The Spatialization of a Planning Void: Wind Energy Siting, Fragmented Governance, and Land-Use Conflict in Japan

The Spatialization of a Planning Void: Wind Energy Siting, Fragmented Governance, and Land-Use Conflict in Japan | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Spatialization of a Planning Void: Wind Energy Siting, Fragmented Governance, and Land-Use Conflict in Japan Taher Osman This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7773214/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract While multi-level governance (MLG) is central to energy transition studies, existing research is dominated by European models of integrated planning. There is a critical gap in understanding how transitions unfold in contexts of institutional fragmentation and weak national land-use guidance, particularly in non-Western industrialized nations. This article analyzes the rescaling of land-use governance for onshore wind energy in Japan post-Fukushima. It aims to map the national-scale spatial outcomes of a fragmented policy landscape, analyze the institutional architecture of this "planning void," and theorize the emergent role of local governments as de facto energy planners. A mixed-methods design combines a nationwide GIS-based spatial analysis of 1,799 wind turbines against regulatory and environmental datasets, and a qualitative institutional analysis of national laws and sub-national planning guidelines. The national government’s failure to provide an integrated spatial strategy has created a planning void, leading to the concentration of wind turbines in weakly regulated rural and environmentally sensitive areas. This "rescaling by abdication" has catalyzed policy innovation at the prefectural and municipal levels. However, this bottom-up response results in a fragmented, unpredictable regulatory landscape, posing risks to energy justice, investment certainty, and the achievement of national climate targets. The article introduces the concept of "rescaling by abdication" as a distinct mode of energy governance. By contrasting Japan's experience with Germany, Denmark, the UK, and South Korea, it offers a novel typology of state engagement in energy transitions and provides critical, transferable lessons for managing the spatial politics of DE carbonization globally. Wind Energy Land-Use Policy Institutional Fragmentation Multi-Level Governance Spatial Planning Energy Landscapes Japan Renewable Energy Transition Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction The global transition towards a low-carbon energy system is not merely a technological or economic shift; it is a profound and often contentious transformation of land use and landscape (Pasqualetti, 2011 ; Nadai and van der Horst, 2010 ). As nations pursue ambitious climate targets, the rapid deployment of renewable energy infrastructure, particularly onshore wind power, has emerged as a quintessential land-use planning problem (Cowell, 2010 ). Wind turbines, with their significant physical and visual presence, fundamentally alter the character of the places they inhabit, creating new ‘energy landscapes’ (Nadai and van der Horst, 2010 ). This transformation is rarely frictionless. While public support for renewable energy is generally high at a national level, specific projects frequently encounter strong local opposition, a phenomenon often termed the "social gap" (Wüstenhagen et al., 2007 ). This opposition is not simply a case of ‘Not In My Backyard’ (NIMBYism) but is rooted in legitimate concerns over impacts on landscape aesthetics, biodiversity, noise, property values, and the overall quality of life (Devine-Wright, 2005 ; Baxter et al., 2013 ). The central challenge for contemporary governance is to mediate this inherent tension: to reconcile national and global imperatives for decarbonization with the protection of local environmental integrity and the promotion of social acceptance (Cowell, 2010 ). This places land-use policy and spatial planning at the very heart of the energy transition. Effective planning systems are those that can proactively govern this conflict, moving beyond a reactive, permit-based approach to one that strategically integrates energy objectives into broader landscape management and community development goals (Ellis et al., 2009 ). The success or failure of national climate ambitions, therefore, hinges not only on technological innovation and economic incentives but on the institutional capacity of the state to manage the spatial politics of this transformation wisely and justly. To understand the complex dynamics of siting renewable energy, scholars have increasingly turned to three interconnected theoretical frameworks: multi-level governance, state rescaling, and energy justice. The concept of multi-level governance (MLG) provides a foundational lens, describing the vertical and horizontal dispersion of authority across different tiers of government (supranational, national, regional, local) and policy sectors (energy, environment, planning) (Hooghe and Marks, 2003 ; Lockwood et al., 2017 ). An effective energy transition demands intricate coordination across these levels and sectors. National governments typically set overarching targets and provide financial incentives; regional authorities are often responsible for strategic spatial planning; and local governments manage site-specific implementation, permitting, and community engagement (Ahl et al., 2021 ; Sabel and Zeitlin, 2012 ). When this coordination fails, a state of institutional fragmentation emerges, where policies are misaligned, mandates overlap or conflict, and a "planning void" can open up, leaving no single authority with the clear power and responsibility to guide land-use change (Lockwood et al., 2017 ). The energy transition is also a powerful driver of state rescaling, a process involving the dynamic re-organization of powers and responsibilities between different scales of government (Hooghe and Marks, 2003 ). This is not a uniform process; it can manifest as deliberate decentralization, where central governments formally devolve power to sub-national actors, or as a more chaotic and contested process where authority is renegotiated through political struggle (Hooghe and Marks, 2003 ). The way in which the state is rescaled in response to the challenge of renewable energy deployment has profound implications for the efficiency, equity, and democratic legitimacy of the transition. Yet, the specific modes of this rescaling, particularly in non-European contexts, remain under-theorized. Finally, the framework of energy justice brings critical normative questions to the forefront of land-use debates (Jenkins et al., 2016 ; Heffron and McCauley, 2018 ). It compels an analysis beyond technical and economic efficiency to ask fundamental questions of fairness. Distributional justice concerns the equitable allocation of the benefits (e.g., clean energy, economic development) and burdens (e.g., landscape impacts, noise) of energy projects (Jenkins et al., 2016 ). Procedural justice focuses on the fairness and inclusivity of decision-making processes, ensuring that all affected communities, particularly marginalized ones, have a meaningful voice (Heffron and McCauley, 2018 ). Recognition justice involves acknowledging and respecting the diverse values, cultures, and place-based attachments of different social groups in energy planning (Heffron and McCauley, 2018 ). The siting of wind farms, often in rural and less politically powerful communities, makes energy justice an indispensable lens for evaluating the social and ethical dimensions of land-use outcomes (van der Horst, 2007 ). Much of the influential literature on the spatial governance of wind energy is derived from Northern European experiences, particularly those of Germany and Denmark (Ohl and Eichhorn, 2010 ; Moller, 2010 ). These cases, while valuable, have created a dominant paradigm centered on states with strong traditions of proactive, integrated spatial planning. Germany’s Energiewende is underpinned by a robust system of regional planning ( Raumordnung ) that designates preferential zones for wind development ex-ante (Ahl et al., 2021 ). Similarly, Denmark has a long history of municipal-led planning and has institutionalized models of community ownership to foster local acceptance (Moller, 2010 ; Wolsink, 2020 ). This scholarship implicitly assumes a governance context where spatial planning is an empowered and central tool for managing the energy transition. This European-centric focus creates a significant theoretical and empirical blind spot. It offers limited guidance for understanding how energy transitions unfold in industrialized nations that lack such a tradition of integrated, non-urban spatial planning. In many countries, land-use regulation is historically weak outside of designated urban areas, and governance is characterized by the fragmentation of authority among powerful, siloed government ministries (Sorensen, 2002 ). In these contexts, the introduction of powerful economic incentives for renewable energy, without a corresponding strengthening of planning frameworks, can produce dramatically different and often problematic outcomes. This paper addresses this critical research gap by examining one such case: Japan. Japan presents a crucial and globally relevant case study for understanding the pathologies of a fragmented governance system under the intense pressure of an accelerated energy transition. The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was a critical juncture that fundamentally reshaped the nation's energy policy. In its wake, the Japanese government introduced a generous Feed-in Tariff (FIT) scheme in 2012 to rapidly scale up renewable energy deployment and reduce its reliance on nuclear power (Vivoda, 2014 ). This policy succeeded in triggering a boom in wind power investment. However, it also acted as a massive stress test that exposed the latent weaknesses of Japan’s spatial planning regime. The Japanese planning system is a paradox. While often perceived as a strong, centralized state, its power is concentrated in economic and industrial policy, with a corresponding weakness in integrated land-use management, particularly in rural and mountainous areas that fall outside the jurisdiction of the City Planning Act (Sorensen, 2002 ). Governance is further fragmented across powerful ministerial silos—the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) promotes energy development, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) oversees conservation, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) manages planning—with no single entity empowered to create a coherent national strategy for energy landscapes (Arai and Oki, 2021 ). This structural condition, a legacy of its post-war developmental state model focused on urban-industrial growth, created a pre-existing "planning void" for large-scale rural development. This paper argues that the post-Fukushima energy transition in Japan exemplifies a distinct mode of state transformation, which is conceptualized here as "rescaling by abdication." This is a process where the central state, paralyzed by institutional fragmentation, fails to provide necessary strategic guidance and regulatory frameworks. This inaction is not a deliberate policy of decentralization but an abdication of responsibility. This failure creates a policy vacuum that unintentionally forces regulatory authority and conflict resolution downwards to prefectural and municipal governments. These local actors, lacking adequate resources and formal mandates for energy planning, are compelled to innovate and create their own governance frameworks in a reactive, ad-hoc manner. This process is fundamentally different from the planned devolution of power seen in federal systems or the strong localism of Scandinavian models. 2. Method and Data 2.1 Research Design Rationale This study employs a mixed-methods research design to investigate the complex interplay between spatial outcomes and governance processes in Japan's wind energy transition. This approach is essential for providing a holistic and robust analysis, as neither quantitative nor qualitative methods alone could capture the full scope of the research problem (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). The quantitative spatial analysis serves to identify the macro-level patterns of wind turbine siting—the what and where of development. The qualitative institutional and policy analysis then provides the explanatory depth, uncovering the underlying legal, political, and institutional drivers of these patterns—the why and how of the governance system (Lockwood et al., 2017 ). By integrating these two phases, the research design facilitates triangulation, thereby enhancing the validity and comprehensiveness of the findings and allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the causal links between policy fragmentation and land-use conflict (Lockwood et al., 2017 ; Sabel and Zeitlin, 2012 ). 2.2 Phase 1: Quantitative Spatial Analysis The first phase of the research involved the construction and analysis of a comprehensive national GIS database of onshore wind turbines. Database Construction A definitive, nationwide list of individual wind turbine locations does not exist in a single public source in Japan. Therefore, a new database was meticulously constructed for this study. The process began with the 2020 report from the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), which lists wind farm projects that have applied for national subsidies (NEDO, 2020). This list, organized by project application rather than physical location, required significant refinement. The precise latitude and longitude of each individual turbine were identified and verified using a combination of operator websites, official project documents, and high-resolution Google Satellite imagery. The final geodatabase comprises 1,799 onshore wind turbines with a rated capacity of 100 kW or greater. This threshold was selected because these larger installations are associated with more significant environmental and social impacts and are the primary subject of land-use planning and regulatory concern (Wüstenhagen et al., 2007 ). Spatial Overlay Analysis : The geodatabase of turbine locations was analyzed using ArcGIS software. Official digital national land information datasets from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) were acquired and processed (MLIT, 2020; MOE, 2020). The turbine point data were spatially overlaid with key regulatory and environmental polygon layers to determine the specific context of each installation. The primary layers included: (1) Land-Use Regulation Zones, such as City Planning Areas, Urbanization Promotion Areas (UPA), Urbanization Control Areas (UCA), and Non-zoned Areas; and (2) Environmental Protected Areas, including designated Natural Parks and Preserved Forests ( Hoanrin ). This systematic analysis enabled the quantification of turbine distribution relative to the stringency of planning controls and conservation designations, forming the empirical basis for the "planning void" argument. 2.3 Phase 2: Qualitative Institutional and Policy Analysis The second phase involved a qualitative analysis of the multi-level governance framework for wind energy in Japan. National Legal Framework Review A critical review of the national legal and regulatory framework was conducted. This involved an in-depth analysis of the full texts of key statutes that govern land development, including the City Planning Act, the Building Standard Act, the Agricultural Land Act, the Forest Act, the Natural Parks Act, and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law (Sorensen, 2002 ). The analysis was not merely descriptive but was focused on identifying the specific mandates, gaps, loopholes, and contradictions within and between these laws as they apply to wind energy projects. This process allowed for a systematic deconstruction of the "architecture of the void"—the institutional and legal mechanisms that fail to provide integrated land-use guidance for wind farm siting. Sub-national Guideline Survey To understand the response to this national void, a systematic survey was conducted to identify and collect all formal guidelines for wind power development enacted by Japan's 47 prefectures and over 1,700 municipalities by the end of 2020. This involved searching official government websites and policy databases. The full text of each identified guideline was then subjected to a content analysis. The guidelines were coded and categorized based on their primary governance mechanisms and objectives, leading to the development of a typology of local governance responses (e.g., performance-based standards, spatial zoning approaches, procedural mandates). 2.4 Data Synthesis and Triangulation The strength of this research lies in the synthesis of its quantitative and qualitative components. The findings from each phase were systematically triangulated to build a cohesive explanatory narrative. For instance, the quantitative finding that a high percentage of turbines are located in unregulated "Outside City Planning Areas" (Phase 1) is directly explained by the qualitative analysis of the City Planning Act's loopholes (Phase 2). Similarly, the emergence and content of the local guidelines documented in Phase 2 are understood as a direct political and administrative response to the governance vacuum and resulting land-use conflicts created by the national framework. This process of iterative comparison and integration is visualized in the methodology chart (Fig. 2 ). The specific data sources used in this study are detailed in Table 3 . Table 3 Data Sources Data Category Specific Source / Type Data Format & Period Key Variables / Elements Role in Analysis & Rationale WIND TURBINE LOCATIONS Primary Data: Compiled National Geodatabase Format: Vector point data (GIS) • Latitude/Longitude (WGS84) Dependent Variable. Created due to absence of unified public dataset. Serves as the foundational spatial data for quantifying national siting patterns and statistical analysis in Phase 1. Period: As of Dec 2020 • Turbine Capacity (kW) n = 1,799 turbines • Project Name/Operator • Status (Operational/Under Construction) • Commissioning Year (where available) LAND-USE PLANNING DATA MLIT (2020): National Land Numerical Information Format: Vector polygon data • City Planning Area Boundaries Independent Variable. Provides the formal zoning framework. Used in GIS overlay to determine the planning regulatory context of each turbine location and test the "planning void" hypothesis. Period: 2020 fiscal year • Urbanization Promotion Areas (UPA) Scale: National coverage • Urbanization Control Areas (UCA) • Outside City Planning Areas • Agricultural Promotion Areas ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DATA MOE (2020): Natural Environment GIS Format: Vector polygon data • Natural Parks (National, Quasi-National, Prefectural) Independent Variable. Represents conservation designations. Used to quantify turbine prevalence in protected areas and assess environmental conflict hotspots. Period: 2020 fiscal year • Wilderness Areas Scale: National coverage • Preserved Forests (Hoanrin) • Protected Coastlines PROJECT CATALOG DATA NEDO (2020): Wind Power Project Introduction Status Survey Format: PDF/Spreadsheet • Project Name and Location (municipality) Sampling Frame. Served as the master list for initial turbine identification. Required significant refinement and geolocation to create accurate spatial database. Period: 2020 survey • Total Capacity Coverage: Project-based list • Developer Information • Subsidy Application Status NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK Six Key Statutes (e-Gov Database) Format: Legal text (Japanese) • City Planning Act Explanatory Variable. Full-text analysis to identify jurisdictional gaps, regulatory contradictions, assessment thresholds, and permitting procedures that create the national-level "architecture of the void." Period: Laws in effect as of 2020 • Building Standards Act • Agricultural Land Act • Forest Act • Natural Parks Act • EIA Law SUB-NATIONAL GUIDELINES 47 Prefectural Governments + Municipalities Format: PDF documents, ordinances • Guideline Publication Date Intervening Variable. Documents local governance responses to national policy gaps. Content analysis enabled development of typology of local approaches and assessment of policy innovation diffusion. Period: Enacted by Dec 2020 • Spatial Zoning Maps/Rules Coverage: National survey • Performance Standards (noise, setback) • Procedural Requirements (consultation, EIA) • Regulatory Stringency (binding/advisory) VERIFICATION DATA Google Satellite/ESRI World Imagery Format: Raster imagery • Visual confirmation of turbine locations Validation Data. Used for ground-truthing and precise coordinate verification of each turbine location, ensuring spatial accuracy of the primary database. Period: 2018–2020 • Terrain context Resolution: High (< 1m) • Proximity to sensitive features (housing, forests) SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT DATA Environmental Impact Assessment Reports Format: PDF documents • Project Layout Maps Contextual Data. Provided additional location verification and insights into siting controversies and regulatory compliance processes for specific case examples. Period: 2000–2020 • Environmental Baseline Studies Availability: Publicly accessible • Mitigation Measures • Approval Documents 3. Results 3.1 Spatial Concentration in Unregulated Landscapes The nationwide spatial analysis reveals a clear and systematic pattern: onshore wind turbine development in Japan has predominantly occurred in areas with the weakest land-use regulatory oversight. The generous economic incentive of the FIT scheme, combined with a lack of national spatial guidance, has steered developers towards a path of least regulatory resistance, concentrating projects in landscapes that fall outside the nation's primary planning framework. As detailed in Table 5 , the vast majority of the 1,799 turbines analyzed are located beyond the reach of comprehensive planning controls. Over 70% of all turbines (1,282 units) are situated entirely "Outside City Planning Areas," vast swathes of rural, mountainous, and coastal land where development controls are minimal and sectoral laws provide the only, often weak, oversight (Sorensen, 2002 ). Within the designated City Planning Areas, development is further concentrated in the least restrictive zones. A striking 95% of all turbines (1,709 units) are located in the three most weakly regulated categories combined: Urbanization Control Areas (UCA), which are intended to curb sprawl but have limited control over non-urban structures; Non-zoned City Planning Areas, which lack specific use designations; and the aforementioned areas Outside the City Planning Area altogether. In stark contrast, a negligible number of turbines have been sited in Urbanization Promotion Areas, where planning is most stringent. This spatial distribution is not random; it is a direct reflection of a market-led development model exploiting a regulatory vacuum. Table 5 Distribution of Wind Turbines by Land-Use Regulation Zone in Japan Land-Use Regulation Zone Number of Turbines Percentage of Total (%) Within City Planning Area 517 28.7% - Urbanization Promotion Area (UPA) 12 0.7% - Urbanization Control Area (UCA) 427 23.7% - Non-zoned City Planning Area 78 4.3% Outside City Planning Area 1,282 71.3% Total 1,799 100.0% Source: Author's analysis of MLIT (2020) and NEDO (2020) data. This pattern of development in the planning void has led to direct conflicts with conservation objectives. The analysis found that 228 turbines (12.7% of the total) have been constructed within the boundaries of designated Natural Parks, areas legally recognized for their scenic beauty and ecological value. Furthermore, 172 turbines (9.6%) are located in Preserved Forests ( Hoanrin ), which are designated under the Forest Act for critical functions such as landslide prevention, water resource protection, and public health. The siting of industrial-scale energy infrastructure in these protected areas underscores the failure of the fragmented regulatory system to balance national energy goals with long-standing environmental protection mandates. 3.2 The Architecture of Fragmentation: Deconstructing the National Void The spatial patterns identified above are a direct consequence of the fragmented and loophole-ridden national legal framework. Japan lacks a single, integrated statute for guiding the siting of renewable energy. Instead, developers must navigate a patchwork of sectoral laws, none of which were designed to manage the landscape-scale transformation driven by the energy transition. This legal analysis reveals the institutional architecture that creates and perpetuates the planning void. The City Planning Act : This is the cornerstone of Japanese land-use planning, but its effectiveness is severely limited. Critically, the Act fails to explicitly classify wind farms as "development activities" or "special structures" that require Development Permission. This creates a monumental loophole, as Development Permission is the primary legal mechanism for controlling land alteration and ensuring that projects conform to a coherent plan. Consequently, most wind power projects are exempt from the most rigorous planning review process, allowing them to proceed in non-urban areas with minimal oversight (Sorensen, 2002 ). The Building Standard Act : In the absence of planning oversight, the Building Standard Act often becomes the default regulatory instrument. However, this law treats a 100-meter-tall wind turbine as just another "structure," akin to a chimney or a silo. Its review is confined to narrow technical questions of structural integrity and safety, completely ignoring the broader spatial, ecological, landscape, and community impacts that are the primary sources of land-use conflict (Devine-Wright, 2005 ). Sectoral Laws (Forest, Agriculture, Natural Parks Acts) : These laws provide a series of piecemeal, site-specific hurdles rather than a strategic framework for siting. A developer may need a permit to convert agricultural land under the Agricultural Land Act or to delist a portion of a Preserved Forest under the Forest Act. However, these reviews are conducted in isolation by different ministries, on a case-by-case basis. They offer no positive guidance on where wind farms should be located to minimize cumulative impacts and maximize benefits at a regional or landscape scale (Cowell, 2010 ). The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law : The EIA process in Japan is inherently reactive and project-specific. It assesses the potential impacts of a single, pre-proposed project rather than guiding development towards the most suitable locations from the outset. While a 2020 revision brought more wind projects under its purview, it did not address this fundamental limitation. The EIA law is a tool for mitigating the worst impacts of a given project, not a mechanism for strategic, ex-ante spatial planning that could prevent conflicts from arising in the first place (Ellis et al., 2009 ). This legal fragmentation is a surface manifestation of a deeper institutional problem: the rigid separation of ministerial mandates. METI champions the FIT and energy production, MOE is tasked with environmental protection, and MLIT oversees city planning. This siloed structure means there is no single government body with the authority and responsibility to forge an integrated national energy landscape strategy. This institutional design, optimized for a previous era of compartmentalized industrial policy, is the ultimate source of the planning void in the age of the energy transition (Arai and Oki, 2021 ). 3.3 Rescaling in Practice: Local Governments as Involuntary Planners In the vacuum left by the national government, a significant rescaling of governance has occurred. Prefectural and municipal governments, facing direct pressure from both developers and concerned citizens, have been forced to step into the role of de facto energy planners. Our survey identified that by the end of 2020, 5 prefectures and 11 municipalities had enacted their own formal guidelines for wind power development, representing a remarkable instance of bottom-up policy innovation in Japan's traditionally top-down governance culture (Sorensen, 2002 ). These local guidelines vary in their approach and stringency, creating a complex and inconsistent regulatory patchwork across the country. A content analysis of these guidelines reveals four primary archetypes of local governance, as summarized in Table 6 . Table 6 Typology of Local Wind Power Guidelines in Japan Guideline Type Key Characteristics Examples 1. Performance-Based Sets stricter local standards for technical impacts, such as minimum setback distances from residences, noise level limits (), and restrictions on shadow flicker. Focuses on mitigating project-level nuisances. Shizuoka Prefecture 2. Spatial Zoning Proactively identifies preferred development zones and/or exclusion zones based on analyses of landscape character, environmental sensitivity, and residential proximity. A more strategic, planning-led approach. Yusa Town, Akita Prefecture 3. Procedural Mandates enhanced processes for public participation, information disclosure, and negotiation between developers and local communities. Aims to improve procedural justice and build social license. Various Municipalities 4. Hybrid Combines elements from the other three types, for example, by establishing exclusion zones while also setting stricter performance standards for projects in permissible areas. Hokkaido Prefecture Source: Author's analysis of prefectural and municipal guidelines (2020). The implementation of these guidelines has had mixed results, highlighting both the potential and the limitations of this localized response. The case of Yusa Town in Akita Prefecture demonstrates the potential of a proactive, spatial zoning approach. Faced with a proposal that would have required clearing a significant area of a cherished black pine forest, the municipal government used its guideline to negotiate with the developer, ultimately agreeing on an alternative layout that preserved the forest. This represents a clear success in local planning mitigating a key environmental impact. In contrast, the experience of Higashi-Izu Town in Shizuoka Prefecture illustrates the shortcomings of relying solely on technical standards. Despite the project complying with the prefecture's performance-based guideline on noise limits, it generated persistent health complaints from nearby residents and resulted in litigation. This case underscores a critical lesson: technical, performance-based standards alone are often insufficient to address the complex socio-acoustic and psychological dimensions of wind turbine annoyance, and they cannot substitute for robust procedural justice and community engagement (Jenkins et al., 2016 ; Kirch et al., 2022 ). 4. Discussion 4.1 Theorizing Japan’s Trajectory: "Rescaling by Abdication" The empirical findings reveal a distinct pattern of state transformation that requires a new conceptual framing. The process observed in Japan is not one of deliberate, planned decentralization, where the central state strategically empowers sub-national actors with clear mandates and resources. Instead, it is a more chaotic and reactive process, which this paper terms "rescaling by abdication." This concept is defined as a mode of governance rescaling where central state inaction, born from deep-seated institutional fragmentation and a lack of political will to forge cross-sectoral policy, creates a regulatory and strategic vacuum. This vacuum does not remain empty; it exerts a downward pressure, compelling lower tiers of government—prefectures and municipalities—to assume new planning and regulatory powers for which they are often unprepared and under-resourced. This "rescaling by abdication" has several defining characteristics. First, it is unintentional; it is a consequence of systemic failure rather than strategic design. Second, it is uneven; local governments respond with varying degrees of capacity and political will, leading to a fragmented patchwork of regulations rather than a coherent system. Third, it is conflict-driven; local policy innovation is often a direct reaction to intense land-use conflicts that the national framework is incapable of resolving. This concept offers a critical contribution to theories of state rescaling and multi-level governance by identifying a specific pathway of state transformation driven by the pressures of the climate and energy transition. It moves the analytical debate beyond a simple centralized-decentralized binary to account for more complex and pathological forms of governance change, providing a valuable lens for analyzing other nations where strong economic incentives for renewables are coupled with weak or fragmented spatial planning institutions. 4.2 Comparative Insights: Placing Japan in Global Context The novelty and significance of Japan’s "rescaling by abdication" model are best understood through systematic comparison with other major industrialized nations. Each country has forged a distinct governance pathway for wind energy, shaped by its unique political traditions, planning systems, and societal priorities. This comparative analysis highlights the critical role of state strategy—or the lack thereof—in shaping the outcomes of the energy transition. Germany's Integrated Federalism : The German Energiewende represents a model of "integrated federalism." Strong national targets and FIT policies are coupled with a powerful and constitutionally embedded system of regional spatial planning ( Raumordnung ). The federal states ( Länder ) are mandated to produce regional plans that proactively designate "priority zones" ( Vorranggebiete ) for wind energy, providing clear guidance and investment security for developers while attempting to balance development with other land uses (Ahl et al., 2021 ; Ohl and Eichhorn, 2010 ). This contrasts sharply with Japan's national-level void. Denmark's Deliberative Localism : Denmark’s approach can be characterized as "deliberative localism." It combines national targets with a long-standing tradition of empowering municipal governments as the primary planning authorities. Crucially, Danish policy has historically institutionalized mechanisms for community participation and benefit-sharing, including mandates for offering ownership shares to local residents (Moller, 2010 ; Wolsink, 2020 ). This model prioritizes building social license from the bottom up, a stark contrast to the top-down imposition and subsequent local resistance often seen in Japan. The UK's Volatile Centralism : The United Kingdom, particularly England, exemplifies "volatile centralism." National planning policy has oscillated dramatically, from supportive to hostile and back again. The imposition of a "de facto ban" on new onshore wind projects in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) from 2015 to 2024 effectively paralyzed development, demonstrating the profound power of the central state to override local planning discretion (Toke, 2021 ). The subsequent reversal of this policy in 2024 highlights a system where the rules for local planning are subject to the shifting political winds of the national government, creating deep regulatory uncertainty (Toke, 2021 ). South Korea's Centralized Developmentalism : South Korea’s energy transition follows a model of "centralized developmentalism," echoing its broader history of state-led industrial policy. The transition is driven by top-down national master plans (e.g., the 11th Basic Plan for Electricity) and powerful policy instruments like the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) (Kim and Park, 2022 ). While this approach is effective in setting ambitious national capacity targets, its highly centralized nature often struggles to accommodate local concerns, leading to significant land-use conflicts and challenges with public acceptance due to a lack of meaningful local participation in the planning process (Kim and Park, 2022 ). This comparative analysis, synthesized in Table 4 , demonstrates that there is no single model for governing energy landscapes. Japan’s "rescaling by abdication" stands out as a unique and cautionary case, distinct from the integrated planning of Germany, the localism of Denmark, the volatile centralism of the UK, and the top-down developmentalism of South Korea. Table 9 A Comparative Framework of Wind Energy Governance Models Dimension Japan Germany Denmark United Kingdom South Korea Governance Model Rescaling by Abdication Integrated Federalism Deliberative Localism Volatile Centralism Centralized Developmentalism Primary Scale of Planning De facto Municipal/Prefectural Regional ( Länder ) Municipal National (NPPF) National (Master Plans) Key Policy Instrument Feed-in Tariff (FIT) FIT + Spatial Zoning FIT + Community Ownership Contracts for Difference (CfD) Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Role of Spatial Planning Reactive, ad-hoc Proactive, integrated Proactive, locally-led Restrictive, then permissive Subordinate to national targets Primary Conflict Type Regulatory uncertainty & spatial injustice Landscape value & inter-regional equity Local aesthetic & benefit sharing National vs. Local control ("Localism") Top-down imposition vs. local resistance 4.3 The Justice Implications of the Planning Void The governance model of "rescaling by abdication" has profound and troubling implications for energy justice. The failure of the national state to plan proactively has created a system where the burdens of the energy transition are distributed inequitably, and decision-making processes lack fairness and inclusivity. Distributional Injustice : The spatial analysis demonstrates a clear pattern of distributional injustice. The market-driven logic, unconstrained by strategic planning, funnels wind energy projects into rural, mountainous, and coastal areas. These are often regions characterized by aging and declining populations, weaker economies, and limited political influence compared to major urban centers (Sorensen, 2002 ). Consequently, these communities bear the disproportionate landscape, ecological, and social costs of hosting national energy infrastructure, often without receiving commensurate local benefits in the form of jobs, tax revenues, or cheaper electricity. This raises critical questions about the fairness of a transition that places the burdens on the politically and economically marginalized (Jenkins et al., 2016 ; Heffron and McCauley, 2018 ). Procedural Injustice : The absence of a clear, transparent, and predictable national framework for siting creates a state of procedural injustice. In the planning void, communities are often confronted with development proposals on an ad-hoc basis, with little prior engagement or access to independent information. They are left to negotiate directly with well-resourced developers from a position of significant disadvantage. While the emergence of local guidelines is an attempt by municipalities to assert some procedural control, their inconsistency creates a landscape of procedural inequality. A citizen’s ability to participate meaningfully in the planning process depends entirely on whether their local government has had the capacity and political will to enact a robust guideline. This patchwork system fails to guarantee fair process for all citizens (Hooghe and Marks, 2003 ). The conflicts arising from this system, such as the health complaints in Higashi-Izu, are symptomatic of a deeper failure to embed procedural fairness into the governance of the energy transition (Pasqualetti, 2011 ). 5. Conclusion This study has provided a comprehensive, national-scale analysis of the land-use governance of wind energy in Japan, revealing a system in crisis. In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, Japan’s accelerated push for renewable energy, driven by a powerful Feed-in Tariff, collided with a fragmented and ill-equipped spatial planning system. The result has been the creation of a national "planning void," a regulatory vacuum for non-urban land use that has shaped the geography of the nation's energy transition. Our mixed-methods analysis demonstrated that this void has led to a systematic concentration of wind turbines in the country’s most weakly regulated rural landscapes, often in conflict with environmental conservation goals. The core of this problem lies in the institutional architecture of the Japanese state, where rigid ministerial silos prevent the integration of energy, environmental, and land-use policy. This paper has argued that this national-level failure has triggered a unique mode of state transformation: "rescaling by abdication." In this process, planning authority and the burden of conflict mediation have been unintentionally and unevenly displaced downwards to local governments. The resulting emergence of local planning guidelines represents a significant form of democratic experimentalism and bottom-up innovation. However, these ad-hoc responses are not a sustainable, efficient, or equitable substitute for a coherent national strategy. They have created a fragmented and unpredictable regulatory environment that generates spatial injustice, creates uncertainty for investors, and ultimately threatens the timely achievement of Japan’s national climate targets. This article makes two primary theoretical contributions to international scholarship on urban studies, land-use policy, and energy governance. First, it advances the theory of state rescaling and multi-level governance by introducing and empirically grounding the concept of "rescaling by abdication." This concept provides a new analytical category for understanding state transformations in the context of rapid, disruptive change like the energy transition. It moves the debate beyond a simplistic centralized/decentralized dichotomy and highlights a pathological pathway where central state failure, rather than strategic intent, drives the reorganization of governance. The comparative analysis further enriches this contribution by situating "rescaling by abdication" within a broader typology of state governance models for wind energy, offering a framework for future international comparative research. Second, the paper contributes to planning theory and practice by providing a stark, national-scale empirical demonstration of the consequences of neglecting strategic spatial planning. It shows how the absence of an integrated, landscape-scale planning framework can systematically undermine the objectives of a major national policy (the FIT scheme), leading to perverse outcomes such as environmental conflict, social injustice, and regulatory chaos. The Japanese case serves as a powerful cautionary tale, illustrating that spatial planning is not a secondary, technical concern but a fundamental and indispensable component of a just and effective sustainability transition. The lessons from Japan’s planning void are of critical importance for planners and policymakers globally. As nations accelerate their energy transitions, they will all face the challenge of siting new infrastructure on a massive scale. Japan’s experience offers clear, actionable recommendations to avoid repeating these mistakes. Integrate, Don't Separate: Forge a National Spatial Energy Strategy. The most critical lesson is that energy policy and land-use planning must be developed in tandem, not in separate ministerial silos. National governments must take primary responsibility for creating a strategic spatial framework that guides renewable energy development. This requires proactive, ex-ante planning, likely through a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), to identify broad zones of opportunity and constraint at a landscape scale, integrating technical, environmental, and social criteria (Jenkins et al., 2016 ). Empower, Don't Abdicate: Build Sub-national Planning Capacity. Effective multi-level governance is not achieved by abandoning responsibility to local actors. Central governments must actively empower regional and local authorities with clear legal mandates, financial resources, and technical support to translate national strategies into locally-attuned plans. This involves investing in the capacity of sub-national bodies to conduct landscape character assessments, facilitate meaningful public engagement, and manage complex planning processes (Wüstenhagen et al., 2007 ; Devine-Wright, 2005 ). Social acceptance cannot be treated as an afterthought; it must be built into the core of the planning process. To ensure a just transition, land-use approvals for energy projects should be legally linked to mandatory and transparent community benefit-sharing mechanisms. These can include local ownership models, dedicated community funds, contributions to local infrastructure, or reduced electricity tariffs for host communities (Pasqualetti, 2011 ; Moller, 2010 ; Jenkins et al., 2016 ). Institutionalizing these benefits helps to rectify distributional injustices and build the durable social license needed for a rapid and sustained transition. This study provides a comprehensive snapshot of the situation in Japan up to 2020. A primary limitation is that it does not capture the evolution of local guidelines or national policy debates in the subsequent years. Furthermore, its focus is on onshore wind, while offshore wind has emerged as a major new frontier in Japanese energy policy, with its own distinct set of spatial governance challenges. These limitations point towards a rich agenda for future research. First, longitudinal studies are needed to track the evolution, diffusion, and effectiveness of Japan's local guidelines post-2020. Are they converging on a set of best practices, or is the landscape becoming more fragmented? Second, the comparative typology of state rescaling developed in this paper should be applied to other national contexts, particularly in Asia and the Global South, to test its broader applicability and refinement. Third, future research should urgently address the emerging governance frameworks for offshore wind in Japan and other countries, a critical and under-researched area of spatial planning. Finally, in-depth qualitative case studies are needed to explore the micro-politics of how local guidelines are formulated, contested, and implemented, providing a deeper understanding of the dynamics of local governance innovation in the face of national policy failure. Declarations Funding Declaration No funding was received for conducting this study. Author Contribution T.O. (Taher Osman) is the sole author of this study and was responsible for conceptualization, methodology, data collection, GIS analysis, institutional analysis, writing, and preparation of all figures and tables. Data Availability The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Ahl, A., Wirth, T. and Scheller, F. (2021). The 'Energiewende' as a socio-technical project: a critical review of the German energy transition. Journal of Cleaner Production , 289, 125633. Arai, H. and Oki, Y. (2021). Beyond the feed-in tariff: A critical analysis of the Japanese wind power policy platform. Energy Policy , 148(Part B), 111939. Baba, K. and Tagashira, N. (2009). How to design the social decision-making process for introduction of renewable energy technologies. Journal of Social Technology , 6, 77-92. Baxter, J., Morzaria, R. and Hirsch, R. (2013). A case-control study of support/opposition to wind turbines: Perceptions of health risk, economic benefits, and community conflict. Energy Policy , 61, 931–943. Cowell, R. (2010). Wind power, landscape and strategic spatial planning—The construction of ‘acceptable locations’ in Wales. Land Use Policy , 27(2), 222–232. Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . Sage publications. Devine-Wright, P. (2005). Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy , 8(2), 125–139. Ellis, G., Cowell, R., Warren, C., Strachan, P. and Szarka, J. (2009). Expanding wind power: A problem of planning, or of perception? Planning Theory & Practice , 10(4), 523–532. Heffron, R.J. and McCauley, D. (2018). What is the ‘just transition’?. Geoforum , 88, 74-77. Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review , 97(2), 233–243. Jenkins, K., McCauley, D. and Heffron, R. (2016). Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science , 11, 174–182. Kim, J. and Park, S. (2022). The challenges of renewable energy policy in South Korea: A case study of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 155, 111927. Kirch, J.K., Cronin, T., Nyborg, S. and Frantzen, D.N. (2022). How far do noise concerns travel? Exploring how familiarity and justice shape noise expectations and social acceptance of planned wind energy projects. Energy Research & Social Science , 87, 102300. Lockwood, M., Kuzemko, C., Mitchell, C. and Hoggett, R. (2017). Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: A research agenda. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space , 35(2), 312–333. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT). (2020). Digital National Land Information . MLIT. Ministry of the Environment (MOE). (2020). National Survey on the Natural Environment . MOE. Moller, B. (2010). Spatial analyses of emerging and fading wind energy landscapes in Denmark. Land Use Policy , 27(2), 233–241. Nadai, A. and van der Horst, D. (2010). Introduction: Landscapes of energies. Landscape Research , 35(2), 143–155. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO). (2020). Report on the Wind Power Plants in Japan . NEDO. Ohl, C. and Eichhorn, M. (2010). The mismatch between regional spatial planning for wind power development in Germany and national eligibility criteria for feed-in tariffs—A case study in the State of Brandenburg. Energy Policy , 38(7), 3651–3661. Pasqualetti, M. J. (2011). Social barriers to renewable energy landscapes. Geographical Review , 101(2), 201–223. Rand, J. and Hoen, B. (2017). Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned? Energy Research & Social Science , 29, 135–148. Sabel, C. F. and Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance . Oxford University Press. Sorensen, A. (2002). The making of urban Japan: Cities and planning from Edo to the twenty-first century . Routledge. Toke, D. (2021). The UK's onshore wind energy saga: A story of political turbulence and planning policy. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning , 23(5), 621-634. van der Horst, D. (2007). NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy , 35(5), 2705-2714. Vivoda, V. (2014). Japan’s energy security predicament post-Fukushima. Energy Policy , 74, 152–160. Wolsink, M. (2020). Social acceptance of renewables: A tale of two policies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 128, 109900. Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M. and Bürer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy , 35(5), 2683–2691. Tables Tables 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Tables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7773214","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":534246618,"identity":"4d54feb9-5297-4423-8d74-719f61600b66","order_by":0,"name":"Taher Osman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Cairo University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Taher","middleName":"","lastName":"Osman","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-03 11:53:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7773214/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7773214/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":94450910,"identity":"812a031a-2719-4381-bea1-52e6c34b6ef7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:39:40","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":2055741,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscript.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/a4ff7d7c045cc64542c4cc53.docx"},{"id":94452005,"identity":"378240f0-4c5e-4615-88b3-2efbcec5e094","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:36","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3879,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"78fbf42aa1904a17a8ec5924457a3ba7.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/5ef8a33476fc8bc1128c2efa.json"},{"id":94452182,"identity":"c36ccf9d-1719-487f-bff5-0156ad334449","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:53","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":103342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"78fbf42aa1904a17a8ec5924457a3ba71enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/3331772ec1c28d693b1d5f0b.xml"},{"id":94452046,"identity":"9131779c-a375-4fe3-adcb-de0efa0416d7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:40","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":222387,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/b294128319fde6d47c34d58f.jpeg"},{"id":94451663,"identity":"d8426b6e-e561-472c-a1e8-0ace79ec1b68","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:16","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":121286,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/9c33afd5d6c7ab8d14b72579.jpeg"},{"id":94451955,"identity":"1fbfce43-699e-456b-9778-2295559c7d10","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:34","extension":"jpeg","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":232653,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/6c3ba0b0df6f60c17147a41d.jpeg"},{"id":94450581,"identity":"f9641bac-92e4-473f-a959-9e0f947667f0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:39:22","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":246070,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/abb05572871fb3b9f86fdf2b.png"},{"id":94452074,"identity":"dbad6c19-6ce0-4aff-bdc2-2e464e39ba8d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:42","extension":"jpeg","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":292390,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/53f7536f1df8933bb7b31eee.jpeg"},{"id":94451349,"identity":"5d825aa0-9303-470c-99b2-ddbd7013efeb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:04","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":93360,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/b5e03211f702d17334724400.png"},{"id":94451634,"identity":"940ceb90-136a-4064-a7e2-a2befe22064b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:15","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":170727,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/021a4f0fc6795d1b8d1db072.png"},{"id":94451915,"identity":"23be2001-8d5e-4817-b8c0-1e202ed9d281","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:28","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":149960,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/3a327ae3dd843cbf425c1e1d.png"},{"id":94452047,"identity":"698470e9-f239-4d9e-9225-c74a2695fb03","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:40","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":70737,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/8d21d23b6644d7dccd836834.png"},{"id":94451346,"identity":"dec0f05f-db04-48d4-835c-ed3207205deb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:04","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":132899,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/6b568a494174edd0fa9243ba.png"},{"id":94451964,"identity":"f7575473-8fef-4bc0-a7a2-62ee1489c072","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:34","extension":"png","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":79726,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/793e5cf3f94fd054279f4ee6.png"},{"id":94451728,"identity":"5e9c6f41-8cd9-4aa8-b3ae-0ceba5ac0cd1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:20","extension":"png","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":173441,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/e51b893e0304b0f71bb135dc.png"},{"id":94451744,"identity":"378edfe3-9d1d-482c-b42b-d8bf3f7ef59d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:20","extension":"xml","order_by":17,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":101549,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"78fbf42aa1904a17a8ec5924457a3ba71structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/ed13643aed33c36a6cd8ec42.xml"},{"id":94451946,"identity":"03537009-4db7-4b63-b220-5b49a61cf8a4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:32","extension":"html","order_by":18,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":109544,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/0b41549bad0d679bcaacd076.html"},{"id":94452028,"identity":"de3a34bc-44d5-4533-b4ca-77d2d672883c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:38","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":338778,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLocation type of windmills in the study area (Japan)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/fb3d9059dda02cfef05510fb.jpeg"},{"id":94451069,"identity":"faa54db9-b4c6-4323-934d-c40b666f7ac2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:39:47","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":358284,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ethe Research Methodology\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/27d053ac2438910641df47c5.jpeg"},{"id":100767163,"identity":"36ea9d25-1c81-4243-abae-0c7077acf3fc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 09:10:22","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1853640,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/72cb52d1-5960-4bee-b043-a91d21b5b948.pdf"},{"id":94451858,"identity":"d9c515a3-dd96-4a26-a239-21f72a1ab39b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 14:40:27","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1419386,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7773214/v1/66538bc0d65b673c04673e74.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Spatialization of a Planning Void: Wind Energy Siting, Fragmented Governance, and Land-Use Conflict in Japan","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe global transition towards a low-carbon energy system is not merely a technological or economic shift; it is a profound and often contentious transformation of land use and landscape (Pasqualetti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Nadai and van der Horst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). As nations pursue ambitious climate targets, the rapid deployment of renewable energy infrastructure, particularly onshore wind power, has emerged as a quintessential land-use planning problem (Cowell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Wind turbines, with their significant physical and visual presence, fundamentally alter the character of the places they inhabit, creating new \u0026lsquo;energy landscapes\u0026rsquo; (Nadai and van der Horst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This transformation is rarely frictionless. While public support for renewable energy is generally high at a national level, specific projects frequently encounter strong local opposition, a phenomenon often termed the \"social gap\" (W\u0026uuml;stenhagen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). This opposition is not simply a case of \u0026lsquo;Not In My Backyard\u0026rsquo; (NIMBYism) but is rooted in legitimate concerns over impacts on landscape aesthetics, biodiversity, noise, property values, and the overall quality of life (Devine-Wright, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Baxter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe central challenge for contemporary governance is to mediate this inherent tension: to reconcile national and global imperatives for decarbonization with the protection of local environmental integrity and the promotion of social acceptance (Cowell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This places land-use policy and spatial planning at the very heart of the energy transition. Effective planning systems are those that can proactively govern this conflict, moving beyond a reactive, permit-based approach to one that strategically integrates energy objectives into broader landscape management and community development goals (Ellis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). The success or failure of national climate ambitions, therefore, hinges not only on technological innovation and economic incentives but on the institutional capacity of the state to manage the spatial politics of this transformation wisely and justly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo understand the complex dynamics of siting renewable energy, scholars have increasingly turned to three interconnected theoretical frameworks: multi-level governance, state rescaling, and energy justice. The concept of multi-level governance (MLG) provides a foundational lens, describing the vertical and horizontal dispersion of authority across different tiers of government (supranational, national, regional, local) and policy sectors (energy, environment, planning) (Hooghe and Marks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Lockwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). An effective energy transition demands intricate coordination across these levels and sectors. National governments typically set overarching targets and provide financial incentives; regional authorities are often responsible for strategic spatial planning; and local governments manage site-specific implementation, permitting, and community engagement (Ahl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Sabel and Zeitlin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). When this coordination fails, a state of institutional fragmentation emerges, where policies are misaligned, mandates overlap or conflict, and a \"planning void\" can open up, leaving no single authority with the clear power and responsibility to guide land-use change (Lockwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe energy transition is also a powerful driver of state rescaling, a process involving the dynamic re-organization of powers and responsibilities between different scales of government (Hooghe and Marks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). This is not a uniform process; it can manifest as deliberate decentralization, where central governments formally devolve power to sub-national actors, or as a more chaotic and contested process where authority is renegotiated through political struggle (Hooghe and Marks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). The way in which the state is rescaled in response to the challenge of renewable energy deployment has profound implications for the efficiency, equity, and democratic legitimacy of the transition. Yet, the specific modes of this rescaling, particularly in non-European contexts, remain under-theorized.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, the framework of energy justice brings critical normative questions to the forefront of land-use debates (Jenkins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Heffron and McCauley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). It compels an analysis beyond technical and economic efficiency to ask fundamental questions of fairness. Distributional justice concerns the equitable allocation of the benefits (e.g., clean energy, economic development) and burdens (e.g., landscape impacts, noise) of energy projects (Jenkins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Procedural justice focuses on the fairness and inclusivity of decision-making processes, ensuring that all affected communities, particularly marginalized ones, have a meaningful voice (Heffron and McCauley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Recognition justice involves acknowledging and respecting the diverse values, cultures, and place-based attachments of different social groups in energy planning (Heffron and McCauley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The siting of wind farms, often in rural and less politically powerful communities, makes energy justice an indispensable lens for evaluating the social and ethical dimensions of land-use outcomes (van der Horst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMuch of the influential literature on the spatial governance of wind energy is derived from Northern European experiences, particularly those of Germany and Denmark (Ohl and Eichhorn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Moller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). These cases, while valuable, have created a dominant paradigm centered on states with strong traditions of proactive, integrated spatial planning. Germany\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eEnergiewende\u003c/em\u003e is underpinned by a robust system of regional planning (\u003cem\u003eRaumordnung\u003c/em\u003e) that designates preferential zones for wind development \u003cem\u003eex-ante\u003c/em\u003e (Ahl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, Denmark has a long history of municipal-led planning and has institutionalized models of community ownership to foster local acceptance (Moller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Wolsink, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This scholarship implicitly assumes a governance context where spatial planning is an empowered and central tool for managing the energy transition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis European-centric focus creates a significant theoretical and empirical blind spot. It offers limited guidance for understanding how energy transitions unfold in industrialized nations that lack such a tradition of integrated, non-urban spatial planning. In many countries, land-use regulation is historically weak outside of designated urban areas, and governance is characterized by the fragmentation of authority among powerful, siloed government ministries (Sorensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). In these contexts, the introduction of powerful economic incentives for renewable energy, without a corresponding strengthening of planning frameworks, can produce dramatically different and often problematic outcomes. This paper addresses this critical research gap by examining one such case: Japan.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJapan presents a crucial and globally relevant case study for understanding the pathologies of a fragmented governance system under the intense pressure of an accelerated energy transition. The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was a critical juncture that fundamentally reshaped the nation's energy policy. In its wake, the Japanese government introduced a generous Feed-in Tariff (FIT) scheme in 2012 to rapidly scale up renewable energy deployment and reduce its reliance on nuclear power (Vivoda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This policy succeeded in triggering a boom in wind power investment. However, it also acted as a massive stress test that exposed the latent weaknesses of Japan\u0026rsquo;s spatial planning regime.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Japanese planning system is a paradox. While often perceived as a strong, centralized state, its power is concentrated in economic and industrial policy, with a corresponding weakness in integrated land-use management, particularly in rural and mountainous areas that fall outside the jurisdiction of the City Planning Act (Sorensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Governance is further fragmented across powerful ministerial silos\u0026mdash;the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) promotes energy development, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) oversees conservation, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) manages planning\u0026mdash;with no single entity empowered to create a coherent national strategy for energy landscapes (Arai and Oki, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This structural condition, a legacy of its post-war developmental state model focused on urban-industrial growth, created a pre-existing \"planning void\" for large-scale rural development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis paper argues that the post-Fukushima energy transition in Japan exemplifies a distinct mode of state transformation, which is conceptualized here as \"rescaling by abdication.\" This is a process where the central state, paralyzed by institutional fragmentation, fails to provide necessary strategic guidance and regulatory frameworks. This inaction is not a deliberate policy of decentralization but an abdication of responsibility. This failure creates a policy vacuum that unintentionally forces regulatory authority and conflict resolution downwards to prefectural and municipal governments. These local actors, lacking adequate resources and formal mandates for energy planning, are compelled to innovate and create their own governance frameworks in a reactive, ad-hoc manner. This process is fundamentally different from the planned devolution of power seen in federal systems or the strong localism of Scandinavian models.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Method and Data","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Research Design Rationale\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a mixed-methods research design to investigate the complex interplay between spatial outcomes and governance processes in Japan's wind energy transition. This approach is essential for providing a holistic and robust analysis, as neither quantitative nor qualitative methods alone could capture the full scope of the research problem (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). The quantitative spatial analysis serves to identify the macro-level patterns of wind turbine siting\u0026mdash;the \u003cem\u003ewhat\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ewhere\u003c/em\u003e of development. The qualitative institutional and policy analysis then provides the explanatory depth, uncovering the underlying legal, political, and institutional drivers of these patterns\u0026mdash;the \u003cem\u003ewhy\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ehow\u003c/em\u003e of the governance system (Lockwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). By integrating these two phases, the research design facilitates triangulation, thereby enhancing the validity and comprehensiveness of the findings and allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the causal links between policy fragmentation and land-use conflict (Lockwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Sabel and Zeitlin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Phase 1: Quantitative Spatial Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first phase of the research involved the construction and analysis of a comprehensive national GIS database of onshore wind turbines.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDatabase Construction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eA definitive, nationwide list of individual wind turbine locations does not exist in a single public source in Japan. Therefore, a new database was meticulously constructed for this study. The process began with the 2020 report from the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), which lists wind farm projects that have applied for national subsidies (NEDO, 2020). This list, organized by project application rather than physical location, required significant refinement. The precise latitude and longitude of each individual turbine were identified and verified using a combination of operator websites, official project documents, and high-resolution Google Satellite imagery. The final geodatabase comprises 1,799 onshore wind turbines with a rated capacity of 100 kW or greater. This threshold was selected because these larger installations are associated with more significant environmental and social impacts and are the primary subject of land-use planning and regulatory concern (W\u0026uuml;stenhagen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSpatial Overlay Analysis\u003c/b\u003e: The geodatabase of turbine locations was analyzed using ArcGIS software. Official digital national land information datasets from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) were acquired and processed (MLIT, 2020; MOE, 2020). The turbine point data were spatially overlaid with key regulatory and environmental polygon layers to determine the specific context of each installation. The primary layers included: (1) Land-Use Regulation Zones, such as City Planning Areas, Urbanization Promotion Areas (UPA), Urbanization Control Areas (UCA), and Non-zoned Areas; and (2) Environmental Protected Areas, including designated Natural Parks and Preserved Forests (\u003cem\u003eHoanrin\u003c/em\u003e). This systematic analysis enabled the quantification of turbine distribution relative to the stringency of planning controls and conservation designations, forming the empirical basis for the \"planning void\" argument.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3 Phase 2: Qualitative Institutional and Policy Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second phase involved a qualitative analysis of the multi-level governance framework for wind energy in Japan.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNational Legal Framework Review\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eA critical review of the national legal and regulatory framework was conducted. This involved an in-depth analysis of the full texts of key statutes that govern land development, including the City Planning Act, the Building Standard Act, the Agricultural Land Act, the Forest Act, the Natural Parks Act, and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law (Sorensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). The analysis was not merely descriptive but was focused on identifying the specific mandates, gaps, loopholes, and contradictions within and between these laws as they apply to wind energy projects. This process allowed for a systematic deconstruction of the \"architecture of the void\"\u0026mdash;the institutional and legal mechanisms that fail to provide integrated land-use guidance for wind farm siting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSub-national Guideline Survey\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo understand the response to this national void, a systematic survey was conducted to identify and collect all formal guidelines for wind power development enacted by Japan's 47 prefectures and over 1,700 municipalities by the end of 2020. This involved searching official government websites and policy databases. The full text of each identified guideline was then subjected to a content analysis. The guidelines were coded and categorized based on their primary governance mechanisms and objectives, leading to the development of a typology of local governance responses (e.g., performance-based standards, spatial zoning approaches, procedural mandates).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.4 Data Synthesis and Triangulation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe strength of this research lies in the synthesis of its quantitative and qualitative components. The findings from each phase were systematically triangulated to build a cohesive explanatory narrative. For instance, the quantitative finding that a high percentage of turbines are located in unregulated \"Outside City Planning Areas\" (Phase 1) is directly explained by the qualitative analysis of the City Planning Act's loopholes (Phase 2). Similarly, the emergence and content of the local guidelines documented in Phase 2 are understood as a direct political and administrative response to the governance vacuum and resulting land-use conflicts created by the national framework. This process of iterative comparison and integration is visualized in the methodology chart (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The specific data sources used in this study are detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eData Sources\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eData Category\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecific Source / Type\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eData Format \u0026amp; Period\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey Variables / Elements\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRole in Analysis \u0026amp; Rationale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWIND TURBINE LOCATIONS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary Data: Compiled National Geodatabase\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFormat:\u0026nbsp;Vector point data (GIS)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Latitude/Longitude (WGS84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDependent Variable.\u0026nbsp;Created due to absence of unified public dataset. Serves as the foundational spatial data for quantifying national siting patterns and statistical analysis in Phase 1.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeriod:\u0026nbsp;As of Dec 2020\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Turbine Capacity (kW)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003en =\u0026nbsp;1,799 turbines\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Project Name/Operator\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Status (Operational/Under Construction)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Commissioning Year (where available)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLAND-USE PLANNING DATA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMLIT (2020): National Land Numerical Information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFormat:\u0026nbsp;Vector polygon data\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; City Planning Area Boundaries\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndependent Variable.\u0026nbsp;Provides the formal zoning framework. Used in GIS overlay to determine the planning regulatory context of each turbine location and test the \"planning void\" hypothesis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeriod:\u0026nbsp;2020 fiscal year\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Urbanization Promotion Areas (UPA)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScale:\u0026nbsp;National coverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Urbanization Control Areas (UCA)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Outside City Planning Areas\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Agricultural Promotion Areas\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DATA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMOE (2020): Natural Environment GIS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFormat:\u0026nbsp;Vector polygon data\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Natural Parks (National, Quasi-National, Prefectural)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndependent Variable.\u0026nbsp;Represents conservation designations. Used to quantify turbine prevalence in protected areas and assess environmental conflict hotspots.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeriod:\u0026nbsp;2020 fiscal year\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Wilderness Areas\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScale:\u0026nbsp;National coverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Preserved Forests (Hoanrin)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Protected Coastlines\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePROJECT CATALOG DATA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNEDO (2020): Wind Power Project Introduction Status Survey\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFormat:\u0026nbsp;PDF/Spreadsheet\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Project Name and Location (municipality)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSampling Frame.\u0026nbsp;Served as the master list for initial turbine identification. Required significant refinement and geolocation to create accurate spatial database.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeriod:\u0026nbsp;2020 survey\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Total Capacity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCoverage:\u0026nbsp;Project-based list\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Developer Information\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Subsidy Application Status\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSix Key Statutes (e-Gov Database)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFormat:\u0026nbsp;Legal text (Japanese)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; City Planning Act\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExplanatory Variable.\u0026nbsp;Full-text analysis to identify jurisdictional gaps, regulatory contradictions, assessment thresholds, and permitting procedures that create the national-level \"architecture of the void.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeriod:\u0026nbsp;Laws in effect as of 2020\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Building Standards Act\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Agricultural Land Act\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Forest Act\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Natural Parks Act\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; EIA Law\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSUB-NATIONAL GUIDELINES\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e47 Prefectural Governments\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFormat:\u0026nbsp;PDF documents, ordinances\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Guideline Publication Date\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntervening Variable.\u0026nbsp;Documents local governance responses to national policy gaps. Content analysis enabled development of typology of local approaches and assessment of policy innovation diffusion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeriod:\u0026nbsp;Enacted by Dec 2020\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Spatial Zoning Maps/Rules\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCoverage:\u0026nbsp;National survey\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Performance Standards (noise, setback)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Procedural Requirements (consultation, EIA)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Regulatory Stringency (binding/advisory)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVERIFICATION DATA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGoogle Satellite/ESRI World Imagery\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFormat:\u0026nbsp;Raster imagery\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Visual confirmation of turbine locations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eValidation Data.\u0026nbsp;Used for ground-truthing and precise coordinate verification of each turbine location, ensuring spatial accuracy of the primary database.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeriod:\u0026nbsp;2018\u0026ndash;2020\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Terrain context\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResolution:\u0026nbsp;High (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1m)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Proximity to sensitive features (housing, forests)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT DATA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Impact Assessment Reports\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFormat:\u0026nbsp;PDF documents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Project Layout Maps\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContextual Data.\u0026nbsp;Provided additional location verification and insights into siting controversies and regulatory compliance processes for specific case examples.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeriod:\u0026nbsp;2000\u0026ndash;2020\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Environmental Baseline Studies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAvailability:\u0026nbsp;Publicly accessible\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Mitigation Measures\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Approval Documents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Spatial Concentration in Unregulated Landscapes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe nationwide spatial analysis reveals a clear and systematic pattern: onshore wind turbine development in Japan has predominantly occurred in areas with the weakest land-use regulatory oversight. The generous economic incentive of the FIT scheme, combined with a lack of national spatial guidance, has steered developers towards a path of least regulatory resistance, concentrating projects in landscapes that fall outside the nation's primary planning framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, the vast majority of the 1,799 turbines analyzed are located beyond the reach of comprehensive planning controls. Over 70% of all turbines (1,282 units) are situated entirely \"Outside City Planning Areas,\" vast swathes of rural, mountainous, and coastal land where development controls are minimal and sectoral laws provide the only, often weak, oversight (Sorensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Within the designated City Planning Areas, development is further concentrated in the least restrictive zones. A striking 95% of all turbines (1,709 units) are located in the three most weakly regulated categories combined: Urbanization Control Areas (UCA), which are intended to curb sprawl but have limited control over non-urban structures; Non-zoned City Planning Areas, which lack specific use designations; and the aforementioned areas Outside the City Planning Area altogether. In stark contrast, a negligible number of turbines have been sited in Urbanization Promotion Areas, where planning is most stringent. This spatial distribution is not random; it is a direct reflection of a market-led development model exploiting a regulatory vacuum.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDistribution of Wind Turbines by Land-Use Regulation Zone in Japan\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLand-Use Regulation Zone\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of Turbines\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage of Total (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWithin City Planning Area\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e517\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28.7%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Urbanization Promotion Area (UPA)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.7%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Urbanization Control Area (UCA)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e427\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.7%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Non-zoned City Planning Area\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutside City Planning Area\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,282\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e71.3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,799\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource: Author's analysis of MLIT (2020) and NEDO (2020) data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis pattern of development in the planning void has led to direct conflicts with conservation objectives. The analysis found that 228 turbines (12.7% of the total) have been constructed within the boundaries of designated Natural Parks, areas legally recognized for their scenic beauty and ecological value. Furthermore, 172 turbines (9.6%) are located in Preserved Forests (\u003cem\u003eHoanrin\u003c/em\u003e), which are designated under the Forest Act for critical functions such as landslide prevention, water resource protection, and public health. The siting of industrial-scale energy infrastructure in these protected areas underscores the failure of the fragmented regulatory system to balance national energy goals with long-standing environmental protection mandates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 The Architecture of Fragmentation: Deconstructing the National Void\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe spatial patterns identified above are a direct consequence of the fragmented and loophole-ridden national legal framework. Japan lacks a single, integrated statute for guiding the siting of renewable energy. Instead, developers must navigate a patchwork of sectoral laws, none of which were designed to manage the landscape-scale transformation driven by the energy transition. This legal analysis reveals the institutional architecture that creates and perpetuates the planning void.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe City Planning Act\u003c/b\u003e: This is the cornerstone of Japanese land-use planning, but its effectiveness is severely limited. Critically, the Act fails to explicitly classify wind farms as \"development activities\" or \"special structures\" that require Development Permission. This creates a monumental loophole, as Development Permission is the primary legal mechanism for controlling land alteration and ensuring that projects conform to a coherent plan. Consequently, most wind power projects are exempt from the most rigorous planning review process, allowing them to proceed in non-urban areas with minimal oversight (Sorensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe Building Standard Act\u003c/b\u003e: In the absence of planning oversight, the Building Standard Act often becomes the default regulatory instrument. However, this law treats a 100-meter-tall wind turbine as just another \"structure,\" akin to a chimney or a silo. Its review is confined to narrow technical questions of structural integrity and safety, completely ignoring the broader spatial, ecological, landscape, and community impacts that are the primary sources of land-use conflict (Devine-Wright, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSectoral Laws (Forest, Agriculture, Natural Parks Acts)\u003c/b\u003e: These laws provide a series of piecemeal, site-specific hurdles rather than a strategic framework for siting. A developer may need a permit to convert agricultural land under the Agricultural Land Act or to delist a portion of a Preserved Forest under the Forest Act. However, these reviews are conducted in isolation by different ministries, on a case-by-case basis. They offer no positive guidance on where wind farms \u003cem\u003eshould\u003c/em\u003e be located to minimize cumulative impacts and maximize benefits at a regional or landscape scale (Cowell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law\u003c/b\u003e: The EIA process in Japan is inherently reactive and project-specific. It assesses the potential impacts of a single, pre-proposed project rather than guiding development towards the most suitable locations from the outset. While a 2020 revision brought more wind projects under its purview, it did not address this fundamental limitation. The EIA law is a tool for mitigating the worst impacts of a given project, not a mechanism for strategic, \u003cem\u003eex-ante\u003c/em\u003e spatial planning that could prevent conflicts from arising in the first place (Ellis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis legal fragmentation is a surface manifestation of a deeper institutional problem: the rigid separation of ministerial mandates. METI champions the FIT and energy production, MOE is tasked with environmental protection, and MLIT oversees city planning. This siloed structure means there is no single government body with the authority and responsibility to forge an integrated national energy landscape strategy. This institutional design, optimized for a previous era of compartmentalized industrial policy, is the ultimate source of the planning void in the age of the energy transition (Arai and Oki, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Rescaling in Practice: Local Governments as Involuntary Planners\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the vacuum left by the national government, a significant rescaling of governance has occurred. Prefectural and municipal governments, facing direct pressure from both developers and concerned citizens, have been forced to step into the role of de facto energy planners. Our survey identified that by the end of 2020, 5 prefectures and 11 municipalities had enacted their own formal guidelines for wind power development, representing a remarkable instance of bottom-up policy innovation in Japan's traditionally top-down governance culture (Sorensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). These local guidelines vary in their approach and stringency, creating a complex and inconsistent regulatory patchwork across the country. A content analysis of these guidelines reveals four primary archetypes of local governance, as summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTypology of Local Wind Power Guidelines in Japan\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGuideline Type\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExamples\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. Performance-Based\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSets stricter local standards for technical impacts, such as minimum setback distances from residences, noise level limits (), and restrictions on shadow flicker. Focuses on mitigating project-level nuisances.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShizuoka Prefecture\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. Spatial Zoning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProactively identifies preferred development zones and/or exclusion zones based on analyses of landscape character, environmental sensitivity, and residential proximity. A more strategic, planning-led approach.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYusa Town, Akita Prefecture\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. Procedural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMandates enhanced processes for public participation, information disclosure, and negotiation between developers and local communities. Aims to improve procedural justice and build social license.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVarious Municipalities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. Hybrid\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCombines elements from the other three types, for example, by establishing exclusion zones while also setting stricter performance standards for projects in permissible areas.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHokkaido Prefecture\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource: Author's analysis of prefectural and municipal guidelines (2020).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe implementation of these guidelines has had mixed results, highlighting both the potential and the limitations of this localized response. The case of Yusa Town in Akita Prefecture demonstrates the potential of a proactive, spatial zoning approach. Faced with a proposal that would have required clearing a significant area of a cherished black pine forest, the municipal government used its guideline to negotiate with the developer, ultimately agreeing on an alternative layout that preserved the forest. This represents a clear success in local planning mitigating a key environmental impact.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, the experience of Higashi-Izu Town in Shizuoka Prefecture illustrates the shortcomings of relying solely on technical standards. Despite the project complying with the prefecture's performance-based guideline on noise limits, it generated persistent health complaints from nearby residents and resulted in litigation. This case underscores a critical lesson: technical, performance-based standards alone are often insufficient to address the complex socio-acoustic and psychological dimensions of wind turbine annoyance, and they cannot substitute for robust procedural justice and community engagement (Jenkins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Kirch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Theorizing Japan\u0026rsquo;s Trajectory: \"Rescaling by Abdication\"\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe empirical findings reveal a distinct pattern of state transformation that requires a new conceptual framing. The process observed in Japan is not one of deliberate, planned decentralization, where the central state strategically empowers sub-national actors with clear mandates and resources. Instead, it is a more chaotic and reactive process, which this paper terms \"rescaling by abdication.\" This concept is defined as a mode of governance rescaling where central state inaction, born from deep-seated institutional fragmentation and a lack of political will to forge cross-sectoral policy, creates a regulatory and strategic vacuum. This vacuum does not remain empty; it exerts a downward pressure, compelling lower tiers of government\u0026mdash;prefectures and municipalities\u0026mdash;to assume new planning and regulatory powers for which they are often unprepared and under-resourced.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis \"rescaling by abdication\" has several defining characteristics. First, it is unintentional; it is a consequence of systemic failure rather than strategic design. Second, it is uneven; local governments respond with varying degrees of capacity and political will, leading to a fragmented patchwork of regulations rather than a coherent system. Third, it is conflict-driven; local policy innovation is often a direct reaction to intense land-use conflicts that the national framework is incapable of resolving. This concept offers a critical contribution to theories of state rescaling and multi-level governance by identifying a specific pathway of state transformation driven by the pressures of the climate and energy transition. It moves the analytical debate beyond a simple centralized-decentralized binary to account for more complex and pathological forms of governance change, providing a valuable lens for analyzing other nations where strong economic incentives for renewables are coupled with weak or fragmented spatial planning institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Comparative Insights: Placing Japan in Global Context\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe novelty and significance of Japan\u0026rsquo;s \"rescaling by abdication\" model are best understood through systematic comparison with other major industrialized nations. Each country has forged a distinct governance pathway for wind energy, shaped by its unique political traditions, planning systems, and societal priorities. This comparative analysis highlights the critical role of state strategy\u0026mdash;or the lack thereof\u0026mdash;in shaping the outcomes of the energy transition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGermany's Integrated Federalism\u003c/b\u003e: The German \u003cem\u003eEnergiewende\u003c/em\u003e represents a model of \"integrated federalism.\" Strong national targets and FIT policies are coupled with a powerful and constitutionally embedded system of regional spatial planning (\u003cem\u003eRaumordnung\u003c/em\u003e). The federal states (\u003cem\u003eL\u0026auml;nder\u003c/em\u003e) are mandated to produce regional plans that proactively designate \"priority zones\" (\u003cem\u003eVorranggebiete\u003c/em\u003e) for wind energy, providing clear guidance and investment security for developers while attempting to balance development with other land uses (Ahl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ohl and Eichhorn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This contrasts sharply with Japan's national-level void.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDenmark's Deliberative Localism\u003c/b\u003e: Denmark\u0026rsquo;s approach can be characterized as \"deliberative localism.\" It combines national targets with a long-standing tradition of empowering municipal governments as the primary planning authorities. Crucially, Danish policy has historically institutionalized mechanisms for community participation and benefit-sharing, including mandates for offering ownership shares to local residents (Moller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Wolsink, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This model prioritizes building social license from the bottom up, a stark contrast to the top-down imposition and subsequent local resistance often seen in Japan.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe UK's Volatile Centralism\u003c/b\u003e: The United Kingdom, particularly England, exemplifies \"volatile centralism.\" National planning policy has oscillated dramatically, from supportive to hostile and back again. The imposition of a \"de facto ban\" on new onshore wind projects in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) from 2015 to 2024 effectively paralyzed development, demonstrating the profound power of the central state to override local planning discretion (Toke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The subsequent reversal of this policy in 2024 highlights a system where the rules for local planning are subject to the shifting political winds of the national government, creating deep regulatory uncertainty (Toke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSouth Korea's Centralized Developmentalism\u003c/b\u003e: South Korea\u0026rsquo;s energy transition follows a model of \"centralized developmentalism,\" echoing its broader history of state-led industrial policy. The transition is driven by top-down national master plans (e.g., the 11th Basic Plan for Electricity) and powerful policy instruments like the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) (Kim and Park, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). While this approach is effective in setting ambitious national capacity targets, its highly centralized nature often struggles to accommodate local concerns, leading to significant land-use conflicts and challenges with public acceptance due to a lack of meaningful local participation in the planning process (Kim and Park, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis comparative analysis, synthesized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, demonstrates that there is no single model for governing energy landscapes. Japan\u0026rsquo;s \"rescaling by abdication\" stands out as a unique and cautionary case, distinct from the integrated planning of Germany, the localism of Denmark, the volatile centralism of the UK, and the top-down developmentalism of South Korea.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab9\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 9\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e A Comparative Framework of Wind Energy Governance Models\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJapan\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGermany\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDenmark\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnited Kingdom\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSouth Korea\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGovernance Model\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRescaling by Abdication\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntegrated Federalism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDeliberative Localism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVolatile Centralism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCentralized Developmentalism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePrimary Scale of Planning\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDe facto Municipal/Prefectural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegional (\u003cem\u003eL\u0026auml;nder\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMunicipal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNational (NPPF)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNational (Master Plans)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eKey Policy Instrument\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeed-in Tariff (FIT)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFIT\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Spatial Zoning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFIT\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Community Ownership\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContracts for Difference (CfD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRenewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRole of Spatial Planning\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReactive, ad-hoc\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProactive, integrated\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProactive, locally-led\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRestrictive, then permissive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubordinate to national targets\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePrimary Conflict Type\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegulatory uncertainty \u0026amp; spatial injustice\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLandscape value \u0026amp; inter-regional equity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLocal aesthetic \u0026amp; benefit sharing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNational vs. Local control (\"Localism\")\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTop-down imposition vs. local resistance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3 The Justice Implications of the Planning Void\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe governance model of \"rescaling by abdication\" has profound and troubling implications for energy justice. The failure of the national state to plan proactively has created a system where the burdens of the energy transition are distributed inequitably, and decision-making processes lack fairness and inclusivity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDistributional Injustice\u003c/b\u003e: The spatial analysis demonstrates a clear pattern of distributional injustice. The market-driven logic, unconstrained by strategic planning, funnels wind energy projects into rural, mountainous, and coastal areas. These are often regions characterized by aging and declining populations, weaker economies, and limited political influence compared to major urban centers (Sorensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, these communities bear the disproportionate landscape, ecological, and social costs of hosting national energy infrastructure, often without receiving commensurate local benefits in the form of jobs, tax revenues, or cheaper electricity. This raises critical questions about the fairness of a transition that places the burdens on the politically and economically marginalized (Jenkins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Heffron and McCauley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProcedural Injustice\u003c/b\u003e: The absence of a clear, transparent, and predictable national framework for siting creates a state of procedural injustice. In the planning void, communities are often confronted with development proposals on an ad-hoc basis, with little prior engagement or access to independent information. They are left to negotiate directly with well-resourced developers from a position of significant disadvantage. While the emergence of local guidelines is an attempt by municipalities to assert some procedural control, their inconsistency creates a landscape of procedural inequality. A citizen\u0026rsquo;s ability to participate meaningfully in the planning process depends entirely on whether their local government has had the capacity and political will to enact a robust guideline. This patchwork system fails to guarantee fair process for all citizens (Hooghe and Marks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). The conflicts arising from this system, such as the health complaints in Higashi-Izu, are symptomatic of a deeper failure to embed procedural fairness into the governance of the energy transition (Pasqualetti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has provided a comprehensive, national-scale analysis of the land-use governance of wind energy in Japan, revealing a system in crisis. In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, Japan\u0026rsquo;s accelerated push for renewable energy, driven by a powerful Feed-in Tariff, collided with a fragmented and ill-equipped spatial planning system. The result has been the creation of a national \"planning void,\" a regulatory vacuum for non-urban land use that has shaped the geography of the nation's energy transition. Our mixed-methods analysis demonstrated that this void has led to a systematic concentration of wind turbines in the country\u0026rsquo;s most weakly regulated rural landscapes, often in conflict with environmental conservation goals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe core of this problem lies in the institutional architecture of the Japanese state, where rigid ministerial silos prevent the integration of energy, environmental, and land-use policy. This paper has argued that this national-level failure has triggered a unique mode of state transformation: \"rescaling by abdication.\" In this process, planning authority and the burden of conflict mediation have been unintentionally and unevenly displaced downwards to local governments. The resulting emergence of local planning guidelines represents a significant form of democratic experimentalism and bottom-up innovation. However, these ad-hoc responses are not a sustainable, efficient, or equitable substitute for a coherent national strategy. They have created a fragmented and unpredictable regulatory environment that generates spatial injustice, creates uncertainty for investors, and ultimately threatens the timely achievement of Japan\u0026rsquo;s national climate targets.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis article makes two primary theoretical contributions to international scholarship on urban studies, land-use policy, and energy governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, it advances the theory of state rescaling and multi-level governance by introducing and empirically grounding the concept of \u003cb\u003e\"rescaling by abdication.\"\u003c/b\u003e This concept provides a new analytical category for understanding state transformations in the context of rapid, disruptive change like the energy transition. It moves the debate beyond a simplistic centralized/decentralized dichotomy and highlights a pathological pathway where central state failure, rather than strategic intent, drives the reorganization of governance. The comparative analysis further enriches this contribution by situating \"rescaling by abdication\" within a broader typology of state governance models for wind energy, offering a framework for future international comparative research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, the paper contributes to planning theory and practice by providing a stark, national-scale empirical demonstration of the consequences of neglecting strategic spatial planning. It shows how the absence of an integrated, landscape-scale planning framework can systematically undermine the objectives of a major national policy (the FIT scheme), leading to perverse outcomes such as environmental conflict, social injustice, and regulatory chaos. The Japanese case serves as a powerful cautionary tale, illustrating that spatial planning is not a secondary, technical concern but a fundamental and indispensable component of a just and effective sustainability transition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe lessons from Japan\u0026rsquo;s planning void are of critical importance for planners and policymakers globally. As nations accelerate their energy transitions, they will all face the challenge of siting new infrastructure on a massive scale. Japan\u0026rsquo;s experience offers clear, actionable recommendations to avoid repeating these mistakes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntegrate, Don't Separate: Forge a National Spatial Energy Strategy. The most critical lesson is that energy policy and land-use planning must be developed in tandem, not in separate ministerial silos. National governments must take primary responsibility for creating a strategic spatial framework that guides renewable energy development. This requires proactive, \u003cem\u003eex-ante\u003c/em\u003e planning, likely through a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), to identify broad zones of opportunity and constraint at a landscape scale, integrating technical, environmental, and social criteria (Jenkins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpower, Don't Abdicate: Build Sub-national Planning Capacity. Effective multi-level governance is not achieved by abandoning responsibility to local actors. Central governments must actively empower regional and local authorities with clear legal mandates, financial resources, and technical support to translate national strategies into locally-attuned plans. This involves investing in the capacity of sub-national bodies to conduct landscape character assessments, facilitate meaningful public engagement, and manage complex planning processes (W\u0026uuml;stenhagen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Devine-Wright, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial acceptance cannot be treated as an afterthought; it must be built into the core of the planning process. To ensure a just transition, land-use approvals for energy projects should be legally linked to mandatory and transparent community benefit-sharing mechanisms. These can include local ownership models, dedicated community funds, contributions to local infrastructure, or reduced electricity tariffs for host communities (Pasqualetti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Moller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Jenkins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Institutionalizing these benefits helps to rectify distributional injustices and build the durable social license needed for a rapid and sustained transition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study provides a comprehensive snapshot of the situation in Japan up to 2020. A primary limitation is that it does not capture the evolution of local guidelines or national policy debates in the subsequent years. Furthermore, its focus is on onshore wind, while offshore wind has emerged as a major new frontier in Japanese energy policy, with its own distinct set of spatial governance challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese limitations point towards a rich agenda for future research. First, longitudinal studies are needed to track the evolution, diffusion, and effectiveness of Japan's local guidelines post-2020. Are they converging on a set of best practices, or is the landscape becoming more fragmented? Second, the comparative typology of state rescaling developed in this paper should be applied to other national contexts, particularly in Asia and the Global South, to test its broader applicability and refinement. Third, future research should urgently address the emerging governance frameworks for offshore wind in Japan and other countries, a critical and under-researched area of spatial planning. Finally, in-depth qualitative case studies are needed to explore the micro-politics of how local guidelines are formulated, contested, and implemented, providing a deeper understanding of the dynamics of local governance innovation in the face of national policy failure.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003e\u003cb\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo funding was received for conducting this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eT.O. (Taher Osman) is the sole author of this study and was responsible for conceptualization, methodology, data collection, GIS analysis, institutional analysis, writing, and preparation of all figures and tables.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhl, A., Wirth, T. and Scheller, F. (2021). The \u0026apos;Energiewende\u0026apos; as a socio-technical project: a critical review of the German energy transition. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, 289, 125633.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArai, H. and Oki, Y. (2021). Beyond the feed-in tariff: A critical analysis of the Japanese wind power policy platform. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 148(Part B), 111939.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaba, K. and Tagashira, N. (2009). How to design the social decision-making process for introduction of renewable energy technologies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Technology\u003c/em\u003e, 6, 77-92.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaxter, J., Morzaria, R. and Hirsch, R. (2013). A case-control study of support/opposition to wind turbines: Perceptions of health risk, economic benefits, and community conflict. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 61, 931\u0026ndash;943.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCowell, R. (2010). Wind power, landscape and strategic spatial planning\u0026mdash;The construction of \u0026lsquo;acceptable locations\u0026rsquo; in Wales. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 27(2), 222\u0026ndash;232.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). \u003cem\u003eDesigning and conducting mixed methods research\u003c/em\u003e. Sage publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDevine-Wright, P. (2005). Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. \u003cem\u003eWind Energy\u003c/em\u003e, 8(2), 125\u0026ndash;139.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllis, G., Cowell, R., Warren, C., Strachan, P. and Szarka, J. (2009). Expanding wind power: A problem of planning, or of perception? \u003cem\u003ePlanning Theory \u0026amp; Practice\u003c/em\u003e, 10(4), 523\u0026ndash;532.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeffron, R.J. and McCauley, D. (2018). What is the \u0026lsquo;just transition\u0026rsquo;?. \u003cem\u003eGeoforum\u003c/em\u003e, 88, 74-77.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Political Science Review\u003c/em\u003e, 97(2), 233\u0026ndash;243.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJenkins, K., McCauley, D. and Heffron, R. (2016). Energy justice: A conceptual review. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, 11, 174\u0026ndash;182.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, J. and Park, S. (2022). The challenges of renewable energy policy in South Korea: A case study of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). \u003cem\u003eRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, 155, 111927.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKirch, J.K., Cronin, T., Nyborg, S. and Frantzen, D.N. (2022). How far do noise concerns travel? Exploring how familiarity and justice shape noise expectations and social acceptance of planned wind energy projects. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, 87, 102300.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLockwood, M., Kuzemko, C., Mitchell, C. and Hoggett, R. (2017). Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: A research agenda. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and Planning C: Politics and Space\u003c/em\u003e, 35(2), 312\u0026ndash;333.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT). (2020). \u003cem\u003eDigital National Land Information\u003c/em\u003e. MLIT.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of the Environment (MOE). (2020). \u003cem\u003eNational Survey on the Natural Environment\u003c/em\u003e. MOE.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoller, B. (2010). Spatial analyses of emerging and fading wind energy landscapes in Denmark. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 27(2), 233\u0026ndash;241.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNadai, A. and van der Horst, D. (2010). Introduction: Landscapes of energies. \u003cem\u003eLandscape Research\u003c/em\u003e, 35(2), 143\u0026ndash;155.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNew Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO). (2020). \u003cem\u003eReport on the Wind Power Plants in Japan\u003c/em\u003e. NEDO.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOhl, C. and Eichhorn, M. (2010). The mismatch between regional spatial planning for wind power development in Germany and national eligibility criteria for feed-in tariffs\u0026mdash;A case study in the State of Brandenburg. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 38(7), 3651\u0026ndash;3661.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePasqualetti, M. J. (2011). Social barriers to renewable energy landscapes. \u003cem\u003eGeographical Review\u003c/em\u003e, 101(2), 201\u0026ndash;223.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRand, J. and Hoen, B. (2017). Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned? \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, 29, 135\u0026ndash;148.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSabel, C. F. and Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eThe Oxford Handbook of Governance\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSorensen, A. (2002). \u003cem\u003eThe making of urban Japan: Cities and planning from Edo to the twenty-first century\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToke, D. (2021). The UK\u0026apos;s onshore wind energy saga: A story of political turbulence and planning policy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Policy \u0026amp; Planning\u003c/em\u003e, 23(5), 621-634.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan der Horst, D. (2007). NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 35(5), 2705-2714.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVivoda, V. (2014). Japan\u0026rsquo;s energy security predicament post-Fukushima. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 74, 152\u0026ndash;160.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolsink, M. (2020). Social acceptance of renewables: A tale of two policies. \u003cem\u003eRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, 128, 109900.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eW\u0026uuml;stenhagen, R., Wolsink, M. and B\u0026uuml;rer, M. J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 35(5), 2683\u0026ndash;2691.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Wind Energy, Land-Use Policy, Institutional Fragmentation, Multi-Level Governance, Spatial Planning, Energy Landscapes, Japan, Renewable Energy Transition","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7773214/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7773214/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWhile multi-level governance (MLG) is central to energy transition studies, existing research is dominated by European models of integrated planning. There is a critical gap in understanding how transitions unfold in contexts of institutional fragmentation and weak national land-use guidance, particularly in non-Western industrialized nations. This article analyzes the rescaling of land-use governance for onshore wind energy in Japan post-Fukushima. It aims to map the national-scale spatial outcomes of a fragmented policy landscape, analyze the institutional architecture of this \"planning void,\" and theorize the emergent role of local governments as de facto energy planners. A mixed-methods design combines a nationwide GIS-based spatial analysis of 1,799 wind turbines against regulatory and environmental datasets, and a qualitative institutional analysis of national laws and sub-national planning guidelines. The national government\u0026rsquo;s failure to provide an integrated spatial strategy has created a planning void, leading to the concentration of wind turbines in weakly regulated rural and environmentally sensitive areas. This \"rescaling by abdication\" has catalyzed policy innovation at the prefectural and municipal levels. However, this bottom-up response results in a fragmented, unpredictable regulatory landscape, posing risks to energy justice, investment certainty, and the achievement of national climate targets. The article introduces the concept of \"rescaling by abdication\" as a distinct mode of energy governance. By contrasting Japan's experience with Germany, Denmark, the UK, and South Korea, it offers a novel typology of state engagement in energy transitions and provides critical, transferable lessons for managing the spatial politics of DE carbonization globally.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Spatialization of a Planning Void: Wind Energy Siting, Fragmented Governance, and Land-Use Conflict in Japan","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-27 11:32:43","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7773214/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d93f97ca-ce4c-40f5-a26c-814074ff70a2","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 27th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-21T08:27:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-27 11:32:43","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7773214","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7773214","identity":"rs-7773214","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}