Wind farms in contested landscapes: Procedural and scale gaps of wind power facility constructions in Japan

Abstract

The legal system for renewable energy in Japan, Feed-in Tariff system, was deregulated in 2021 by the central government to reflect the international calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, this sudden change has raised concerns about social, environmental, and long-term economic sustainability. Thus, we conducted a state-of-the-art review of legal and policy frameworks of wind power projects in Japan and discussed the multi-layered structure at national- and municipal-level ordinances. By doing so, several gaps are highlighted. First, there are procedural gaps that business operators can de facto bypass by checking the environmental procedures. Second, there are issues at the scale (national or local), where the decisions are met. For example, while the overall framework is decided at the national level, the most contentious issues of the location of wind power facilities are left at the local level, where residents, municipalities, and developers are burdened to solve these issues. Third, in the current legal system, environmental impacts on popular natural landscapes are not taken into consideration. In the face of deregulation and concerns about multiple factors, there has been an increase in the number of municipalities opposing the construction of wind farms. Finally, existing legal cases related to wind power projects are provided to illustrate changes and disputes at different sites across Japan. These cases demonstrated how landscape elements (e.g. biodiversity) can be vital for wind power project development in Japan.

Keywords

wind power landscape environmental impacts legal systems Japan

Introduction

The plans to develop renewable energy sources attract attention in the international arena as part of the global energy transition to meet the Sustainable Development Goals.¹ Among the renewable energy sources, wind energy is anticipated to supply one-quarter to one-third of electricity across the globe by 2050.² In the global arena, the potential impact of wind energy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is frequently used by stakeholders in favor of the technology.^3,4 However, there is growing evidence of their negative impacts on biodiversity and landscape.^5,6 For biodiversity, collision mortality of birds and bats to wind turbines has been documented, for instance, in northern European contexts,⁷ the United States,^8,9 Central Ethiopia,¹⁰ and Canada.¹¹ Wind farms also led to indirect impacts such as habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from land-use change, vegetation removal, on-site construction of wind turbines on cement bases, and road sprawl.^12–15 In terms of landscape impacts, wind power projects have received negative perceptions of their visual (aesthetic) and noise (acoustic) impacts.^16–19 For example, Möller²⁰ quantified the visual impact of regional wind-power development in Denmark with varying thresholds. The impacts on indigenous peoples’ historical, traditional, and cultural landscapes have also been noted in certain countries.^21–23 Besides, Pedersen and Waye²⁴ reported people's annoyance to wind turbine noise in Sweden, which was influenced by visual interference on landscape scenery. Meanwhile, there is an argument that wind farms are gradually being recognized as a modern beauty.^25–27 Well-planned regulatory schemes can be important drivers for the development of renewable energy,^28,29 however, regulations that are too strict will hinder power generation by wind energy.^30,31

In Japan, similar negative impacts are documented.^32–38 For instance, Kitano and Shiraki³⁹ recorded bird fatalities related to wind turbine collision at 42 turbines in Tomamae, northern Hokkaido, Japan. Habitat loss associated with land use conversion during wind farm installations had also been reported in the country.⁴⁰ In terms of noise, it cannot be said that it is illegal because it is close to the noise standard, are there cases wherein people with delicate senses, called “highly sensitive persons”, suffered.⁴¹ In terms of landscape impacts, residents living near wind farms are, to some extent, annoyed by the noise produced and visual obstruction.^42,43

Despite the general understanding of the demand for clean energy,^44,45 the construction and operation of wind power plants have concerned the local society because of its potential impacts on the environment and landscape causing oppositions in certain places.^46–48 These trade-offs on biodiversity and landscape are identified to help developers mitigate the impacts of wind power projects,^5,6,49 which in turn decrease the opposition movement.⁴² Involving locals in the process can also be beneficial to lessen the opposition and increase social acceptance of wind farm developments.⁵⁰ Moreover, to solve the concerns involving the construction of wind power plants, the designs of the devices can be improved.^51,52

To improve decision-making processes, several policies were implemented such as the environmental impact assessments, which were recommended to be strategic and consistent.^53–56 In Japan, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law (Law No. 81 of 1997) has been applied to wind power projects.^42,57 Municipalities in the country now regulate the installation of onshore wind turbines in areas where they may potentially affect the landscape.⁴⁰ As of 2021, further promotion of renewable energy is being discussed in the country, particularly installing wind and solar farms in appropriate areas.

To date, there are limited case studies in Japan that highlight wind energy development and landscape, and how these two influences each other from legal systems framework perspectives. The lack of science-based or objective indicators are underpinning these difficulties and challenges; there are no widely accepted indicators, nor recommended standards for implementation of wind energy development. Given the lack of objective benchmarks or widely accepted indicators for the landscape aspect, wind power projects will be promoted through “regional agreement,” in which the people of the region take comprehensive consideration, and either agree or give consent. There are two layers to ensure the “accountability” of operating entities in reaching regional agreements, namely “provision of information” and “process of agreements and consents.” The latter layer entails a domain that should be based on scientific indicators including landscape factors, which are currently lacking. Thus, in this study, we examined how “landscape factors” such as “natural scene conservation” can be embedded in existing policies that can lead to renewable energy development in appropriate areas, which are typically located in mountainous areas with landscape and moral rights of local people importance. Additionally, we emphasized the necessity to establish science-based indicators and/or standards for landscape elements while comprehending local contexts and considerations. To do this, we reviewed the legal frameworks (and their ongoing changes and implications for the practices), at the theoretical and practical levels guided by two hypotheses.

First, the role of natural landscapes varies depending on the technology type (i.e. solar and wind power), and there are certain differences, such as their technical elements, legal differences, and length of technical and practical history (solar has a longer history) between the solar and wind. Though we specifically looked into the role of natural landscapes in wind power projects, there are cases presented in this study that are related to solar power projects due to similar pathways.^58–60 Additionally, the history of wind farms in Japan is relatively young, and it is only in 2011 that the research and development funding for wind energy in the country significantly increased.⁶¹ We argue that what already happened or issues on solar power projects will most likely emerge as issues for wind power generation in Japan. This will provide a unique opportunity to better understand the technical and social characteristics of wind power projects shall these issues arise in the future. Moreover, given the circumstances that the issues surrounding the location selections are largely left at the site level, between the local governments, municipalities, and the business operator, what is the role of natural landscape? What kind of perceptions, actions, and discussions exist surrounding such debates? The second hypothesis is drawn from legal perspectives. Though the legal rights and benefits of “popular natural landscapes” are contested and not well established, the concept of a natural landscape tends to serve as a powerful catalyst in social movements while it is less powerful in the legal retreat in the proceedings, due to their legal destination or general ambiguity.

Alternatively, we propose that elements that can be objectively or scientifically demonstrated tended to be more appealing than landscapes. One of the most powerful ones is elements related to safety or noise (nuisance) in the proceedings. The issues related to biodiversity can also be a point as the conservation of biodiversity, especially the protection of endangered species, has been established as an asset of humankind, or the scientific meanings of biodiversity has been established as fairly certain. Thus, damage due to its deterioration has been confirmed to some extent. Regarding the noise problem, we have positioned it as “pollution” legally, and it is administrative standard. Thus, a judgment cannot be based on the agreement of the local residents solely, but it is also possible for the court to make a judgment in accordance with the “legal standards” of desirable biota, its conservation, and desirable noise environmental standards.

Review of legal systems in Japan

Brief characteristics of related legal systems on renewable energy

This section presents an overview of relevant national legal instruments and processes related to renewable energy in Japan. Under the Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted in December 2015, Parties are committed to a decarbonized society in their national contexts.⁶² This in turn led to an increase in the ratio of renewable energy generation, inter alia, in developed countries.⁶³ A few of these countries include Canada, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, China, France, and the United States, with a ratio of renewable energy of 66.2%, 40.2%, 39.7%, 37.5%, 26.8%, 20.0%, and 17.6%, respectively. In 2018, more than 25% of the total electricity generated by the international community had been covered by renewable energy generation.⁶⁴

In Japan, overall trends in terms of the ratio for renewable energy lag behind the trends seen in the EU, aiming to reach a ratio of renewable power generation of 18.1% in FY2019. This ratio is derived from 6.7% solar power, 0.7% wind power, 2.6% biomass, 0.3% geothermal power, and 7.7% hydropower.⁶² Japan's renewable energy rate drastically increased from 10.4% in 2011 to 19.8% in 2020 when the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) system was initiated in 2012.⁶⁵ Particularly, solar power generation remarkably increased from 0.4% in 2011 to 7.9% in 2020.⁶⁵ However, it cannot be at a high standard internationally, and the Japanese Government is under pressure to tackle a decarbonized society.

There is a move in Japan to accelerate the shifts at the political level since 2020.^66,67 In October 2020, Mr Suga, the Prime Minister at the time, delivered his policy speech on the Diet with a concrete timeline that “Japan aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero as a whole, that is, to realize a carbon-neutral, carbon-free society by 2050” (Prime Minister's Office of Japan, 2021). A year later, in October 2021, a new global warming countermeasure plan and Japan's Long-term Strategy under the Paris Agreement were approved by the Cabinet of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) of Japan under Prime Minister Mr Kishida.⁶⁷ In this plan, Japan declared in April 2021 that it would aim to reduce GHG emissions by 46% (compared to 2013) in 2030 and continue to take on the challenge of reaching a height of 50%. Besides, in the 2022 fiscal year budget requests by the ministries, 20 billion yen (approximately $ 170 million) was added as the “Decarbonization Transition/Re-energy Promotion Grant” that continuously supports local municipalities working on decarbonization-preceding.^68,69

To realize this policy, laws, and regulations related to renewable energy have been drastically revised. The Japanese government intended to reduce GHG emissions by promoting renewable energy. The main amended laws (including regulations) and ordinances can be classified into the following three categories: (1) Laws related to the electric power business, (2) Laws on location selection that are most important for setting up renewable energy facilities, and (3) Ordinances of each local municipalities (Table 1). The location selection is strongly influenced by both the second and third categories, where local residents play important roles (though are not reflected in the ordinances).

Table 1.

Amended legal systems related to renewable energy.

Legal system	Example
1. Laws related to electric power businesses	Act on Promotion of Global Warming Countermeasures, Act on Special Measures Concerning Procurement of Electricity Utilities (Feed-in Tariff Act), Electricity Business Act, and Environmental Impact Assessment Act
2. Laws regarding location selection	Cropland Act, Forest Act, Landscape Act, Act on Promoting the Generation of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources Harmonized with Sound Development of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Act on Promoting the Utilization of Sea Areas for the Development of Marine Renewable Energy Power Generation Facilities, Natural Parks Act, Nature Conservation Act, and Act on Protection of Cultural Properties
3. Ordinances of each local municipality	Nature Conservation Ordinance, Landscape Ordinance, Ordinance on Restriction of Solar Power Generation, Land use ordinance, and Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance

Another motivation for renewable energy in Japan is the energy-related trade deficit (i.e. oil and liquefied natural gas) with the Middle East, Russia, and other regions. According to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) of Japan, the country's self-sufficiency rate of primary energy in 2020 was about 11.2%, equivalent to 11 trillion yen or 84.5 billion USD (Figure 1).⁷⁰ Given that the primary energy self-sufficiency rate is calculated from the domestic primary energy calculation/domestic primary energy supply, Japan has consequently low primary energy sources (i.e. coal, crude oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, and renewable energy), which are limitedly produced domestically, thus, heavily relies on imported sources. The promotion of renewable energy in Japan is an attempt to recover some of the 89% of the electricity that the country is paying overseas as well as to contribute to climate change measures. The findings of this present study can be of interest to other regions with limited energy sources such as Korea or Taiwan, in Asia and beyond.

Figure 1.

Energy self-sufficieny rate of Japan.⁷⁰

The number of renewable energy sites is increasing due to the “renewable energy institutional incentives” by the Renewable Energy Power Generation Promotion Allotted Surcharge (hereafter REPGAS or Saisei-kanou-enerugi Hatsuden Sokushin Fukakin).^71,72 We identified two advantages and one disadvantage of the REPGAS framework.⁷² The first advantage is the spread and increase of renewable energy sources, resulting in positive environmental effects. The second is the contribution to energy security with an improved energy self-sufficiency ratio in Japan. Consequently, the rate of REPGAS is rising annually, which we considered a disadvantage. The reason behind the increased rate of surcharge is the rise of utilities covered by the FIT system, wherein the rate is hiked in the proportion of increased power plants for renewable energy that the REPGAS supports.

As a national scheme, the burden and benefits are designed to be equal nationwide in principle. The local residents frequently feel that the benefits are skewed toward operating entities and fewer benefits are realized in the local community at the site level.^73–75 Thus, the residents in certain local communities may not necessarily prefer to have the power plant facilities to be installed in a nearby location given the “equal” surcharges in proportion to the electricity consumption, regardless of the existence of such facilities. Besides, there are broadcasted news of disputes over facilities with renewable energy suffering from noises, landscapes, or risks of landslides. Such challenges in the incentive schemes can be compared to the introductions in the European experiences or can be compared to other Asian countries. It is the characteristic of Japan that public sectors related to energy utility are partially privatized but the national government has the authorizing entities, in the domain of gas, electricity, and water or sewerage.⁷⁶

Overview of renewable energy legal systems related to landscape

The amended legal systems in the country highlighted the importance of landscape (site selection) in renewable energy project development, though the relationship between these two is not yet well established.^77,78 As hypothesized in this study (see introduction), the concept of a natural landscape tends to serve as a powerful catalyst in social movements, which include the selection of an appropriate site for renewable energy projects. In the first category provided in Table 1, the term “scenery,” which refers to natural scenery, is incorporated into the EIA law (Article 11[4] of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act). This law indicates that: (1) natural components of the environment (e.g. atmosphere, water, soil) are kept in good condition, (2) the diversity of ecosystems and the different types of natural environments (e.g. ecosystems, wildlife species, biodiversity) are conserved systematically, and (3) people can stay in touch with abundant nature and natural landscape with the natural and social conditions of the area (Article 14 of Basic Act on the Environment).

The second category (Table 1) refers to regulations related to location site selection or zoning of constructions of facilities related to renewable energy.⁷⁹ For example, in both the Cropland Act and Forest Act, the location of the developments is regulated. Meanwhile, the Landscape Act (or Keikanho) functions along with the planning schemes and ordinances to conserve landscapes.⁸⁰ Other examples of measures particularly necessary for preserving the landscape include the designation of a special protection zone (Natural Parks Act and Conclusion of a Scenic Area Protection Agreement), designation of wilderness areas and nature conservation areas (Nature Conservation Act), and designation of traditional rice-paddy fields (Tanada) and Satoyama (Act on Protection of Cultural Properties).

Finally, in the third category (Table 1), certain municipalities determine the guidance to promote renewable energy projects or relevant zonings.^81–83 Certain municipalities set “Landscape Ordinance,” which can have legally binding norms and characters when jointly applied with planning schemes under the Landscape Act. However, once discussions are focused on the actual site of the project, other challenges arise. For instance, in case wind power projects can be built near rural residential areas (mostly those located near mountainous areas), people will either positively or negatively welcome the project. In terms of positive perceptions, local communities will think of it as advantageous such as a reduced price on the electricity rate and employment opportunities. Yet, in reality, electricity rates remain unchanged since the electricity produced in these rural areas is supplied to urban areas (e.g. the Tokyo Metropolitan area) and employment opportunities are given to private contractors instead of locals. In contrast, communities who perceived the environmental and social impacts tend to treat the development of wind farms as “not in my backyard” (NIMBY). However, since there are no established indicators for such issues, particularly for landscape-related topics, these opposition movements are rather weak in legal proceedings.⁸⁴

Overview of environmental impact assessment permits for electric power businesses

In the current EIA system of Japan, Environmental Impact Statement (hereafter EIS) or Hyokasho is required for large-scale constructions. Yet, the application is extremely unlikely to be unpermitted by the EIS in practice. As the Japanese EIA is frequently called project-oriented assessment, it is a prerequisite that the project will be conducted. Secondly, the law related to the electric power business and Act on Special Measures Concerning Procurement, which FIT law is one form, do not require content of EIS as a prerequisite for permission grants.

There will be considerations given to ordinances related to landscapes and assessments. However, an application of the FIT scheme before the EIS can de facto bypass the assessment and enable constructions of large-scale constructions.

Given these conditions of the legal frameworks in the environmental assessments, the aesthetic regulations from the ordinance within the current legal scopes are relatively loose.

The basis to restrict any activities is mostly voluntary basis which are forms of requests, consultations, and agreements. Compared to constitutional rights of economic freedom, the right of business activity, such basis is relatively weak. Furthermore, there are also international and national movements and backgrounds to promote renewable energy from global climate changes.

In the following step, the construction will be registered under FIT law with the Environmental Impact Statement (the compliance with the relevant ordinances are self-reporting systems by the developers). Then the development will be initiated.

Municipalities with competent human resources will be able to establish necessary assessments or landscape-related ordinances. Yet, the majority of municipalities face difficulties to establish such ordinances. Besides such limitations to human resources in-house, there will be variations among the regions (as social movements and in lawsuits).

According to the prescribed procedure in the current legal system, the FIT application is submitted to the national government after approval based on the landscape ordinance and the EIA ordinance in each municipality (Article 9 of the Feed-in Tariff Act). In practice, however, the liaison and collaboration between the municipalities and the state government are not necessarily smooth. The requirement for the operating entities in the application is merely to check and sign the item “We will comply with municipality's ordinances regarding the location” in the application form. The mechanisms to ensure credibility of the item are de facto absent neither by the state nor by the relevant municipalities as the applicants are not required to confirm these by the official bodies.

Therefore, the FIT application in practice may be permitted before and the requirements may well be bypassed before the responses to the ordinance are settled (as an example, Fujinomiya City, Shizuoka Prefecture, confirmed by the author on 6 January 2021). However, the municipality cannot easily suspend the installation of equipment. If the suspension or suspension measures are implemented by the municipality, the problem of compensation for damages might be held between the municipality and the operating entities, because they conventionally start the business immediately after FIT registration.

In these circumstances, permission as an electric power company is decided between the state government and the operating entity, and location selection is decided between the municipality and the operating entity. In other words, the municipalities are the ones who are frequently left to compulsory deal with and resolve location issues. Consequently, the frequently most difficult problem, which is the site selection (including the installation of an agreement between operating entity and municipality and local residents) on the municipality side. Due to these circumstances, both administrative and technical requirements are frequently beyond the capacity and resources for small-scale municipalities in mountainous areas to deal with.

Legal systems related to natural and urban landscapes

The difference between “natural landscapes” and “urban landscapes” (cityscapes including historical buildings or landmarks) is rooted in their legal interests and characteristics (Table 2).⁸⁵

Table 2.

Types of legal instruments of landscape and scenic views based on urban and rural (mountainous) areas.

	Natural landscapes (“popular natural landscapes”)	Natural scenic views (scenic views that look farther and wider away from the natural landscape)
Rural areas (frequently include mountainous, agricultural or forested areas	The “legal interests” are in terms of daily space.	“Important scenic spots” are preserved by zoning acts of the MOE, but these acts don't cover the preservation of the scenic view.
Urban areas	The residents have “legal interests” with respect to “the cityscape that the inhabitants have independently created (garden trees, hedges, flower beds, and flower pots).”	Borrowed scenery (A background scenic view that incorporates mountains and trees outside as part of the landscape).

For urban landscapes, they are treated in the context of “townscape creation by citizens.”^86,87 In addition, urban design planning is embedded in the relationship with private and public spheres.⁸⁸ In addition, legal (landscape) interests of cityscapes are acknowledged while landscape rights are not recognized. As an example, the supreme court decision on urban landscape infringement proceedings on the construction of high-rise condominiums in Kunitachi City (Heisei 18, 30 March 2006) is the leading case. The ruling specifically establishes “the three requirements for scenic benefits,” which are traditionally considered to be a type of environment, in which the enjoyment of the landscape is an individual benefit (Article 709 of the Civil Code). These three requirements are described as (1) objectively good landscapes, (2) residences in nearby areas, and (3) daily benefits. This ruling is an epoch-making judgment in the recognition that “the inhabitants have legal interests” with respect to “the cityscape that the inhabitants have independently created.” However, the judgment does not comprehend the idea of “environmental rights of sovereignty,” and its infringement does not immediately constitute illegality, but rather it is difficult to assume that it is a “right.”⁸⁹

For natural landscapes, there are laws in the country that preserve them such as the Nature Conservation Act, the Natural Parks Act, and the Act on Protection of Cultural Properties including protection of cultural landscapes. These laws have gradual regulations according to the stage that mainly preserve “important scenic spots” by zoning. However, even if important scenic spots are preserved, laws and regulations for preserving “popular natural landscapes” are lacking (e.g. Japanese nature conservation legislation is intended to protect the beauty, and hence ironically nicknamed as the “Beauty Protection Act”).⁹⁰

Furthermore, there are issues related to the awareness of the local residents.⁹¹ Though a natural landscape frequently exists for long periods of time, there is limited awareness among local residents to appreciate them, which frequently led to destruction or ill-maintenance.⁹² In particular, the “natural scenic view” (or Shizen Chobo, Enke Shizen), which refers to a scenic view that looks farther and wider away from the natural landscape including skyline (Figure 2), requires careful consideration because of its delicate character.⁹³ The natural scenic view is regarded as ruined if (1) something that blocks the view is built in the foreground or (2) an artifact enters the field of vision.

Figure 2.

Landscape and scenic view (simplified version of landscape grasp model imaged by Shinohara⁹⁴).

In summary, the legal rights of the landscape are weak, particularly in the legal examination. If the residents contribute to the maintenance of the landscape, they are granted “legal benefit,” but if they do not do so, they will not be granted “individual benefit.”⁹⁵ Moreover, the scenic view, which is more delicate than the landscape (it must be preserved over a farther and wider area), is not well preserved legally.⁹⁶

Legal role of landscape in wind power projects

Landscape is one of the factors that is considered in wind power project constructions and operations.^9,97,98 Meanwhile, in pre-construction processes, ecosystem deterioration (increased risk of extinction of endangered species), increased noise (for humans), and increased disaster risk due to land modification are considered negative impacts.^39,40,42 Because of these negative impacts on the landscape setting of the area, regulations were enacted (Figure 3), leading to the reduction of wind power project installations. Though, such measures have negative financial implications for the wind power business.

Figure 3.

Timeline of legal enactment of wind power assessment (image source: Japan wind power association 2011 and MOE⁶⁸). MOE, Ministry of Environment.

Although the Landscape Act is established at the national scale, there is no explicit definition of “landscape” that currently exists. There is a concept of “good landscapes” in Article 2 of the Landscape Act, which implies that the maintenance of good landscape conditions is indispensable for creating an attractive and comfortable living environment, and therefore measures to protect it are prescribed. However, there are no criteria or concreted definitions to distinguish “good landscape” from other categories of landscapes. As a result, no appropriate measures are listed nor defined for business operators to prevent landscape deterioration.

Despite these complex and conflicting factors in practice at the site level for the construction area, the assessment requirements for wind power generation were relaxed starting from 31 October 2021, when the environmental impact requirement standards based on the EIA Act changed.⁹⁹ Based on this revision, the requirement threshold will be up to 50,000 kW (50 MW), instead of 10,000 kW (10 MW), if no ordinance containing ordinance assessment regulations is formulated in the municipality, as outlined above (Figure 3). We reviewed the changes in the legal regulations to explain the changes. Hereinafter, the environmental impact assessment stipulated by the act is referred to as “legal assessment” and the EIA stipulated by the municipal ordinance is referred to as “ordinance assessment.” There is no liability for the business operators to implement neither at the legal assessment (so-called Type I category) nor at the ordinance level.

To date, cases and concrete estimates regarding the removal and disposal of wind turbines for wind power generation and how they affect the landscape of the area are limited. Waste generated from wind turbine blades is roughly estimated to be 43 million tons by 2050 and will result in serious environmental problems if no proper disposal is observed.¹⁰⁰ For instance, wind turbine blade waste is sent to landfills, yet, this is not an environment-friendly solution, so, in several EU countries, landfilling of composite wastes is forbidden.¹⁰¹ In 2008, Larsen¹⁰² summarized several potential recycling options for wind turbine blades but due to the short history of the wind power industry at that time, there were no successful industrial-scale recycling processes. Recently, Beauson et al.¹⁰³ recommended that a holistic approach encompassing economic, technical, environmental, legislation, and social aspects are needed to implement recycling solutions for wind turbine blades. Meanwhile, Mello et al.¹⁰⁴ conducted a literature review to identify and discuss the environmental impacts of wind farm life cycle. Since scientific literature on wind power-related wastes are limited, we present here the case of disposal of solar power panels because we argue that the legal systems governing solar and wind power projects are relatively similar. Additionally, they have a similar long lifespan and a sound recycling process is needed for both panels and turbines nearing end-of-life uses.¹⁰⁵ Although removal and disposal may not be directly related to the landscape but rather to safety issues, it has cascading impacts on the overall health of the environment, including landscape elements.¹⁰⁶ For example, chemical heavy metals like lead, tin, and cadmium, which predominate solar panels, can pose threat to human health (safety issues) and pollute the environment leading to its deterioration (landscape issues).¹⁰⁶ The global estimate of end-of-life solar panels by 2050 is approximately 9.57 million tons, and several policies on recycling panels are being implemented in the EU and the United States.¹⁰⁶ For instance, in Germany and Czech Republic, photovoltaic manufacturers are legally obligated for end-of-life treatment or tailor-made waste management while in the United States, the Department of Toxic Substances Control in California treated solar panels as hazardous waste and should be disposed of accordingly.¹⁰⁶ Meanwhile, in Japan, the country has taken a step toward recycling solar panels.¹⁰⁶ For wind power-related wastes, it can be predicted that the deterioration of wind turbines caused by leaving them unattended will also have great landscape and environmental impacts.^105,107 Kohsaka and Kohyama⁸⁴ pointed out that wind farms tend to “cut off the skyline” and “occupy the view.” Therefore, legal instruments or mechanisms to cover removal and disposal costs from retired wind power generation facilities should also be deployed under public schemes, such as the FIT system that is currently implemented for solar power facilities. However, as suggested by Mizuno,⁶¹ the FIT system that differentiates various site-specific characteristics and project scales should be developed; for instance, higher FITs for mountainous and remote areas and smaller FITs for municipal-scale projects. The overall number of large-scale wind power generation projects in Japan is still limited as of 2022, and it can be said that traceability management is sufficiently possible for such facilities at this stage. Pro-active considerations at this early phase are required to enable prompt disposal of retired facilities by business operators. For example, there is an opportunity in Japan to implement policies that require manufacturers of wind turbine blades to provide end-of-line treatment or proper waste disposal schemes similar to that of solar panels.¹⁰⁶ Moreover, business operators can be highly encouraged to disclose information on manufacturing waste, service waste, and end-of-life waste, which are the major sources of wind turbine blade waste.¹⁰⁰ Lastly, as pointed out by Mizuno,⁶¹ wind power industry players must work together with national and regulatory agencies, local communities, and other relevant stakeholders to develop the wind energy development principle in Japan.

Current Status and oppositions of wind power

The case of canceled wind power operations

To date, there are examples of cases where business operators halted their constructions before developing into a trial due to landscape elements (including the scenic view). However, in the lawsuit, landscape elements alone are presumably not enough to win the case despite their wide range of impacts in daily settings (i.e. the scenic view of skylines). Some examples are listed below with the place and a short description of what stage in the development they were stopped (Table 3). We also included the opposition movements, where applicable, that lead to the cancelation of the projects or to the reduction of the project size due to landscape deterioration concerns.

Table 3.

Examples of wind power related plans and projects where the opposition movements led to halt or reduction of the sizes.

Place	Description
1. Mountain areas centered in Dangamine, Hyogo Prefecture	The areas are known habitats of golden eagles with a popular vertical running area with a good scenic view. Thus, the opposition movement halted the plan.¹⁰⁸
2. Tsuruoka City, Yamagata Prefecture	Construction site included traditional mountain worship areas, resulting to the withdrawal of the plan in a week.¹⁰⁹
3. Sakata City, Yamagata Prefecture	Legal assessment procedure (voluntary basis) will be implemented.¹¹⁰
4. Mima, Mamiyama, and Naka Towns, Tokushima Prefecture	Major concern due to habitat for Asian black bears (Ursus thibetanus). The plan was abandoned due to landscape (habitat) and tourism (climbers) impacts.¹¹¹
5. Shimanto Town, Kochi Prefecture	Opposition resolution unanimously adopted in town council.¹¹²
6.Aki-Ohta Town, Hiroshima Prefecture	Residents exchange opinions and solicit opinions, and the mayor decides not to accept the project.¹¹³
7.Suzaka City, Nagano Prefecture	It interferes with the landscape of Maeyama in the Southern Alps, Japan.¹¹⁴
8.Gero City and Takayama City, Gifu Prefecture	Since it was a protection forest (water source recharge protection forest, health protection forest), the Municipalities decided not to promote it.¹¹⁵
9. Mountain areas centered in Mitsugamine, Yamaguchi Prefecture and Shimane Prefecture	The plan was to install 20 wind turbines, and the impact of the landscape is one of the reasons.¹¹⁶
10. Suzu City, Ishikawa Prefecture	Noise and low frequency effects, and landscape effects on “Noto no Satoyama Satoumi,” which has been designated as a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Site.¹¹⁷

From the cases reviewed (Table 3), we observed several factors that made the opposition movements successful in changing the wind power development plans. First, these opposition movements were communicating with one another, and frequently encouraging other movements. For example, symposiums (held online after the COVID-19 pandemic) were held in the affected areas where opposition movements are occurring. These phenomena are also observed in solar power generation in Japan as negative views related to the destruction of nature and disturbance of communities’ life increased.⁸⁴ Consequently, these negative perceptions led the opposition movements to form a nationwide network for information and strategic know-how exchanges among organizations. This, in turn, results in the establishment of ordinances and laws at the local and national levels, respectively, that business operators of solar power projects need to be cleared.⁸⁴

Next, there were political factors identified. By nature, municipality heads and municipality council members are politicians, and during election campaigns, they tend to incorporate the opinions of the residents. If the issues are raised in the EIA procedure, the opinions of residents (including those involved in the movements), the prefectural governor of the area, and the ministers of related ministries and agencies will discuss and express their views, which frequently leads to reduction of the scale.

Moreover, there are advantages in mobilizing opposition movements, particularly in relation to landscape deterioration, which affects many stakeholders (widely voters and politicians). Such movements require business operators to deal with landscape preservation and to reduce the number of facilities, which in turn has strong economic implications. Though elapse periods existed due to the deregulation of EIA based on the EIA Act, the municipalities coped by enacting ordinances (31 October 2021 to 30 September 2022).¹¹⁸

The case of well-received wind power projects

As noted in the overview of renewable energy legal systems related to landscape section, wind power projects tend to be treated as NIMBY facilities. However, there were cases where projects were welcomed in the region and some of which have been evaluated for “landscape” considerations. To provide concrete examples, we presented here in-depth reviews of two cases of wind power projects. First is a project conducted by private operators, which is invested mainly by local companies in Kitakami City, Akita Prefecture. Local enterprises collaborated and aimed to gain income from outside the prefecture borders. A local Akita bank has formed a syndicated loan through project financing, and Akita Prefecture is also supporting the formulation of the Akita Prefecture New Energy Industry Strategy.¹¹⁹ Along with wind power generation, employment was created by industrializing the manufacturing of wind turbines and the operation and maintenance of wind turbine peripheral industries in the local area.¹²⁰ Such effects are critical as northern Japan, including Akita, has one the highest rate of aging populations and a decrease in the production population aged between 15 and 60. Furthermore, there is a general expectation for synergies with the fishery by utilizing electric power from wind turbines for fisheries, and positive effects on environmental conservation.¹²¹ There are initial findings mainly in Europe and these effects are to be examined in the future in Japan.^122,123

In the second case, regional consents were reached based on rational discussions further leading to registration at the so-called “Promotion Areas” (or Suishin-kuiki) for renewable energy projects.¹²⁴ As of December 2021, 7% of the municipalities had remained “under consideration” for the designation of “Promotion Areas” in the Renewable Energy Project.¹²⁵ An example of this is the Choshi City coast in Chiba Prefecture, which is currently designated as the single promotion area in the Kanto region (close to Tokyo). A multinational trading company is in charge of this project. They held a citizen briefing session in order to obtain the consent of the region, and they promised to give the local citizens “consideration to the landscape of Mt. Fuji,” “creation of local industries and jobs,” and “maximum consideration for coexistence with fisheries.”¹²⁶

Based on the concrete examples presented above, there are two lessons to be learned to reach consent. Firstly, benefit sharing with local communities is critical (a mechanism for mutual benefits for both parties) so that the overall business plan is met with fewer oppositions either at the national level or the general phase in the community. Frequently, integrity and respect by business operators for communities are common factors for obtaining consent, and consequently approvals. Secondly, science-based or objective measures to monitor and discuss the impacts of such facilities are necessary to limit negative impacts on local communities. Although, it is a challenge to establish elaborated plans based on such long-term and objective measures in consultation with local communities. This will require patience and understanding from the parties involved and require detailed planning.

Conclusion

This paper presented two hypotheses—(1) natural landscapes play a significant role in the implementation of wind power projects and (2) in legal proceedings, natural landscapes can be a catalyst in opposition movements. Although the history of wind power projects in Japan is relatively young,⁶¹ we were able to discuss the procedural and scale gaps in wind power facility constructions in Japan by looking at similar (solar power) and current cases (wind power) available in news databases.

From the cases and movements reviewed, landscape elements tend to be a stronger motivation in the movement against wind power projects. An example is the proceeding case in Shimanto Town, Kochi Prefecture. The case is the first anti-construction movement explicitly based on the preservation of cultural landscape grounded on the Act on Protection of Cultural Properties and in accordance with the municipality's ordinances. Both residents and the municipality are collaborating to confront business operators coming from outside the area to develop their wind power projects. However, it is rare to win cases with landscape elements in the proceedings. One of the influential factors in the past proceedings is ecosystem conservation. While landscape elements face difficulties to be proven, there are certain scientific data and evidence that can be demonstrated in the case of biodiversity and ecosystems. Besides, there are no scientific findings or solid evidence that demonstrate causal relationships to link the “good quality of landscape or good scenic view will contribute to the well-being.” Also, there are certain variations as to what composes a “good landscape” both at the individual or community level. Such ambiguity is clear when compared to biodiversity or noise prevention. Biodiversity has Conventions at the UN level and noise has WHO standards.^127,128 There is a pan-European level treaty for the landscape but there are no clear set standards or minimum requirements for the landscapes. The absence of reference levels or standards complicates the judgments. Such external factors to conserve the landscapes are critical factors and should be further explored in future studies.

In the current legal system, environmental impacts on popular natural landscapes are not taken into consideration. In that respect, ordinances and movements (politics) of local governments are more likely to be effective as “circumstances according to the actual conditions of the region.” The “legal rights” to the natural landscape are not established as well, and only the “legal interests” are recognized in judiciary proceedings. The “landscape right” is conventionally regarded as an individual right instead of a collective one. Such assumptions are common to that of the general “environment rights” in Japan. Such dichotomy of individual versus collectives is central to the “landscape concept” because the landscape is collectively comprised of landowners and other people (e.g. neighbors, developers). For example, if a room in a condominium with a beautiful view at an expensive price is obstructed by another condominium, it is possible to seek damages from the real estate agents who sold this real estate with promising rooms “with the beautiful view.” However, residents, municipalities, and business operators do not have a contract-based commercial relationship. Besides, popular landscapes are often not the subject of discussions of legal rights and interests, as they often do not focus on objective “important scenic spots.” It is the landscape where only these individual rights are still recognized.

The legal assessment based on the EIA Act and the ordinance assessment linked to the revision of the law were also described in this review work. If the EIA is applied to the construction of facilities, environmental considerations, including landscape elements play a role in the implementation of the projects. The EIA process may seem self-evident, however, there are cases where measures are bypassed due to their scales or timings of implementation. There is also the revision of the EIA Act in 2021 to promote renewable energy, resulting in a decrease in the number of occasions of EIA. The revised EIA Act was applied swiftly to wind power projects and created a loophole (blank zone) due to changes in the minimum required scale (wind power type 1 increased from 10,000 kW to 50,000 kW). These loopholes are filled by municipalities by enacting ordinances. For instance, municipalities established ordinances that promote renewable energy projects based on relevant zoning.^81–83 There is also the issue related to the location of facilities which is challenging to handle by local stakeholders since the overall legal frameworks are mainly managed at the national level. Overall, though landscape elements are not as strong as other factors in legal proceedings, the landscape serves as a symbol and catalyst for opposition movements of the general public. These symbolic meanings for social movements will be one of the future research areas.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr Jay Mar Quevedo, Dr Yoshitaka Miyake, and Dr Yuta Uchiyama for their support in this study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the JST RISTEX Grant Number JPMJRX20B3, JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP22H03852; JP21K18456; JP20K12398; JP20K01417; JP17K02105, JST Grant Number JPMJPF2110, Asahi Group Foundation (2022), and Heiwa Nakajima Foundation (2022).

ORCID iDs

Satomi Kohyama

Ryo Kohsaka

Satomi Kohyama is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Sustainability Studies at the University of Toyama. She holds a doctoral degree of law from Meiji-Gakuin University. Her research interests include administrative and environmental law, intellectual property law, and global business and environment.

Ryo Kohsaka is a professor in the Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Science at The University of Tokyo. He holds a doctoral degree of natural science from Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany. His research interests include natural resource management, landscape approach and geographical indications in agriculture and forestry field.

References

Gielen

Boshell

Saygin

, et al. The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strategy Rev 2019; 24: 38–50.

Veer

Dykes

Lantz

, et al. Grand challenges in the science of wind energy. Science 2019; 366(6464): eaau2027.

Anshelm

Simon

. Power production and environmental opinions—environmentally motivated resistance to wind power in Sweden. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2016; 57: 1545–1555.

. Research on carbon emission reduction benefit of wind power project based on life cycle assessment theory. Renew Energ 2020: 155: 456–468.

Bennun

van Bochove

, et al. Mitigating biodiversity impacts associated with solar and wind energy development. Guidelines for project developers. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Cambridge, UK: The Biodiversity Consultancy, 2021.

Butler

Wärnbäck

. Landscape and wind energy. Urban and Rural Reports 4, 2019.

Cole

Dahl

. Compensating white-tailed eagle mortality at the Smøla wind-power plant using electrocution prevention measures. Wildl Soc Bull 2013; 37: 84–93.

Drake

Jennelle

Liu

J-N

, et al. Regional analysis of wind turbine-caused bat mortality. Acta Chiropt 2015; 17: 179–188.

Smallwood

Bell

. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. J Wildl Manage 2020; 84: 685–696.

10.

Tesfahunegny

Datiko

Wale

, et al. Impact of wind energy development on birds and bats: the case of Adama wind farm, central Ethiopia. JOBAZ 2020; 81: 41.

11.

Zimmerling

Francis

. Bat mortality due to wind turbines in Canada. J Wildl Manage 2016; 80: 1360–1369.

12.

Diffendorfer

Dorning

Keen

, et al. Geographic context affects the landscape change and fragmentation caused by wind energy facilities. PeerJ 2019; 7: e7129.

13.

Fernández-Bellon

Wilson

Irwan

, et al. Effects of development of wind energy and associated changes in land use on bird densities in upland areas. Conserv Biol 2019; 33(2): 413–422.

14.

Obermeyer

Manes

Kiesecker

, et al. Development by design: mitigating wind development’s impacts on wildlife in Kansas. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e26698.

15.

Sentinel

. Critics say wind turbines hurt land values (September 11, 2009).

16.

Ferrey

. Against the wind - sustainability, migration, presidential discretion. Columbia J Environ Law 2019; 44: 341–408

17.

Jallouli

Moreau

. An immersive path-based study of wind turbines’ landscape: a French case in Plouguin. Renew Energy 2009; 34: 597–607.

18.

Walworth

. Case note: regulating aesthetics of coastal maine: Kroeger v. Department of environmental protection. OCLJ 2005; 11: 99–120.

19.

Bliss

Tilting at wind turbines: noise nuisance in the neighborhood after Rassier v. Houim. N D Law Rev 1993; 69: 535–557.

20.

Möller

. Changing wind-power landscapes: regional assessment of visual impact on land use and population in northern Jutland, Denmark. Appl Energy 2006; 83: 477–494.

21.

Husk

. Scattered to the winds? Strengthening the national historic preservation act’s tribal consultation mandate to protect native American sacred sites in the renewable energy development era. Tulane Environ Law J 2021; 34: 273–321.

22.

Palmer

Grinkinton

. Developments in renewable energy law and policy in New Zealand. J Energy Nat Resour L 2014; 32: 245–272.

23.

Dussias

. Room for a（sacred) view? American Indian tribes confront visual desecration caused by wind energy projects. AILR 2013; 38: 333–420.

24.

Pedersen

Waye

. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise—a dose–response relationship. JASA 2003; 116: 3460.

25.

Reed-Huff

. Dirty dishes, dirty laundry, and windy mills: a framework for regulation of clean energy devices. J Environ Law 2010; 40: 859–912.

26.

Brisman

. The aesthetics of wind energy systems. N Y Univ Environ Law J 2005; 13: 1–133.

27.

Wickersham

. Coastal wind energy generation: conflict and capacities: symposium article: sacred landscapes and profane structures: how offshore wind power challenges the environmental impact review process. B C Envtl Aff L Rev 2004; 31: 325–347.

28.

Irfan

Zarracina

. 4 maps that show who’s being left behind in America’s wind-power boom, www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/5/2/17290880/trump-wind-power-renewable-energy-maps (1999, accessed 26 January 2022).

29.

DuVivier

Witt

. NIMBY To NOPE - or YESS? Cardozo L Rev 2017; 38: 1453–1504.

30.

Shane

. Power and public utilities: solving California’s energy crisis: the answer may be blowing in the wind. McGeorge Law Rev 2002; 33: 403–413.

31.

Reiter B N . Blowing it: Why is Wyoming failing to develop wind projects?. Wyo L Rev 2019;19(2): 2.

32.

Kumazawa

. Influencing factors on residents’ acceptance of wind power generation facilities. CPIJ 2017; 52: 381–386.

33.

Kubo

Hasunuma

Morimatsu

, et al. Influences of low-frequency and other noises produced by wind turbines: an epidemiological literature review. Japanese Journal Of Public Health 2017; 64: 403–411.

34.

Kato

Matsukawa

Sato

, et al. Study on the issue of natural parks law system in management of wind power generation. CPIJ 2015; 50: 961–967.

35.

Handa

Nishikizawa

Murayama

. Factors of social impacts due to coastal wind farms in the hilly area. Papers on Environmental Information Science 2014; 34: 199–207.

36.

Nagao

. Inside-out: verifying the actual state of wind power pollution (2): nature and landscape destroyed by wind turbine construction. Nikkei Ecology 2010; 127: 62–65.

37.

Baba

Tagashira

. The public’s evaluation towards the local wind farms. Environ Syst Res 2006; 34: 199–207.

38.

Echigoya

Ando

Minami

, et al. Windmills’ allocation in a power plant and its landscape analysis: for a depression view of a seaside landscape. Papers On Environmental Information Science 2005; 19: 265–270.

39.

Kitano

Shiraki

. Estimation of bird fatalities at wind farms with complex topography and vegetation in Hokkaido, Japan. Wildl Soc Bull 2013; 37: 41–48.

40.

Obane

Nagai

Asano

. Assessing land use and potential conflict in solar and onshore wind energy in Japan. Renew Energy 2020; 160: 842–851.

41.

Kohyama

. Case study: noise generated from the wind power generation facility causes mental distress or obstruction of life that exceeds the tolerable limit. The Journal of Economic Studies, University of Toyama 2015; 61: 183–208.

42.

Motosu

Maruyama

. Local acceptance by people with unvoiced opinions living close to a wind farm: a case study from Japan. Energy and Policy 2016; 91: 362–370.

43.

Ohgishi

Oku

Fukamachi

, et al. A study of landscape evaluation schema and differences of large wind power generator between residents and visitors. Landscape Research Japan 2006; 69: 711–716.

44.

Grunwald

. The trouble with the ‘green new deal’. POLITICO, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/15/the-trouble-with-the-green-new-deal-223977 (2019, accessed 26 January 2022).

45.

UN Environment Programme. New report envisages 10-fold increase in global wind power by 2050, https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/new-report-envisages-10-fold-increase-global-wind-power-2050 (2019, accessed 26 January 2022).

46.

Woo

Moon

Lee

, et al. Public attitudes toward the construction of new power plants in South Korea. Energy Environ 2017; 28: 499–517.

47.

Klass

. Property rights on the new frontier: climate change, natural resource development, and renewable energy. Ecol Law Q 2011; 38: 63–119.

48.

Engelman

. Against the wind: conflict over wind energy siting. Environmental Report News & Analysis 2011; 41: 10549.

49.

Tigue

. Wind energy development and protection of wildlife: creating a balance between two competing interests. TELJ 2015; 45: 223–243.

50.

Hammami

Chtourou

Triki

. Identifying the determinants of community acceptance of renewable energy technologies: the case study of a wind energy project from Tunisia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2016; 54: 151–160.

51.

Arakawa

Ariga

Iida

. Proposal of vernacular design for wind turbine. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2002; 90: 1731–1741.

52.

Mostafaeipour

Rezaei

Jahangiri

, et al. Feasibility analysis of a new tree-shaped wind turbine for urban application: a case study. Energy Environ 2020; 31: 1230–1256.

53.

Tachev

. Potential of renewable energy in Japan. energy tracker Asia, potential of renewable energy in Japan, https://energytracker.asia/potential-of-renewable-energy-in-japan/ (2021, accessed 26 January 2022).

54.

Williamson

. Wind farm opponents: zoning is best protection, Parsons Sun, https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2018/11/15/wind-farm-opponents-zoning-is-best-protection/ (2018, accesses 26 January 2022).

55.

Rynne

Flowers

Lantz

, et al. Planning for wind energy. Planning Advisory Service Report 2011; 566: 1–135.

56.

Hall

Harvey

. Environmental assessment procedures for wind power projects in Australia. Energy Environ 2006; 17: 715–733.

57.

Spitzer

Salkin

Bookser

. Host community agreement for wind farm development. New York Zoning Law and Practice Report 2009: 9: 1–8.

58.

Kohyama

. Examining the way of public participation for landscape conservation: a legal view from the environmental administrative law. Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Community Life 2016; 7: 95–116.

59.

Scott

Smith

. “Sacrifice zones” in the green energy economy: toward an environmental justice framework. McGill Law Journal/Revue de Droit de McGill 2017; 62: 861–898.

60.

Suzuki

. For a better understanding of environmental conflict caused by the photovoltaic facility siting. Journal For Interdisciplinary Research On Community Life 2016; 7: 84–94.

61.

Mizuno

. Overview of wind energy policy and development in Japan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014; 40: 999–1018.

62.

Sourgens

. Climate commons law: the transformative force of the Paris Agreement. NYU JILP 2018; 50: 885–983.

63.

Agency for Natural Resources and Energy based on IEA Market Report Series – Renewable 2020, (accessed 26 January 2022).

64.

Report extract Renewables on IEA World Energy Outlook 2019, (accessed 26 January 2022).

65.

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Study group on proper introduction and management of renewable energy power generation equipment. Explanatory Material 2022; 1–44. https://www.meti.go.jp/shingikai/energy_environment/saisei_kano_energy/pdf/001_03_00.pdf (2022, accessed 03 May 2022).

66.

Koizumi

Furukawa

. Japanese archipelago “re-energy” remodeling theory. Bunge-Synjyu 2021; 99: 170–177.

67.

Hiranuma

. Rapidly expanding renewable energy mainstay and circular economy (accelerating carbon neutrality). Diplomacy 2021; 67: 84–89.

68.

MOE (Ministry of the Environment of Japan). Plan for global warming countermeasures: Cabinet Approved on 22 October 2021 (accessed 26 January 2022).

69.

Takeshi

. MOE's FY2022 budget request new decarbonization/renewable energy grant: 11.7% increase to 747.8 billion yen. Local Administration 2021; 11080: 16–17.

70.

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. News Release: Summary of Energy Supply and Demand Results for 2020 (Reiwa 2). 26 November 2021. https://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/statistics/total_energy/pdf/gaiyou2020fyr.pdf (accessed 03 May 2022).

71.

https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2022/0325_004.html (accessed 09 May 2022).

72.

Energy-change. What is a renewable energy power generation promotion allotted fees? Will the Price Increase in 2022? https://enechange.jp/articles/renewable-energy-impost (accessed 03 May 2022).

73.

Inoue

Miyazaki

. Technological innovation and diffusion of wind power in Japan. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2008; 75: 1303–1323.

74.

Maruyama

Nishikido

Iida

. The rise of community wind power in Japan: enhanced acceptance through social innovation. Energy Policy 2007; 35: 2761–2769.

75.

Harborne

Hendry

. Pathways to commercial wind power in the US, Europe and Japan: the role of demonstration projects and field trials in the innovation process. Energy Policy 2009; 37: 3580–3595.

76.

Tsubouchi

. Notes on the environmental conservation of public utilities charges such as electricity, city gas and water service. Nature and Environment in the Sea of Japan Region 2010; 17: 121–125.

77.

Mokudai

. Impacts of overdevelopment by renewable energy power generation projects on natural parks. Proceedings of the General Meeting of the Association of Japanese Gepgraphers 2021; 2021: 160. https://doi.org/10.14866/ajg.2021s.0_160.

78.

Koura

Akizuki

. Planning issues in the conflicting public interests of landscape and renewable energy: measures against the impact of large-scale solar power plant on the Shimanto river cultural landscape conservation. Papers on City Planning 2017; 52: 1171–1176.

79.

Matsuzaki

. Revision of the system crossing ministries and progresses at a rapid pace: focus on location restrictions surrounding renewable energy (special feature: trap of deregulation of renewable energy: on-site circumstances in the area to be tossed). Energy Forum 2021; 67: 16–18.

80.

Ito

. Policy innovation from municipalities – from landscape ordinances to landscape act . Mokutan-sha 2006; 1–289.

81.

Kohyama

. A study on the solar power generation (PV) projects-regional selection by business operators in the installation of power generation facilities and municipalities. Business Law Review 2019; 8: 1–20.

82.

Naito

. Current status and issues of administrative practice in the region regarding solar power generation facilities (special feature: administrative law of the sea and the earth: renewable energy). Quarterly Jurist 2019; 28: 70–76.

83.

Yamashita

Fuji

. Japanese municipalities’ policies on renewable energies as they stand, and their needed changes. Sustainability Research 2016; 6: 57–70.

84.

Kohsaka

Kohyama

. Contested renewable energy sites due to landscape and socio-ecological barriers: comparison of wind and solar power installation cases in Japan. Energy and Environment 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305 × 221115070.

85.

Kohyama

. Learning the natural environmental laws. Bunshindo 2018; 2018: 304–318.

86.

Kitamura

. Distant nature view and landscape benefits: range of supreme court decision in Kunitachi condominiums case. Industry and Environment 2011; 40: 22.

87.

Shibaike

Mikami

Sowa

. eds. Legal issues of urban development and environmental administration. Nihon-Hyoronsya, Tokyo, 2007.

88.

Miyawaki

. Landscape and urban design. South Korea: Asakura Publication, 2013, 142.

89.

Otsuka

. Environmental law basic (ver. 3). Yuhikaku 2021; 43–45.

90.

Tomii

. Legal benefits and trials of landscape benefits. Horitsu-Bunkasya 2014; 15–17.

91.

Manus

. One hundred years of green: a legal perspective on three twentieth century. Univ Pittsburgh Law Rev 1998; 59: 557–576.

92.

Telesetsky

. Ecoscapes: the future of place-based ecological restoration laws. VJEL 2013; 14: 493–548.

93.

Kohyama

. Case study: mega solar installation injunction to prevent degradation of natural landscape. The Journal of Economic Studies, University of Toyama 2018; 64: 171–193.

94.

Shinohara

. Civil engineering landscape plan (new system civil engineering). Gihodo 1982; 28, 1–326.

95.

Ogano

. Basic lecture – environmental problems, environmental law (ver.2). Seibundo 2021; 47–51.

96.

Bowman

. Dust in the wind: regulation as an essential component of a sustainable and robust wind program. University of Kansas Law Review 2020; 69: 45–101.

97.

Salkin

Ostrow

. Cooperative federalism and wind: a new framework for achieving sustainability. Hofstra Law Rev 2009; 37: 1049–1098.

98.

Nagle

. Green harms of green projects. Notre Dame J L Ethics & Pub Pol’y 2013; 27: 59–104.

99.

MOE (Ministry of the Environment of Japan). Regarding the results of the Cabinet Order and the solicitation of opinions of the “Cabinet Order to Partially Amend the Environment Impact Assessment Act Enforcement Ordinance”, https://www.env.go.jp/press/110033.html (2021, accessed 26 January 2022).

100.

Liu

Barrow

. Wind turbine blade waste in 2050. Waste Manage 2017; 62: 229–240

101.

Pickering

. Recycling technologies for thermoset composite materials—current status. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 2006; 37, 1206–1215

102.

Larsen

. Recycling wind turbine blades. Renewable Energy Focus 2009; 9: 70–73

103.

Beauson

Laurent

Rudolph

, et al. The complex end-of-life of wind turbine blades: a review of the European context. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2021; 155: 111847

104.

Mello

Dias

Robina

. Evaluation of the environmental impacts related to the wind farms end-of-life. Energy Reports 2022; 8: 35 − 340

105.

Fischer

. Comparing wind and solar energy impacts on the environment: A LCA approach using open LCA platform. Bryant University Honors Thesis 2021. Available here https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=honors_science (accessed 25 September 2022).

106.

Tan

, et al. Global status of recycling waste solar panels: a review. Waste Manage 2018; 75: 450–458

107.

Sanders

. Waste problems from wind and solar? Yes, it’s why we need proper decommissioning. John Locke Foundation 2020. Available here: https://www.johnlocke.org/waste-problems-from-wind-and-solar-yes-its-why-we-need-proper-decommissioning/(accessed 25 September 2022).

108.

Hashimoto

. Is the golden eagle protected? The nature of Dangamine. Biglobe, http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/∼HASSHI/dangaminehuryoku.html (2006, accessed 26 January 2022).

109.

Chosyu Newspaper. Maeda corporation withdraws wind plan for Mt . Haguro: A land of mountain worship that is proud of all over the country, https://www.chosyu-journal.jp/shakai/18455 (2020, accessed 26 January 2022).

110.

Yamagata Prefecture. Environment impact assessment report of prefectural wind power generation facility (tentative name), https://www.pref.yamagata.jp/documents/2060/singi1_1-1.pdf (2017, accessed 26 January 2022).

111.

Kadota

. Wind power generation plan at the border of three municipalities: Orix commercialization postponement, https://ameblo.jp/okusimanto-ryuuyou/entry-12680161862.html (2021, accessed 26 January 2022).

112.

Chosyu Newspaper. Shikoku, which turns into a mowing ground for large companies: huge windmill plans emerge one after another, local residents exchange their information, https://www.chosyu-journal.jp/shakai/17364 (2020, accessed 26 January 2022).

113.

Hashimoto

. We do not accept wind power generation. Aki-Ota Town Public Magazine 2021; 203: 1–5.

114.

Kasaki

. Increasing pressure on wind power development and trends in Nagano prefecture. Residents and Autonomy 2021; 167: 1–4.

115.

Kobayashi

, et al. Background of the cancellation of Ontake’s wind power generation business plan (gifu prefecture). Nat Conserv 2006; 492: 1–18.

116.

Ankei

. Wind power generation and environmental assessment: walking Mitsugamine from Tokusanaka, Yamaguchi City to Yoshika Town, Shimane Prefecture, http://ankei.jp/takako/?n=1893 (2013, accessed 26 January).

117.

Inagaki

. “Wind power generation plan” What is the future wind direction?. Hokuriku Cyunichi Newspaper . https://www.chunichi.co.jp/article/ (2021, accessed 26 January 2022).

118.

MOE (Ministry of the Environment of Japan). Outline of ministerial ordinance, etc. concerning transitional measures accompanying the enforcement of cabinet order to partially amend the act enforcement ordinance. Electric Safety Division of Industrial Security Group, 2013.

119.

Energy Information Center. Revitalizing the local economy by utilizing local “wind resources” https://pps-net.org/column/43747.

120.

Suganuma

. Akita’s offshore wind power, “subcontracting” by local parts manufacturing and operation, a new industry in the region where the wind power is created. AERA 29 May 2021.

121.

Akita Economic Newspaper. Earn Foreign Currency by Akita’s “Wind” -Hiroyuki Sato + AKITA45, https://akita.keizai.biz/column/71/ (2021, accessed 03 May 2022).

122.

Wilhelmsson

Malm

Öhman

. The influence of offshore windpower on demersal fish. ICES J Mar Sci 2006; 63:775–784.

123.

Linley

EAS

Wilding

Black

, et al. Review of the reef effects of offshore wind farm structures and their potential for enhancement and mitigation. Report from PML Applications Ltd and the Scottish Association for Marine Science to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), Contract No: RFCA/005/0029P, 2007.

124.

Kohsaka

Kohyama

. State of the art review on land-use policy: changes in forests, agricultural lands and renewable energy of Japan. Land (Basel) 2022; 11:624

125.

Kudo

. Renewable energy project “promotion area”, 70% of municipalities remain “under consideration”. Mega Solar Business News . 13 December 2021. https://project.nikkeibp.co.jp/ms/atcl/19/news/00001/02213/?ST=msb (2021, accessed 03 May 2022).

126.

Nikkei Newspaper. Citizen’s briefing session with offshore wind power off Choshi “Landscape consideration over Mt. Fuji” Mitsubishi Corporation started construction in 25 years, wind turbine construction started in 27, https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGKKZO60423670Y2A420C2L71000/?unlock=1 (2022, accessed 03 May 2022).

127.

WHO. Environmental noise guidelines for the European Region, https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise/environmental-noise-guidelines-for-the-european-regiom (2018, accessed 26 January 2022).

128.

Berglund

Lindvall

Schwela

. Guidelines for community noise. WHO . 1–141. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/66217 (1999 accessed 26 January 2022).