Coordination Challenges in Wind Energy Development: Lessons from Cross-Case Positive Planning Approaches to Avoid Multi-Level Governance ‘Free-Riding’

Abstract

Achieving national targets on renewable energy poses several challenges, especially in multi-level governance environments. Incentives and specifications on wind energy development might cause uneven progress or even discrepancies. Therefore, governments have commenced adopting ‘positive planning’ to combine energy targets with spatial and land-use planning. Yet detailed discussions regarding wind energy development remain scarce. In this paper, I explore three explanatory case studies in Germany and Sweden, aiming to provide policymakers and planners with essential knowledge while presenting significant challenges and key lessons learned. Positive planning appears to center on a strong energy target focus, limited space, and a balanced approach, shaped by the sociopolitical context. While Germany has recently embraced positive planning, Sweden started ambitiously but is encountering planning and policy challenges. Planning agencies play a vital role in promoting wind energy targets at mid-scale levels, yet legally binding targets matter. Striking a balance between energy targets and addressing land-use concerns without disregarding them requires managing a delicate trade-off. Early communication and inter-agency collaboration, as seen in Sweden, might facilitate identifying compromises, navigating trade-offs between species protection and renewable energy and offering municipal incentives. Nonetheless, negotiating satisfactory spatial trade-offs for a long-term proof of concept remains a challenge.

1. Introduction

The world is at a turning point in its energy policy [1,2,3,4]. As the need for efficient climate protection and reducing fossil fuels gains political momentum after the energy crisis of 2022, countries are raising their renewable energy targets [4]. When it comes to implementing wind energy at the local level, however, roadblock situations often occur [5,6,7]. Spatial and land-use planning play a critical role in identifying suitable areas for renewable energy while considering other sustainability interests [8,9]. But in countries with multi-level governance, this can be a challenging task due to varying interests among stakeholders at different levels, especially in cases involving spatial trade-offs, landscape and wildlife concerns [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. These issues can lead to ‘free-riding’, causing single states/regions/municipalities to benefit from renewable energy, but not contributing equally, which requires others to invest more and to bear a higher burden [18,19,20]. Coordination problems can arise between higher national energy policy and lower levels, where the national level prioritizes achieving national development targets, while lower levels focus on the immediate impact to the local area [17].

Recent discussions and policy amendments have focused on implementing more effective sectoral, spatial and land-use planning approaches to address these coordination challenges [21,22,23]. Positive planning approaches, which prioritize energy targets and balance them with other land-use interests by identifying the respective areas needed, represent a shift from ‘restrictive’ planning approaches (cf. [24]). The latter focus on excluding sensitive areas while analyzing remaining areas for energy target achievement (compare Sweden, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and Swedish Energy Agency [25], in Germany, Reutter et al. [18], §1 (2) Onshore Wind Energy Act (WindBG). The extent to which such positive planning approaches in multi-level governance environments can expedite target orientation and development in wind energy use, however, remains largely under-researched in a cross-case setting [5,6,26,27].

1.1. Background and Challenges in Spatial and Land-Use Planning

Implementing wind energy projects as the backbone of energy transition requires land-use planning and spatial considerations to mitigate conflicts with other land uses [28]. Spatial and land-use planning aim to manage zoning and site designations to balance economic, ecological and social interests in land-use allocation [29,30,31]. Given this, how wind energy is planned for depends on governmental structures and spatial planning approaches to identify and reconcile different spatial interests [30,32]. Spatial planning approaches differ among countries, with varying levels of spatial planning and efforts to identify suitable wind energy sites [33,34,35]. These variations present both opportunities and barriers [9,34,35]. Strong top-down approaches may effectively support wind energy development, but may face opposition from local communities, such as in Mexico [36]. Higher-tier approaches may not adequately address local demands [37]. In contrast, bottom-up approaches may rely solely on local planning incentives [5]. Multi-level governance approaches may take up varying demands (e.g., state, region, municipality levels) [38], but also pose challenges, leading to structural inconsistencies and normative ambiguity that make zoning intentions harder to implement [5,38,39,40].

In multi-level spatial policy systems, the site identification approach also yields different planning results. Using a restrictive planning strategy, different criteria are analyzed to ensure responsible and balanced wind energy development with other land-use interests. This may involve protecting sensitive areas and settlements by buffering, as well as analyzing the remaining suitable locations for wind energy (i.e., due to good wind speed) [10,23,37,41,42,43,44,45] (Figure 1).

When wind energy development has progressed, identifying easily accessible wind energy sites (known as ‘low-hanging fruit’ areas, having reduced impacts on natural and human resources) is complicated when resolving regional and municipal spatial trade-offs. Planning authorities may face challenges like NIMBY attitudes (‘not in my backyard’) and the complex planning process, which demands thorough investigation and justification of areas unsuitable for wind energy [26,45,47,48,49,50].

In contrast to a restrictive planning approach, positive planning offers alternative planning strategies [51]. In the case of renewable energy, it views both development targets and exclusion/restrictive criteria as equally significant [52]. Positive planning emphasizes action, whereas restrictive planning focuses on refraining from non-permitted building uses [51]. Recent policy changes in multi-level governance environments have led to three prominent cases, including offshore wind energy planning in the German North and Baltic Seas, which aims to install 40 GW of energy by 2030 through quantity-based area planning [53]. The Swedish approach to onshore wind energy involves a National Wind Energy Strategy that sets a goal of installing 80 TWh across the country and delegating high-level energy policies down to the municipal level [25,47,54]. Meanwhile, in Germany, onshore wind energy planning has implemented sectoral law featuring state-specific spatial targets and a spatial steering impetus to meet these goals for regional and municipal levels (§1 (2) WindBG). The further term ‘isolated positive planning’ is also a well-established concept in German zoning law, mainly used to identify areas suitable for wind energy that complement existing concentration zones (i.e., priority areas) without restricting other land uses within designated areas [55,56].

These cases illustrate planning shifts from restrictive planning, arising when there is a lack of policy coordination and limited land available to reach energy and other land use objectives [18,57,58,59,60]. A perspective shift is taken towards analyzing adequate sites to meet the goal, rather than solely justifying inadequate areas for positive site designations [52]. Positive planning could thus be defined by three premises: goal-orientation, where a preferred goal is given at least equal priority, such as an energy target, limitation of land resources, and a subsequent balancing of other land-use interests, aiming to minimize the impacts of the preferred (energy) goal on other sustainability targets.

1.2. Motivation and Research Questions

In light of policy efforts to positive planning approaches for renewable energy [25,27,53] (§1 (2) WindBG), this paper seeks to explore such strategies further from an ex-post perspective, and how this may foster wind energy development in multi-level governance environments, which is still the subject of ongoing research. Focusing on multi-level governance system and associated positive planning factors appears worth striving for, for two reasons. First, this research expands the knowledge base for policy and planners, as there remains a lack of understanding of different positive planning components and environments, based on the three premises of target orientation, limited land resources, and a pronounced balancing approach. This planning strategy has not yet been able to establish itself based on this conceptualization and also in planning law in Germany (unlike in Austria and Switzerland) [51]. However, this has changed in the course of the recent amendments to a new Onshore Wind Energy Act (§1 WindBG). Second, this study helps identify lessons learned from these strategies efforts and also identifies constraints that may need to be addressed for wind energy development. It adds to planning approaches, when there is a missing evolutive linkage between overall energy targets and actual implementation at local level [5,6,7,8,27,28,60].

The paper draws on planning efforts in a cross-case study approach for offshore and onshore wind energy in Germany and Sweden [61]. It was predicted that positive planning components are likely to be found in the chosen cases. Though it is based primarily on cases, important features of the analysis transcend case and institutional contexts and give the research broader applicability [62]. Planning approaches may not always be directly comparable due to varying factors, such as energy sources, planning strategies and stakeholders involved. However, as similar approaches are often employed, individual strategies will be extracted only as other countries may face related challenges [5,43,63]. The following conceptual questions are discussed:

• How is wind energy planning approached in the cases of German offshore and onshore wind energy, as well as Swedish onshore wind energy?
• Which strategies of positive planning are available?
• Which lessons learned and constraints may be identified: i.e., can area-wide positive planning approaches allow for a target orientation in developing wind energy?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Qualitative Case Study Design

An explanatory case study analysis has been conducted according to Yin [61] within a qualitative study design [64]. A case study characterizes complex phenomena, generalized to a larger set of entities, and informs practice [65]. The analysis of different cases appeared to be particularly appropriate for gaining insights into recent energy and spatial policy changes and learning from individual settings for further planning approaches. First, a within-case study analysis was conducted to identify strategies of possible positive planning for target orientation in multi-level governance settings. Second, these were then cross-checked between the cases to draw conclusion for lessons learned as well as constraints in employing such approaches to wind energy generation according to the research questions [66,67].

The case selection refers to examples that can be assigned to concepts linking energy targets to spatial and land-use planning. The concepts of wind energy planning in Germany (offshore and onshore) and in Sweden (onshore) have been analyzed with regard to positive planning components, conveying a spatial-energy target linkage and associated planning assumptions [25,27,53] (§1 (2) WindBG). The selection of the cases was based on recently policy amendments between 2021 and 2023:

• German offshore wind energy planning; using the update of the Marine Spatial Plan 2021 and the Area Development Plan 2020 in adaptation to the energy targets for the German EEZ [53,68];
• Swedish onshore wind energy planning using the National Wind Energy Strategy for conveying energy targets to municipal levels [25];
• German onshore wind energy planning using the Onshore Wind Energy Act to specify federal state specific spatial targets under the term ‘positive planning’ (§1 (2) WindBG).

2.2. Within-, Cross-Case and SWOT Analysis

The case analysis method includes three steps. First, documents in the form of plans, planning documents and guidelines were analyzed referring to the selected case studies in a within-case analysis [66,67]. A content analysis was applied to derive themes and trends in wind energy planning. This included the marine spatial plans, the Area Development Plan for the German offshore case study, the national wind energy strategy for the Swedish case study [25,68,69], and the German Onshore Wind Energy Act (WindBG). In addition, literature associated with the cases was referred to according to a keyword search of relevant databases (e.g., Web of Knowledge, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar) (Figure 2).

Second, in investigating the documents, a criteria-based analytical framework was applied to review key aspects for positive planning components. The case studies’ planning approaches were reviewed content-wise according to the following criteria:

• Steering instruments in the planning concept: to identify the reasoning behind the planning approach, including a historical perspective.
• Responsibilities in planning: to clarify the relevant stakeholders involved.
• Planning process, including the selection of areas and sites in the interplay of instruments: to understand the specific planning approach.

Third, from this analysis, factors were identified in a cross-case analysis for discussing approaches towards target orientation in multi-level governance environments [66,67]. What stood out as positive planning was explored based on commonly identified premises (compare Section 1.1), as well as individual factors specific to the case settings. The results of the within-case analysis were thus reduced to key inductive factors and summarized for evaluation based on Kuckartz [70]. The reduction to factors focused on the performance of planning practices and their resulting characteristics.

A SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis) [71,72] allowed for a comprehensive discussion of the lessons learned and constraints of using positive planning components across different cases. The identified inductive factors were re-organized into the SWOT framework and compared to the findings of relevant literature [71].

3. Results: Review of Wind Energy Planning in the Cases

3.1. Within-Case Analyses

3.1.1. The Case of Offshore Wind Energy in the German EEZ (Case A)

Steering Instruments

The history of offshore wind energy development in Germany can be characterized by a six-phase adaptation process. The first phase, beginning in the early 2000s, saw project developers freely selecting areas in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) due to a lack of regulation [73]. In response, the German government established energy development targets, designated nature conservation areas and created ‘special suitability areas’ for wind energy in the second phase [74]. The third phase involved the creation of the first marine spatial plans for the EEZ to mitigate conflicts of interest [75,76,77]. The fourth phase was triggered by the Fukushima reactor accident and saw the introduction of federal offshore and grid plans to guarantee spatial and temporal grid connections [73]. The fifth phase, introduced in the 2017 Renewable Energy Act (EEG), aimed for more energy quantity-based planning. The sixth and current phase, to be implemented from 2025, is the ‘Danish model’, in which areas are pre-surveyed before being released for tendering, paving the way for offshore wind energy development until at least 2030 [73,78]. The Offshore Wind Energy Act (WindSeeG) regulates offshore wind energy sectoral planning, with the area development plan replacing the federal offshore and offshore grid plans. Planning, tendering, and approval of offshore wind energy occur through a central model, with marine spatial planning (MSP) forming the overriding level, balancing interests, for sectoral planning [68]. New dynamics for a greater area for offshore wind energy have arisen in the Area Development Plan with the 2023 update and the amended Offshore Wind Energy Act [79]. MSP and sectoral planning in the German EEZ do not involve legal planning, which would only provide restricted legal protection and bypass the established multi-level governance system [80]. MSP is a legal ordinance resulting from an administrative decision of the executive [53].

Responsibilities

The German government gained planning competence over the EEZ in 2004 for the first marine spatial plans; however, questions arose over whether it was constitutionally allowed to exercise a planning function [76,81]. Uniform planning of the EEZ could improve compliance with international obligations [82]. The Federal Ministry of the Interior, for Construction and Home Affairs (BMI) handles both the planning and approval for offshore wind energy, carried out by the subordinate Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH) [83]. The BSH is also responsible for other marine issues, including shipping and fisheries. Thus, planning and approval levels were not separated by federal authorities [84].

Planning Process

MSP in Germany played a pioneering role in the EU, balancing the interests of different sectors in the EEZ [76,77]. Offshore wind energy development can be spatially steered through ‘priority areas’, ‘reserved areas’, ‘suitability areas’ and ‘priority areas with the effect of suitability areas’ (§1 (3 and 4) and 17 (3) Spatial Planning Act (ROG)). The marine spatial plan in 2021 included priority and reserved areas aligned with wind energy development targets until 2030 and beyond (20 GW until 2030, 40 GW until 2040 (§1 (2) WindSeeG) [53]. A new aspect of MSP involved comparing three alternatives for site allocation in the EEZ to allow stakeholders to envision trade-offs for different uses, including outcomes for climate protection, wildlife, fisheries and shipping [85] (Figure 3).

Marine sectoral planning defines areas, sites and chronological order for tenders (known as an Area Development Plan), based on spatial designations for offshore wind energy under MSP and clusters defined within the Federal Offshore Plans [68,86] (§17a German Energy Industry Act (EnWG), §5 (3) WindSeeG). Criteria for identifying suitable areas for offshore wind energy are provided by the statutory objectives within the WindSeeG (§4 WindSeeG). Ultimately, the power density produced at a site determines its suitability; however, other targets, such as development path, cost efficiency and grid connection efficiency, are also considered (§1 (5) WindSeeG). The share of an area in the tender volume is set in the next step through a preliminary investigation of the sites by the BSH (§9 WindSeeG) (

Table 1. The Area Development Plan 2020 provides an example of the allocated capacity for offshore wind energy in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the temporal order for tendering (copyright by BSH [79]).

Calendar Year of Call for Tender	Calendar Year of Commissioning	Area Designation	Grid Connection System	Expected Generation Capacity (MW)	Total Expected Generation Capacity to be Installed (MW)
2021	2026	N-3.7	NOR-3-3	225	958
		N-3.8	NOR-3-3	433
…
2025	2030	N-9.3	NOR-9-2	1.000	4.000
		N-9.4	NOR-9-2	1.000
Total target system					9.688
Probable implementation by 2025					10.800
Probable implementation by 2030					20.488

).

3.1.2. The Case of Swedish Onshore Wind Energy (Case B)

Steering Instruments

Sweden’s planning concept for wind energy transitioned from biomass in the 1990s and 2000s, with a focus on integrating international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol [87]. Sweden’s decentralized planning structure grants municipalities the right to veto wind energy projects, which can create planning uncertainties when implementing high-level energy targets [88,89,90]. Sweden also designates ‘areas of national interest’, which are similar to the category of ‘reserved areas’ in German spatial planning (§3 (3) No. 2 ROG), allowing wind energy to be excluded outside these areas [91]. Ultimately, energy certificates and a cross-party agreement [92] to promote wind energy in 2016 have made wind energy development more attractive to investors [93,94], reducing political risks and providing a roadmap to achieve fully renewable electricity production by 2040 [95,96,97]. An overall strategy for sustainable wind energy development was developed in 2021 (the National Strategy for Wind Energy), aimed at achieving the target of 100% renewable energies in the electricity mix by 2040 [25,47]. National incentives only guide wind energy, without governance; there has been no parliamentary decision for it. The Swedish National Wind Energy Strategy serves as informal support for regional and local planning tiers [25].

Responsibilities

In Sweden, wind energy planning responsibilities are divided among stakeholders, including the Swedish Energy Agency and Swedish Environmental Agency, which provide information on renewable energies and national energy targets [25,93]. Four wind energy coordinators engage stakeholders at national, regional and local levels, while municipal authorities are largely responsible for local planning [91,93]. The National Wind Energy Strategy, prepared by the Swedish Energy Agency in cooperation with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, strengthens the competence of administrative districts, introducing a fostered regional planning level [25].

Planning Process

The National Wind Energy Strategy in Sweden outlines a three-step approach to reach a target of 100 TWh, 80 TWh from onshore and 20 TWh from offshore wind energy, by 2040 [25]. The approach establishes a national energy quantity target, a preliminary analysis of areas potentially at risk of conflict, and tasks administrative districts to explore wind energy development possibilities to support municipal master plans [25]. Conflict-free areas for wind energy could not be identified, leading to three criteria classes ranging from low to high conflict risk [25]. The implementation of the strategy in municipalities, however, remains set back due to conservative political changes at the national level. Nonetheless, a research program supporting the implementation has been provided [58,98,99] (Figure 4).

3.1.3. The Case of German Onshore Wind Energy Planning (Case C)

Steering Instruments

Germany was an early EU pioneer in onshore wind energy planning, with the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) incentivizing feed-in of renewable energy to the grid as early as 2000 [100]. Following the Fukushima reactor accident and the ‘Fridays for Future’ climate protection movement, the German government aimed to phase out nuclear energy and coal-fired power generation by 2038, relying more on renewable energy [4,100,101,102]. Wind energy is steered through state-wide spatial plans, regional plans and/or land use plans at municipal level [103,104,105]. To explore areas suitable for wind energy, a restrictive planning approach defining ‘taboo areas’ was taken based on jurisdiction [41,106,107,108,109]. Energy targets were set at federal and subsequent levels (regional, municipal) (compare, e.g., §4 No. 1 Renewable Energy Act (EEG), Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Energie Brandenburg for Brandenburg [110]). However, the development of wind energy has slowed significantly since 2017 due to hurdles, including a tendering system, lengthy planning and approval procedures and trade-offs in achieving targets at lower planning levels [111,112]. In 2022, the Federal Ministry of Economics and Climate Protection defined wind energy planning as sectoral planning under the Onshore Wind Energy Act (WindBG) (§1 (2) WindBG) and changes in building law (§249 (1) Building Code (BauGB)), with defined spatial targets for each federal state at about 2% until 2032, which are referred to the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) (§4 No. 1 Renewable Energy Act (EEG)). Failure to meet targets may result in deprivation of wind energy privileges within the planning area [113,114]. Positive planning has been implemented, which suggests that there is no necessity to develop a comprehensive spatial planning concept that assesses and explicates areas unsuitable for wind energy (§249 (6) S. 2 BauGB) [115]. This is subject to the spatial targets being met [116].

Responsibilities

The planning for wind energy follows a multi-level system, with the federal government, states, regions and municipalities sharing the responsibility [41]. Regional and municipal levels oversee land-use planning, and municipalities can determine, depending on the federal state specifications, the amount and location of wind energy development within their jurisdiction [117]. The Onshore Wind Energy Act has provided planning regulations for spatial wind energy areas, while still upholding the responsibility of regional and municipal authorities to planning [116].

Planning Process

The German Onshore Wind Energy Act establishes mandatory targets for the provision of renewable energy within specific areas from 2023 (about 2% for each federal state) [118] (§1 (1) WindBG). The spatial targets were based on a spatial potential analysis [119]. It is the responsibility of the federal states to define the share of their land that will contribute to meeting these targets. This can be accomplished by incorporating spatial targets into regional or state spatial development plans, or by implementing sub-spatial targets at the regional or municipal level, which must be legally binding according to state or regional planning policies (§3 (1) WindBG). Progress towards these targets is to be regularly reported until 2024 (§3 (3) WindBG) (

Table 2. Spatial targets for federal states according to the Onshore Wind Energy Act (extract) (Appendix 1 to §1 (1) WindBG).

	Column 1: Contribution Value of the Area to be to be Achieved by 31 December 2027 (Percentage of State Area)	Column 2: Area Contribution Value to be to be Reached by 31 December 2032 (Percentage of National Territory)	Column 3: Land Area (in km2)
Baden-Württemberg	1.1	1.8	35 747.82
Bavaria	1.1	1.8	70 541.57
Berlin	0.25	0.50	891.12
Brandenburg	1.8	2.2	29 654.35
…

).

The Building Code (§249 (1) BauGB) complements these provisions by enforcing restrictions on the concentration of wind energy outside of designated areas. If the spatial targets are not met, wind energy projects cannot be developed in unrestricted locations. This mechanism serves as a control instrument within the planning approach, ensuring that wind energy projects are not privileged outside of designated areas. Consequently, there is an incentive to designate suitable zones for wind energy to prevent unregulated development in the future. Therefore, the use of concentration zones as a means of controlling the planning approach has been de-emphasized [120].

3.2. Cross-Case Analysis for Factors of Positive Planning Strategies

3.2.1. Positive Planning Factors across the Cases

Upon analyzing the factors that lead to a positive planning environment across the three cases, several key characteristics stand out. These include a focus on clearly tiered goals and objectives, while shifting the site analysis to potential wind energy sites, limitations on available land or spatial resources. It incorporates also subsequent balancing processes that take into account the competing interests of various stakeholders (Figure 5).

German Offshore Wind Energy—Case A

The planning of offshore wind energy in the German EEZ aims at achieving specific energy targets and ensuring the participation of the interested stakeholders [76]. The MSP takes into account the interests of, e.g., the energy, fisheries, marine conservation and shipping sectors, and designates areas to meet energy targets and accommodate other users of the sea [53]. Stakeholders offer feedback on the spatial and area development plans as part of the planning process e.g., [121,122,123,124,125]. The EEZ’s limited size meant that spatial planning alone was not sufficient to regulate wind energy, and that regulatory instruments and sectoral planning had to be used to enable energy achievement [74]. However, recent advances have indicated that, contrary to the intended sequence, the Area Development Plan went ahead of marine spatial planning [53,68]. Attaining a balance between all interests, including energy and shipping goals, has proven to be challenging and has created some difficulties in negotiating interests [126,127].

Swedish Onshore Wind Energy—Case B

Sweden’s onshore wind energy planning is supplemented by an informal approach of aligning the national energy target with the lower planning level. The regional level has been strengthened to explore interests [25]. Previous municipal efforts to transition to wind energy have not been effective. It indicates a limited area available at the municipal level, which may not serve all interests satisfactorily and avoids the potential impact of energy production on settlements. It might yet also indicate a reduced municipal readiness for wind energy development [47,128]. Linking the 80 TWh energy target to the regional and municipal level could give wind energy planning a stronger focus in balancing alongside other interests. Further regulation to achieve balance has not been established and falls within common planning practices, such as municipal veto [25]. However, the planning approach is also informal, meaning that a decisive push may not be given when compared to legally binding energy targets [47].

German Onshore Wind Energy—Case C

Although a restrictive planning strategy was effective in the initial development of wind energy, it has become increasingly difficult to find suitable sites as many of the ‘low-hanging fruit’ sites with potentially lower impacts on the landscape have already been designated [116,117]. The move towards a sectoral planning approach that is linked to spatial and land-use planning represents spatial targets that are legally binding (§1 (1) WindBG). This strategy does not allow for flexibility in the energy mix, but it assigns the task of designating wind energy sites to the decisions of federal states and regions, respectively. A further approach to balancing land-use interests for land allocation under given spatial targets is not addressed, as the negotiation of land-use interests is supposed to rest with the moderation of planners, especially at the regional state level [116].

3.2.2. Further Positive Planning Factors according to Settings

When examining the specific settings of the cases, additional distinct factors emerge that contribute to positive planning environments. These factors revolve around the way in which the established planning goals, particularly the energy goal, are legally formulated and defined, as well as the driving force behind spatial planning decisions (

Table 3. Settings-specific positive planning factors. The Xs indicate the cases to which the factors refer.

Setting-Specific Positive Planning Factors		Case A	Case B	Case C
Alternative assessment		X
National level as pivotal pacemaker		X	X
‘One-stop’ planning at national level		X
Sector planning linked with spatial planning and/or the Building Code at municipal level		X		X
Informal policy agreement for spatial planning			X
Cooperation between national agency institutions			X
Municipal veto on energy target implementation			X
‘Capacity generation’ target definition		X	X
‘Spatial’ target definition				X
Spatial steering impetus evolves from met wind energy targets		X		X

).

German Offshore Wind Energy—Case A

The energy targets for planning refer to the total generating capacity, expressed as GW, and prioritize offshore wind generation among other offshore renewable sources (§1 (1 and 2) WindSeeG). Meeting the energy goals requires planning and balancing interests that can be achieved through sector planning and MSP [73,76]. Overall national planning is put in place for coordinating and implementing the goals as a pivotal pacemaker [81]. Centralized planning and implementation within a state may offer advantages such as greater chance of meeting goals, faster progress and specialized expertise from the accumulation of skills. There are also fewer challenges, such as fragmented permitting and planning processes by various institutions [83]. Multiple alternative approaches were initially proposed for offshore wind energy planning, such as a climate, conversation and economic planning path [86], although none of them were approved for implementation in planning decisions [53].

Swedish Onshore Wind Energy—Case B

The energy targets in Sweden are formulated as generation capacity in TWh [25]. The onshore wind energy planning strategy is driven by voluntary participation [47], possibly in alignment with the Swedish mentality that encourages avoiding centralized policy structures [129,130]. The government serves as a model for facilitating agreements at lower planning levels. Cooperation between energy and environmental authorities appears crucial, particularly in target formulation, as it demonstrates goodwill and fosters a culture of collaboration [94]. While competition may arise when neighboring municipalities adopt energy targets while others do not, the decision to implement these targets remains voluntary for each municipality, allowing flexibility and adaptation to local circumstances [47]. Ensuring planning certainty for developers is striven for, as a clear understanding of policymakers’ expectations regarding wind energy development minimizes legal uncertainties and provides a stable planning environment. The political changes in power show, however, that even informally binding targets can be abandoned, making them dependent on the political will of the government [131,132].

German Onshore Wind Energy—Case C

The onshore wind energy planning strategy in Germany involves tiering legally binding spatial targets to individual federal states. This allows for flexibility in balancing measures both regionally and across states [116]. The energy demands in GW have been translated into spatial targets (§1 (2) WindBG). The authors of [113] refer to energy target regulations under the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) (§4 No. 1 EEG). In anticipation of possibly rejected areas at the permitting level, slightly more land might potentially need to be made available to offset potential deficits [114]. Umweltbundesamt [114] also found that the available areas designated in plans must increase three to four times in order to meet the spatial targets for 2027 and 2032, respectively. The planning strategy is also motivated by the risk of uncontrolled wind energy development in municipalities should targets not be met [120]. It yet remains uncertain how this planning strategy will ultimately unfold [133]. Furthermore, there is still ongoing discussion surrounding the planning criteria necessary to adopt a ‘positive’ planning view [134,135].

4. Discussion

4.1. Lessons Learned and Constraints

The cases illustrate that, despite different geographical, political and planning settings, common factors of positive planning environments can be identified, such as energy target orientation in planning, limited available space and efforts to manage competing land-use interests under a tiered energy path (compare Section 3.2.1). However, different strategies emerge which rely on the individual settings and provide distinct benefits and constraints and give a wider cognition to the approach (compare Section 3.2.2). The strength of positive planning strategies ultimately lies in pushing wind energy target achievement more prominently to regional and municipal planning levels. This is intended to guarantee regional and municipal contributions and to avoid ‘free-riding’ [19]. However, the success of this objective appears to be highly influenced by legally binding and policy support and societal acceptance of a fostered wind energy policy.

The national governments chose to implement a guidance approach as energy targets were not consistently met at the regional or municipal level. However, to have a fair and sustainable energy transition, the results also suggest the need to accommodate other land-use interests along with the wind energy target. In the cases analyzed, this aspect has been largely neglected, with only spatial planning taking precedence over considering further land-use interests. The example of MSP in Germany illustrates that MSP may face challenges when it comes to allocating land use effectively in a contested space [136,137] (

Table 4. SWOT analysis of positive planning factors towards fostering wind energy planning.

	Strength	Weaknesses
Internal	❖ Early, proactive and streamlined planning process up to the permitting level concentrating on justifying energy target achievement, and not on ‘unavailable/restricted’ sites. ❖ Preventing vague targets for wind energy without spatial specificity, which may not achieve the desired planning results. ❖ A complex yet comprehensive strategy involving multiple levels of government can contribute to meeting national energy targets. ❖ Implementing a coordinated planning strategy enhances accountability, transparency and progress tracking towards energy transition. ❖ Linking wind energy targets to specific localities can foster stakeholder ownership and strengthen responsibility for meeting energy targets.	❖ The success of wind energy development is influenced by the ambitions of high-level stakeholders and the risk of receiving adequate compensation of fostered wind energy and social acceptance. ❖ Identifying areas of low impact through compromise is still an unresolved issue that needs attention. ❖ Municipalities or responsible institutions may face difficulties in allocating wind energy sites due to the complex nature of the task of balancing. ❖ Emphasizing equity becomes increasingly important to prevent inequalities in energy distribution, such as defining the allocation key for wind energy targets. ❖ Insecurity about the planning criteria necessary to meet a ‘positive’ perspective, while avoiding a restrictive planning approach.
	Opportunities	Threats
External	❖ Addressing energy and climate change concerns cohesively through all planning levels. ❖ Coordination among different agencies could create stable policies for energy developers and encourage lower planning levels to contribute to energy targets, such as in the Swedish case. ❖ More transparent decisions in policymaking for energy targets could prevent ‘post-political’ planning, where regional/municipal decisions on wind energy development are made behind closed doors, i.e., stakeholders are aware about nationally set wind energy targets and the reasoning behind them (democratically set). ❖ Trade-offs could be tackled at a higher spatial level already (e.g., regional level) than at the level of permits only.	❖ Legal enforcement of energy targets may sacrifice other sustainability goals and create dissatisfaction among stakeholders. ❖ Coordination and agreement on energy targets can be more challenging in countries with larger, denser populations. ❖ Multidisciplinary collaboration appears crucial for developing holistic solutions, which might not be easy to achieve, and is dependant on the stakeholders. ❖ Adjustments to planning systems may create a small time lag in energy transition. ❖ Clear and normatively acceptable targets must be developed, balancing the needs of different stakeholders. ❖ Openness and collaboration are necessary in achieving energy targets and planning with ‘high-hanging fruit’ areas for wind energy, especially in situations without stakeholder support (which is why positive planning has been introduced).

).

4.1.1. Lessons Learned

The cases’ planning strategies highlight potential lessons learned from positive planning approaches in wind energy development. The findings demonstrate the significant role wind energy plays in achieving energy security, climate protection and the promotion of renewable energy [6,138]. Moreover, the cases indicate a shift in energy policy and planning towards a more streamlined and proactive approach that goes beyond setting split energy targets among different responsibilities.

Energy policy changes address an energy-spatial linkage as vague targets lacking spatial specificity may not yield the desired planning results [139]. This underscores a potential need for clear and thoroughly tiered energy targets for wind energy implementation at lower planning levels to avoid ‘free-riding’ [19,140]. To successfully accomplish development targets, a comprehensive planning process that incorporates national guidance (top-down) and subsequent levels of spatial planning governance should integrate bottom-up demands [141,142]. Such a process would not only foster accountability and transparency but also enable better coordination and tracking of progress towards the energy transition (compare the Swedish case) [141]. Additionally, this would allow planners to assess the feasibility of achieving energy targets at the regional and municipal levels [143]. As a result, the feedback generated could lead to necessary policy enhancements.

Furthermore, the linkage of wind energy targets to specific localities illustrates incentives to enhance stakeholder ownership and strengthen the responsibility for achieving the set goals [144,145,146]. As illustrated by the Swedish and German onshore cases, this approach empowers regional and local stakeholders to take an active role in meeting the established energy targets. Often, stakeholders may underestimate their responsibility in contributing to the energy transition [19]. Therefore, highlighting the contributions of regions and municipalities in developing renewable energy through a spatial-energy target linkage might create mutually beneficial incentives [22,147,148]. Yet, transparency in energy distribution serves as a signal of responsibility and accountability, making it an integral aspect of a planning process [149]. A transparent planning process on down-streaming energy targets can prevent ‘post-political’ planning, which is characterized by power struggles and decisions made solely without stakeholder involvement [76,150,151]. Awareness of nationally set wind energy targets for energy security and climate protection might enable constructive discussions focusing on ‘how’ to achieve these targets rather than ‘whether’ to achieve them. Additionally, spatial trade-offs can be addressed at a higher spatial planning level (e.g., regional) rather than at just the permitting level. A one-stop planning approach, as illustrated in the offshore case, could be beneficial in consolidating expertise and ensuring effective coordination.

Moreover, the cases illustrate that efficiently addressing energy and climate change concerns requires a cohesive approach across all planning levels to ensure alignment towards the set targets. Coordination among different agencies might encourage stable energy policies for developers [152,153]. The Swedish case indicates a strategy stemming from the unity of the environmental and energy sectors at the national level. Similarly, Germany’s previous energy policy incentives created a similar situation due to changing energy and planning legislations, including target corridors and expansion caps, presenting significant obstacles to investment [153]. Early (inter-agency) collaboration thus could prevent variations in planning law between regions and establish jurisdiction for planning [154,155]. Better cross-sectoral collaboration on goal setting might pave the way for common iterative approaches [156], and might also motivate lower planning levels.

4.1.2. Possible Constraints

While more streamlined planning approaches can be effective for wind energy development, they present possible constraints. On the one hand, the success of wind energy development is heavily influenced by the ambitions and coordination of high-level stakeholders (compare the Swedish case) [132]. Besides ‘free-riding’ effects [19], non-ambitious national targets could also hinder development at subsequent planning levels [157]. For example, the national wind energy strategy in Norway was discontinued due to changes in political behavior, highlighting the need for political consensus and responsibility in coordinating the planning process [158].

On the other hand, the allocation of wind energy sites remains a complex issue that requires balancing multiple interests. Identifying areas with minimal impact through compromise remains an unresolved issue that requires attention [159]. This challenge is particularly pronounced at the regional level, where it might be difficult to identify sites within potential trade-off areas and regulatory equipment and expertise. Also, municipalities or responsible institutions may encounter difficulties in finding wind energy sites, given the complexity of balancing several interests, as argued by Wegner et al. [22]. Additionally, there may be insecurity about the planning criteria necessary to create a ‘positive’ planning perspective, while avoiding a restrictive planning approach. This emerges especially in the German onshore case, as although there is now a spatial objective to be achieved, it can still be argued that some areas will ultimately be excluded ‘restrictively’ and decisions on the remaining areas will be made accordingly [135]. Additionally, discussions on an allocation key for wind energy targets or regional equality appear crucial to prevent inequalities in energy distribution [160]. Planning criteria such as carrying capacity of a given area and electricity demand may become important [161].

Strengthening energy targets through strict legal means can result in trade-offs with other sustainability goals and create dissatisfaction among stakeholders regarding land-use allocation [162]. How regional and local stakeholders will respond to tiered energy targets, given existing implementation concerns at lower scales [27,49,50], remains to be seen in the Swedish and German onshore cases. Perceived top-down approaches may risk diminishing social acceptance at the local scale [142], leaving little room for counter arguments against the ‘greater good’ [163]. Spielhofer et al. [164] identified spatial trade-offs between wind energy policies for the Swiss case. In some cases and countries, spatial planning for the marine environment is also discussed to foster ‘post-political planning’ [75,76,151,165,166], which might also lead to unilateral planning efforts at lower planning levels for other cases. Therefore, achieving energy targets set by top-down planning strategies necessitates balancing further land-use interests more comprehensively [167,168].

A holistic and multidisciplinary planning approach thus appears necessary beside positive planning to balance the needs of various stakeholder interests and coordinate efforts through a consensus-driven planning process as far as possible, while such a process is not always easy to achieve [127,159,169]. Stakeholder willingness to discuss and collaborate might also be necessary in achieving energy targets and establishing strategies for ‘high-hanging fruit’ areas for wind energy. Yet, inter-agency collaboration can pose challenges, relying on systemic and societal actors [170]. Opposition may be created as energy targets have been tiered down exactly due to this challenge [159]. Fraune and Knodt [171] identified that the main challenges to social acceptance lie in multi-level participation efforts and the transfer of the respective outcome. Social norms appear to have the strongest association with willingness to participate in community energy. This is followed by environmental concern and income level [172].

Besides, developing clear and normatively acceptable targets that balance the needs of diverse stakeholders is essential [173]. As additional energy demand could arise in the future due to hydrogen demand [174,175], further compromises may also be necessary when allocating land uses and energy generation. Additionally, transferring new planning competencies to planning authorities may cause slight time lags in the energy transition [105]. Ultimately, the development of wind energy also depends on other factors, such as a smooth permitting process [133].

4.2. Avoiding ‘Free-Riding’?

The above cases illustrate that positive planning strategies may be effective in getting lower planning levels to commit to energy targets, such as in wind energy development, and avoiding ‘free-riding’ [19]. These can include linking national and local levels to avoid inconsistencies, as in the onshore cases [18,25], or centralizing the decision-making process with sectoral and spatial planning, as in the offshore case [76]. Nevertheless, how quickly and efficiently targets can be synchronized depends on factors such as current social and political settings. Whether energy targets are formally mandated or informally encouraged, for example, plays a significant role in the success of linking them to lower levels of planning.

The Swedish case illustrates the reliance on informal guidance as a complementary balance, but this approach was challenged by a change in political power to a conservative government [131,132]. Giving regional planning by administrative counties, more planning rights also may pose difficulties in linking energy and spatial planning [25,99]. Germany, in contrast, is a country where regional planning is already in place as a means of balancing different interests [117,139]. Nevertheless, it is likely that there remains a challenge to achieve an appropriate weighting of other land-use interests and to reach compromises, even within the framework of a positive planning approach [159]. As seen in the offshore case, spatial planning still struggles to adequately negotiate and address different interests [126,127,151,176,177]. Perceived inequalities caused by encouraged wind energy development may still generate opposition [127,176,178]. Balancing the effectiveness of formal methods for pushing wind energy development with the need to ensure social acceptability therefore appears crucial. Simply prioritizing wind energy interests in multi-level governance without considering the concerns of other stakeholders could lead to a lack of social acceptance, as some countries argue for MSP [127,176,178].

In order to avoid one-sided planning for wind energy only, awareness raising of the potential benefits of wind energy development seems still necessary. These benefits include specific added value for communities [179,180,181,182], as well as adequate compensation for impacts on humans and natural resources. These should be seen as a supplement to positive planning approaches [160]. It is therefore necessary to discuss additional approaches to resolving spatial trade-offs and to develop tools to facilitate negotiations [57]. Addressing the question of how to ensure broad societal acceptance of wind energy, e.g., by providing compensatory measures for any disadvantages that may arise from increased acceptance, emerges as a relevant issue [183,184,185].

4.3. Limitations

The limitations of the explanatory case study analysis also need to be discussed. First, the cases may not always be directly comparable as there occur differences in the surrounding geographic, political and renewable energy source characteristics that influence the planning result. Therefore, it is not possible to state whether one analyzed planning strategy is better or worse. Instead, the strategies must always be interpreted in terms of their respective frameworks, and thus provide glimpses of lessons learned and constraints. Second, the cases focus on specific planning situations that may not be representative of other planning strategies. Thus, the findings are intended to provide insight into the meta-influencing factors of planning outcomes, serve as a basis for discussion for other planning situations and give an outlook on what other countries are doing to transition to renewable energy [62]. This cross-case analysis aims to discuss emerging themes and patterns, and to inform planners and practitioners about planning strategies that are currently under-discussed but still occurring. Nevertheless, the difficulty of fully capturing the complexities and nuances of the political and societal frameworks for planning for wind energy needs to be acknowledged. Thirdly, as a qualitative case study design was chosen, the sample size of cases could be extended to include other potential cases, following a target orientation for wind energy development at local planning levels. This analysis focused only on policy changes between 2021 and 2023 to promote the energy transition. How planning strategies evolve continues to be explored.

5. Conclusions

Implementing national renewable energy targets at regional and municipal levels presents challenges in addressing the transition to renewable energy. On the one hand, multi-level governance systems may face difficulties when energy targets at the state, regional and municipal level are not entirely consistent with high-level national targets. This is due to individual state specifications and incentives, which are often not met and referred to as ‘free-riding’. On the other hand, spatial planning restrictions often result in decisions on where to allocate wind energy development rather than how it can be achieved.

Recent energy and climate crises have prompted a shift in energy policy and planning towards ‘positive planning’ strategies that connect energy targets with specific development targets at the site selection level. This paper focuses on such positive planning that, despite efforts to date, has received little scientific and practical attention. Practically, a critical appraisal of existing approaches is provided for planners and practitioners to discuss lessons learned and possible constraints in facilitating target orientation in wind energy development. This paper aims to shed light on positive planning by examining three cases of wind energy development in Germany and Sweden, identifying key factors and obstacles in an explanatory qualitative research design.

Three premises for positive planning are found: energy target orientation in planning, limited availability of space for development and a balanced approach to foster a target path. The focus is shifted towards analyzing suitable sites to achieve the goal, rather than merely concentrating on unsuitable areas. Planning strategies are influenced by specific geographical, sociopolitical and renewable energy source-specific settings, such as the legal need to implement energy targets. It appears that central or national authorities could promote a more pronounced target orientation in wind energy development, suggesting discussions on linking overall energy targets to areas for integrating spatial and energy planning. This would serve to avoid ‘free-riding’, which occurs when there are coordination problems in wind energy development between higher national policy and subsequent levels.

In the cross-case evaluation, however, the success of national planning strategies ultimately appeared to depend on legally binding target implementation, striking a balance between energy targets and other sustainable land-use concerns. Thus, a balance should be sought between top-down and bottom-up approaches in developing coherent and sustainable energy policies. It indicates that positive planning strategies should provide flexibility for lower-level planning to achieve energy targets sustainably while considering local contexts and stakeholder interests. The regional level emerged as a key in meeting land-use demands under set energy targets in the German and Swedish onshore cases, but may require guidance and sociopolitical cohesion in weighing different interests in spatial planning. Political cooperation and early communication between energy and environmental agencies, as demonstrated in the Swedish case, could help tackle spatial trade-offs, such as between climate and species protection.

Despite early ambitions, a proof of concept for informal positive planning in Sweden has so far reached its boundaries due to a conservative-right political shift and regional planning challenges. While the more recent legally binding German approach holds promise for achieving climate and energy objectives and managing trade-offs in a targeted manner, it also requires critical observation. In addition to providing evaluation, monitoring specific stakeholder responses would be valuable for future research. This would not only address the mismatch in wind energy targets at lower planning levels but also offer opportunities to discover unknown side-effects. As this research design was qualitative in nature, it could only exemplify policy and practical planning shifts. In the coming years, other land-intensive energy sources, such as ground-mounted photovoltaics, may also experience implementation mismatches due to further spatial trade-offs. It may be worthwhile to discuss these positive planning steps for renewable energy planning elsewhere. In particular, the amendment of the European Renewable Energy Directive (RED) is promoting spatial planning intensively, especially since many member states are yet to take action in this area (Articles 27, 28, 35 RED). However, attention should be paid to how other land-use interests can be addressed in wind energy planning for an acceptable and sustainable energy transition.