Trusting the minister or trusting the mayor? Perceived competence and integrity of central and local Dutch institutions governing energy matters

Phasing out fossil fuels is inherent to sustainable energy transitions, but implementing energy policies related to phasing out processes involves risks that may affect their public support. Trust in institutions responsible for handling these risks is crucial for public acceptability, as it serves as a heuristic for risk assessment. In the current study, using the Dutch energy scenario, we examine how trust in institutions relates to public support for phasing out natural gas in the Netherlands. We build from previous research by examining this for the two types of trust most commonly distinguished in the literature, namely competence- and integrity-based trust, and for institutions operating at both national and local levels. Results showed that trust depends on the type of trust people evaluate and on the institution’s level of operation. Locally, institutions are seen as more honest and transparent, while nationally, they’re perceived as more skilled and having more knowledge. Further, integrity-based trust in both local and national institutions better explained public support for phasing out natural gas than competence-based trust. We discuss these results in terms of their implications for energy policy, suggesting policymakers consider trust dynamics and tailor strategies based on trust dimensions and institutional levels to facilitate phasing out processes.


Introduction
The use of fossil fuels for energy production significantly contributes to global greenhouse gas emissions (IEA 2019, IPCC 2023) and, therefore, to climate change (Johnsson et al 2019, Soeder 2021).Consequently, phasing out fossil fuels is critical to meeting climate goals.Yet, worldwide, energy production from fossil fuels is still, by far, the norm.For instance, figures indicate that oil, coal, and natural gas supply over 60% of the world's electricity generation (IEA 2023).In contrast, energy derived from renewable sources-though increasing-is only anticipated to surpass energy derived from coal by 2025 (IEA 2022).Moreover, even though the negative environmental impacts of energy production from fossil fuels seem to be widely known among the general public (Spence et al 2010, Perlaviciute et al 2016, Palomo-Vélez et al 2021), and people generally support decreasing the share of fossil fuels in the energy mix (Hawes and Nowlin 2022), robust energy policies, like those aiming to keep fossil fuels in the ground, have historically received less public support than relatively softer policy alternatives such as regulations that mandate power plants to significantly reduce emissions (Bergquist et al 2020).Phasing out fossil fuels undoubtedly entails substantial transformations and involves many risks and uncertainties (e.g., how to ensure a proper execution of the processes involved in phasing out fossil fuels, and how to reassure the public that the provision of energy would not be affected?).Given the magnitude of these changes and challenges, trust in institutions that will be responsible to handle the phasing out processes is likely to play a key role in influencing its public acceptability.

Trust in institutions and public acceptability of energy risks
An important factor in the acceptability of risky and relatively uncertain activities, such as energy production, is (social) trust (Siegrist 2000, 2021, Poortinga and Pidgeon 2005, 2006).Social trust, also referred to as trust in institutions, is assumed to work as a heuristic that helps people to decide upon the acceptability of risks associated with an activity managed and/or regulated by an institution (e.g., Earle and Cvetkovich 1995, Siegrist and Hartmann 2020, Siegrist 2021).Indeed, trust in institutions that are responsible for overseeing risky activities has been shown to be associated with the public acceptability of these activities (Eiser 1994, Earle and Cvetkovich 1995, Siegrist and Cvetkovich 2000, Eiser et al 2002), including those related to the energy sector (Bronfman and Vázquez 2011).For instance, a study among people living in the vicinity of a gas extraction project in the Netherlands found that the more people trusted the Dutch government, the more acceptable they rated natural gas extraction (Palomo-Vélez et al 2023).Similarly, trust in governments' decisions regarding energy production was positively associated with the acceptability of using different sources for energy provision (e.g., fossil fuels, hydropower, and nuclear power; Bronfman et al 2012Bronfman et al , 2015))-a finding that has been conceptually replicated cross-culturally, focusing not only on energy provision but also on other 23 hazardprone activities (Bronfman and Vázquez 2011).Moreover, trusting that the government operates following fair rules can even make energy policies that are usually disliked by the public, such as coercive policies (i.e., taxation), more acceptable (Fairbrother et al 2019, Maestre-Andrés et al 2019, Faure et al 2022).
As it can be seen, evidence in favour of the positive link between trust in institutions and public acceptability of energy matters seems robust.Most of these studies, however, have focused on the acceptability of different energy sources (e.g., acceptability of fossil fuels, renewables; Bronfman et al 2012, Siegrist, 2021, Palomo-Vélez et al 2023) or on how acceptable people find the implementation of energy projects (e.g., construction of wind parks; Dwyer and Bidwell 2019), but not on the process of phasing out the use of fossil fuels, which is inherent to sustainable energy transitions.In the present work, we address this gap in literature by empirically assessing the link between trust and public support for phasing out processes.We expect trust in institutions to remain a key factor positively associated with public support when it comes to phasing out fossil fuels from the energy mix.Indeed, although phasing out fossil fuels may differ from energy production in a number of ways, both processes are associated with risks and therefore, trust is likely to continue serving as a heuristic to decide upon the acceptability of such risks (e.g., Earle and Cvetkovich 1995, Siegrist and Hartmann 2020, Siegrist 2021).For instance, while people may decide whether they trust an institution involved in energy production by evaluating whether risks of operations can or cannot be managed by the said institution, trusting an institution to manage the phase out of fossil fuels also involves evaluating whether (phasing out-related) risks would be managed properly.Notably, phasing out fossil fuels may bring (or be perceived as bringing) their own, relatively unique, risks (e.g., increased energy bills for households, economic risks because of reduced energy-derived revenues, whether activities and operations can be safely halted, among others; Bachner et al 2019, Selje 2022, Boute 2023).As such, trusting that the institutions involved in these activities can manage these risks is likely to remain a key factor for public support.
While overall trust seems important for securing both public support of energy production and public support of phasing out processes, trust levels may vary depending on the aspects of an institution that are being evaluated, and thus so acceptance levels of the activities (e.g., phasing out) managed by such institution.Indeed, people often make more specific assessments when it comes to deciding whether they trust an institution (Siegrist 2021).Notably, trust judgments are likely based on both, people's perceptions about how well-fitted institutions are regarding competence and knowledge to carry out their core responsibilities, as well as on people's perceptions about the institutions' integrity and honesty.

Competence and integrity-based trust
Literature suggests that people commonly assess institutions at least in terms of their expertise and knowledge (i.e., competence-based trust) and on whether their intentions seem honest and taking the public interest into account (integrity-based trust) (Terwel et al 2009, Perlaviciute and Steg 2014, Liu et al 2020a, Kitt et al 2021, Siegrist 2021, Liu et al 2022).These dimensions tap into the two (universal) dimensions people typically use to evaluate social information (e.g., other people, social groups, objects): competence and warmth, respectively (Fiske et al 2007).Both competence-based and integrity-based trust have been found to be associated with higher public acceptability of energy policies and projects (Bronfman et al 2015).Yet, correlational and experimental research has shown that integrity-based trust is more strongly associated with the public acceptability of energy projects than competence-based trust (Liu et al 2020a(Liu et al , 2022)).For example, higher integrity-based trust in a hypothetical energy company tasked with the implementation of a renewable energy project led to higher public acceptability of such a project, no matter the level of competence-based trust people had in the energy company.Yet, higher competence-based trust led to higher public acceptability of the renewable energy project only when integrity-based trust was low (Liu et al 2020a).As such, it seems that both competence and integrity-based trust are relevant when it comes to ensuring public support, with the latter better predicting public support.Yet the question remains, are all institutions perceived similarly with regards of competence and integrity-based trust?Or do certain properties of institutions influence how competent and honest people perceive them?1.3.Trusting governmental institutions at different levels: national versus local As much as it happens with energy policies and projects, and with energy production and provision more generally, the process of phasing out fossil fuels from the energy mix is a complex endeavour.It typically requires the involvement of multiple organizations, usually operating at different levels, and that differ in areas of expertise.This means that people would likely have to judge whether they trust in not only one institution related to phasing out fossil fuels but rather whether they trust the different institutions involved that would typically play different roles, and have different tasks and responsibilities.For instance, the national (i.e., central) government may establish and delineate energy policies, set up goals (e.g. when to stop producing fossil fuels), and guide the process of phasing out fossil fuels.Regional and local entities such as municipalities, on the other hand, may be in charge of overseeing that these energy policies are implemented on a local level (e.g., deciding on which renewable energy would be replacing fossil fuels in their jurisdiction), translating the goals into regional plans and concrete projects (e.g., issuing permits for building wind parks; Perlaviciute and Squintani 2020).As such, given the diversity in the kind of responsibilities assigned to institutions involved in the process of phasing out fossil fuels and the different levels at which they operate (e.g., country-wide versus regional and local), the foundations that determine how much people trust in these institutions may differ.Indeed, the basis for people's trust in local governments can differ from the underlying factors that drive trust in national governments (Fitzgerald and Wolak 2016).For instance, while people's evaluations of performance (e.g., competence) are likely critical factors for building trust in national governments, evaluations of how much local government representatives care (e.g., integrity) about people seem to be the more important foundations of trust in local governments (Jennings 1998).Yet, other literature suggests otherwise, showing that the link between perceived performance-a measure theoretically closer to competence-and trust is actually stronger when people evaluate local (versus national) governments (Zhang et al 2022).Further, focusing on the question of what scale of government is trusted more by citizens, other research shows that general trust in governmental institutions is likely to be higher at smaller scales (e.g., local, regional; e.g., Rahn and Rudolph 2002) as people's greater distance from policymakers and representatives of national governments can eventually undermine trust (Hansen and Kjaer 2020).In line with this, evidence from Western Europe (specifically Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom; Denters 2002) and the US (Cole and Kincaid 2000) suggests that local representatives are often trusted more than national ones (but see Petrzelka et al 2013).
As such, it seems that trust in institutions is not granted indiscriminately but may vary depending on factors such as the levels of operation of said institutions and the aspect of trust in evaluation (i.e., competence versus integrity).In the present work, we explore these issues -and particularly, their intersection, using the Dutch energy scenario as a case in point.

Phasing out fossil fuels: the Dutch case
In the Netherlands, natural gas represents the most commonly used fossil energy source (www.aardgas-innederland.nl).Indeed, almost 92% of Dutch households used natural gas for heating and to cook in 2019 (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek 2021), and more than half of the electricity produced derives from natural gas.However, due to the negative environmental outcomes associated with the use of natural gas for energy production and the increased seismicity caused by the extraction of this fossil fuel in the Netherlands In line with the previous theorization about institutions involved in energy production operating at different levels, in the Dutch case, both the national and local governments manage relevant tasks when it comes to applying energy policies, such as phasing out fossil fuels from energy production (Rosenblad 2021).Specifically, through its Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, the Dutch national government oversees the overall coordination and direction of the phasing out process, which involves deciding when the country will stop producing natural gas.At a local level, municipalities play a central role in safely decommissioning gas infrastructure and implementing energy projects to replace natural gas (e.g., solar panel fields, wind parks, heat pumps; www.regionale-energiestrategie.nl).Relatedly, municipalities are responsible for leading what has been called a 'district-oriented approach', which provides them with key roles and decision-making power in the process of phasing out fossil fuels, such as creating local gas-free heating networks (Koster et al 2022).

The present study
The current work aims to contribute to the literature on the role of trust in public acceptability by focusing on support for phasing out processes-a central milestone for the sustainable energy transition that has yet to be explored empirically.In particular, we study how people's trust in responsible institutions relates to public support for phasing out fossil fuels.Further, we build from previous literature by examining this for the two types of trust most commonly distinguished in the literature, namely competence-and integrity-based trust, and for institutions operating at both national and local levels.Specifically, using the Dutch energy scenario as a case in point, (1) we first explore whether people trust institutions equally or if trust levels change depending on the institutions' level of operation and the type of trust being considered (i.e., competence versus integrity).Next, (2) we test whether trust in local and national institutions involved in energy production predicts public support of phasing out natural gas and examine which trust dimension, competence or integrity-based trust, better explains such support.We approach these research questions in an exploratory manner.This being said, we keep in mind that, in the Dutch energy scenario, the national government is likely to be perceived as more knowledgeable in energy matters as they have been in charge of natural gas extraction for decades (Muntendam-Bos et al 2022).Local government, in this case municipalities, on the other hand, have been just recently tasked with responsibilities associated with replacing natural gas with more sustainable energy alternatives.As such, people might not necessarily expect them to have as much competence as the central government.

Participants and procedure
We recruited participants through a Dutch panel company, Panelmannetje.nl.This is a professional panel company that rewards enrolled participants for participating in commercial and academic studies.They have provided participant recruitment services for almost all Dutch universities.In total, 1,221 Dutch-speaking adults who live in the Netherlands started the survey, of whom 842 finished it (64% males, 35.7% females, and 0.2% chose 'other'; M age = 62.48 years, SD age = 12.75 years).Due to missing data and excluded participants4 , analyses were carried out using 801 participants (3204 observations).Study data and analyses code are available (anonymized) on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/mg8zv/?view_ only=e8f6362fcc6445bab602f674f3ae479a.
First, participants provided informed consent.Next, participants were told that they would be presented with some information and questions regarding the current and future state of energy provision in the Netherlands. 5Following that, participants were instructed to read two energy scenarios, presented in random order, which provided information about a present and a future energy scenario of the country, respectively.For the purposes of the present study, we focus on the questions related to the latter only-the future energy scenario, which informed participants about the Netherlands' aim to phase out the use of natural gas and indicated that various parties are involved in this process and in the transition to sustainable energy sources (the exact description of the scenario can be found in appendix A).Afterward, participants were provided information about the role of two relevant institutions in shaping the future of energy provision in the Netherlands and asked to respond to questions about each.Specifically, participants were presented with information about the role of the Dutch national government and their own municipality in the phasing-out process.Participants were told that the Dutch national government decides when the country would stop using natural gas and that their own municipality would be responsible for deciding which sustainable energy sources are expected to replace natural gas in their region (see appendix B for the exact texts presented to participants).
Participants were asked to evaluate the extent to which they trust each institution's competence and integrity when it comes to stopping the use of natural gas in the Netherlands.Next, they indicated to what extent phasing out natural gas is acceptable to them, along with other measures that were not relevant to the present study. 6inally, participants were asked to provide some sociodemographic information (i.e., age, sex, province of residence) and thanked for participating.

Competence-based trust
People's trust in the competence of the Dutch national government and their municipality was measured with two 7-point Likert-type items.Participants were asked to indicate to what extent, when it comes to phasing out natural gas, they think that the Dutch national government and their municipality, respectively, have (1) sufficient experience and skills, and (2) the necessary knowledge (1 = not at all to 7 = very much).The internal consistency was high for each institution (α national gov .= .92,α municipality = .93).

Integrity-based trust
People's trust in the integrity of the Dutch national government and their municipality was measured with three 7-point Likert-type items.Participants were asked to indicate to what extent, when it comes to phasing out natural gas, they think that the Dutch national government and their municipality, respectively, are (1) honest, (2) transparent in their communication, and (3) take the interests of different groups into account in decisions (1 = not at all to 7 = very much).The internal consistency was high for each institution (α national gov .= .90,α municipality = .90).

Public acceptability of phasing out natural gas
Public acceptability of phasing out natural gas in the Netherlands was measured using three 7-point semantic differential scales ranging from 1 to 7. Participants indicated to what extent they found it acceptable (1 = very unacceptable to 7 = very acceptable), a good idea (1 = a very bad idea to 7 = a very good idea), and necessary (1 = not at all unnecessary to 7 = very necessary) (items were adapted from Liu et al 2020b, Palomo-Vélez et al 2021, 2023).The internal consistency was high (α = .95).

Analytical strategy
First, we use a linear mixed model approach to analyse whether trust scores vary depending whether participants evaluate the Dutch national government or their municipality, and whether participants were evaluating competence-or integrity-based trust.Then, we use a multiple regression analysis to explore whether and to what extent the different dimensions of trust in different institutions explain the acceptability of phasing out natural gas extraction.
For the linear mixed model, we followed recommendations by Bates et al (2015) for model specification.We first regressed trust ratings on target institution (Dutch national government versus municipality), trust type (competence versus integrity-based), and their interaction.Further, random intercepts for participants and provinces of residence7 , as well as random slopes of main effects and the interaction, were initially included in the model as random terms.Both to deal with convergence issues and secure statistical power (overly parametrized models decrease statistical power; Matuschek et al 2017), when needed, random terms were sequentially removed-from the more complex ones to the simpler ones, to arrive at more parsimonious models (see analysis code in OSF for the specific structure of the chosen model's fixed and random parameters, as well as the process of removal of complex random effects).The lmer function of the lme4 package (Bates et al 2015) for R software environment for statistical computing (version 4.1.3)was used (R Core Team 2019).Models were fitted by restricted maximum likelihood (REML), used Satterthwaite approximation for degrees of freedom, and Tukey method for p-value adjustments to control for family error rate.
For the multiple regression analysis, we checked and ensured that the assumptions required for this type of analysis were met.Particularly, residuals showed normality and homoscedasticity and collinearity statisticstolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF), fell within accepted limits (tolerance values ranged from 0.41 to 0.62 and VIF values ranged from 1.61 to 2.49).Further, Cook's distance values did not suggest the presence of significant outliers (values ranged from <.001 to .045).

Does trust differ between a national and a local institution?
Results showed that trust ratings varied depending on the target institution, F(1, 800) = 5.82, p = .016,with municipalities, M = 3.3, SE = 0.06, being trusted more than the Dutch national government, M = 3.2, SE = 0.06.However, this main effect of the target institution was qualified by an interaction with the type of trust being considered, F(1, 800) = 558.22,p < .001(figure 1).Simple effect tests revealed that integrity-based trust was higher for municipalities, M = 3.62, SE = 0.06, than for the Dutch national government, M = 2.90, SE = 0.06, p < .001.In contrast, competence-based trust was higher for the Dutch national government, M = 3.51, SE = 0.06, than for municipalities, M = 2.98, SE = 0.06, p < .001.Further, for municipalities, integrity-based trust, M = 3.62, SE = 0.06, was higher than competence-based trust, M = 2.98, SE = 0.06, p < .001,and the reverse occurred when evaluating the Dutch national government: people trusted the Dutch national government more in terms of competence, M = 3.51, SE = 0.06, than in terms of integrity, M = 2.90, SE = 0.06, p < .001(see table 1 for a summary of the random intercept and slope variances). 8

Which type of trust and target institution better explains public acceptability of phasing out natural gas?
In order to evaluate the unique predictive value of competence-and integrity-based trust in institutions in explaining public acceptability of phasing out natural gas, a multiple linear regression was carried out.Ratings of competence-and integrity-based trust for each institution-Dutch national government and participants' own municipality, were included as predictors, and public acceptability of phasing out natural gas was included as the dependent variable.
Results showed that the linear model was significant, F (4, 800) = 18.60, p < .001.Predictors, however, accounted for a relatively modest response variance (R 2 = 0.08).While trust in the competence of the Dutch national government, b = .09,SE = .05,p = .073,and in the competence of participants' municipalities, b = .10,SE = .06,p = .105,did not uniquely predict the acceptability of phasing out natural gas, both trust in the integrity of the Dutch national government, b = .14,SE = .07,p = .041,and in the integrity of participants' municipalities did, b = .14,SE = .07,p = .050.Specifically, the higher the trust in the integrity of both the Dutch national government and the participants' municipalities, the more acceptable phasing out natural gas was considered.Number of observations = 3204; number of groups: participants = 801; provinces of residence = 12.
Figure 1.Trust level depending on the level of institution and the type of trust in evaluation.
8 One anonymous reviewer suggested us to evaluate whether these results vary regionally as institutions within provinces located closer (versus farther) to the site of gas extraction might be more knowledgeable of the benefits and problems associated to that matter, and therefore people might perceive them differently.Similarly, a second anonymous reviewer suggested us to explore whether our results hold when controlling for the gender of participants and whether there were age-related effects.We explored these possibilities in three separate models.In the first model, the relative distance to the site of natural gas extraction was included as a fixed factor.In the second model, participants' gender was included as a random term.In the third model, participants' age -categorized as relative young versus relatively old, was added as a fixed factor.For each model, results did not differ from those presented in this article.For further details, please see the appendix C of the supplemental materials.

Discussion
Trust in institutions regulating energy institutions has been shown to be a key factor in building public support for the implementation of energy policies and projects (Bronfman and Vázquez 2011, Bronfman et al 2015, Siegrist 2021, Palomo-Vélez et al 2023).In the present work, using the Dutch energy system as a case in point, we extended this literature by empirically testing the link between people's trust in institutions and public support for phasing out fossil fuels from the energy mix.More importantly, we assessed people's evaluation of competence-based and integrity-based trust on the national and local government, respectively, that are both involved in the process of phasing out natural gas, to identify whether the varying levels of operation of these institutions influence which dimension of trust is rated highest.Further, we also examined to what extent competence-based and integrity-based trust of both institutions-the local and the national government, uniquely explained the public support for phasing out natural gas.First, results showed that trust is not given indiscriminately to both institutions but rather depends on both the type of trust people were evaluating and the level of operation of the institutions in question (i.e., national versus local).Indeed, in line with previous research (Jennings 1998, Fitzgerald andWolak 2016), our results indicate that people perceive the local government (i.e., the municipality in this case) as being more honest and transparent than the national government.As such, it could be that, in the Dutch case, being able to see how energy policies and regulations are applied as concrete projects embedded within 'regional energy strategies' (www.regionale-energiestrategie.nl;Koster et al 2022) executed by municipalities might have positively influenced how people perceive the local government in terms of honesty and integrity.Further, it could even be that people perceive local governments (and those working in them) as closer and more similar to themselves.Indeed, prior research shows that people trust others more when they see them as one of their own, and this is specially the case when relationships are rather new (Levin et al 2006), and that assuming that you share part of your identity (e.g., city, local values) with others positively influences perceived trustworthiness-even if they actually are complete strangers (Thielmann et al 2020, Thielmann andHilbig 2022).Of course, these results come from trustworthiness evaluations of other people rather than institutions but given that individuals typically assess social information-including institutions, using two universal criteria (i.e., warmth and competence; Fiske et al 2007), it is likely the similar processes apply.Alternatively, it could also be that trust judgments about institutions are partly based on the interactions people have with individuals that work in such institutions.Indeed, past research shows that even a single interaction with public servants is enough to form warmth and competence-related perceptions that then influence how much trust people have in the government accordingly (Hansen 2022).
At the same time, our results also showed that people rate institutions operating at a bigger scale (i.e., Dutch national government) as having more skills and knowledge to manage the phasing out of natural gas than institutions operating at a smaller one (i.e. the municipalities).This result, particularly in the case of the Dutch scenario, seems consistent with our expectation that the Dutch national government was likely to be perceived as more knowledgeable than municipalities in energy-related issues due to their role in overseeing natural gas extraction in the Netherlands since the sixties (Muntendam-Bos et al 2022).Further, more generally, this result could also suggest that the technocratic aspects of phasing out processes are seen as being beyond the limits of local governments' competence as they likely involve overseeing large technical operations.
Regarding the association between trust and public support for phasing out natural gas, our results indicated that, overall, integrity-based trust in both the local and national government, respectively, explains public support for phasing out natural gas better than competence-based trust in both institutions.This aligns with prior correlational and experimental findings that indicate that the extent to which an institution involved in energy production in is seen as honest is more strongly related to public support of both natural gas extraction (Liu et al 2022) and a renewable energy project (Liu et al 2020a) than the extent to which said institution is seen as competent.As such, these results indicate that, integrity-based trust is not only relevant at a local level as seen in previous research (e.g., Liu et al 2020a), but also at a bigger scale.Specifically, results suggest that even though people may perceive institutions as competent, when it comes to increasing public support for phasing out fossil fuels, what matters most is ensuring that the processes involved are carried out transparently and taking the public interest into account.Indeed, past literature indicates environmental project representatives and leaders that convey their capacity to serve the public interest and provide opportunities for participation are trusted more, positively affecting people's trust in the environmental projects they led and the acceptability of the projects' outcomes (Dwyer and Bidwell 2019).Further, participation schemes that can capture the diversity of opinions and where the public is given decision-making power, could also be applied (Perlaviciute 2022), as having a say in environmental projects-and therefore enhancing integrity-based trust, usually leads to higher support for such projects (Liu et al 2020b).

Limitations
Our work is not exempt from limitations.First, even though we distinguish between participants' municipalities and the Dutch national government, we did not explore what people have as referents of the latter institution.As such, it could be that, for some people, specific units of the Dutch national government might be more salient than others.Therefore, we cannot be entirely sure whether the trust judgments were made focusing on the integrity and competence of a specific unit of the Dutch national government that could be more strongly associated to environmental matters (e.g., the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy) instead of focusing on the central government as a whole-though recent research shows people evaluate how much they trust in their government as an abstract concept, without distinguishing between the whole and its branches (Zhang et al 2022).Nevertheless, future research could approach this as an empirical question and investigate to what extent the different branches of the Dutch national government are perceived as more or less prototypical institutions in charge of overseeing energy-related matters, and whether levels of trust vary for different units.
Second, while we control for the potential regional variability derived from participants evaluating different municipalities by adding their province of residency as a random factor, we did not account for potential differences in judgments about different municipalities as we do not have that specific data.This could be relevant as the implementation of concrete energy projects may vary from one municipality to another (despite them being in the same province) and therefore lead to different trust judgments (Koster et al 2022).As such, future developments could try to account more accurately for potential sources of variability that might influence how people judge the integrity and competence of local governments, for instance, via case studies focusing on specific municipalities.
Third, the average age of our sample was rather high, and there were more male than female participants.While these sample characteristics, at least in terms of age, are relatively similar to those of the general population of the Netherlands (e.g., the most populated age group in the country is 40-65 years old; CBS Statistics Netherlands 2022), the question remains whether results might differ among age cohorts, and gender groups.Even though our theoretical foundations do not predict relevant changes in results due to the age and gender of participants, future studies still could try to diversify the sample characteristics, making it more representative of the Dutch population, and test whether results replicate.
Finally, our scenarios describing the future of energy production in the Netherlands included relevant information on the intent to phase out natural gas, and on which institution would lead such endeavor.However, our scenarios did not contain information regarding other factors associated to the energy transition, such as how it will be funded-a factor that might potentially affect people's perceptions about phasing out natural gas.While looking at this was not the aim of our study, it could be an interesting direction for future research.For instance, future work could manipulate the information participants received regarding the funding of the energy transition, presenting participants with information that either suggest that the transition will be financed by them (e.g., via extra taxes) or will be financed by the government (e.g., by reallocating resources from other governmental departments).

Conclusion and policy implications
In sum, our results suggest that, at least in the Netherlands, how trust in institutions involved in energy production depends on which aspects are evaluated-the institutions' perceived competence or the institutions' perceived integrity, and the level of operation of the said institutions-national or local.While people perceive national institutions (i.e., Dutch national government) higher in competence-based trust, local institutions (i.e., municipalities) seem to be evaluated better in terms of integrity-based trust.This way, for institutions to gain the trust of people, and therefore, increase the acceptability of their policies, strategies should focus on strengthen what people perceive each type of institution lack of.In other words, local institutions should work on how competent they are seen, whereas national institutions should improve their transparency and provide more opportunities for public participation.Further, our results empirically showed that trust in institutions is positively associated with public support to phasing out natural gas.Notably, while both competence-based and integrity-based trust are associated with the public acceptability of phasing out natural gas, the later shows a stronger relation.As such, to secure public support for phasing-out policies, Dutch institutions could prioritize (perceived) integrity-enhancing strategies, like those targeting public participation, accountability, and transparency.
(Vlek 2019, Muntendam-Bos et al 2022, Palomo-Vélez et al 2023), in 2018, the Dutch government announced the plan to phase out natural gas production, stopping production in October 2023, and aiming to completely halt the operations by 2030 (Van de Graaff et al 2018).

Table 1 .
Random intercepts and random slopes variances, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the fitted model.