European Planning Studies, 2014 Routledge

Vol. 22, No. 8, 1711-1734, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.798266 i Taylor & Francis Croup

Effectiveness of Planning Instruments

for Minimizing Spatial Conflicts of
Biogas Production

NINA BUHR, M ICH A EL R ODE & HELGA KANNING

Institute of Environmental Planning, Leibniz Universitaet Hannover, Hanover, Germany

(Received December 2011; accepted April 2013)

A bstract The energy policy in Germany encourages an ever-greater utilization o f biomass to

produce biogas. But this utilization interferes on the natural resources and affects new conflicts
regarding other forms o f land use particularly flood prevention measures, drinking water supply
and recreation. A forward-looking planning is needed to minimize these conflicts. Hence, this
paper aims to derive quality and protection standards, summarized in checklists, assessing the
effectiveness o f different planning instruments with respect to the impact o f biogas production in
practice. These checklists were used in four model districts in Lower Saxony to evaluate the
effectiveness o f planning instruments on the regional level. The results show that the investigated
Regional Planning Programmes do not contain any explicit planning statements as to the
production o f biomass or biogas. Specific regulations regarding potential conflict situations are
mainly to be found in the respective Protected Area Regulations. However, generally the German
spatial planning and sectoral planning provide options to control the production o f biogas in a
way that it is compatible with the majority o f competing land uses.

1. Introduction
In recent years, energy and climate policy have increasingly favoured the use of renewable
energy source materials, globally. The rapid development of bio-energy production has led
to new, highly dynamic domestic as well as foreign markets, which can be expected to
expand considerably over the coming years (Smeets et al., 2004). The pressure emanating
from these markets holds the inherent danger of direct competition not only for any avail­
able biomass but also for all obtainable land and resources. The development causes an
increased encroachment on nature and landscape as well as intensified competition with
other land uses (Beringer et al., 2011 ; Bringezu & Howarth, 2009; Bringezu et al., 2009).

Correspondence Address: Michael Rode, Institute of Environmental Planning, Leibniz Universitaet Hannover,
Hanover, Germany. Email: rode@umwelt.uni-hannover.de

©2013 Taylor & Francis

1712 N. Buhr, M. Rode & H. Kanning

In the EU, biomass has already become the most important renewable energy source
material and comprises around two-thirds. The estimates of future land requirements
show the spatial consequences of this development. According to various prognoses, by
the year 2020, 30 million hectares of agricultural land will be used for the production
of bio-energy crops. By the year 2030, this is likely to have risen by another 15% to 35
million hectares (Thran et al., 2009).
In Germany over the last few years, government subsidies that are specified in the Act
on Granting Priority to Renewable Energy Sources (Renewable Energy Sources Act) have
initiated a remarkable rise in the generation of biogas as well as in the utilization of bio­
genic residual products. Up to and including 2010, the number of biogas plants rose to
roughly 5900 with a built-in total electrical power output of around 2300 megawatts
(Fachverband Biogas, 2011).
The production of biogas in Germany is mainly based on the cultivation of energy crops
and thus stands in direct competition with the production of foodstuffs and forage. The
preferred substrate used in biogas plants is maize silage followed by whole crop silage
made out of triticale and rye, grass silage and wastes (Hoher, 2010). While the number
of biogas plants was rising so rapidly, the total acreage of maize for silage rose from
just under 1.2 million hectares between 1995 and 2003 to over 1.98 million hectares by
2011 (DMK, 2011). Over the last 10 years, the total area of land covered by maize for
silage has increased by nearly 40% and now accounts for more than 16% of the
total area of arable land (DMK, 2011). However, there are considerable local and regional
variations.
The rapidly expanding energy utilization of biomass through the production of biogas is
also linked to a large-scale restructuring of agricultural land use. For this reason, it influ­
ences not only traditional forms of land use and regional material flows, but also the
balance of nature and social land management. The limited availability of land on national
and regional levels has caused significant competition with existing functions of land­
scape. The protection of species and biotopes, drinking water supply, flood protection
as well as tourism and local recreation are most affected by this development (Buhr
et al., 2010; Ruschkowski & Wiehe, 2008; Wiehe et al., 2009).
Competition with other land-use forms does occur not only in the production phase of
biomass but also in the entire process chain of biogas production and utilization. This
ranges from the cultivation of biomass to the supply of raw materials including storage
and transport, to the conversion of energy within the plant and culminating in the recovery
or disposal of residual products (Rode & Kanning, 2006). The expansion of biomass
energy utilization, which at first had such positive associations and which was promoted
for reasons of energy, climate and economic policies, has begun to meet with more and
more criticism (cf. SRU, 2007).
In order to permanently be able to tap into the available potential of biogas in the sense
of a sustainable energy supply and regional development while ensuring long-term spatial
compatibility, it is vital that potential conflicts are recognized and resolved at an early
stage. Above all, it is essential to have an interdisciplinary and forward-looking spatial
planning mechanism on both local and regional levels that would consider land required
for bio-energy production. New challenges for spatial and specialized planning arise from
competing claims for land and its use (cf. BBR & BMVBS, 2006).
With this in mind, this paper aims to derive standards in form of checklists that assess
the capability of existing planning instruments to respond to the effects of the biogas
 Minimizing Spatial Conflicts o f Bio gas Production 1713

process chain. More specifically, this paper addresses the suit of planning instruments to
not only manage the expansion of biogas production but also avoid the resulting land-use
conflicts.
Two fundamental questions are investigated:

• What does spatial planning, in particular regional planning, contribute to the manage­
ment and safeguarding of a spatially compatible biogas production?
• What types of protection do local instruments of specialized or sectoral planning offer
“vis-a-vis” the effects of biogas production?

2. Procedure and Methods

In order to assess the effectiveness of the planning instruments to guide biogas develop­
ment and to avoid land-use conflicts, we determined the regional conflict potentials that
arise from using biomass as an energy source.
First, the common options available in spatial planning for securing land use were deter­
mined.
Next, the conflict potentials of biomass production with each land use were estimated
using potential impact factors that are based on land-use demands and protection interests.
Based on available specialist evaluations of the ramifications of using biomass as an
energy source on nature and the landscape (cf. Wiehe et al., 2010), for these potential
impact factors, indicators have been defined which describe the impairment in the usage
objective regarding each respective form of land use (cf. Buhr et al., 2010).
The regulatory effectiveness of regional and sectoral planning instruments was evalu­
ated with respect to the adverse effects that occur in the different phases in the biogas
process chain. This was achieved by deriving standards of protection and quality for
land use and interests requiring protection from sectoral specifications and statutory pro­
visions. In spatial planning, standards for protection and quality are primarily deployed to
give environmental quality criteria a more concrete form, which can then be put into effect
on a day-to-day basis (cf. Haaren, 2004; Scholles, 2008).
These standards are categorized according to the effectiveness of their regulations by
using a three-tier system:

(1) sufficiently considered/regulated: the most effective or best possible regulations

allowed under current legislation,
(2) inadequately considered/regulated: only vague or indirect statements or regulations,
(3) not considered/regulated: no available statements or regulations.

Based on the protection and quality standards and the categorization thereof, checklists
containing protective or precautionary standards for various forms of land use have been
designed commensurate with the potential for conflict. The composition of the checklists
is based on the phases of the biogas process chain.
The checklists were used to assess how well the Regional Planning Programmes, the
fundamental formal instrument of regional planning, as well as Protected Area Regu­
lations, the fundamental instrument of sectoral planning, can be used to safeguard and
guarantee demands on land use and the protection interests of other land uses against
demands related to the biogas process chain. As examples, these checklists were
1714 N. Buhr, M. Rode & H. Kanning

developed for land uses such as flood protection, drinking water supply and recreation.
With some appropriate modification, they can be transferred to other forms of land use
and, in theory, just as easily used to scrutinize other planning instruments. The checklists
were applied in selected model regions in order to identify how our planning mechanism
has dealt with the effects of biogas production on other land uses.

3. The German Planning System: Options for Securing Land Usage

In Germany, all forms of land use, which take up space or influence the way land is devel­
oped, are either controlled or coordinated through the various instruments of spatial plan­
ning (Runkel, 2005; Turowski, 2005). The task of spatial planning is to harmonize the
various land-use demands, to reduce any conflicts and to make provision for individual
spatial functions and uses. For this, the shaping of space and the formulation of objectives
in the form of programmes and plans take place at the regional or local planning level. The
Federal Government possesses only the competence to issue framework legislation
(Figure 1).
In the German planning system, regional planning occurs between the federal and the
municipal levels. The sectoral planning feeds into the Regional Planning Programme
(Figure 1).
The Regional Planning Programmes consist of a textual and graphic presentation of the
aims and principles of regional planning for the planning regions. They can also be

Planning area Planning levels and instruments Land uses

for spatial planning with respectatlve Sectoral planning
and instruments at regional level

Federal Republic Spatial planning at national level

of Germany (no overall plan o r program m )
Rog»onal planning policy guide

i
flood protection
W ater management planning
flo o d protection plan.
Flood area

drinking water supply

W ater management planning:
river Oasin management pt-ln;
W ater protection area

Recreation
landscape panning:
landscape *rann*vuor k plan;
Landscape conversat*on area

Figure 1. The German planning system and sectoral planning—planning stages and formal regional
planning instruments under the Federal Regional Planning Act, the Lower Saxony Law on Spatial
Planning and Regional Planning, the Federal Building Code.
 Minimizing Spatial Conflicts o f Biogas Production 1715

finalized in sectoral and spatial sub-plans. Regional Planning Programmes are binding for
all public authorities and their objectives are to be taken into account in all plans and
measures relevant to regional planning (cf. Fiirst & Scholles, 2008). The Regional Plan­
ning Programmes set priorities regarding land use, thereby they secure the natural environ­
ment as well as space for living and working. The instruments for precautionary areas,
such as priority areas, reserved areas and designated zones with their socio-political and
regional significance have an important position and serve to disentangle the competing
demands on land use (Scholich, 2005).
A priority area (“Vorrangsgebiet”) is earmarked for a particular function or use which is
of regional or spatial significance. Any other regionally or spatially significant function or
use which is not compatible with the area’s (pre-)determined function is ruled out. In this
way, priority areas conform to the objectives of regional planning and set out binding
guidelines on which subsequent planning is to be based (Gawron, 2007; Scholich, 2005).
Precautionary or reserved areas (“Vorbehaltsgebiet”) grant a particular importance to
specific spatially significant functions or land use when considering competing spatially
significant land use. Although they comply with the basic principles of regional planning,
their overall effect is less than binding (Gawron, 2007; Scholich, 2005).
Designated zones (“Eignungsgebiet”) serve to control measures and development pro­
posals of spatial significance in areas within the scope of local development plans and to
exclude them elsewhere in the area covered by the master development plan (Gawron,
2007; Scholich, 2005). They can be defined in regional plans as well as in local authority
urban land-use plans (cf. Scholich, 2005).
Besides spatial planning, sectoral planners in Germany whose work has spatial impact
(on the environment) also have access to regionally important instruments for the securing
of land use. An example of this is the way water protection areas or flood plains are deter­
mined or landscape conservation areas designated within the framework of water resource
planning. Land use in such areas is regulated by a series of provisions precisely specifying
what may or may not be done there. Even though such provisions are not tied to the auth­
orization or approval of a development proposal, they nevertheless secure regionally sig­
nificant interests by creating or designing regulations for specific areas. Other claims on
land use can be thereby considerably curtailed or restricted (Dumer, 2005).

4. Causal Mechanisms and Conflict Potential Between the Biogas Process Chain
and Other Land Uses
Land is a scarce resource and has to fulfil a variety of functions in the face of diverse and
competing demands on it or rather on the use of it. It must surely be in everyone’s interest
to aim for a situation where as many functions as possible are combined and conflicts of
interest are minimized or weighed up against each other (Hartmann & Weiske, 2002).
Conflicts of objectives among different forms of land use are most clearly manifested
through spatial and functional interdependencies at the regional level (ARL, 2000). The
exploitation of regional biomass potential has added a new form of land use that displays
a high degree of such interdependency.
Spatially relevant impacts of producing energy from biomass, which can counteract the
claims on land use and the interests for the protection of other forms of land use, have
arisen from the overall biogas production process. This results from the cultivation of
energy plants as well as from the phases of the biogas process chain, such as the supply
1716 N. Buhr, M. Rode & H. Kanning

and processing of raw materials, the transformation to energy as well as the utilization of
fermentation residue (Rode & Kanning, 2006). Because of the very limited amount of
available space, there is a considerable competition for space (quantitative competition).
At the same time, the impact on natural resources can have an influence on the utility
value(s) of such spaces (qualitative competition) (Thran et al., 2011). The forms of land
use most affected thereby are flood prevention, the sources of drinking water, nature con­
servation, landscape-related recreation, settlement development including infrastructure
and even agriculture itself in the production of food and feedstuff (Buhr & Kanning, 2008).
There is a multiplicity of interdependencies and potential conflict situations between the
recovery of energy from biomass and other forms of land use. By way of example, the fol­
lowing exposition will seek to illustrate the conflict potential at the regional level between
biogas process chain and land uses such as flood prevention, drinking water supply and
landscape-related recreation.

4.1. Conflict Potential with Flood Prevention Measures

On flood plains, biomass can inhibit the run-off of flood water which leads to a conflict
with flood prevention measures (cf. Table 1). The agricultural use of high quality arable
land in flood plains often contracts the requirements of flood prevention (Haimerl &
Kettler-Hardi, 2007).
The type of land use and the associated type and phenological condition of the veg­
etation cover exert a considerable influence on flood water run-off in flood plains
(Wiehe et al., 2010). The cultivation of biogas crops such as maize or sunflowers can
present considerable flow resistance, especially when they are closely planted and do
not bend or snap in flood water (Hartlieb, 2006). This may reduce the drainage capacity,
causing the mean flood water mark to rise. This can weaken flood protection in bordering
areas or places where dikes have been built (Haimerl & Kettler-Hardi, 2007).
Apart from the flow-retarding impact caused by the cultivation of certain species of
crop, the run-off in flood plains may also be impeded by crops that are ensilaged in
open air stacks or movable silos, or by the biogas plants themselves with their manifold
structural components. This can lead to further potential conflict situations in the
context of damage-free flood water run-off.

4.2. Conflict Potential with Drinking Water Supply

Using biomass to recover energy can lead to both qualitative and quantitative risks for the
ground water (Nitsch et al., 2008). Changes in land use, types of crops and the deferral of
crop rotation as well as the more intensive land cultivation of biomass production cause
unused nutrients and even pesticides to enter the ground water. This may increase conflict
potential concerning the ground water quality (cf. Table 1; Lindenblatt et al., 2007). Fur­
thermore, the emissions of water-polluting substances during the biogas process chain can
impact ground water quality, if these emissions are not adequately collected or correctly
stored or recovered (cf. DVGW, 2006; Wiehe et al., 2010). This is particularly true for
fermentation residue and silage effluents. In addition, potential conflict situations can
arise when raw materials and biomass are ensilaged in open-air stacks. This may result
in the pollution of the ground water being polluted by fermentation or silage effluents
(DVGW, 2006). The same holds true for the application of fermentation residue during
 Minimizing Spatial Conflicts o f Biogas Production 1717

3o
Cu
Ut
0)
3 ^
^ s
s rS
3
*_C
"O tr*

*.
8£
3
3 CQ
C/5

1)
B X)
| 3
3
O

1> •d
<D
Oh
"O g
o 1
O x3
q= o
•o_3
W)
c/3
cd o^
3
o
o <U
3
TJ _ ■S
S S
a
3 8
s> j
.2 a
js
e 2

I
■
*-
> 0)
O 3
133
=2 ’■rt
^
3 •
O
O

•X G
S .2
£ ti
O <D
CX £
J* 8
o B
^ 3

I£ &
< 3
•3 CJ
3 w
js *2
8 I
S -a
-3
3
c
3
«3
3
_
3
3 O
U ’ So

£
cs
H
1718 N.Buhr, M. Rode & H. Kanning
the residual material utilization phase. If the fermentation residue is to be applied as a com­
mercial fertilizer, then there must be sufficient agricultural land available in a region so
that nutrient levels from residue remain acceptable (Hartmann & Weiske, 2002). Further­
more, if fermentation residue cannot be applied as and when required, there could be a
similar risk of a nutrient overload leaching into the ground water (Wiehe et al., 2010).
Over and above this, ground water quantity can impair the drinking water supply. In
Germany, in regions where the average annual rainfall is less than 700 mm, land under
intensive cultivation is irrigated (Kahlenbom & Kraemer, 1999). In 1999, after many
years of experimenting with overhead irrigation, the Chamber of Agriculture in Lower
Saxony was able to establish that the cultivation of plants for energy in sandy soil is
not cost-effective without overhead irrigation. Particularly in areas of potential water
shortage, this can lead to direct competition or even a potential conflict with the drinking
water supply (Nitsch et al., 2008; Wiehe et al., 2010).

4.3. Conflict Potential with Landscape-Related Recreation

Changes in the overall appearance of the landscape attributable to the biogas process chain
arise mainly during the biomass production phase (Ruschkowski & Wiehe, 2008; Wiehe
et al., 2010). In regions where landscape-related recreation is of great significance, poten­
tial conflict situations can arise through the influence on the recreational quality or suit­
ability of the landscape (cf. Table 1).
A conflict can occur between landscape-related recreation and biomass production
when one single crop dominates the landscape. In particular, the large areas given over
to a tall-growing crop such as maize, which is the main substrate used in most biogas
plants, can cause negative consequences by standardizing the appearance of the landscape
across the regions (Hartmann & Weiske, 2002; Lindenblatt et al., 2007). However,
additional or new energy crops can also have positive influence on the way the landscape
is experienced (cf. Ruschkowski & Wiehe, 2008; Wiehe et al., 2009).
On the other hand, the decentralized locations of the biogas plants can have a negative
effect on the visual landscape. Further, the necessary infrastructure for the biogas plants
can lead to spreading out of built-up areas into the countryside (Jessel & Tobias, 2002).

5. Checklists of Factors for Safeguarding the Land Uses Against the Demands of
the Biogas Process Chain
Checklists that set out standards of protection have been drawn up as reference points for
the potential conflict situations already demonstrated. These identify and evaluate the
available options for controlling and coordinating (spatial) planning with respect to
biogas production by using Regional Planning Programmes and Protected Area Regu­
lations.
In order to assess the suitability of the instruments of spatial and sectoral planning and
their actual implementation, the checklists were applied in four administrative districts in
Lower Saxony (Hildesheim, Soltau-Fallingbostel, Celle and Emsland). Together with the
local Regional Planning Programmes, the Flood Plains Regulations, the Water Protection
Area Regulations and the Landscape Conservation Area Regulations were analysed with
regard to the potential impact of biogas production.
 Minimizing Spatial Conflicts o f Biogas Production 1719

The studied districts represent key natural areas and agricultural production conditions
of Lower Saxony. The district of Hildesheim is characterized by highly productive agri­
cultural soils. In the districts of Celle and Soltau-Fallingbostel, the arable sites are domi­
nated by light soils. The district of Emsland is noted for its high level of livestock fanning.

5.1. Flood Protection

The checklist for flood prevention (Table 2) refers to the potential conflict with floodwater
run-off. The checklist can be used to review the Regional Planning Programmes as well as
the Flood Plain Regulations with respect to potential flow impediments (cf. Table 1). To
ensure a damage-free flood water run-off, which counteracts the effects of biogas pro­
duction, it is vital to regulate buildings and structures (e.g. biogas plants, storage sites,
etc.) as well as the cultivation of crop species with flow-retarding properties.
With respect to flood prevention, in each of the four districts, the Flood Plain Regu­
lations are an effective instrument for securing sufficient surface area to be able to guar­
antee flood water run-off without incurring any damage, provided restrictions on use are
properly formulated in the corresponding regulations (cf. Table 3). The Flood Plain Regu­
lations were found to possess sufficient provisions to avoid with the biogas process chain
conflict. However, there are shortfalls especially concerning the cultivation of tall and
stable crop, which has not yet even been considered, let alone regulated.

5.2. Drinking Water Supply

The checklist for drinking water supply was developed to evaluate potential conflicts of
the biogas process chain with the ground water quality and quantity. The checklist was
used to assess the Regional Planning Programmes and the Water Protection Area Regu­
lations (cf. Table 4). With respect to safeguarding the drinking water supply, many exist­
ing guidelines for food and animal feed production are equally applicable to biomass
production for the recovery of energy. Most potential conflicts with ground water
quality are already considered in existing guidelines (e.g. the change of land use, soil fer­
tilization, the use of pesticides, irrigation, the storage of silage in open-air stacks and
biogas plants dealing with substances hazardous to water). However, in the residual
waste processing phase, there are—with fermentation residue from agricultural biogas
plants—new substances that need to be regulated.
The requirements of the drinking water supply can also be sufficiently protected against
the effects of biogas production by the Water Protection Area Regulations. This is effective
when all the regulations adequately address the impact factors (cf. Table 5). While, for
example, the impact factors related to the use of fertilizers and pesticides or the biogas
plants themselves are already frequently taken into account. There are nevertheless deficits
in how the fermentation residue from biogas plants is regulated. However, in 2009, the Ordi­
nance on Protection Rules in Water Protection Areas went into effect in Lower Saxony. This
Ordinance remedies all the above-mentioned deficits in Water Protection Areas.

5.3. Landscape-Related Recreation

Regarding the subject of landscape-related recreation, a checklist has been developed to
deal with potential conflict situations where the biogas process chain has influence on
the visual landscape and the quality of recreation. These checklists were used to assess
1720 N. Buhr, M. Rode & H. Kanning

xs
3
CQ

T3
>
*C
w <u
c ■
«4osH
.2
o3 6c0
T3 *1 3
O
3
bX)
O
o
CZJ
o
Cfl C/5

1) £> 3

<u 73
3
5 cr

D
O
,3
<4H
<D
X3

co o<N
.5 ^
X3 .cd
§ e« o
>
£ £ S
a. £<U
-a
o
o
q3
bX)
.s
<s*- 5
J3
nbX) 1 *1 2.$
a. 3
x
<D (U O c3 O
*=* 33 bn
O bb
e<D 0- 6O3

3
pcr °
<Z)-C_
a>
TD <D

up § £a
E
•s g1
•s 'c
1
2 xb «£3
8
x £8
U
i-s
JL> a 15
s
3
H
 Minimizing Spatial Conflicts o f Biogas Production 1721

the Regional Planning Programmes and the Landscape Conservation Area Regulations (cf.
Table 6).
The consequences of the biomass production relate to land-use change and reduced
plant species diversity as well as the effects of buildings and other structures related to
the biogas process chain.
While the requirements of flood prevention and drinking water supply are well secured
by means of corresponding regulations, the Landscape Conservation Area Regulations do
not provide the same protection when it comes to safeguarding landscape-related recrea­
tion (cf. Table 7). Even though buildings and structures are, for the most part, taken into
account, alterations to the appearance of landscape due to biomass production are not. This
is due to the fact that properly managed farming is not considered detrimental in a land­
scape conservation area, when it follows good farming practices.
This planning did not sufficiently protect the visual landscape and quality of recreation
in any of the examined districts.

5.4. Regional Planning Programmes

The Regional Planning Programmes of the administrative districts do not make any explicit
statements about the effects of the biogas process chain nor do they set any targets regarding
the development of biomass or biogas. Also in the administrative districts of Lower Saxony,
the formal site-specific instruments of regional planning hardly regulate the potential for
conflict between biogas production and other uses. At best, there is adequate regulation of
buildings and other structures that are constructed during phases of the biogas process
chain. Specific regulations for identified conflict potentials are found primarily in the region­
ally significant categories or regulations for protected areas. However, in each of the dis­
tricts, there are many shortfalls and deficiencies regarding all potential conflict situations.
Inadequate regulations or deficits are found more in older regulations.

6. Conclusions and Discussion

6.1. Spatial Planning Options fo r Controlling the Biogas Process Chain
The Regional Planning Programmes of the four districts examined the lack of explicit
planning statements or objectives regarding the use of biomass or biogas. On the one
hand, both the Federal State Regional Planning Programme and the Regional Planning
Programmes do not consider the biogas development because they were ratified before
the Renewable Energy Sources Act (2004) went into effect, which ushered in the dramatic
leap in development of extracting energy from biomass. On the other hand, spatial plan­
ning may lack awareness of the problems associated with the biogas development (Pielow
& Schimansky, 2008).
Furthermore, presently, in Germany, the formal planning of energy extraction from
biomass can only be regulated with respect to the biogas fermentation plant. However
high transport costs normally limit the cultivation of biomass and the spreading of fermen­
tation residue to the immediate vicinity of biogas plants (Buhr & Kanning, 2008; LWK,
2008). There are limited and inadequate control options during substantial phases of the
process chain. In particular, formal planning legislation masks the fact that the large-
scale cultivation of energy crops, as, for example, maize, can have a spatial impact on
the environment that affects other forms of land use. This is so because the provisions
1722 N. Buhr, M. Rode & H. Kanning

"2 -s
J-S S
e z 'l a
.2 o s
’•3
O
<D
2cd
<D ^ 3 -O
o iS 2 s
o 3 «
} M
cc IT 3 ’3
^ 2 3
32 o
S 3
c
o e o c.

co
D
£
o
■3~° -a
hJ « « B
o ^ a
£T2 gs O
a
„3
co oo c
o
■ fi

gK "o
O

I .-81
A 2 5o
3 ID
O i-.
;s o

■a
-o
2 >>
u
jd <D ^
13 "S P *o
C/5 3 fc &
a f 3 *
T3
03 sC D
&0
C OD
h3 O C
o
s=
-C 0
u ’5b
<d £•=9
01 c _w -a
<D (D ID
TD td
(B eg
g «St3 O
G
.2 CO o
Residual product utilization/waste recycling

o3
o
Storage of substances
Storage of residual Buildings and other

a, oCD ^
O .<£
.3 a B
cd ^(*1 hJ *« ^C\3 e j=
C3 C
D 2
CD
-H € g,
O -G
-C
structures

= -o a * 60
so 5 o w c
q c « -ao s * m2 O oo 3
2 8S o 5 P 3 O <D
GO •S 2
op « > o S
^ 2 S 2 2 g
g ^ .s - s ^ -2 & o 3 1 0
0) sa E u g3® CO CQ

oc3
residual waste

JD R
-3 §1 •S c/5
Spreading of

« 1 1
H 'S 's 'i £ ’a.
c3 *-* 5/2 .0 °ID -c
waste

O ID jj
*3 3 W > c 13 ^ 3
C *X3 G _2 > ■§ a* a R 00
2 £ .2 g .2
1 O E
S a, U <*> 55 & CQ
 Minimizing Spatial Conflicts of Biogas Production 1723

T3

Compare DVGW (2006)

)
4
>
‘C

and Kiefer (2008)

<D
3
c
.2
o
3 S
Pi
-o
2O h
C/3
a
oo
o

°00 O
c

Plant protection Correct application o f pesticides as and when

o C hfl
*c ^
3 .5

needed: no or limited use of pesticides

U -o

1) §.■8
■s ^ EO
Uh „ O
o ,P *> a
(D c
O -V o
'H
— i
P— O TO
(3 a p
D ■a ex «3
-C c a.
3 c« 73
S <4 - «
a
£ o 2
73 g S
a o o.

storage sites
c r qj
o HS ’
S
«o <
°D
Q op
C> 3
^3
SS
3

>? O -o
Ohpq c3
Oh
S
p
I o <L) 1,<D
£ S 00 <D
o
oo sc
<+H j= 3
c <D
u
O
GO

00 -O T3
<D 5 s, £ u
<D 2 c W)73 60-2
> * o,-a _
•3
C GO-O
*-
c 3O' _C O
>
O O .y 0 »-H 0 V-.
<D O ^ •*"■
* <U 4-t <&
Oh S 3 £? 3
O Oh £ O- £
<D 6 6
cxo
<3
C/3 C/3
oo
C
3
13 13
g3 3 ^3
g cr 3
O 53 2 o o C 3
<u •3 cr
^ S £ c >^. -a
"£ .. o
1 2 *55 H S
g. > 3Oh «<D
*

s .s §-E ct-H
« c
^ a, 3
•£ o 2
o
<u «D-a
c 3 O
x: op c3 £ >
U 2 « oo oo c
3 O C ■'
3 o ©0.3 .3
QJ "O *3 £ !g
3 5 8 ^ O
e a> p
0! a 2
H O Oh
 Table 4. Continued
1724

Potential for
Land use: together with demands conflict with the Indicators: quality standards for the securing of the
on land use and interests requiring biogas process Potential usage objective (if applicable, depending on the

£
V

O
TJ

0
so
&

ao

«*3
c
E

Q
O
1
N. Buhr, M. Rode & H. Kanning
 Minimizing Spatial Conflicts o f Biogas Production 1725

E1

Water Protection Area Regulations (n = 31)

1^ 1 "d- I ^
<N
A g §>
O 1-4
a
o

O ^P TU
«Cd 3
Jr; £2
a ^ cd
errs 3
|co o£

■a'^ -a
c E a
U U a 05 50
O r2 •g <N <N (N
E e So
a o§ E
c/5

E "o
5
Regional Planning Programme (n = 4)

Z •-C/5
C
o
o

^ = 3 -o
e E “
u !4
y IS "3
s 52 n)
60
5 O 1-4
C/D O
<4-1
O
c
.2 C
materials or substrates

<L>
cd <4- -C
Storage of raw Correct storage of raw
Supply and processing o f raw materials

u o £
„ S "O
use of irrigation

O ° C 15
u £
op s S 2
<
/>
<
L> T3
JO
"2! O uh pr> <u o
-O *3
a w <u 9 - - o — w
<D w O O _
T3 o ~ u O 73 o
U j) f O w U u 1 *<D
g f c £ fc t a
* " 0 0 ^ 0
D U U U

irl
materials

ZJ
3 c
cs .2 >» o
H s<DaOg2
o £ & § a
Oh 1H +S
1726 N. Ruhr, M. Rode & H. Kanning

|- g
g - 8 | ON ON 00
<N (N (N

a
o

p y , -a
tj p u
& § p c5
3
01)
"2
c3 oc P
C O

c e 1
eg .§ P cd
C
3 U 3
£ S2 W )
£ 3 § p
1/3 O

l l

■a
1)
3
|
3
o
U Ii_
00
O P "O
-
3 Q^J 73
p
a oo
a
a*’©
P M g
H - S 52
’§ cej I
3 a
5 a O A)
P c

^ T j- O
c a a
a u a
C* .a ^ 3
£ 52 00
3 O P
C/5 O

Oc
e C l,
3 P O £
O 3
"P -o
1 2
a -g
2* ft & G 5 u ■
•r+ <*> 8 P .S u . .2 C
3: p o s s
-a
a = 3 ^ 2
_0 c/3 oo 2 “
3 .3
£
<
D
£ 5 G (0
i2
co
-3
a
$
o
p *3 C
£ ic r
C 3 fc i 2
a o &
Qh s u 00

£ O* ^ 7 o "3 *P .5g>l3 p
.2 >» „ P C« 2 p -o
■ f lo g
% C3 ,5 bo-is to "O 12 V,
3 C3 fa ^ s 3In 05 3 3 oo 3
P
o!E 3
Q-l P <+H
O 2
| .2
C W

£
)

m
P
2 O K £ 8Cu £ £
OS C/5 CO
 Minimizing Spatial Conflicts o f Biogas Production 1727

Table 6. Checklist to secure usage objectives regarding landscape-related recreation in the face of the effects of biogas production (derived

<D
&

<D
-C

substance (storage of raw materials in stacks in

o

the depositing or introduction of any kind of

W
c
)
•n
3O

CO
§ %

c3
from Buhr et al., 2010).

3
cr

5 fields, etc.)

•S o b
a &2
S£ O
o £ £
cl «

c0 W,e
H> c3a
0 2 A O' c
u u .2
iS 0 t/3 -S cd
_ -C b c 2
C3 w 6Q 5c ° 2o
£
O g Q. g ;
“ I °
£
c
c c ,2
o •S 3
"2 o a £ _
SSg
5 o 2 0 p -a
8 &2
U 60 is -s h
■S C -g
»WJ—
a .5 1 § 8
■j* OX)
3 C ,o
ij- .3 «+
-.
2 c cr
“ o <u i 3 u
Cfl r. Ci. O o
2 -o .S3 oO ^O
o S-
•3 C </3 03 .. (/)

■§ I S 1 1 ‘S
1-8.1
1728 N. Buhr, M. Rode & H. Kanning

G
.2 o
c3
acj III 2 W)
5 cj
O u.
2 CJ
T3
CJ
cd 3
W
CJ
)
CJ 05 CJ ^ TJ

&
a IJI
-3 c
111
a
2 go oc
a— o £ u
>-*
G
O
X
cd o
00 U
fe & 1 81
.CJ CJ cd CN
£ cj rs "3 n
-J -o
o s 2 a
c T3
s o5 t ;w
00 o
J
Q
'C

CJ
n cj cd
> v; ^2 "3
ti- £ W)
5
o cj
s-<
II o
G
CJ
e
T3 S
cd E
cd
N cj ^ -a
T3 W) s g s
CJ O
O =L-& =2
U
1(/j3 W> •s § C
cd o »J
G e o
G

cd
2 G
O
cj
CJ '5b ^=§■0
X2
CJ CJ c E £
CJ CJ c5
C*
CJ
43 1O sa-i
5 cj

G
.2
cCd
J
~CClu,
cd
CJ 1
■s I

o4

Vi 3 >.
z G cd g
ft cju 2
H O£ %
Oh <D <4-2
 Minimizing Spatial Conflicts o f Biogas Production 1729

of spatial planning are not legally binding for the use of agricultural production areas. This
includes the cultivation of energy crops as well as the production of food and animal feed.
The options for action within spatial planning are available at the local level by means of
urban land-use planning or plant operating permits and at the regional level via localized
regional planning (Rode & Kanning, 2010).
In the planning of sites for biogas plants, the entire process chain should therefore be
considered. Integrated planning should take into account the spatial demands of the
biogas plants’ raw material requirements and the transportation thereof. The storage and
spreading as well as the transportation of fermentation residue must be included.
Equally important here are potential conflicts as well as the maintenance of sufficient dis­
tance from neighbouring communities. Within this context, the description and identifi­
cation of designated or exclusion zones in the land-use plan are, at the local level, a
particularly effective instrument for the spatial control of biogas plants (Rohnert, 2006).
As the potential for using biomass to produce biogas can vary considerably from region
to region according to the local site conditions and the types of agricultural activity, local
communities should check whether any spatial control of biogas plants by means of des­
ignating exclusion areas is required before embarking on the construction of biogas plants
(cf. Rohnert, 2006).
In Lower Saxony, such zones or areas have already been designated through adjust­
ments made to land-use plans. For example, in 2007, the community of Rethem in the
administrative district of Soltau-Fallingbostel set out designated zones in their land-use
plan. The municipality of Damme in the administrative district of Vechta did the same
in 2008, thereby excluding similar biogas plants on other sites within the area.
However, particularly in regions where the potential for producing biogas is high, local
community planning benchmarks are not sufficient to act as counterweights to the
various competing demands on space and land use, including competition among the
biogas plants themselves (cf. Pielow & Schimansky, 2008).
In this regard, regional planning could operate positively to control development. This
can be in the form of either formal controls, as, for example, using priority areas or desig­
nated zones to secure sites for the recovery or creation of energy from biomass, or informal
controls such as the coordination of processes and working parties. Spatial planning instru­
ments for controlling sites could be supplemented with quantitative targets in areas with a
high potential for conflict analogous to the way wind energy is regulated (Einig, 2008).

6.2. Spatial and Specialized Control Options fo r the Safeguarding o f the Interests o f
Other Land-Use Forms Versus the Effects o f Bio gas Process Chain
Apart from the spatial planning control options available for the energy sector, the poten­
tial for conflict between biogas production and other forms of land use can be regulated or
even resolved by means of more specialized planning options for the securing of land for
other land uses.
By establishing precautionary areas, and more effectively by setting up priority areas,
sensitive areas can be protected in terms of restrictive planning. In addition, for many
land uses, the development of plans designed for specific purposes (separate plans and
related Protected Area Regulations) can protect the more sensitive areas against the nega­
tive effects of biogas production.
1730 N. Buhr, M. Rode & H. Kanning

6.3. Flood Prevention

Flood prevention is dependent on the existence of natural flood plains including unim­
peded water run-off areas for floodwater that are able to either absorb or drain off huge
volumes of water in the event of flooding. For this reason, great efforts are being made
to secure or restore the natural function of the flood plain by providing “additional open
space” during flooding. Against this background, flood plains and their run-off areas con­
stitute exclusion zones for biogas plants. Any building developments including biogas
plants should be kept at a distance from the water’s edge. In line with such clear legal
requirements, the provisions of all of the reviewed flood plain protection regulations
examined are well-defined and sufficient.
Corresponding sectoral requirements can be implemented in the Regional Planning
Programme in the form of spatial planning objectives and as such requirements are
binding for local authorities. They can thereby be secured against diametrically opposed
demands on land use in the case of any subsequent planning measures. In this respect,
some of the reviewed Regional Planning Programmes still need to be put into more con­
crete terms.
Although agricultural land use in flood plains is possible in principle, it is particularly
important that it be adapted to the annual occurrence of flooding. In order to secure a
damage-free flood water run-off and to prevent soil erosion, water run-off areas should
be used primarily as grassland. The ploughing or conversion of grassland in flood
plains should not be allowed (§5 (4) Federal Act for the Protection of Nature) and has
been sufficiently dealt with in all the Flood Protection Area Regulations reviewed.
In contrast to this, it is crucial to regulate the impact of “cultivation of flow-impeding
crops” both within the Regional Planning Programmes as well as on a regulatory basis.
This has not yet been implemented in Lower Saxony, in spite of the adequate options
available in legislation. However, such provisions are in existence in Bavaria, where the
cultivation of flow-impeding crops is in part prohibited by means of general administrative
measures (cf. Haimerl & Kettler-Hardi, 2007). Should an appropriate provision, which is
applicable to all flood plains, be introduced into the Flood Protection Regulations? This
would mean that when designating flood plains, there is a planning instrument available.
This could prevent any plans or measures which could impair flood water run-off, through­
out the entire biogas process chain.

6.4. Drinking Water Supply

Spatial planning procedures can safeguard ground water resources against harmful forms
of land use by establishing priority and precautionary areas for the abstraction of drinking
water. Nevertheless, just as it is with flood prevention, generally binding rules are only
possible in Water Protection Areas and the corresponding Protection Area Regulations.
Many water protection areas are faced with competing demands on land use due to
environmental and use-related changes. Consequently, protection area regulations
should be amended accordingly. For this purpose, the Ministry of the Environment in
Lower Saxony is authorized to set protection measures to regulate most if not all protec­
tion areas (§49, 3 Lower Saxony Water Act). This should facilitate a speedy adaptation of
all regulations if new potential conflict situations arise. The prevention of conflict is suffi-
 Minimizing Spatial Conflicts o f Biogas Production 1731

ciently covered in the regulations of the food and animal feed production industry, which
has similar effects as the recovery of energy from biomass.
Moreover, apart from these formal instruments, there are also informal regulations
based on a cooperation model for protecting drinking water that have contributed to a suc­
cessful collaboration between water supply companies and farmers in Lower Saxony. The
model is a cooperative and interdisciplinary attempt to reduce the conflict of interest
between the protection of drinking water and agricultural land use in drinking water
source areas (NLWKN, 2010).

6.5. Landscape-Related Recreation

Until now, none of the existing planning instruments contain any guidelines about the
safeguarding of the visual landscape and the landscape-related recreation. Agricultural
activities that include the production of biomass are permitted in landscape conservation
areas, usually without any restrictions. It may be true that this does indeed comply with the
variety of regulations set out in statutes. It is nevertheless problematic because the
biggest changes to the visual landscape and therefore also to the quality of recreation
are caused by the dominance of certain species in the cultivation of energy crops
(Ruschkowski & Wiehe, 2008; Wiehe et a i, 2009). Current planning law does not
include the provision to counteract a supra-regional standardization of the landscape
due to certain crop species. The only possible effective regulations in this regard are
those which cover the construction of buildings and other structures and changes in
land use such as the ploughing up of grassland.
The checklists compiled for the assessment of the standards of protection and quality
have been examined in the administrative districts. The results show that there are indeed
suitable planning instruments available which can be used, first, to control the pro­
duction of biogas in a way compatible to the environment and, second, to manage the
bulk of the competing forms of land use as well as potential conflicting objectives
with other land uses throughout the entire biogas process chain.
Both spatial planning and the protected areas covered by sectoral planning
provide options for securing the various competing demands on land use. However, the
definition of the various instruments needs to be adapted in certain parts to the new devel­
opments. In this way, the management options that provide priority areas or designated
zones could also be used in the Regional Planning Programmes for renewable energy
sources when it is necessary to resolve conflict situations. The instruments for flood
protection and drinking water supply are already far-reaching. The most substantial short­
falls are to be found within the context of the appearance of the landscape and/or the
quality of recreation. The current regulations offer no protection against the effects of
biomass production.
The agricultural land use of land is to be considered and regulated commensurate with
the adverse effects on the ecosystem as well as the various potential conflict situations with
other forms of land use. Specific regulation according to the type of production (food and
animal fodder, renewable raw materials) is only required when significantly different
impacts arise (cf. SRU, 2007). Up to now, however, this has not been for using biomass
to produce biogas (Wiehe et a l, 2010).
In the future, specific regional biomass potential should be demonstrated in terms of sus­
tainable regional development. Furthermore, the production of biomass should be
1732 N. Buhr, M. Rode & H. Kanning

expanded in a way that is consistent with other land uses. At the same time, spatial and
sectoral planning guidelines to secure the development potential of certain demands on
land use should not just be deployed reactively, but rather in a proactive way that opti­
mizes integration. This should reflect the development opportunities for the recovery of
energy from biomass as well as of other forms of land use.

References
ARL (Akaderaie Fur Raumforschung Und Landesplanung) (2000) Nachhaltigkeitsprinzip in der Regionalpla-
nung—Handreichung zur Operationalisierung, in: ARL Forschungs- und Sitzungsberichte, Bd. 212, 227
pp. Hannover, ARL.
BBR (Bundesamt fur Bauwesen und Raumordnung) & BMVBS (Bundesministerium fur Verkehr, Bau undStad-
tentwicklung) (2006) Perspektiven der Raumentwicklung in Deutschland, 60 pp. (Bonn/Berlin: BBR &
BMVBS).
Beringer, T., Lucht, W. & Schaphoff, S. (2011) Bioenergy production potential of global biomass plantations
under environmental and agricultural constraints, Global Change Biology—Bioenergy, 3(4), pp. 299-312.
Bringezu, S. & Howarth, R. W. (Eds) (2009) Biofuels: Environmental consequences and interactions with
changing land use, in: Proceedings from the SCOPE International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment on
Biofuels, 308 pp. Ithaca, Cornell University (Publ.).
Bringezu, S., Schiitz, H., O’Brien, M., Kauppi, L., Howarth, R. W. & McNeely, J. (2009) Towards sustainable
production and use of resources: Assessing biofuels. Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme,
2009. Available at http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/pdf/Assessing_Biofuels_Full_Report.pdf (accessed 28
October 2009).
Buhr, N. & Kanning, H. (2008) Raumvertraglichkeit Erneuerbarer Energien-Raumliche Auswirkungen des Bio-
gaspfades und planerische Perspektiven, PLANERIN, 3/08, pp. 23-24. (Berlin: SRL - Vereinigung fur
Stadt-, Regional- und Landesplanung e.V.).
Buhr. N., Kanning, H. & Rode, M. (2010) Raumanalyse II—Auswirkungen auf andere Raumnutzungen, in: M.
Rode & H. Kanning (Eds) Natur- und raumvertrdglicher Ausbau energetischer Biomassepfade, pp. 91-156
(Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag).
DMK (Deutsches Maiskomitee) (2011) Maiszuwachs geringer als im Vorjahr. Die Zuwachsraten flachen trotz
umbruchbedingter Maisflachen ab. DMK News 07/2011. Available at http://www.maiskomitee.de/web/
intranet/news.aspx?news=fdl6c951-daaa-4634-a2f8-6ad69148bcd4 (accessed 12 July 2011).
Dopheide, J. W. (1986) Recht und Planungsinstrumente der Wasserwirtschaft unter Beriicksichtigung von Eigen-
tums-, Entschadigungs- und Haftungsfragen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und im Land Nordrhein-
Westfalen, LWK WESTSFALEN-LIPPE (Hrsg.), 145 pp. (Munster: Landwirtschaftsverlag).
Dumer, W. (2005) Konflikte raumlicher Planungen: verfassungs-, verwaltungs- und gemeinschaftsrechtliche
Regeln fu r das Zusammentreffen konkurrierender planerischer Raumanspriiche, 615 pp. (Miinchen: Mohr
Siebeck Verlag).
DVGW (German Technical and Scientific Association for Gas and Water) (2004) Grundsatze und MaRnahmen
einer gewasserschiitzenden Landbewirtschaftung. Technische Regel, Arbeitsblatt W 104, 30 pp. (Bonn:
DVGW).
DVGW (German Technical and Scientific Association for Gas and Water) (2006) Richtlinien fur Trinkwas-
serschutzgebiete—Teil 1: Schutzgebiete fur Grundwasser. Technische Regel, Arbeitsblatt W 101, 19 pp.
(Bonn: DVGW).
Einig, K. (2008) Zur Steuerbarkeit des Biomasseanbaus durch die Regionalplanung. Presentation zum Vortrag im
Rahmen der DBFZ-Veranstaltung “Energie aus Biomasse—Aufgaben fur die Raumplanung?”, 17
November 2008. Leipzig. Available at http://www.dbfz.de/web/fileadmin/user_upload/Download/
20081117-Einig-Regionalplanung_und_Biomasseanbau_opt.pdf (accessed 13 May 2013).
Fachverband Biogas, E. V. (2011) Branchenzahlen, Stand 06/2011. (Freising: Fachverband Biogas).
Fiirst, D. & Scholles, F. (2008) Das System der raumlichen Planting in Deutschland, in: D. Fiirst & F.
Scholles (Hrsg.) Handbuch Theorien und Methoden derRaum- und Umweltplanung, pp. 7 0 -9 9 (Dortmund:
Verlag Dorothea Rohn).
Gawron, T. (2007) Raumplanerische Konzeptionen— Inhalte der Raumordnungsplane, in: U. Weiland & S.
Wohlleber-Feller (Eds) Einfuhrung in die Raum- und Umweltplanung, pp. 52-60 (Paderborn: UTB).
 Minimizing Spatial Conflicts of Biogas Production 1733

Haaren, C. von (Hrsg.) (2004) Landschaftsplanung, 527 pp. (Stuttgart: Ulmer).

Haimerl, G. & Kettler-Hardi, S. (2007) Leitfaden fiir nachhaltige Vorlandbewirtschaftung, 37 pp. Miinchen.
Available at http://www.wwa-deg.bayern.de/service/veroeffentlichungen/doc/sumad_lf.pdf (accessed 13
May 2013).
Hartlieb, A. (2006) Modellversuche zur Rauheit durch- bzw. iiberstromter Maisfelder, Wasserwirtschaft, 96(3),
pp. 38-40.
Hartmann, H. & Weiske, A. (2002) Rohstoffproduktion (Anbau), in: H. Hartmann & M. Kaltschmitt (Hrsg.) Bio-
masse als erneuerbarer Energietrdger—eine technische, okologische und okonomische Analyse im Kontext
der Ubrigen emeuerbaren Energien, pp. 359-378 (Munster: Landwirtschaftsverlag).
Hoher, G. C. (2010) Bioenergie und Energiepflanzenanbau in Niedersachsen, in: M. Reich & S. Riiter (Hrsg.)
Energiepflanzenanbau und Naturschutz. Umwelt und Raum 1, pp. 4 3 -6 6 (Gottingen: Cuvillier Verlag).
Jessel, B. & Tobias, K. (2002) Okologisch orientierte Planung, 470 pp. (Stuttgart: UTB, Ulmer).
Kahlenborn, W. & Kraemer, R. A. (1999) Nachhaltige Wasserwirtschaft in Deutschland, 239 pp. (Berlin: BMU).
Kiefer, J. (2008) Biomasseproduktion zur Energieerzeugung aus Sicht der Trinkwasserversorgung. Available at
http://w ww.dvgw.de/fileadm in/dvgw /w asser/ressourcen/biom asseproduktion_wasserversorgung.pdf
(accessed 30 January 2010).
Kiinkel, K. (1989) Landwirtschaftliche Bodennutzung in Trinkwasserschutzgebieten—Regeln und Richtwerte,
Landwirtschaftsausstellung der DDR, 94 pp. (Markkleeberg: Hrsg. Landwirtschaftsaustellung der DDR).
Lindenau, G. (2002) Die Entwicklung der Agrarlandschaften in Siidbayem und ihre Beurteilung durch die
Bevolkerung, 304 pp. (Berlin: Land).
Lindenblatt, C., Wendland, M., Reitberger, F., Muller, C., Lebhun, M., Bachmaier, H. & Gehling, R. (2007)
Umweltauswirkungen, Biogashandbuch Bayern - Materialienband, Kap. 1.6, Stand Mdrz 2007, 41 pp.
BayLfU. Available at http://www.lfu.bayern.de/abfall/biogashandbuch/doc/kapl6.pdf (accessed 13 May
2013).
LWK (Landwirtschaftskammer) Niedersachsen (2008) SUNREG l. Abschlussbericht zum Modellvorhaben Quer-
schnittsprojekt SUNREG I, 84 pp. Unpublished.
Nitsch, H., Osterburg, B., Buttlar, C. V. & Buttlar, H. B. V. (2008) Aspekte des Gewasserschutzes und der Gewas-
semutzung beim Anbau von Energiepflanzen. Arbeitsberichte aus der vTI-Agrarokonomie 3/2008, 128 pp.
Braunschweig.
NLWKN (Niedersachsischer Landesbetrieb Fur Wasserwirtschaft; Kiisten- Und Naturschutz) (2010) Koopera-
tionsmodell—Grundwasserschutz und Landwirtschaft. Available at http://www.nlwkn.niedersachsen.de/
live/live.php?navigation_id=8261&article_id=45056&_psmand=26 (accessed 30 January 2010).
NMU (Niedersachsisches Ministerium fur Ernahrung, Landwirtschaft, Verbraucherschutz und Landesentwick-
lung) (2004) Hochwasserschutz in Uberschwemmungsgebieten in Niedersachsen, 6 pp. (Hannover: NMU).
Pielow, J.-C. & Schimanski, C. (2008) Rechtsprobleme der Erzeugung von Biogas und der Einspeisung in das
Erdgasnetz: Ein Uberblick, Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, 28(28), pp. 129-133.
Rode, M. & Kanning, H. (2006) Beitrage der raumlichen Planung zur Forderung eines natur- und raumvertraglichen
Ausbaus des energetischen Biomassepfades, in: Bundesamt fur Bauwesen und Raumordnung (Hrsg.) Bioener­
gie—ZukunftfUr landliche Rdurne. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 1/2, pp. 103-110 (Bonn: BBR).
Rode, M. & Kanning, H. (FIrsg.) (2010) Natur- und raumvertraglicher Ausbau energetischer Biomassepfade, 296
pp. (Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag).
Rohnert, P. (2006) Biomasseanlagen im Spannungsfeld zwischen baurechtlicher Privilegierung und Bauleitpla-
nung, in: Bundesamt fur Bauwesen und Raumordnung (Hrsg.) Bioenergie—Zukunft fu r landliche Rdurne.
Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 1/2, pp. 6 7 -8 0 (Bonn: BBR).
Runkel, P. (2005) Raumwirksame Fachplanungen, in: Akademie Fiir Raumforschung Und Landesplanung
(Hrsg.) Handworterbuch der Raumordnung, pp. 281-289 (Hanover: ARL).
Ruschkowski, E. V. & Wiehe, J. (2008) Balancing Bioenergy Production and Nature Conservation in Germany:
Potential Synergies and Challenges, Yearbook o f Socioeconomics in Agriculture, Schweizerische
Gesellschaft fiir Agrarwirtschaft und Agrarsoziologie. (Zurich: SGA).
Schoiich, D. (2005) Vorranggebiete, Vorbehaltsgebiet, Eignungsgebiet, in: Akademie Fur Raumforschung Und
Landesplanung (Hrsg.) Handworterbuch der Raumordnung, pp. 1261-1265 (Hanover: ARL).
Scholles, F. (2008) Qualitatsziele, Handlungsziele und Standards, in: D. Fiirst & F. Scholles (Hrsg.) Handbucli
Theorien und Methoden der Raum- und Umweltplanung, pp. 297-302 (Dortmund: Verlag Dorothea Rohn).
Smeets, E., Faaji, A. & Lewandowski, I. (2004) A Quick Scan o f Global Bioenergy Potentials to 2050. An Analy­
sis o f the Regional Availability o f Biomass Resources fo r Export in Relation to the Underlying Factors
Report NWS-E_2004-109, Utrecht.
1734 N. Buhr, M. Rode & H. Kanning

SRU (Sachverstandigenrat Fiir Umweltfragen) (2007) Klimaschutz durch Biomasse. Sondergutachten, 124 pp.
(Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag).
Thran, D., Edel, M., Seidenberger, T., Gesemann, S. & Rode, M. (2009) Identifizierung strategischer Hemmnisse
und Entwicklung von Losungsansatzen zur Reduzierung der Nutzungskonkurrenzen beim weiteren Ausbau
der energetischen Biomassenutzung— 1. Zwischenbericht, German Biomass Research Centre, Leipzig,
03,02.2009, 252 pp. Available at http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/
zwischenber_nutzungskonkurr.pdf (accessed 8 April 2010).
Thriin, D„ Edel, M., Pfeifer, J„ Ponitka, J., Rode, M. W. & Knispel, S. (2011) Identifizierung strategischer Hemm­
nisse und Entwicklung von Losungsansatzen zur Reduzierung der Nutzungskonkurrenzen beim weiteren
Ausbau der Biomassenutzung, DBFZ-report 4, 193 pp. (Leipzig: Fischer-Druck).
Turowski, G. (2005) Raumplanung (Gesamtplanung), in Akademie Fur Raumforschung Und Landesplanung
(Hrsg.) Handworterbuch der Raumordnung, pp. 893-898 (Hannover: ARL).
Wiehe, J., Rode, M. & Kanning, H. (2010) Raumanalyse I—Auswirkungen auf Natur und Landschaft, in:
M. Rode & H. Kanning (Eds) Natur- und raumvertraglicher Ausbau energetischer Biomassepfade,
pp. 21-90 (Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag).
Wiehe, J., Ruschkowski, E., Rode, M., Kanning, H. & Haaren, C. Von (2009) Auswirkungen des Energiepflan-
zenanbaus auf die Landschaft am Beispiel des Maisanbaus fiir die Biogasproduktion in Niedersachsen,
Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 41(4), pp. 107—113.
Copyright of European Planning Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.