for and receiving public funding oriented towards sustainability would be a good idea. This refers not only to the renewable energy sector. In the current context, for example, conducting a sustainability-oriented SWOT analysis for German renewable energy projects connected to deforestation (which are mainly solar and wind-power projects)—as presented in the following—could be a basis for rejecting public funding for such projects, if such an analysis indicates that they tend to impair sustainable development.
5. SWOT Analysis of Renewable Energy Projects Connected to Deforestation
A SWOT analysis investigates the
Strengths,
Weaknesses,
Options and
Threads (respective risks) of certain projects, policies or strategies.
The strength of renewable energy projects lies in producing electric power, which partially substitutes conventional energy production with coal, oil and gas and, therefore reduces CO
2 and other emissions. A major weakness is the volatility of the power production from renewable sources, particularly when considering wind and solar power with phases of very high and low production.
These basic strengths and weaknesses also apply to wind and solar energy projects realized inside forest areas, which constitute the specific focus of the SWOT analysis presented in . However, as shown here, the substitution of forest areas by wind power or photovoltaic plants lead to the loss of manifold sustainability benefits of the cut-down forest areas. This represents a major weakness of such projects. The corresponding risks of such projects for sustainable development are particularly high because various current external trends such as increased land use demands, increased demands for wood, and direct and indirect climate change impacts (storms, drought, treepests) concomitantly put pressure on forests. Forests, therefore, need intense protection from deforestation and overuse.
The development of options to store energy from wind and solar power in times of overproduction and the further development of the electricity grid for the better distribution of renewable energy are currently the most crucial options for making the corresponding electricity production from renewables economically more effective in Germany. The main problem does not primarily lie in a scarcity of available space for production sites. Therefore the substitution of renewable energy projects requiring deforestation by similar projects outside forests represents the recommendable option. The situation is presumably similar in many other European and Non-European countries.
. SWOT analysis of renewable energy projects inside forest areas in Germany.
6. Conclusions
The main conclusion of the presented analytical argumentation is that forests are far too valuable for sustainable development to sacrifice for wind or solar energy production. To ignore this may lead to sustainability losses and endangers the currently high acceptance of renewable energy production among a population that highly esteems forests. Forests provide benefits for social, economic, and ecological aspects of sustainability as well as individual benefits for the health and well-being of humans [
3,
74] that need to be safeguarded to make sustainable development a truly life-enhancing and nature-protecting endeavor.
The presented SWOT analysis suggests that the required expansion of renewable energy production, which is important to reduce emissions, should primarily use spaces with less biodiversity and sustainability benefits than forests. The analysis also acknowledged that forests produce an important renewable energy resource, namely wood, which gets lost when substituting forested areas with wind or solar power plants.
Promoting renewable energy production while protecting our forests seems possible, as alternative space exists, for example, when considering a significant further increase of small-scale photovoltaic or wind energy production on existing buildings. In addition, the further development of options for the storage of renewable energy in times of overproduction and of the networks for electricity distribution could allow more flexibility in selecting suitable locations for larger-scale energy production outside forests.
These conclusions were drawn mainly at the hand of the example of Germany, but seem to more or less extent transferable to many other European and Non-European countries.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks the ETH Zurich, in particular the Transdisciplinarity Lab (TdLab) of the Department of Environmental Systems Science (D-USYS), for administrative and technical support. The author thanks the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on a previous manuscript version.
Ethics Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The author declares that he has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
1.
Persha L, Agrawal A, Chhatre A. Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation.
Science 2011,
331, 1606–1608.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Mukhlis I, Rizaludin MS, Hidayah I. Understanding socio-economic and environmental impacts of agroforestry on rural communities.
Forests 2022,
13, 556. doi:10.3390/f13040556.
[Google Scholar]
3.
Rhodes CJ. Trees—Protectors against a changing climate.
Ecol. Civiliz. 2024,
1, 10002. doi:10.35534/ecolciviliz.2024.10002.
[Google Scholar]
4.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). Our Common Future (Brundtland Report); Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
5.
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
6.
Garcia CA, Savilaakso S, Verburg RW, Gutierrez V, Wilson SJ, Krug CB, et al. The Global Forest Transition as a Human Affair.
One Earth 2020,
2, 417–428. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.002.
[Google Scholar]
7.
UN (United Nations). Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
8.
Estoque RC, Dasgupta R, Winkler K, Avitabile V, Johnson BA, Myint SW, et al. Spatiotemporal pattern of global forest change over the past 60 years and the forest transition theory.
Environ. Res. Lett. 2022,
17, 084022.
[Google Scholar]
9.
Ribeiro MC, Martensen AC, Metzger JP, Tabarelli M, Scarano FR, Fortin M-J. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: A shrinking biodiversity hotspot. In Biodiversity Hotspots: Distribution and Protection of Conservation Priority Areas, Zachos FE, Habel JC, Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 405–434.
10.
Wolf C, Levi T, Ripple WJ, Zarrate-Charry DA, Betts MGA. Forest loss report card for the world’s protected areas.
Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021,
5, 520–529.
[Google Scholar]
11.
Santoro A, Venturi M, Bertani R, Agnoletti MA. Review of the role of forests and agroforestry systems in the FAO Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Programme.
Forests 2020,
11, 860. doi:10.3390/f11080860.
[Google Scholar]
12.
Hansmann R, Eigenheer-Hug SM, Berset E, Seeland K. Erholungseffekte sportlicher Aktivitäten in stadtnahen Wäldern, Parks und Fitnessstudios.
Schweiz. Z. Forst. 2010,
161, 81–89.
[Google Scholar]
13.
Nilsson K, Sangster M, Gallis C, Hartig T, de Vries S, Seeland K, et al. Forests, Trees and Human Health; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011.
14.
Pearlmutter D, Calfapietra C, Samson R, O’Brien L, Krajter Ostoić S, Sanesi G. The Urban Forest: Cultivating Green Infrastructure for People and the Environment; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017.
15.
Chaudhuri S, Kumar A. Urban greenery for air pollution control: A meta-analysis of current practice, progress, and challenges.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022,
194, 235. doi:10.1007/s10661-022-09808-w.
[Google Scholar]
16.
Diener A, Mudu P. How can vegetation protect us from air pollution? A critical review on green spaces’ mitigation abilities for air-borne particles from a public health perspective—With implications for urban planning.
Sci. Tot. Environ. 2021,
796, 148605. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148605.
[Google Scholar]
17.
Nowak DJ, Hirabayashi S, Doyle M, McGovern M, Pasher J. Air pollution removal by urban forests in Canada and its effect on air quality and human health.
Urban For. Urban Green. 2018,
29, 40–48. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.10.019.
[Google Scholar]
18.
Bedair H, Ghosh S, Abdelsalam IM, Keerio AA, AlKafaas SS. Potential implementation of trees to remediate contaminated soil in Egypt.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022,
29, 78132–78151.
[Google Scholar]
19.
Dodoo DNA, Antwi-Agyei P, Baidoo E, Logah V, Abubakari A, Adarkwa BO. Soil carbon stock and nutrient characteristics of forest–savanna transition: Estimates from four land use systems in Ghana. Sustain. Environ. 2023, 9, doi:10.1080/27658511.2023.2262684.
20.
Mesele SA, Melenya C, Bougma A, Azeez JO, Ajiboye GA, Dubbin W et al. Soil mineralogical and nutrient characteristics of forest islands and surrounding ecosystem types in West Africa suggest anthropogenic soil improvement.
Plant Soil 2024,
495, 157–175. doi:10.1007/s11104-023-06042-2.
[Google Scholar]
21.
Shekmohammed S. The role of agroforestry in ecosystem service and climate change regulation: A review.
Middle East Res. J. Biol. Sci. 2021,
1, 14–22. doi:10.36348/merjbs.2021.v01i01.003.
[Google Scholar]
22.
Di Sacco A, Hardwick KA, Blakesley D, Brancalion PHS, Breman E, Cecilio Rebola L et al. Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 2021,
27, 1328–1348. doi:10.1111/gcb.15498.
[Google Scholar]
23.
Moomaw WR, Masino SA, Faison EK. Intact forests in the United States: Proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good.
Front. Forests Glob. Chang. 2019,
2, 449206. doi:10.3389/ffgc.2019.00027.
[Google Scholar]
24.
Hansmann R, Mieg HA, Frischknecht P. Principal sustainability components: Empirical analysis of synergies between the three pillars of sustainability.
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2012,
19, 451–459.
[Google Scholar]
25.
Axelsson R, Angelstam P, Degerman E, Teitelbaum S, Andersson K, Elbakidze M et al. Social and cultural sustainability: Criteria, Indicators, Verifier variables for measurement and maps for visualization to support planning.
AMBIO 2013,
42, 215–228. doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0376-0.
[Google Scholar]
26.
Camacho LD, Gevaña DT, Carandang AP, Sofronio C. Indigenous knowledge and practices for the sustainable management of Ifugao forests in Cordillera, Philippines.
Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2016,
12, 5–13.
[Google Scholar]
27.
Hartig T, Van den Berg AE, Hagerhall CM, Tomalak M, Bauer N, Hansmann R, et al. Health Benefits of Nature Experience: Psychological, Social and Cultural Processes. In Forests, Trees and Human Health; Nilsson K, Sangster M, Gallis C, Hartig T, de Vries S, Seeland K, et al, Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 127–169.
28.
Frumkin H. Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural environment.
Am. J. Prev. Med. 2001,
20, 234–240.
[Google Scholar]
29.
Muro A, Mateo C, Parrado E, Subirana-Malaret M, Moya M, Garriga A, et al. Forest bathing and hiking benefits for mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mediterranean regions. Res. Sq. 2022. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1569769/v1.
30.
Bodin M, Hartig T. Does the outdoor environment matter for psychological restoration gained through running?
Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2003,
4, 141–153.
[Google Scholar]
31.
Kilchling P, Hansmann R, Seeland K. Demand for non-timber forest products: Surveys of urban consumers and sellers in Switzerland.
For. Pol. Econ. 2009,
11, 294–300.
[Google Scholar]
32.
Candrea AN, Bouriaud L. A stakeholders’ analysis of potential sustainable tourism development strategies in Piatra Craiului National Park.
Ann. For. Res. 2009,
52, 191–198. doi:10.15287/afr.2009.138.
[Google Scholar]
33.
Farkic J, Isailovic G, Taylor S. Forest bathing as a mindful tourism practice.
Ann. Tour. Res. Empir. Insights 2021,
2, 100028. doi:10.1016/j.annale.2021.100028.
[Google Scholar]
34.
Sgroi F. Forest resources and sustainable tourism, a combination for the resilience of the landscape and development of mountain areas.
Sci. Tot. Environ. 2020,
736, 139539.
[Google Scholar]
35.
Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF. Global forest transition: Prospects for an end to deforestation.
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011,
36, 343–371.
[Google Scholar]
36.
Pendrill F, Persson UM, Godar J, Kastner T. Deforestation displaced: Trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition.
Environ. Res. Let. 2019,
14, 055003.
[Google Scholar]
37.
Haude R. Waldrodung für Solarfarmen? Nein Danke! (Deforestation for Solar Farms? No Thanks!). 2023. Available online: https://www.pv-magazine.de/2023/08/02/waldrodung-fuer-solarfarmen-nein-danke/ (accessed on 7 December 2023).
38.
Rehbein JA, Watson JEM, Lane JL, Sonter LJ, Venter O, Atkinson SC, et al. Renewable energy development threatens many globally important biodiversity areas.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020,
26, 3040–3051. doi:10.1111/gcb.15067.
[Google Scholar]
39.
Santangeli A, Toivonen T, Pouzols FM, Pogson M, Hastings A, Smith P, et al. Global change synergies and tradeoffs between renewable energy and biodiversity.
Glob. Chang. Biol. Bioenergy 2016,
8, 941–951.. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12299.
[Google Scholar]
40.
Serrano D, Margalida A, Pérez-García JM, Juste J, Traba J, Valera F, et al. Renewables in Spain threaten biodiversity.
Science 2020,
370, 1182–1183. doi:10.1126/science.abf6509.
[Google Scholar]
41.
Broekel T, Alfken C. Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on tourism demand.
Energy Pol. 2015,
86, 506–519.
[Google Scholar]
42.
Brudermann T, Zaman R, Posch A. Not in my hiking trail? Acceptance of wind farms in the Austrian Alps.
Clean Technol. Environ. Pol. 2019,
21, 1603–1616.
[Google Scholar]
43.
Voltaire L, Koutchade OP. Public acceptance of and heterogeneity in behavioral beach trip responses to offshore wind farm development in Catalonia (Spain).
Resour. Energy Econ. 2020,
60, 101152.
[Google Scholar]
44.
Hateftaba F, Hall CM. Energizing tourism sustainably: A harmonious symphony of tourists’ and locals’ acceptance of renewable energy.
J. Environ. Manag. 2023,
345, 118863.
[Google Scholar]
45.
Juillion P, Lopez G, Fumey D, Lesniak V, Génard M, Vercambre G. Shading apple trees with an agrivoltaic system: Impact on water relations, leaf morphophysiological characteristics and yield determinants.
Sci. Horticult. 2022,
306, 111434. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2022.111434.
[Google Scholar]
46.
Fernández-Solas Á, Fernández-Ocaña AM, Almonacid F, Fernández EF. Potential of agrivoltaics systems into olive groves in the Mediterranean region.
Appl. Energy 2023,
352, 121988. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121988.
[Google Scholar]
47.
Al Mamun MA, Dargusch P, Wadley D, Zulkarnain NA, Aziz AA. A review of research on agrivoltaic systems.
Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 2022,
161, 112351. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2022.112351.
[Google Scholar]
48.
Kumpanalaisatit M, Setthapun W, Sintuya H, Pattiya A, Jansri SN. Current status of agrivoltaic systems and their benefits to energy, food, environment, economy, and society.
Sustain. Prod. Consumpt. 2022,
33, 952–963. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.013.
[Google Scholar]
49.
Walston LJ, Barley T, Bhandari I, Campbell B, McCall J, Hartmann, H et al. Opportunities for agrivoltaic systems to achieve synergistic food-energy-environmental needs and address sustainability goals.
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022,
6, 932018. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2022.932018.
[Google Scholar]
50.
Wiersum KF. Forest gardens as an intermediate land-use system in the nature-culture continuum: Characteristics and future potential.
Agrofor. Syst. 2004,
61, 123–134.
[Google Scholar]
51.
Peña-Claros M, Nobre C. A regional approach to save the Amazon.
Science 2023,
381, 1261. doi:10.1126/science.adk8794.
[Google Scholar]
52.
Pflüger-Scherb U. Polizisten im Dannenröder Forst: Keiner der Kollegen wendet gern Gewalt an [Police Officers in Dannenröder Forest: “None of My Colleagues Like to Use Violence” 2020. Available online: https://www.hna.de/kassel/dannenroeder-forst-keiner-der-kollegen-wendet-gern-gewalt-an-90113648.html (accessed on 7 December 2023).
53.
Junge Welt. Großeinsatz bei Räumung im Dannenröder Wald [Large-Scale Operation to Clear Dannenröder Forest]. 2020. Available online: https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/391338.gro%C3%9Feinsatz-bei-r%C3%A4umung-im-dannenr%C3%B6der-wald.html (accessed on 7 December 2023).
54.
Postl LF. Protest Gegen Rodung: Aktivisten Wollen Bleiben [Protest against Deforestation: Activists Want to Stay]. 2018. Available online: https://www.op-online.de/region/neu-isenburg/protest-gegen-rodung-neu-isenburg-terminal-flughafen-aktivisten-richten-sich-aufs-bleiben-9521468.html (accessed on 7 December 2023).
55.
Welt Online. Protest Gegen Bau von Neuem Flughafen-Terminal [Protest against Construction of New Airport Terminal]. 2018. Available online: https://www.welt.de/regionales/hessen/article172556752/Protest-gegen-Bau-von-neuem-Flughafen-Terminal.html (accessed on 7 December 2023).
56.
Rheinische Post. Proteste am Flughafen—Polizei räumt Aktivistencamp bei Frankfurt [Protests at the Airport Police Clear Activist Camp Near Frankfurt]. 2018. Available online: https://rp-online.de/panorama/deutschland/frankfurter-flughafen-polizei-raeumt-aktivistencamp-im-tremburer-wald_aid-34306561 (accessed on 7 December 2023).
57.
Leue V. Hambacher Forst—Demonstrationen für den Erhalt des “Hambi” [Hambach Forest—Demonstrations for the preservation of the “Hambi”]. 2018. Available online: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/hambacher-forst-demonstrationen-fuer-den-erhalt-des-hambi-100.html (accessed on 7 December 2023).
58.
Stadler J. Hambacher Forst—Hambi bleibt? Warum die Aktivisten den Hambacher Forst trotzdem weiter besetzen [Hambach Forest—Hambi Stays? Why the Activists Are Still Occupying Hambach Forest]. 2020. Available online: https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/panorama/Hambacher-Forst-Hambi-bleibt-Warum-die-Aktivisten-den-Hambacher-Forst-trotzdem-weiter-besetzen-id56518416.html (accessed on 7 December 2023).
59.
Höppner F. Wir wollen, daß der Wald bleibt! [We Want the Forest to Stay!]. 2023. Available online: http://barnimer-buergerpost.de/downloads/bbp2306.pdf (accessed on 7 December 2023).
60.
Temme T. Hunderte Kritiker von Windkraft aus dem Reinhardswald demonstrieren [Hundreds of Critics of Wind Power from the Reinhardswald demonstrate]. 2022. Available online: https://www.hna.de/lokales/hofgeismar/trendelburg-ort43206/hunderte-kritiker-von-windkraft-aus-dem-reinhardswald-demonstrieren-91408179.html (accessed on 15 December 2023).
61.
TAZ. Protest gegen Windräder: Ärger im Reinhardswald [Protest against Wind Turbines: Trouble in Reinhardswald]. 2022. Available online: https://taz.de/Protest-gegen-Windraeder/!5833975/- (accessed on 15 December 2023).
62.
Huber J. Mannheim: Stadt Erhebt Einspruch Gegen Geplanten Kahlschlag im Waldpark. 2023. Available online: https://www.rheinpfalz.de/lokal/pfalz-ticker_artikel,-stadt-erhebt-einspruch-gegen-geplanten-kahlschlag-im-waldpark-_arid,5456362.html (accessed on 15 December 2023).
63.
Schwab J. Aktivisten Besetzen in Freiburg Bäume—Klage Gegen Rodung. 2023. Available online: https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/baden-wuerttemberg/suedbaden/baumbesetzungen-gegen-drohende-rodung-dietenbach-100.html (accessed on 15 December 2023).
64.
Augsburger Klimacamp. Trotz schwebenden Verfahrens: Stahlwerke roden ein Drittel des rechtlich geschützten Lohwalds bei Meitingen [Despite pending court proceedings: Steelworks clear a third of the legally protected Lohwald forest near Meitingen]. 2022. Available online: https://www.klimacamp-augsburg.de/pressemitteilungen/2022-10-23-rodung-des-lohwalds/ (accessed on 15 December 2023).
65.
Bechberger M, Reiche D. Renewable energy policy in Germany: Pioneering and exemplary regulations.
Energy Sustain. Dev. 2004,
8, 47–57.
[Google Scholar]
66.
Destatis [German Federal Office of Statistics]. Photovoltaik: Deutschland größter Erzeuger in der EU [Photovoltaics: Germany is the Largest Producer in the EU]. 2024. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/Europa/DE/Thema/Umwelt-Energie/Photovoltaik.html (accessed on 27 August 2024).
67.
AGEE-Stat (Arbeitsgruppe Erneuerbare Energien-Statistik). Erneuerbare Energien in Deutschland—Daten zur Entwicklung im Jahr 2022. German Federal Office of Statistics, Berlin, Germany, 2023. Available online: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/1410/publikationen/2023-03-16_uba_hg_erneuerbareenergien_dt_bf.pdf(accessed on 27 August 2024).
68.
Schiffer HW. Einführung in die Energiewirtschaft: Ressourcen und Märkte; Springer Vieweg: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2023. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-41747-5.
69.
Destatis [German Federal Office of Statistics]. Preise: Daten zur Energiepreisentwicklung; German Federal Office of Statistics: Berlin, Germany, 2023.
70.
Kolb S, Dillig M, Plankenbühler T, Karl J. The impact of renewables on electricity prices in Germany—An update for the years 2014–2018.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020,
134, 110307.
[Google Scholar]
71.
Dillig M, Jung M, Karl J. The impact of renewables on electricity prices in Germany—An estimation based on historic spot prices in the years 2011–2013.
Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 2016,
57, 7–15. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.003.
[Google Scholar]
72.
Grossman PZ. Energy shocks, crises and the policy process: A review of theory and application.
Energy Policy 2015,
77, 56–69. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.031.
[Google Scholar]
73.
Monstadt J, Scheiner S. Allocating greenhouse gas emissions in the German federal system: Regional interests and federal climate governance.
Energy Policy 2014,
74, 383–394. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.09.001.
[Google Scholar]
74.
Baysal UU, Sutton PC. Desperately seeking sustainable human well-being: A Review of Indicators, Concepts, and Methods.
Ecol. Civiliz. 2024,
1, 10004. doi:10.35534/ecolciviliz.2024.10004.
[Google Scholar]
