Energy Policy 173 (2023) 113359 Available online 16 December 2022 0301-4215/© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Institutional acceptance of wildlife mitigation technologies for wind energy: The case of Israel Adi Cohen a, * , Itay Fischhendler a , David Katz b a Department of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel b Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa, Israel A R T I C L E INFO Keywords: Wind power Birds Social acceptance Mitigation technology Renewable energy Uncertainty ABSTRACT While the existing literature on the acceptability of renewable energy focuses primarily on stated preferences of individual acceptance, this study focuses on a socio-political dimension of acceptance by examining revealed preferences as evidenced by stakeholder interactions with in a regulatory process. Specifcally, we examine the acceptability of technology designed to mitigate harm to wildlife: a Shutdown On Demand (SOD) technology. Taking a longitudinal approach, we review planning protocols covering four years of negotiations over this new mitigating technology in the case of a proposed wind farm to be located along a major international corridor for migrating birds. We develop three separate indicators of institutional acceptance and demonstrate how exposure to different types of uncertainties infuenced acceptance of the technology over time. We also show how various responses to these uncertainties can resolve gridlocks around institutional acceptance. The study offers insights into the development of negotiations strategies for different stakeholders over time. It also offers recommen- dations for policy designed to resolve issues inhibiting institutional acceptance, including data gathering and exchange, issue linkage strategies, and incremental regime building. 1. Introduction Social acceptance of many technological innovations appears to be crucial for the transition to low carbon societies (Busse and Siebert, 2018; Nemet et al., 2018; Wolsink, 2018; Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). In some cases, such technological advances, including the design, opera- tion, and location of technologies such as solar or wind farms, have helped shift societal attitudes from suspicious to widely accepting (Berger-Tal and Lahoz-Monfort, 2018), while in others they have become an object of ferce contention between actors (White et al., 2021). The global wind energy market is experiencing rapid growth (Global Wind Energy Council, 2021). Wind power is one of the alter- native energy options with the highest decarbonization potential per unit of energy, and is an increasingly signifcant element in many countries’ national energy and greenhouse gas emissions strategies (Global Wind Energy Council, 2021). However, wind energy also pro- duces various negative externalities, including, noise, visual impair- ments, and impacts on wildlife (Jackson, 2011). As such, wind energy projects often encounter public resistance (Cashmore et al., 2019; Fast, 2013). Much of the existing literature on social acceptance of renewable energy technologies in general, and wind power in particular, tends to focus on local communities and their willingness to host a production facility (e.g., Cousse et al., 2020; D’Souza and Yiridoe, 2014; Loring, 2007; Kasperson and Ram, 2013; Zoellner et al., 2008). Focus has often been on not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) phenomena, in which broad social support is undermined by localized resistance among individuals or communities who feel most exposed to the potential negative external- ities imposed by proposed wind turbines or other production facilities (Smith and Klick, 2007; Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). While a wealth of literature has looked at the potential impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife, especially on birds and bats (e.g., Drewitt, and Langston, 2006; Huso et al., 2021; Kunz et al., 2007; Kuvlesky et al., 2007; Wang and Wang, 2015), public acceptance or resistance to technological measures adopted to reduce the harm of the focal technology has received only scant attention. In terms of assessing social acceptance of wind energy, a commonly used method is distribution of surveys to gauge public opinion, often among communities hosting existing or proposed wind facilities (e.g., Botetzagias et al., 2015; Baxter et al., 2013; Ek, 2005; Langer et al., 2018; Olsen, 2010; Petrova, 2013). In most cases, these are one-off surveys that capture a particular moment in time, though some * Corresponding author. E-mail address: adi.cohen26@mail.huji.ac.il (A. Cohen). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113359 Received 22 February 2022; Received in revised form 22 September 2022; Accepted 24 November 2022