Scenarios of bioenergy provision: technologicaldevelopments in a landscape context and theirsocial effects

Anja Starick • Ralf-Uwe Syrbe • Reimund Steinhaußer •

Gerd Lupp • Bettina Matzdorf • Peter Zander

Received: 11 March 2013 / Accepted: 14 October 2013� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract While it is developing rapidly throughout Germany, bioenergy provision is open

to different development opportunities. To understand the cause–effect relationships that

drive bioenergy development and explore different development options and their effects on

regional development, qualitative scenarios have been drafted using the Gorlitz district as an

example. The paper introduces the scenario method, with scenarios that are expressed in

storylines. Driving forces and their relationships are thereupon reflected. The results show

that the relation of the Common Agricultural Policy and Renewable Energy Act is of par-

ticular importance for future development in general. For the specific type of development in

particular in rural regions, technologies are equally important, as they allow for both strongly

central and highly decentralised developments. Due to an increasing diversity of options, the

decision between central and decentral developments is, however, less technologically

determined, but rather dependent on stakeholders’ decisions. Such stakeholders not only

include stakeholders from the production sector, but also include consumers and affected

parties, particularly the inhabitants whose living environment is changing rapidly. Both the

landscape and society are subject to change. As a major driving force and an impacted system

under change itself, social constellations must be taken into account to ensure a sustainable

development under the signs of renewable energy expansion. Management tools should

consider the interlinkage between landscape, energy, and social systems.

Keywords Renewable energies � Social impact � Stakeholder �Regional development � Impact assessment � Germany

A. Starick (&) � B. Matzdorf � P. ZanderInstitute of Socio-Economics, Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF),Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Muncheberg, Germanye-mail: anja.starick@zalf.de

R.-U. Syrbe � R. SteinhaußerLandscape Change and Management, Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development(IOR), Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, Germany

G. LuppSchlossstrasse 8, 79211 Denzlingen, Germany

123

Environ Dev SustainDOI 10.1007/s10668-013-9495-4

1 Introduction

Increasing renewable energy supplies is a main social objective in Germany that is

politically encouraged and financially supported (cp. e.g. BWT and BMU 2007; BMELV

and BMU 2009; BRD 2010; Renewable Energy Act (REA)). In this framework, bioenergy

as storable energy plays an essential role, but its role is not undisputed (Kaphengst 2009). It

is not known how further expansion of bioenergy will take place and how it will affect

regional development. Recent subsidy policy is related not only to technical facilities but

also affects land use around power plants. The total amount of German cropland devoted to

growing energy plants has quintupled within the last decade. Currently, approximately two

million hectares of farmland are used to grow energy crops (FNR 2012). Both the future

construction of biopower plants and the increased cultivation of energy crops will inevi-

tably have serious spatial consequences and either positive or negative effect on regional

ecosystem services (Lupp et al. 2011; Starick et al. 2011; Rowe et al. 2009; Wiehe et al.

2009; Ammermann 2008).

In the face of spatial and environmental challenges and uncertainties concerning further

development, responsible authorities at the state, regional, and local levels seek deeper

insight into expected regional developments and direction about how they can guide

bioenergy development to maintain their regional characteristics and enhance their eco-

nomic competitiveness and social balance. Attention to these issues is an interesting

starting point for discussion of future planning and regional development in general (cp.

Leibenath and Otto 2012).

In a current research project, these issues are approached through exploratory qualitative

scenarios for the future development of bioenergy supply in a spatial context and on a regional

scale. The scenarios make it possible to examine potential developments and investigate the

possible future consequences of various development options. The scenarios and the scenario

process behind them also permit a deeper understanding of the cause-and-effect relationships

involved. On this basis, key control mechanisms can be identified that consider uncertainty in

land use decisions for sustainable regional development. The scenario process can initiate a

social learning process among stakeholders and inhabitants in general (cp. Alcamo 2008) and

facilitate the decision-making of stakeholders (Soliva 2009; Sohl et al. 2010). Specifically, in

the current study, scenario construction and a comprehensive view of the future as repre-

sented by the scenarios are used for the following purposes:

1. To gain knowledge about upcoming developments in bioenergy provision and the

mechanisms behind these developments,

2. To understand the effects of these developments on a region and discuss development

options,

3. To assess the impacts on ecosystem services in greater detail, and

4. To identify control and management mechanisms.

For these purposes, a scenario is not understood as a future forecast but rather as a

description of ‘‘how the future may unfold based on ‘if–then’ propositions and typically

consists of a representation of an initial situation and … the key-driving forces and

changes that lead to the particular future state’’ (Alcamo 2008). The scenarios represent

possible outcomes under specific settings and with specific interdependencies (cp. Starick

et al. 2011). ‘‘Scenarios show what potentially could happen in the future as a result of

policy or environmental change’’ (Sohl et al. 2010).

The application of the scenario technique to environmental concerns became quite popular

in the last decade (MA 2005). There are well-elaborated methods for environmental scenarios

A. Starick et al.

123

based on land use models (e.g. Sohl et al. 2010), expert assessments (e.g. MA 2005; Artner

et al. 2006), and participation (e.g. Walz et al. 2007). In the context of new technologies that

quickly change our landscapes and conflicting climate change and nature conservation

concerns, a more complex scenario framework is recommended (Alcamo 2008).

Bioenergy provision has been intensively analysed in scenario studies at the interna-

tional (e.g. IEA 2009), national (e.g. Thran et al. 2011; SRU 2011), and regional levels

(e.g. DREBERIS 2012; Scheuermann et al. 2012). However, all these scenarios work

primarily with quantitative forecast methods. For public discussion at the regional level,

we need qualitative descriptions that are focused on the social and spatial implications of

increased bioenergy production. Starick et al. (2011) developed qualitative scenarios using

the example of Western Saxony. These scenarios focus on the interaction between tech-

nologies and landscape conditions alone and do not analyse the interaction of different

driving forces. These scenarios do allow the analysis of environmental impacts but restrict

the explanation of developments, particularly in terms of social implications.

To address the shortcomings of existing scenario methodologies, Syrbe et al. (2013)

developed a combined methodological framework for scenario construction at the interface

of technological requirements and environmental concerns. This framework combines

participatory scenario construction with expert assessments. To include the broad set of

factors that influence regional development, we tested Syrbe et al.’s (2013) scenario

framework in this study and applied it to the topic of regional bioenergy use. We advanced

it to include the social dimension of spatial developments (cp. van Drunen et al. 2011).

In this paper, we introduce the scenarios. We discuss what we have learnt about the role

of the conditions identified and their interactions in future regional development. We

reflect upon the upcoming developments suggested by the scenario process, and we

investigate the effects for a region and for its society in particular. We thereby address the

first and second purposes of the scenarios. In addition, we draw conclusions concerning the

transferability of the scenario method and the results obtained. Future challenges for

shaping bioenergy in a sustainable way are identified.

2 Methods

Using Syrbe et al.’s (2013) framework, scenarios were developed through interaction with

external experts and regional stakeholders (Table 1). The basic qualitative approach

consists of seven steps (Fig. 1) and is implemented using an argumentative methodology

based on the identification of cause-and-effect relationships. The qualitative approach is

complemented by a quantitative analysis of existing data. The quantitative analysis plays a

supporting role in answering questions that arose during the qualitative process and thereby

supported the discussions with and between the stakeholders. Therefore, successive

translations of the results between quantitative and qualitative terms were necessary

(Carpenter et al. 2006; Houet et al. 2010). These translations included representing the

existing land use distribution, climate predictions, and forecasts of demographic devel-

opment by descriptions, illustrations, and maps. In addition, the areal requirements for

supplying bioenergy plants with raw materials were calculated based on the amount of raw

material needed by a certain type of plant, the possible crop yield, and crop rotation

according to the code of good practice.

The following describes the implementation of the seven steps in this study.

The first step was deciding the main issues to be addressed, i.e. how increased bioenergy

provision can develop in a rural region and what social and ecological effects it might cause.

Scenarios of bioenergy provision

123

The factors that determine the development of bioenergy provision were selected in the

second step. A literature review was conducted, geographic data for the study area were

analysed, and experts and stakeholders were identified and invited to workshops or visited for

interviews. (cp. Table 1). The driving forces identified (and their underlying trends) were

then classified as exogenous or endogenous factors (cp. Starick et al. 2011) and were also

classified according to the degree of abstraction. Based on this classification scheme, the

factors that informed the scenarios were selected by an expert panel in a two-step voting

process, followed by a workshop discussion among members of the project team, stake-

holders, and experts. The factors selected were differentiated into three groups: fixed factors,

dynamic factors, and key driving forces. Fixed factors and dynamic factors, such as climate

predictions and demographic development, are assumed to be the same for all scenarios. Key

Table 1 Participation working steps for the development of energy plant scenarios in the Gorlitz district (ifnot mentioned otherwise, participation included experts and stakeholders)

Year Participation/working step Results

2010 World Cafe Aims of scenario development, main drivers

Expert work (literature review) Driving forces, trends, technological options

2011 Expert workshop Selection of drivers, trends, scenario directions

2011 Interviews and surveys Technological lines, stakeholders’ motivations

Expert work (text elaboration, G.I.S., models) Storylines, areal demand of biogas plants

2011 Expert workshop Review of the trajectories and the storylines

2011 Scenario mapping workshop Maps of the three scenarios

2012 Milestone workshop Discussion of scenario results

2012 Off-the-record talks Inclusion of agricultural expertise

2013 Guideline workshop Conclusions for the future

4 State and trajectories

Spatial, policy and literature analysis; interviews

3 Scenario logic Literature and expert based collection, classification, prioritisation and selection

2 Driving forces Literature and expert based collection, classification, prioritisation and selection

1 Main question Policy and literature analysis

Step Task Methods

5 Synthesis Analysis of causal relationships, network analysis, storylines, spatialisation

6 b Impact assessment

Risk analysis, interviews

6 a Interpretation Hermeneutic approach

7 Communication Interviews, workshops, newspaper articles, action guidelines

Fig. 1 Scenario framework adapted from Syrbe et al. (2013) and methods applied to each step

A. Starick et al.

123

driving forces shape the future in several ways, depending on their specific expression, and

are key to distinguishing among different scenarios (the third step). Key driving forces

include the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the REA, technologies, and actors.

Based on the results of an initial literature review, the possible future developments of

all factors were identified and driving forces were roughly defined. For the sake of logical

consistency, these future developments were combined into three different scenarios that

represent hypothetical but realistic developments. By means of in-depth policy, document,

and stakeholder analyses conducted using existing scenarios, trend analysis, and inter-

views, the future appearance of the factors and possible expressions of the key driving

forces were determined and described in greater detail (the fourth step). The time horizon

for the projections extends to the year 2020. The resulting profiles for the future expec-

tations for all factors were presented both in pamphlet form and in an opening lecture in the

scenario workshops.

In the fifth step, the scenarios were synthesised on the basis of the anticipated inter-

action of the driving forces up to the year 2030. The synthesis was conducted by means of

storylines (cp. Stocker et al. 2012). Storylines outline the plausible interaction between

driving forces und interpret them in the form of a comprehensive narrative. The narrative

describes a state. The final consistency of the storylines was tested and advanced in a

workshop that focused on the spatial consequences.

The last two steps in the scenario development consisted of evaluation and communi-

cation. The evaluation (sixth step) was divided into two subtasks. The first subtask was an

evaluation of the effects of interactions among the factors on the scenarios and their

implications for regional development and society. The second subtask was an evaluation

of the environmental impacts on ecosystem services. Communication was a process

throughout the study rather than a single step and included interviews, workshops, and

discussion of guidelines.

The following describes in more detail how the key driving forces were projected into

future.

Technological lines of development were investigated through a literature review (i.e.

Starick et al. 2011; Thran et al. 2010; Wietschel et al. 2010), expert lectures (i.e. Billig

et al. 2011; Grundmann 2010), and semi-structured interviews with seven bioenergy plant

operators, representing a spectrum of plant sizes,1 ownership and land use connectivity,2

and types.3 The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The contents were categorised

and subjected to a content analysis using MaxQDA, a software package for qualitative and

mixed methods’ data analysis (cp. VERBI 2013).

A stakeholder analysis was carried out as ongoing part of the participative process. We

used the expertise of our practice partners and snowball sampling to identify groups of

stakeholders who affect the future development of bioenergy provision and who are

affected by the landscape changes it causes (cp. Reed et al. 2009). Following Chevalier and

Buckles’s (2008) rainbow diagram, we formed three focus groups: farmers and plant

operators; land use, planning, and development authorities; and authorities and non-gov-

ernmental organisations engaged in environmental protection and landscape management.

Their interaction and their knowledge, attitudes, and activities were investigated in 23

1 including small facilities with a capacity of 150–500 kW, medium facilities with capacities up to 2 MW,and large facilities with capacities up to 20 MW.2 companies with international, national, and regional markets, municipal operators, and agriculturalenterprises.3 heating plants, biogas and biogas injection facilities.

Scenarios of bioenergy provision

123

additional semi-structured interviews with representatives of these groups. Trends that

emerged from the interviews were aligned with prospective studies (i.e. Opaschowski

2008) and studies on environmental awareness (i.e. BMU 2008).

On 12 October 2011, the European Commission presented a CAP reform proposal for

the period 2014–2020 to support food security, sustainable management of natural

resources, and rural territorial balance in the EU (EC 2011). This reform proposal served as

the baseline for our projections. Some caveats of the proposed reform were formulated by

Bureau (2012), who denounced the budget remaining high, while fundamental inconsis-

tencies in the current CAP remain in effect. In particular, the issue of reorienting the CAP

budget towards the provision of public goods remains unresolved. According to Bureau

(2012), ‘‘as explained by Mahe (2012), conditioning large payments to good practices … is

a high-cost policy compared to payments directly targeting public goods. Some other

criticisms could be made of the proposal. For example, maintaining two pillars, one

requiring cofinancing and the other not, will also maintain the bias against environmental

payments, which need to be matched with domestic funds’’. Therefore, local stakeholders

were asked whether the objectives of free trade, a highly competitive European agricultural

sector, and a high priority on public goods might not be better and more cheaply achieved

in a different policy setting.

Similarly, the Renewable Energies Act and the associated sublegal regulations were

analysed with a focus on bioenergy. The time frame was perfect for that analysis because

an amendment process was ongoing during the project period. Thus, it was possible to gain

insights into the parliament’s legislative process and follow the debate in parliamentary

transcripts (i.e. DB 2011a), white papers (i.e. DB 2011b), and conferences (i.e. Dreher

2011). This process also included interviewing stakeholders, such as researchers and

representatives of environmental NGOs. Furthermore, REA-monitoring papers (i.e. BMU

2011) were used in the analysis, as were papers containing requests from environmental

organisations concerning the use of renewable energies.

The development options identified in these investigations were intensively discussed in

various stakeholder fora, and ultimately, three alternatives for each driving force

crystallised.

3 Description of the case study

The scenarios were developed using the example of the Gorlitz district in Saxony. The

district is a rural area in the south-eastern part of Germany, neighbouring Poland and the

Czech Republic. It is home to a Slavic minority (the Sorbs). The northern part of the

district is sparsely populated; the largest town is Gorlitz, with approximately 55,000

inhabitants. Larger towns outside the Gorlitz district whose potential catchment areas for

biomass reach the district are Dresden and Berlin. The southern part of the district is

formed by rolling hills with moderately fertile soils that are used agriculturally. The

landscape is open, with woodlands in wide areas restricted to mountain tops, thus forming

recognisable landmarks. The northern part of the district is less hilly and features soils of

low fertility. In addition to farmland and forests, fish ponds and brown coal mining areas

are important land use structures. Approximately half of the agricultural land is used by

independent farmers, and half is used by a wide variety of farmers’ cooperatives and larger

agricultural enterprises. On average, the size of a farm is 1000 hectares. Overall, the

economy of the district is built on small- and medium-sized businesses.

A. Starick et al.

123

4 Results

4.1 Scenario frame conditions

The key driving forces distinguish the scenarios as described below:

• The promotion of renewable energy (by the REA) provides a guaranteed feed-in tariff

for power that is generated from renewable resources. For the future, we made the

following assumptions: first, that the REA will continue with declining financial

support, the utilisation of manure will be supported, and the utilisation of maize will be

limited; second, that the policy will improve the degree of support for its directives in

the spirit of sustainability, promoting, for instance, a positive greenhouse gas balance,

new energy crops, crop rotation, and substantial use of self-produced raw materials,

waste materials, and landscape conservation materials; and third, that the objectives

will shift away from bioenergy (cp. Leopoldina 2012) and away from financial support.

• The trend projection of the CAP is based on the CAP proposal for the EC.

Alternatively, two more extreme development paths were developed: payments only

for ecosystem services with a complete shift in funding resources from the first to the

second pillar of the CAP (‘‘greening’’) and the total cessation of any support.

• With respect to technologies, the projections were separated according to the

dominant bioenergy plant size. For the first projection, it was assumed that

development would be driven by process innovation and improvements in efficiency

and that this development would be accompanied by an increase in plant size. For the

second projection, it was assumed that small bioenergy plants would be profitable, as

mass production will lead to decreasing prices and technological innovations will lead

to a diversification of facility types. For the third projection, it was assumed that,

above all, large solutions will remain profitable and demand large-scale industrial

facilities.

• The engagement of regional actors is the final driving force. For the projection, three

existing trends were considered: first, the majority of actors will remain passive, and

stakeholders in the field of bioenergy provision are not numerous and act in a diffuse

and sporadic manner; second, a sense of homeland (‘‘Heimat’’), awareness of the

opportunities a regional economy offers, and a desire for steady energy prices will

motivate actors to cooperate and create local networks to provide and distribute

bioenergy on local and regional scales. Third, an international energy provider will

enter the region to extract biomass; this provider will offer incentives for farmers to

cooperate.

4.2 Storylines

The four key driving forces and their three alternatives can be combined in 81 (34) ways.

Within the scenario process, it proved to be impracticable to discuss such a large number of

cases. In addition, not all the combinations are logically consistent, and some were seen to

be politically implausible. Therefore, the expert panel chose three scenario trajectories that

represented the extremes of possible developments and encompass all 12 alternatives for

the driving forces (Fig. 2):

• The ‘‘Trend’’ scenario represents the four business-as-usual conditions. This scenario is

considered an extension of all key driving forces. However, this scenario does not

Scenarios of bioenergy provision

123

express a linear trend. Newly arising modifications must be considered, namely the

CAP 2014-2020 draw. Other factors are assumed to change only slightly.

• The ‘‘Decentral’’ scenario combines sufficient support and political conditions directed

at environmental protection and sustainability with a motivated population making use

of a variety of small-scale bioenergy plants.

• The ‘‘Central’’ scenario assumes that a decreasing political influence mainly benefits

the strongest economic parties, which can survive without subsidies and which will set

the agenda.

As a result of the interaction between the selected drivers, the final storylines of the

scenarios describe the following developments of bioenergy provision in the social and

spatial context of the Gorlitz district.

4.2.1 ‘‘Trend’’ scenario

The ‘‘Trend’’ scenario anticipates habitual behaviour by the stakeholders. Although various

stakeholder groups appear around the bioenergy value chain, there is little local or regional

cooperation. Residents remain partly unaffected by questions of bioenergy provision,

although more than half of population expresses environmental concerns. However, the

key players’ interest in using biomass for energy provision grows. The key players are, first

and foremost, farmers, particularly members of farmers’ cooperatives with livestock.

Municipalities and local power companies also play important roles in bioenergy provi-

sion. Overall, the stakeholders’ activities are rather selective; however, their commitment

increases. Large-scale investors from outside the region are faced with scepticism.

Driven by the technological options and the policy on subsidies, a further expansion of

established technologies takes place. Although growth slows down, approximately 30

additional agricultural bioenergy plants with capacities of up to 750 kWel are built and

operated. These new plants are located closer to villages and industrial sites. In addition, up

to 20 new combined heat and power plants (CHPP) are favoured, primarily small muni-

cipal facilities that are erected in the northern part of the district. Through local grids, both

types of technologies contribute to the provision of heat, for which there is strong demand.

Scenario “Trend” Scenario “Decentral” Scenario “Central”

C AP updating without major changes

advancement with greening

no funding

R E A updating without major changes

funding with increased sustainability requirements

no funding

Techno-l og i e s

establishment of approved techno-logies, process innovation

enhancement and diversification of small plants

ascendance of large facilities

A c t or s no particular regional commitment

establishment of regional actor networks

appearance of a major investor, development of supraregional networks

Fig. 2 The alternative expressions of the key-driving forces shaping the scenarios

A. Starick et al.

123

Similarly, the flexible provision of energy is increasingly demanded. The production and

feeding of biomethane into the natural gas network thus plays an important role and is

accomplished by two additional large plants.

Overall, bioenergy provision requires more substrate and a greater share of forest and

cropland, as more than the entire forest area is needed to generate the necessary firewood,

leaving stem wood for construction purposes. Thus, public forests are used more inten-

sively, and the forest area increases. Approximately two-fifths of the arable fields are

planted with energy crops in alternating rotations. Maize remains the most abundant biogas

crop; however, future legislation will require planting of alternative crops such as legumes,

grass, and other perennials. The overall structural diversity is reduced by larger and more

intensively cultivated fields with more fast-growing crops that resemble plantations during

the summer months. This development dominates the appearance of the landscape in prime

locations, where several farmers leave the CAP system and cultivate energy plants in

monocultures. In contrast, structural diversity is enriched by a slightly higher diversity of

crops and more landscape elements, such as groves and hedgerows. Moreover, farmland

strongly features technical facilities such as silos, bioenergy plants, energy networks, and

stables.

4.2.2 ‘‘Decentral’’ scenario

Major changes in the conditions set by the reform of the CAP and REA require social and

economic adjustments. In the context of a peripheral rural region with a low population

density, these changes lead to an initial setback in development of bioenergy provision.

The multitude of small-scale technologies and utilisable raw materials will thereafter be

increasingly used by a population that seeks alternative ways of life and sources of income

and is ready to take action. The inhabitants are increasingly involved in bioenergy pro-

vision. This involvement is supported by the establishment of service relationships, energy

cooperatives, and, consequently, networks. The combination of remnant collection, raw

material provision, and energy processing and use forms the backbone of regional

development of provision of power, particularly heat. Farmers, foresters, and municipal

power providers are the heart of this process, with farmers and foresters operating busi-

nesses and providing services such as harvesting and processing. They become an integral

part of rural society and culture.

As a result, the scenario involves approximately the same number of new bioenergy

plants as the ‘‘Trend’’ scenario. Overall capacity, however, is lower. Altered decentralised

technologies, including fuel cells, power–heat cogeneration, biomethane injection and

gasification plants, and ORC technologies, are applied. Networks extend to the storage and

distribution of energy, regional energy exchanges, and establishment of smart grids.

A few agrarian companies in prime locations leave the CAP system as the payments for

ecosystem services do not compensate them for the effort and the losses associated with the

related environmental measures at highly profitable sites. In contrast, the majority of

farmland is dedicated to a combination of agricultural production and landscape preser-

vation. Often, agri-environmental measures are combined with biomass production. A

praxis innovation regarding cultivation methods is promoted. In addition, traditional cul-

tivation systems, such as agroforestry systems following the historic hoof-shaped clearings

(‘‘Waldhufenflur’’), are reactivated. Both systems permit multiple uses of farmland. On the

other hand, due to extensification and a wider range of crops, such as flowering plants,

permanent crops, legumes, girasol, and clover, more land is required for biomass

production.

Scenarios of bioenergy provision

123

Consequently, land is used in a differentiated manner, providing space for richer and

more numerous structural elements. The portion of groves within the landscape increases.

Wood is particularly mobilised in private forests, where marginal wood products are also

extracted. Part of the system is landscape utilisation for recreational and tourist activities.

Because the system absorbs biomass from the whole region, there are few resources

available for large plants.

4.2.3 ‘‘Central’’ scenario

The ‘‘Central’’ scenario describes a development within which the willingness to sell land

increases. Several farmers and farmers’ cooperatives do not survive the increased com-

petition. A few farmers’ cooperatives expand in the southern part of the region. A bi-

omethane feed-in plant of industrial size (20 MW) is erected and operated by a syndicate.

The northern part is affected by supraregional interests. Large-scale investors are attracted,

including agricultural enterprises and an international energy provider, whose activities are

targeted at supplying the heating plants in the Berlin–Brandenburg region with woody

biomass. Agricultural and forestry enterprises and the wood-processing industry gradually

become important partners of this energy provider. Additionally, new enterprises are

founded, which provide cultivation techniques and offer cultivation services. The energy

provider establishes business relationships with these enterprises. For example, the pro-

vider leases land from insolvent farmers’ cooperatives, which, in return, cultivate the land

for the provider. The energy provider contracts agricultural enterprises for the plantation

and maintenance of short-rotation coppices, to which 30–50 per cent of the farmland is

allocated. The energy provider also cultivates land on reclamation sites.

The consequence of these developments is a strong demand for wood and maize. As a

result, wood is grown in short-rotation coppices on a large scale, particularly in the

northern part of the region. Infertile and reclamation sites are partly reforested. Forests are

partly managed as energy wood plantations and thus are progressively segregated into

forests that are devoted to productive, conservational, or recreational purposes. The pro-

portion of open-country landscape area decreases. In the southern part of the region,

sorghum and cup plant are grown alongside maize. Site conditions are optimised for large-

scale production. Only large nature reserves are unaffected by these intensification trends.

Overall, development that segregates agricultural landscapes marked by industrial-style

intensive production and traditional cultural landscapes is fostered.

5 Discussion

The scenarios describe the broad range of future development options at the interface of

bioenergy provision, regional, and landscape development, and society. In this section, we

discuss what we have learnt from the scenario process and the results. In particular, for

insights into the technologies, we draw on the findings from the projection of this driving

force. We discuss the effects of an increased bioenergy supply on regional development

and society. Generalisable challenges for shaping future development are noted.

5.1 Effects of the key drivers

Reflecting on the scenario process and the storylines, the landscape is observed to undergo

dramatic transitions in all cases (cp. Nadai van der Horst 2010).

A. Starick et al.

123

The four key driving forces were shown to have an intense interaction. At the same

time, all the driving forces function independently (cp. Lambin and Meyfroidt 2010).

Combinations other than those chosen are possible. The driving forces have strong,

although different, effects. The CAP and the REA have the most notable effects on the type

and intensity of agricultural production and the intensity of the renewable energy supply.

The relationship between CAP and REA subsidies and the corresponding requirements are

particularly important for future development. In certain cases, farmers may leave the CAP

support scheme due to unfavourable environmental demands and rely solely on REA

subsidies. Nonetheless, technologies have the stronger effect on the type of regional and

landscape development. In particular, technologies drive either more centralised devel-

opment or decentralised development.

5.2 Technological trends and the implications for regional development

As the investigation of the driving forces reveals, the differentiation effect of the tech-

nologies is due to a broad range of technological opportunities that continues to develop.

This broad range permits the following (cp. Szarka et al. 2013):

• provision of various types of energy or energy carriers, including electric power, heat,

gas, and petrol

• processing of various primary products from annual crops and wood products to

residues and waste

• various types of transformation (e.g. pyrolysis, gasification, fermentation, and

combustion)

• small facilities with capacities of several kilowatts (e.g. to supply heat for individual

houses) to large facilities with capacities of several hundred megawatt (e.g. to supply

heat for entire towns)

The type of development differs for large and small facilities. A few selected trends and

their implications for regional development, which have informed the projections of the

technologies and their interaction with other driving forces, are discussed below.

With respect to small facilities, the development of technologies themselves and thus

technological differentiation are particularly noticeable. Therefore, (creative) solutions

appropriate to the type of demand and independent of supraregional market prices are

possible and are particularly worthwhile in rural areas with low population densities.

Typically, small facilities can be installed on the basis of the existing infrastructure.

However, such facilities often require and support new cooperative structures at the local

and regional levels. Above a certain number of facilities, they also require the additional

installation of district heating networks, conversions to the power grid, and amendments

for energy trading. These requirements entail the allocation of an equivalent number of

sites for facilities and may have a concentrating effect on the local landscape, as typical

catchment areas range from 10 to 35 kilometres distance.

The development of larger facilities is supported by improvements in the processing of

primary and intermediate products, such as the processing of biogas for the feeding into the

natural gas grid. In addition, high-energy-density pellets are available and can be trans-

ported profitably over long distances, so they can be offered on supraregional markets.

Consequently, larger facilities are frequently biogas injection plants, biomass heating

plants, and coal heating plants that are partly fuelled by woodchips and pellets. The

existing infrastructure and logistics and the know-how and realisation potential of the

present large energy suppliers are used. On the other hand, an expansion of infrastructure

Scenarios of bioenergy provision

123

networks may be required. The technologies allow for energy storage and, theoretically, for

an energy supply based on demand. These technologies are comparatively efficient.

Because they rely on large catchment areas for the supply of primary products, they have

far-reaching effects on land use and the landscape. Trends towards contracting farmers and

towards environmental or sustainability standards and agreements are observed with

medium- and large-sized facility operators.

As a result, both large and small facilities offer reasonable solutions for future. In rural

areas in particular, both solutions are feasible. From a technical point of view, how they

play against each other is an open question. Over time however, one solution precludes the

other in a particular region, due to limited resources and infrastructure requirements.

Beyond the competition between food production and bioenergy supply, the realisation

of the broad range of technological opportunities on a supraregional scale can, for instance,

mean increasing competition for raw materials and land in a particular region. This might

happen when the number of facilities increases and more stakeholders assert claims. It

moreover might happen in places where catchment areas of different sizes overlap. Not

least, competition arises when the regional catchment areas of small facilities interfere with

the supraregional catchment areas of large facilities within the same region (cp. Figure 3).

As an operator of a large biogas plant explains:

‘‘As far as I know, such a plant will not be built any more [by our company; inference

by the author]. Because […] the disadvantage is that […] you have to bring together

this amount of primary products, that is obvious. This is, however, not so easy

everywhere. As I said, we are lucky because here is the land, here is Poland–here it

POLAND

CZECH REPUBLIC

Berlin

GÖRLITZ

DISTRICT

Dresden

catchment area of different bioenergy plants

POLAND

Berlin

GÖRRLLIITTZZ

DISTRICTT

Dresdennn

CT

legend: motorway border major city

Fig. 3 The Gorlitz district in asupraregional context andexamples of overlappingcatchment areas (here those of anestablished small agriculturalbiogas plant, a future medium-sized biomethane injection plant,and a possible large-sized heatingplant)

A. Starick et al.

123

does still work. Elsewhere, things appear to be worse. And as I said, [small agri-

cultural; inference by the author] biogas plants currently spring up like mushrooms.

So there is, of course, a certain competition for saving the raw materials. And then it

is, of course, not so easy, to build up such a park again and to ensure all of this. That

is pretty clear.’’

Once resources are allocated and infrastructure is partially enhanced either way, the

resulting spatial conditions predetermine further development.

5.3 Social effects of the technologies

5.3.1 Diversification and increasing complexity

In either case, technological development causes a diversification of value chains. The

logistics become more complex. With the construction of larger facilities, the cultivation

and processing of primary products leaves in-house production and is outsourced. Almost

in parallel, the differentiation and maturing of technologies results in a specialisation of the

production and service sectors. Figure 4 shows the logistical model of an older large biogas

plant that is similar to the in-house model of a small agricultural biogas plant. Figure 5

shows a rather complex model of a new medium-sized biomethane injection plant. This

model includes cross-border relationships such as contracting and consulting with Polish

farmers by an operation syndicate, harvesting and transportation of biomass by a logistics

company, ensilage in leased silos, processing and distribution of the biomethane, provision

of power and heat via block heat and power plants, and, ultimately, the application of the

digestate in the fields. Diversity is further increased by the entry of international energy

suppliers into the renewable energies’ market.

Consequently, technological development results in increases in the number and diversity

of stakeholders (cp. Bagliani et al. 2010). This is particularly evident with respect to plant

operators, who are no longer solely stakeholders primarily from the agricultural sector.

This makes the constellation of actors more complex, in the area under investigation in

particular, as land owners are seldom the land users. The relation between owners and

users covers a wide range, from neighbourhood relationships and owners’ attachment to

land uses to regional absence and a lack of attachment to land uses.

Due to its broadness, diversity, and complexity, technological development also rep-

resents additional new options for stakeholders. This is particularly obvious with respect to

farmers, who must choose among various economic options and partnerships with various

interested parties. Thus, they must reconsider their original self-concepts and readjust their

100 km

cultivation

Vertrag über die Lieferung von Mais

Der Vertragsnehmer, AgrarSoonne GmbH,

vertreten durch Herrn Werner Müller verpflichtet sich , an den Vertragsgeber, die SiamStrom AG zur Lieferung von 10 Tonnen

Mais (Erntegewicht) bis zum 15. Oktober 2012. Der Vertragsnehmer liefert frei Haus zum Preis von 10 000

. Er verpflichtet sich weiter,

maize

digestate

annual contract

transformer substation

pellet factorypress cake

biogas plant

Fig. 4 Logistic model of an in-house agricultural biogas plant

Scenarios of bioenergy provision

123

social perceptions. Furthermore, as a small stakeholder group (s. Fasterdimg 1997) with a

major influence on landscapes under transformation, they are placed in a new spotlight of

society and are becoming the focus of the broad majority of people whose main interests

pertain to non-commodity outputs, such as a landscape’s contribution to the formation of

identity and recreation in a natural setting (cp. van der Horst 2007; Madureira et al. 2007).

5.3.2 Stakeholder options and decision behaviour

Decisions that farmers make in this rather open situation are, as indicated, not solely

explained by profit maximisation. As the interviews with plant operators revealed, they

largely depend on attitudes that affect, for example, the willingness to enter into contractual

relationships. Despite the widespread idea of total flexibility, the interviews also revealed a

strong willingness, if not a necessity, of non-agrarian plant operators to enter into contracts

with farmers who secure the supply of raw materials. Farmers did not display the same

readiness to enter into contracts, as two selected quotations indicate. ‘‘When we started’’,

stated one plant operator, ‘‘the farmers here in the region have of course been a bit sceptical.

If this would work here, and closing contracts–who knows what this is going to become

[…]’’. ‘‘We have found our partners in Poland’’, explained a second plant operator. ‘‘And

one cannot say this is cheaper. However, what there was, and what has rebounded to our

advantage, was the willingness to enter fairly long-term contracts. And this is where we, after

all, have considerable problems of acceptance among German farmers’’.

Apparently, soft reasons play an important role in decision-making. The interviews

revealed a wide variety of such reasons, including the margin between scepticism towards

investors from the non-agrarian sector or about upcoming developments and contentment

with contractual relationships in operation, between progressiveness and a pioneering spirit

on the one hand and a well-rehearsed role perception on the other, between activity and

passivity, and between one’s own ideas and the experiences of other regional stakeholders.

Soft reasons also include confidence and responsibility. The interviews also demonstrated

the roles of openness and prejudices among stakeholder groups that are not strongly related

to each other and thus demonstrated the importance of communication. In addition, legal

certainty is an important issue that was addressed by four interview partners. The variety of

35 km

cultivation digestate

transport

Vertrag über die Lieferung von Mais

Der Vertragsnehmer, AgrarSoonne GmbH,

vertreten durch Herrn Werner Müller verpflichtet sich , an den Vertragsgeber, die SiamStrom AG zur Lieferung von 10 Tonnen

Mais (Erntegewicht) bis zum 15. Oktober 2012. Der Vertragsnehmer liefert frei Haus zum Preis von 10 000

. Er verpflichtet sich weiter,

ten-year contractannual land designation

logistican

harvest

Poland Germany

logistican

CHPP

norms, advise

silos

lease

CHPP

Fig. 5 Logistic model of a medium-sized biomethane injection plant (CHPP = combined heat and powerplant)

A. Starick et al.

123

soft reasons involved leads to ambivalent decision-making behaviour under contradicting

demands, such as the desire for security and autonomy at the same time.

Given the growing diversity of stakeholders and their complex linkages, the diversity of

options similarly applies to other stakeholder groups. They too find themselves in a new

and open decision situation that requires the reconsideration of self-concepts and social

perceptions.

This applies not least to the heat and power consumers, who are faced with increasing

energy prices,4 who must reconsider the amounts and types of energy they consume,5 and

who are increasingly becoming producers and service providers themselves.6 Furthermore,

they are increasingly faced with the consequences of their energy consumption. Energy

production was previously concentrated in selected areas, most of which were far out of

sight; however, renewable energy production now takes place everywhere in the immediate

environment. Among the various forms of energy production, bioenergy utilises the most

space and is most associated with the infiltration of technical facilities into the open

landscape. As the scenarios illustrate, it also transforms agriculture (and possibly forestry),

leading to intensification of land uses, homogenisation (uniformisation), and monostruc-

turing of landscapes, with large-scale maize and canola cultures. Thus, landscapes are

taking on increasingly industrialised forms and are changing rapidly. Consumers are thus

faced with the results of their energy consumption in new ways.

The groups that are affected by the transformation of their landscapes and their

homeland, particularly the inhabitants of rural areas, are thus also involved. Their reception

of the transformation of landscape and energy systems and their resulting actions should

not be underestimated. Their ability and their willingness to take their destinies into their

own hands and participate in or oppose supraregional developments, as well as their

societal commitment to support or oppose either bioenergy or landscape development, will

strongly influence both types of development.

5.3.3 Stakeholders’ constellation

The linkages demonstrated by the descriptions of the different stakeholder groups illustrate

that with technological changes and spatial transformation comes a shift in the social

situation as a whole. The boundaries between the different stakeholder groups blur or shift

and are newly drawn (Fig. 6). This is a challenge to each party that requires a reorientation

of individuals and stakeholder groups as part of an active social discourse about complex

development contexts. This discourse should include questions concerning land use

activities in which society as a whole is becoming increasingly involved, although indi-

rectly and after years of declining direct involvement (cp. Plieninger et al. 2006). It should

also include reflection on the concept of landscape, the envisaged spatial development, and

the relationships between town and country.

Because each stakeholder group has a considerable variety of options, the decisions

made under this shifting constellation—and the pace at which and resolution with which

they are made—will determine the direction in which bioenergy supply and the landscape

will develop within a region.

4 One reason is that the costs of the transformation of the energy system to renewable energies are allocatedto the consumer by means of the REA.5 This is possible due to the diversity of providers that offer energy from different resources.6 Involvement in the service sector represents, for instance, participation in smart grids and regional energymarkets.

Scenarios of bioenergy provision

123

6 Conclusions

Throughout Germany, the provision of energy using renewable resources is developing

rapidly and is particularly affecting the development of rural regions. To better understand

the cause-and-effect relationships involved and anticipate the directions that future

developments may take and the impacts that they may have, regional scenarios have been

drafted, using bioenergy provision in the Gorlitz district as an example.

The framework developed by Syrbe et al. (2013) served as the basis for the development

of the scenarios. The framework allows the use of different methods and directional

decisions during the process. It thus facilitates a gradual refinement of the approach based

on the progress of knowledge and discourse.

We divided the evaluation step into two subtasks, thereby allowing a later technical

assessment of the scenario effects (in this case, on ecosystem services) as a major con-

tribution to decisions about objectives (cp. Bastian et al. 2013), while permitting a direct

interpretation for regional development and society. The division was also a methodo-

logically useful step because in the course of the scenario process, the projections of the

key driving forces and the storylines themselves increasingly became the object of political

will and normative discussions. Although this became a challenge for ensuring an

explorative process, it provided an opportunity for an intense discussion of the cause-and-

effect relationships and thereby led to an early discussion of the parameters that ought to be

adjusted to achieve the type of development envisaged.

In our case, decentralised development was clearly preferred. A more sophisticated

discussion could have been achieved by adding a scenario that combines expressions of

key driving forces that do not initially appear to be supportive of each other. Based on

the situation in the Gorlitz district, the action of a few major investors under a greened

CAP and REA might have been a combination worth investigating. Another combi-

nation might have been the establishment of a few large plants by regional actor

networks.

For the purpose of distinguishing among the scenarios, four key driving forces (CAP,

REA, technologies, and actors) were identified. In general, the relationship between CAP

and REA will be of particular importance to the future development of agriculture. For the

type of development upon which rural regions embark, technologies are even more

important, because they allow for either highly centralised or highly decentralised devel-

opment. Over time, due to limited resources and system requirements, one type of solution

tends to preclude the other. Time is an important factor, as the decisions that are made now

predetermine further developments. Even more so than the technologies however, the

Landscape

Landscape

Producers

Affectedgroups

Consumers

Con

sum

ers

Producers

Affectedgroups

Fig. 6 Shift in stakeholders’constellations

A. Starick et al.

123

attitudes, capacities, decisions, and actions of the actors are decisive for either type of

development.

The scenario interpretation demonstrates the strong effects of bioenergy provision on

land uses and landscapes. Furthermore, we observed strong social effects of bioenergy and

renewable energy growth in general. These social effects include a growing number of

stakeholders being involved in energy development on the production side and the growing

importance of consumers and non-productive land users, particularly the inhabitants whose

environments are affected. Because each stakeholder group’s options for action increase

and the boundaries between these stakeholder groups blur, stakeholders’ constellations as a

whole shift, leading to changes in the society. Society is thus both a driving force and an

affected system.

The reaction of societies to renewable energy growth, particularly in terms of resistance,

has been widely investigated (cp. e.g. van der Horst 2007; Jenssen 2010; Pasqualetti 2011).

Less investigation has been undertaken regarding the wider effects and the proactive role

of society in renewable energy growth (cp. Bagliani et al. 2010). The results of this study

constitute a contribution to the field in this respect. The results show the influence of a

region’s actors on the technological development in a region. Under shifting social con-

stellations, it is still open into which direction the technological development drives.

We see high creative potential in the situation described. The situation is, however, also

disposed to developments that could overwhelm a region’s capacity to anticipate and

regulate development.

To manage the interlinked developments of an energy system, the landscape, and

society in sustainable ways and ensure that development is socially stable, technical

support for regional target setting, with discursive processes that combine exogenous and

endogenous knowledge, is reasonable. The process of qualitative scenario construction

has proven to be an appropriate tool for facilitating the learning process on both the

researchers’ and the stakeholders’ sides and consequently an appropriate tool for sup-

porting this management (cp. van der Horst 2007; Albert et al. 2012). The ability of this

tool to demonstrate the magnitudes of possible future development challenges should not

be underestimated. Based on this ability alone, the scenarios considered can serve to

support decisions. We echo the plea by Howard et al. (2013) for a system approach to

energy planning that considers the interconnections of energy, landscape, and society (cp.

also van der Horst 2007; Bagliani et al. 2010; Nadai van der Horst 2010; Pasqualetti

2011).

The strengthening of the counter-current principle regarding the development of the

energy system could be another management tool. In particular, such strengthening could

provide an additional means of revising national objectives and exploring regionally

adapted solutions. Furthermore, questions of social and environmental justice must be

discussed on a supraregional scale. Offers of involvement in structuring regional devel-

opment and participation in its benefits might be concrete approaches, as the poles between

an increasing number of citizens’ initiatives against renewable energy developments and

citizens’ cooperatives for the establishment of renewable energy facilities in their imme-

diate environments indicate.

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the plant operators interviewed for insights into theiroperations and to the stakeholders in the Gorlitz district who contributed to the scenario process. The authorsthank the anonymous reviewers whose comments significantly improved the clarity of the paper. This studywas supported by the funding scheme ‘‘Sustainable Land Management–Module B’’ of the German FederalMinistry for Education and Research (FKZ 033L028A-E).

Scenarios of bioenergy provision

123

References

Albert, C., Zimmermann, T., Knieling, J., & von Haaren, C. (2012). Social learning can benefit decision-making in landscape planning: Gartow case study on climate change adaptation, Elbe valley biospherereserve. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(4), 347–360.

Alcamo, J. (Ed.). (2008). Environmental futures: The practice of environmental scenario analysis. Devel-opments in Integrated Environmental Assessment. Amsterdam u. a.: Elsevier.

Ammermann, K. (2008). Energetische Nutzung nachwachsender Rohstoffe. Auswirkungen auf die Bio-diversitat und Kulturlandschaft. Natur und Landschaft, 83(3), 108–110.

Artner, A., Frohnmeyer, U., Matzdorf, B., Rudolph, I., Rother, J., & Stark, G. (2006). Future landscapes.Berlin, Bonn: Perspektiven der Kulturlandschaft.

Bagliani, M., Dansero, E., & Puttilli, M. (2010). Territory and energy sustainability: The challenge ofrenewable energy sources. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53(4), 457–472.

Bastian, O., Lupp, G., Syrbe, R.-U., & Steinhaußer, R. (2013). Ecosystem services and energy crops—spatial differentiation of risks. Ekologia, 32(1), 13–29.

Billig, E., Thran, D., Bunzel, K. (2011). Bioenergie. Stand der Technik und Entwicklungsperspektiven.Lecture, Scenario Workshop of the research project Loebestein, 01/03/11, St. Marienthal.

BMELV Bundesministerium fur Ernahrung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz, & BMU Bundesmin-isterium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (Eds.). (2009). Nationaler Biomasseaktions-plan fur Deutschland. Beitrag der Biomasse fur eine nachhaltige Energieversorgung. Berlin.

DB Deutscher Bundestag (Ed.) (2011a). Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses fur Umwelt,Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (16. Ausschuss). 17/6363. Berlin.

DB Deutscher Bundestag (Ed.) (2011b). Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses fur Umwelt,Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (16. Ausschuss). Drucksache 17/6247. Berlin.

Bureau, J. C. (2012). Where is the common agricultural policy heading? In D. Viaggi, J. C. Bureau, S.Tangermann, A. Matthews, C. Crombez, L. Knops, J. Swinnen (Eds) The common agricultural policyafter 2013. Intereconomics, Review of European Economic Policy 47(6), 316–342.

Carpenter, S. R., Bennett, E. M., & Peterson, G. D. (2006). Scenarios for ecosystem services: An overview.Ecology and Society, 11(1), art. no. 29. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art29/.

Chevalier, J. M., & Buckles, D. J. (2008). SAS2 social analysis systems: A guide to collaborative inquiry andsocial engagement. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

BRD Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Ed.) (2010). Nationaler Aktionsplan fur erneuerbare Energie gemaß derRichtlinie 2009/28/EG zur Forderung der Nutzung von Energie aus erneuerbaren Quellen. www.erneuerbare-energien.de/. Accessed 14 June 2012.

DREBERIS (Ed.) (2012). Analyse der Potentiale zur energetischen Biomassenutzung sowie einer Akteurs-und Netzwerkanalyse im Bereich der Biomasseerzeugung und –nutzung in der Region Dresden imRahmen des Modellvorhabens der uberregionalen Partnerschaft der Metropolregion Mitteldeutschland‘‘Partnerschaft der Stadtregionen’’; Teilbericht 1. Biomassepotentiale in der Region Dresden. http://region.dresden.de/media/pdf/region/ErsterTeilbericht.pdf. Accessed 18 December 2012.

Dreher, B. (2011): Aktuelle Entwicklungen im EEG. Lecture at the conference Energetische Nutzung vonLandschaftspflegematerial‘‘, 01/03–02/03/11, Berlin.

EC European Commission (2011). Establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemeswithin the framework of the common agricultural policy. Proposal for a regulation of the Europeanparliament and of the council (ed EC), COM(2011) 625 final/2. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/com625/625_en.pdf. Accessed 03 March 2013.

Fasterdimg, F. (1997). Projection of the structure of labour input in German’s agriculture. Landbaufors-chung Volkenrode, 47(3), 135–145.

Grundmann, J. (2010): Konzepte zur Sicherung von Biomassebrennstoffen fur die Heizkraftwerke derVattenfall Gruppe. Lecture at the Kick-off-Meeting of the BMBF research project AgroForNet at the19 November 2010 in Tharandt.

Houet, T., Loveland, T., Hubert-Moy, L., Gaucherel, C., Napton, D., Barnes, C., et al. (2010). Exploringsubtle land use and land cover changes: A framework for future landscape studies. Landscape Ecology,25(2), 249–266.

Howard, D. C., Burgess, P. J., Butler, S. J., Carver, S. J., Cockerill, T., Coleby, A. M., et al. (2013).Energyscapes: Linking the energy system and ecosystem services in real landscapes. Biomass andBioenergy, 55, 17–26.

IEA International Energy Agency (Ed.) (2009). World energy outlook 2009. Paris: IEA.Jenssen, T. (2010). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Acceptance and opposition as keys to bioenergy

technologies. Journal of Urban Technology, 17(2), 99–115.Kaphengst, T. (2009). Nachhaltige Biomassenutzung in Europa. GAiA, 16(2), 93–97.

A. Starick et al.

123

Lambin, E. F., & Meyfroidt, P. (2010). Land use transitions: Socio-ecological feedback versus socio-economic change. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 108–118.

Leibenath, M., & Otto, A. (2012). Diskursive Konstituierung von Kulturlandschaft am Beispiel politischerWindenergiediskurse in Deutschland. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 70(2), 119–131.

Leopoldina German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina (Ed.) (2012). Statement bioenergy—chances and limits. Halle (Saale).

Lupp, G., Albrecht, J., Darbi, M., & Bastian, O. (2011). Ecosystem services in energy crop production—Aconcept for regulatory measures in spatial planning? Journal of Landscape Ecology, 4(3), 49–66.

MA: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washing-ton, DC: Island Press.

Madureira, L., Rambonilaza, T., & Karpinski, I. (2007). Review of methods and evidence for economicvaluation of agricultural non-commodity outputs and suggestions to facilitate its application to broaderdecisional contexts. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 120(1), 5–20.

Mahe, L.-P. (2012). Do the proposals for the CAP after 2013 herald a ‘major’ reform? Policy paper 53.Paris: Notre Europe.

Nadai, A., & van der Horst, D. (2010). Introduction: Landscapes of energies. Landscape Research, 35(2),143–155.

Opaschowski, H. W. (2008). Deutschland 2030. Gutersloh, Munchen: Wie wir in Zukunft leben.Pasqualetti, M. J. (2011). Social barriers to renewable energy landscapes. Geographical Review, 101(2),

201–223.Plieninger, T., Bens, O., & Huttl, R. F. (2006). Landwirtschaft und Entwicklung landlicher Raume. APuZ

Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 37(2006), 23–30.Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al. (2009). Who’s in and

why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949.

FNR Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe (Ed.) (2012). Biogas. 8. Ed. Rostock.Rowe, R. L., Street, N. R., & Taylor, G. (2009). Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale

deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,13(1), 271–290.

Scheuermann, A., Erfurt, I., Peters, W., Schicketanz, S. et al. (2012). Regionales Energie- und Klimas-chutzkonzept fur die Region Oberlausitz-Niederschlesien. Kurzfassung des Endberichts. Leipzig.www.rpv-oberlausitz-niederschlesien.de/projekte/regionales-energie-und-klimaschutzkonzept-klimaanpassungsstrategie/regionales-energie-und-klimaschutzkonzept/ergebnisse.html. Acces-sed 20 Dec 2012.

Sohl, T. L., Loveland, T. R., Sleeter, B. M., Sayler, K. L., & Barnes, C. A. (2010). Addressing foundationalelements of regional land-use change forecasting. Landscape Ecology, 25(2), 233–247.

Soliva, R. (2009). Die Zukunft des Schweizer Berggebiets: Eine partizipative Nachhaltigkeitsprufung vonLandwirtschafts- und Landschaftsszenarios. GAiA, 16(2), 122–129.

Starick, A., Klockner, K., Moller, I., Gaasch, N., & Muller, K. (2011). Entscheidungshilfen fur einenachhaltige raumliche Entwicklung der Bioenergiebereitstellung: Methoden und ihre instrumentelleAnwendung. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 69(6), 367–382.

Stocker, A., Omann, I., Jager, J. (2012). The socio-economic modelling of the ALARM scenarios withGINFORS: Results and analysis for selected European countries. Global Ecology and Biogeography21 (Special Issue), 36–49.

Syrbe, R.-U., Rosenberg, M., & Vowinckel, J. (2013). Kap. 4.3 Szenarioentwicklung und partizipativeVerfahren. In K. Grunewald & O. Bastian (Eds.), Okosystem-Dienstleistungen. Methoden und Fall-beispiele (pp. 110–119). Berlin, Heidelberg: Konzepte.

Szarka, N., Scholwin, F., Trommler, M., Fabian Jacobi, H., Eichhorn, M., Ortwein, A., et al. (2013). A novelrole for bioenergy: A flexible, demand-oriented power supply. Energy, 61(1), 18–26.

BWT Bundesministerium fur Wirtschaft und Technologie, & BMU Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Na-turschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (Eds.). (2007). Bericht zur Umsetzung der in der Kabinettsklausur am23./24.08.2007 in Meseberg beschlossenen Eckpunkte fur ein Integriertes Energie- und Klimapro-gramm. Berlin. www.bmu.de/klimaschutz/downloads/doc/40514.php. Accessed 18 Nov 2009.

Thran, D., Bunzel, K., Seyfert, U., Zeller, V., Buchhorn, M., Muller, K., et al. (2011). Global and regionalspatial distribution of biomass potential: status quo and options for specification; final report; projectnumber DBFZ 3330001. DBFZ Report Nr. 7. Leipzig.

Thran, D., Bunzel, K., Viehmann, C., et al. (2010). Bioenergie heute und morgen—11 Bereitstellungs-konzepte. Leipzig: Sonderheft zum DBFZ-Report.

Scenarios of bioenergy provision

123

BMU Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (Ed.). (2008). Umweltbewusstseinin Deutschland 2008—Ergebnisse einer reprasentativen Bevolkerungsumfrage. Reihe Umweltpolitik.Niestetal.

BMU Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (Ed.). (2011). Erfahrungsbericht2011 zum Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG-Erfahrungsbericht) (Entwurf mit Stand vom 03/05/11).Berlin.

SRU Sachverstandigenrat fur Umweltfragen (Ed.). (2011). Wege zur 100 % erneuerbaren Stromversorgung.Sondergutachten: Berlin.

van der Horst, D. (2007). NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voicedopinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2705–2714.

van Drunen, M. A., van’t Klooster, S. A., & Berkhout, F. (2011). Bounding the future: The use of scenariosin assessing climate change impacts. Futures, 43(4), 488–496.

VERBI GmbH (Ed.). (2013). MaxQDA—Qualitative data analysis software. www.maxqda.com. Accessed23 Sept 2013.

Walz, A., Lardelli, C., Behrendt, H., Gret-Regamey, A., Lundstrom, C., Kytzia, S., et al. (2007). Partici-patory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(1–2),114–131.

Wiehe, J., Ruschkowski, Ev, Rode, M., Kanning, H., & Haaren, Cv. (2009). Effects of the cultivation ofenergy plants on the landscape—the example of maize production for biomethanation in LowerSaxony. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 41(4), 107–113.

Wietschel, M., Arens, M., Dotsch, C., Herkel, S., Krewitt, W., Markewitz, P., et al. (2010). Energietech-nologien 2050—Schwerpunkte fur Forschung und Entwicklung. Stuttgart, Fraunhofer Verlag:Technologienbericht.

A. Starick et al.

123