JustWind4All / Airborne Wind Europe. Energy Read: Securing local support for Airborne Wind Energy projects. A guide for project developers.

1 2 ABOUT JUSTWIND4ALL JustWind4All is a research project that supports the acceleration of onand offshore wind energy, including emerging wind technologies like airborne and floating, through just and effective governance. By integrating insights from different academic disciplines and societal perspectives, we support synergies and exchange among people and organisations to coordinate and participate in actions around wind energy deployment. AUTHOR Kristian Petrick, Gosia Matowska, Stefanie Thoms, Helena Schmidt 1000 Brussels, Belgium [email protected] www.airbornewindeurope.org Quote as: Airborne Wind Europe 2025, Securing local support for Airborne Wind Energy Projects – a guide for project developers. 3 4 Table of contents Table of contents 4 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Background 5 Airborne Wind Energy 5 Research basis and co-creation activities 5 The term “social acceptance” 6 1.2 Scope and Objective 6 2 AWE technology: Understanding perceptions 8 2.1 Safety 8 2.2 Visual Impacts 11 2.3 Sound emissions 13 2.4 Ecological Effects 15 2.5 Attitudes and Perceptions 17 2.6 Site Location 19 3 AWE Projects: Ensuring Community Engagement 21 3.1 Treat community engagement as a core project discipline 21 3.2 Engage Early with Communities 22 Early engagement is easier said than done – the complexity of finding the right moment on when to involve whom. 23 3.3 Identify Key Stakeholders and plan the engagement process well 24 Political-Strategic Communication with Municipal Councils and Administration 25 3.4 Adapt Engagement to the Local Context 26 Events organised for the EnerKíte project in Ketzin 27 Kitekraft has been engaging with the local community of Unterhaching 28 3.5 Offer Local Benefits – to the realistically possible extent given the stage of AWE development 29 3.6 Ensure transparency through ongoing communication 30 4 Conclusions 31 5 Annex 33 5.1 Checklist for organising a public event (“open doors event”) 33 5.2 Checklist for organising a smaller stakeholder meeting 34 6 References 36 5 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Airborne Wind Energy Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) is an innovative renewable energy technology that uses tethered kites or drones to harness wind energy at altitudes up to 800m with very low material input. Airborne Wind Europe is the association representing the Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) sector in Europe. Its members are technology and project developers, universities, research institutes and suppliers from Germany, France, Italy the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, France and other European countries. Airborne Wind Europe is the association representing the AWE sector in Europe. Research basis and co-creation activities This guide has been developed by Airborne Wind Europe within the Horizon Europe project JustWind4All. It builds on the outcomes of several co-production activities around the future EnerKíte test site in Ketzin (Brandenburg, Germany, see Box “Events organised for Ketzin project”). These activities involved AWE companies, regional and local authorities, NGOs, nature conservation groups and citizens. The guide refers extensively to three recent key publications by Helena Schmidt (TU Delft) and colleagues, which provide the first methodologically sound research on the social acceptance of AWE: • Schmidt et al. (2022): Literature review of The Social Acceptance of Airborne Wind Energy: A Literature Review. • Schmidt et al. (2024): How do residents perceive energy-producing kites? Comparing the community acceptance of an airborne wind energy system and a wind farm in Germany • Schmidt et al. (2025): Exploring Noise Annoyance and Sound Quality for Airborne Wind Energy Systems: Insights from a Listening Experiment. Furthermore, findings and recommendations from other literature, interviews and conversations with experts on social acceptance and project development (see acknowledgements) over the timeframe of three years have gone into this guide. Airborne Wind Energy Systems. Source: Airborne Wind Europe members 6 The term “social acceptance” The term social acceptance refers to “a complex and dynamic process involving all relevant actors and their positions across three inter-related dimensions: the socio-political, the community, and the market level. […] Socio-political acceptance refers to the acceptance of the technology and related policies by the general public, policymakers, and other key stakeholders. In contrast, community acceptance describes the degree to which particular siting decisions and energy projects are accepted, especially by residents and local authorities.” (Schmidt et al., 2022). The focus of this Energy Read is on local communities and residents that may be affected more directly from an AWE installation; nevertheless, the wider public and citizens are also considered regarding certain, more general aspects. While “social acceptance” may not be the ideal term – as it could be perceived as trying to convince someone to accept a certain technology – it is widely used in literature and projects. 1.2 Scope and Objective The aim of this guide is to provide a practical framework for stakeholder engagement in AWE projects, explaining why it is essential, how it can be done just and effectively, and what has been achieved so far. By combining insights from mature wind energy projects and early experiences in the AWE field, we hope to support project developers, communities and policymakers in building trust and fostering acceptance for this emerging technology. AWE’s successful deployment depends not only on technical feasibility and cost competitiveness but also on social acceptance. AWE is a rising innovative renewable energy technology (iRET). However, even projects that are economically and environmentally sound can face significant delays or even cancellation if they encounter strong community and anti-wind opposition. For developers, integrating social acceptance considerations from the outset is not just advisable, it is essential to the viability of their projects. There is ample experience with social acceptance of wind energy projects which this guide is building on. However, considering that AWE technology is still largely unfamiliar to the general public and only a few projects have been implemented to date, further research is needed to understand how best to engage communities. There is a unique window of opportunity for the AWE sector over the next years to positively shape the image and perception that the public and local communities will have of AWE. This guide shall be seen as living document. It is expected that more insights on the social acceptance of AWE will become available over the next years as the technology matures and 7 more projects will be implemented. In 1-2 years, the guide and its recommendations may be reviewed and updated. The following section 2 explains the key factors that have been identified to have an impact on acceptance of the AWE technology itself and provides recommendations mainly for AWE technology developers (Original Equipment Manufacturers – OEMs) and researchers. However, some insights are also relevant for project developers. Section 3 will then focus on the different stages of project development thus providing mainly recommendations for AWE project developers. EnerKíte in Brandenburg, Germany. Source: EnerKíte 8 2 AWE technology: Understanding perceptions Although AWE is a relatively new technology, a growing number of studies are discussing how it is perceived by the public. In a comprehensive review, Schmidt and colleagues (2022) identified six key factors proposed by the AWE literature to influence social acceptance: safety, visual impact, noise, location, ecological effects and overall attitudes and perceptions. These factors are primarily related to the AWE technology, not necessarily to the project development stages. 2.1 Safety Safety concerns about AWE systems depend on the type of system and how it operates. Several studies in the reviewed literature assumed that people might be concerned about the safety of these systems, and that such concerns could vary based on the specific technology used. One publication (Paulig, 2013) suggested that soft-wing kites may be perceived as safer than fixed-wing or hybrid-wing designs because they are made from lighter materials. 1 Another study (Abbate, 2019) noted that the method of electricity generation could influence perceptions of safety. In particular, fly-gen systems, which generate electricity in the air, might raise concerns about moving electric cables overhead. An additional paper (Paulig, 2013) assumed that AWE systems could be regarded as a potential threat to conventional aviation, especially by pilots and aviation authorities. Despite these assumptions, actual public concern about AWE safety appears to be relatively low. One publication (Schmidt et al. 2024) contains the most in-depth social acceptance analysis of an AWE deployment site, discussing in detail the results from a survey conducted with residents living within 5km of SkySails’ AWE test site in Klixbüll (SchleswigHolstein, Germany). The study found that participants only perceived minimal safety risks associated with AWE, and their concerns about the local AWE site were not stronger than for local conventional wind farms. Safety concerns did not relate to people's attitudes towards the local AWE project. In contrast, individuals who expressed higher levels of concern about the safety of traditional wind farms tended to be more negative towards nearby wind turbines. However, people who had more concerns about AWE safety in general were less supportive of the technology overall. 1 Soft-wing kites use flexible fabric and look like large kitesurfing kites or paragliders. Fixed-wing kites have (semi-)rigid wings and can look similar to glider airplanes or drones. For more information, see https://airbornewindeurope.org/our-technology-2 9 The publication further revealed that specific safety concerns about AWE systems relate to both the risk of technical failures and the possibility of causing accidents or disruptions in the surrounding area. Some individuals were worried about the possibility of the tether snapping, which could cause the kite to crash or drift away. Others feared that the kite could collide with an aircraft, particularly given that the system in Klixbüll was located close to a local emergency helicopter operation. It was notable that many people were unaware of existing safety measures, such as the establishment of a no-fly zone around the system and safety arrangements such as strict coordination procedures with the helicopter service operator. Concerns were also raised about potential ground-level incidents. There were fears that the kite could distract drivers, either by drawing attention away from the road or by causing people to slow down suddenly, which could increase the risk of accidents. It was also mentioned that AWE systems might be more dangerous in densely populated areas. While safety buffer zones around the systems were generally appreciated, frustration was expressed over access roads being blocked during certain periods of operation. Finally, findings across several studies (Salma, 2019) highlight the value of communication and safety protocols for social acceptance. Most participants viewed AWE systems as comparable in safety to conventional wind turbines, although this perception may be influenced by limited technical understanding – there are risks stemming from flying, tethered objects but these risks can be largely minimised and mitigated. These insights underline the importance of communication with the local community and wider public so that they are fully informed and aware about the various, specific safety measures that are being taken AWE companies. In the case of SkySails in Klixbüll, all of the proposed measures listed below were implemented. However, the fact that respondents were unaware of this meant that their concerns could not be alleviated, despite full compliance with all safety measures. Further communication with the community – which took place after the study – intended to address these concerns. Recommendations: • Give safety for staff and people highest priority. o Define, apply and constantly review safety procedures o Ensure strict compliance with aviation and energy sector standards • Adhere to the Key Safety Principles for operation of experimental and developmental AWE systems that were established by the AWE sector in 2020 and signed by the AWE developers (AWEU, 2020). The aim is to minimise the risk of a 16 Recommendations: • Comply with and ideally exceed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements. For example, commission professional bird monitoring services including retrieval and counting of dead birds even if this may not be required for each project. Also train on-site staff on how to detect bird collisions and to deal with injured or killed birds. • Carry out tests approved and strictly supervised by ornithologists in birdaffluent areas to study how birds react to AWES. This was suggested in the JustWind4All workshop on environmental impacts by bird and environmental experts (see Box “Events organised for Ketzin project”) acknowledging the unique advantage of AWE systems that they can be quickly set up and removed again. These tests should be limited in time, making use of the unique benefit of AWE systems that they can be set up and decommissioned quickly. • Share information and reports to increase the knowledge and basis for evidence (see compilation of publicly available reports on the AWEU website (AWEU, 2023)). For example, if several projects can prove that all type of kite systems do not have any considerable impact on bats, future projects may be exempt from carrying out batspecific impact assessments, at least for sites that are not specific bat habitats. 17 2.5 Attitudes and Perceptions Overall, the public is not widely aware of AWE yet. In 2023 and 2024, a question on AWE was included in the annual survey on social acceptance of renewable energies conducted by the German Renewable Energy Agency (AEE). The results were very similar in both years, and they confirmed what Airborne Wind Europe experiences at events, fairs, conferences and webinars: Not even a third of the people are aware of AWE (see Error! Reference source not found.). But about 40% of the people express interest even though they have never heard about the technology, showing that the first perception is largely positive. Awareness about and interest in AWE in Germany (AEE, 2024) Public attitudes toward AWE reflect a mix of excitement, caution, and curiosity. In the empirical study by Schmidt and colleagues (2024), qualitative responses provided further insight into these attitudes. Those who held somewhat to very positive views of the local AWES tended to see the technology as innovative, unique, and promising. They highlighted its renewable nature and its potential to reduce reliance on nuclear power and fossil fuels, often noting its relatively low impact on people and the environment compared to existing energy technologies. On the other hand, those with neutral to negative views were more sceptical. They saw the AWE system primarily as a test or experimental project, with some even dismissing it as play. They doubted its potential contribution to the broader energy transition. Interestingly, even among supporters, there was some uncertainty about the actual energy output and effectiveness of the technology. This underlines the importance of evidence-based communication and real-world performance data to build credibility and informed support. In addition, certain blog posts (Kenward, 2014) and articles exhibit strong negative opinions about AWE. 18 Recommendations: • Seeing is believing – people are attracted to tangible products. This is why inviting visitors to test sites – as being done by most AWE companies – is so important. The more sites are available, the easier it will become for people to experience AWE systems first hand. Exposing kites at fairs, the AWEC (like at the AWEC 2024 in Madrid), or even in front of the European Parliament in May 2025, are important to get media coverage. • Share performance data and information on achievements in AWE development. People do understand that a new technology cannot provide top performance from the very beginning. But sharing data, being transparent on existing challenges and gaps, and providing realistic timelines to overcome them will create trust in the technology and the sector. • Educate about AWE's capacity to complement existing renewable technologies, meet energy transition targets, increase energy security and contribute to a new industry in Europe. As studies have shown the large potential of AWE, it is important to communicate the midand long-term opportunities and potentials that the sector can offer. 19 2.6 Site Location The location of AWE systems may also be linked to public perception and acceptance of the technology. Some authors suggested that social acceptance can directly influence how many systems are placed in a given area. If a community is supportive, for example, more space might be made available for installations (Malz, 2020). However, this view may oversimplify things. Even though wind energy generally enjoys broad public support, individual communities can still oppose a local project, especially if they feel left out of the decision-making process or that it was not handled fairly (Bell, 2005). Issues like fairness, transparency and how the local community is involved, often make a big difference in whether a project is welcomed or resisted. There are also many possible site-specific concerns. For example, people often discuss how wind energy projects, might affect tourism, wildlife, agriculture and recreational activities (Bell, 2005). Although these concerns are well documented for conventional wind farms, there is still very little research on how AWE might impact these areas. When it comes to safety, the reviewed literature recommended placing AWE test sites in remote areas to reduce risks to the public. The aviation sector has also expressed concerns, viewing AWE systems as a potential safety issue. One unique challenge is that a malfunction of an AWE device can lead to a crash. At best, they can be guided to land safely, but people might be worried about reliability, especially while the technology is still being tested and clear regulations and product standards are not yet in place. One study (Schmidt et al., 2024) found that when asked directly, people preferred AWE systems to be installed further away from homes. However, no direct link could be observed between distance to the local AWE project and acceptance: that is, people who lived closer to the project were not necessarily less accepting of it. In populated areas, some participants suggested that operations should be limited to daytime hours to reduce disruption. When asked about preferred locations for commercial AWE projects, respondents mostly chose agricultural land. Offshore locations were the second most popular choice, followed by unprotected natural areas, the edges of towns, and then more remote regions like deserts, forests, mountains or stretches of undeveloped coastline. A few people suggested placing AWE systems where other renewables cannot be deployed or combining them with solar farms. Curiously, a small number even proposed mounting them on rooftops of tall buildings, however, these respondents also reported being unaffected by visual or noise impacts of the local AWES. 20 Recommendations: • Avoid development in protected areas such as Natura 2000 sites. These areas are designated to safeguard Europe’s most valuable and threatened species and habitats, and any development within them is subject to strict permitting procedures under the EU Habitats Directive (European Commission, 2025). The potential risks of negative impacts on biodiversity as well as reputational damage (not only to the specific project but to the entire AWE sector) outweigh the potential benefits of producing renewable energy in these regions. While future deployment may become possible once the environmental impacts of AWE systems, particularly on birds and bats, are better understood and if there is strong local community support, such development must be approached with caution. • Prioritise early and transparent community engagement e.g. by sharing clear and accessible information on how the technology works, expected noise levels, safety measures and visual impacts. For more details, see next section. SkySails in Klixbüll, Germany. Source: SkySails 21 3 AWE Projects: Ensuring Community Engagement Renewable energy project development typically follows several established steps: feasibility study, site selection, environmental impact assessments and permitting, detailed design, financing, construction and operation and monitoring (Esposito, 2024). At each of these stages, public perception and community engagement can influence timelines, costs, and overall success. During the feasibility and site selection phase, public attitudes may determine which locations can be considered viable, less from a technical or environmental standpoint but from a social one. Community input is often formally required during permitting and environmental review. If concerns are not addressed early, opposition may escalate, leading to delays or legal challenges (Buchmayr, 2021). As projects move into design and construction, clear communication and responsiveness to concerns such as land use, visual impact, ecological effects, safety, or noise, can prevent backlash and foster local goodwill. This approach should continue during the operation and maintenance phase (O&M), where ongoing transparency and responsiveness to emerging issues are key to maintaining trust. Planning for responsible decommissioning from the beginning also demonstrates long-term accountability and respect for community and environment. To improve the chances of successful deployment and long-term community support, AWE project developers should consider the following recommendations. They are not necessarily AWE-specific and take into consideration best-practices from the wind sector and other renewable energy projects. 3.1 Treat community engagement as a core project discipline Plan and allocate time and budget for key engagement components from the outset. This includes staffing (for planning, stakeholder identification, participation in events, and monitoring), organizing events (such as workshops, site visits, or information events), and ensuring appropriate communication materials and channels (including websites, printed materials, videos and social media). Community engagement should thus be a fundamental part of project development just like engineering, permitting, or financing which increases the long-term value of the project. 22 See the community as host, you are the guest: Experience from other projects show [IEA Task 62] that project developers should have the mindset that the community where the project is built is truly considered as host who will only welcome you if you treat them accordingly. Recognising the vicinity of a community as their “backyard” or “home” is a matter of respect and decency when approaching a new community. Involve external experts such as facilitators or mediators, particularly in contexts where sensitivities or complex local dynamics are present. For example, in the AWE project in Ketzin, several independent institutes (Neuland Quartier, IÖW, IKEM) and the industry body Airborne Wind Europe were engaged to support the process. 3.2 Engage Early with Communities Social science literature on wind energy projects (e.g. Lüthi, 2021) recommends involving the local community early on the process. It highlights that community acceptance hinges on procedural justice - a fair, open and inclusive decision-making process. It can reduce backlash as surprises late in the process often lead to opposition. Moreover, local knowledge can be incorporated as residents can flag potential social, environmental or cultural concerns that the project developer may not be aware of. Community input may even improve the project’s layout and general design which can further improve acceptance. It also avoids spending time and money on permitting processes with the risk that the project may get rejected by the host community. 4 However, before engaging more broadly with the local community, the following points should be answered with a confident yes, using public information where possible: • Is it safe to operate the system without flying over roads, railways, or other infrastructure? • Are there no protected areas or endangered species? • Are there no airspace restrictions (e.g. airports or hospitals close by)? • Is there a grid connection possible? • Are there infrastructure projects (e.g. wind or solar projects, roads, buildings, power lines) planned on or close to the potential plots? • How many landowners are there; can they be identified and would they be willing to host an AWE project? In case a few first individual conversations are necessary, e.g. with staff from the municipality or regional administration, it should be made clear that it is still about a project idea in the initial feasibility evaluation phase. 4 It should be noted, however, that a permit cannot normally be denied arbitrarily by the municipality. Rejection is only possible if the project conflicts with the zoning plan or other significant and legally regulated reasons. Therefore, the project is not automatically at risk, nor is the investment necessarily wasted. That said, it is of course advisable to gain the municipality’s support and foster good cooperation, as conflicts usually lead to additional costs, delays, and a more difficult project development process. 23 Early engagement is easier said than done – the complexity of finding the right moment on when to involve whom. Finding the right moment and approach which person or stakeholder group requires a good analysis of the specific situation. This is demonstrated in the following example from the JustWind4All project in Ketzin: EnerKíte as project developer and the potential client e.disnatur discussed where a demonstration project could be located. The client proposed a location close to their own facilities in Ketzin where they could use the electricity for self-consumption (in this case close to their biomass plant). There were several open fields with few trees where the kite would not fly over roads or infrastructure. In theory, having identified a potential location, it was the first moment in the process where the local community could be made aware of the project idea. People living close to the location could be approached with the information: “We have identified this interesting location for an AWE project, we would like to further investigate it and talk to you about it.” However, at this stage, it was not known yet if the landowners would agree, nor if there were any restrictions in terms of permitting, nor any special local circumstances. If questions are raised on these issues (“I know the landowner, she may not give the land”, or “You didn’t know that there is a special bird in this area? You could have known this by asking the environmental office”), the project developer would have no answer. People would be left unsatisfied because of too many unknowns. EnerKíte spent considerable time to secure the land. The landowner of the initially identified site was not responsive and eventually declined. Eventually an agreement could be achieved with owners of neighbouring fields. EnerKíte also preferred getting (preliminary) permits and approvals from the authority of civil works, civil aviation authority and environmental authorities (building permit, environmental permit, airspace permit) given the innovative nature of the project. Project partner e.disnatur also saw the risk of bad press and “unnecessary excitement” in the community if the project would have run the risk to be cancelled in the administrative process. It took several months to ensure that the most important permits could be achieved even if they were not fully granted yet. Therefore, it was decided to not yet inform local citizens and only once the project had reasonable chances of success. At the local JW4A stakeholder workshop with the mayor, this approach was confirmed to be appropriate. In the Box “Events organised for Ketzin project” the sequence of communication and outreach events is described in more detail. 24 3.3 Identify Key Stakeholders and plan the engagement process well It is a considerable effort to identify the local and regional stakeholders. Not only is it necessary to understand the different levels of authorities and organisations that should be or have an interest to be involved but also to get a reasonably good idea who are the key persons to talk to. This requires numerous phone calls, emails and meetings. Stakeholders include the following groups, more or less shown in the order of how they should be contacted and get involved (see more on the right timing below): ● Landowners: This includes landowners where the ground station(s) would be located as well as areas that would be flewn over. Without their willingness to cooperate, a project will not happen. ● Municipal Councils and Administration: Once it is clear that the project could in theory be realised, it is advisable to take a top-down approach when starting the engagement with the local community by involving first only a small number of potential decision makers, i.e. the mayor, the city council and other local authorities. They know their community and are commonly also in charge of whatever is decided for the community. If authorities turn out to be too critical or not sufficiently cooperative, this can usually only be resolved with political support It is also advisable to identify a kind of “local leader” — a person with significant influence in the community — and win their support for the project. Such a figure can, in turn, exert a positive influence on key decision-makers, such as the mayor or the municipal council. For more recommendations see box below. ● Public Authorities: Before a potential site can be communicated with the local community, it may already be possible and even advisable to clarify specific topics of the permitting process or to explore initial reactions with regional (non-local) stakeholders on how AWE would be perceived in the wider region. Regional aviation authority, regional spatial planning authority, authority for environment: In cases where there are critical questions to be clarified in specific areas of the permitting process, certain regional (non-local) authorities may already be contacted earlier. ● Energy / environmental agencies and NGOs: Regional or local agencies/competence centres for climate and energy, nature and bird protection agencies, environmental NGOs ● Residents that live closest to the potential site: Even though research shows that acceptance of a wind installation is not necessarily directly correlated with the distance, it is recommendable to actively get in contact with the closest neighbours who are more likely to be affected by seeing or hearing the AWE system. Before doing so, the local city council should be consulted to get an understanding for the 25 neighbourhood and avoid surprises. Ensure residents feel heard and valued, as this significantly reduces annoyance and resistance. ● Local stakeholder groups: Energy communities, associations, clubs, (voluntary) fire brigades, tourism office, other local citizen initiatives. Their networks can help increasing awareness about the project and identifying potential pain points. ● The local public: “Normal citizens” living in the local community. Many will be indifferent to an AWE project, others will welcome it and there may be individuals or groups that are against it. ● Research: Universities and institutes dealing with energy and social acceptance might be involved as well to accompany the project. Political-Strategic Communication with Municipal Councils and Administration Acceptance within municipal councils and administrations is a decisive success factor for AWE projects. Without the support of these actors, projects can face significant delays or even be stopped entirely. Strategic engagement with municipal decision-makers should therefore be treated as a dedicated workstream from the very start of the project. Recommendations: • Identify early on who sits on the relevant committees (e.g. construction, environment, finance), who the key decision-makers in the council are, and who holds informal influence. • Engage councillors and administrative leaders in suitable formats (committee meetings, party group discussions, one-on-one meetings) before public debates begin. • Clearly demonstrate the concrete benefits for the municipality: contribution to climate targets, energy independence, economic attractiveness, additional revenues, or regional value creation. • Identify local issues that can be linked to the project. This includes reviewing local press, speaking with key individuals, and monitoring relevant discussions on social media. • Assess the latest public opinions towards your AWE project or the energy transition in general. This will help you choose the right communication strategy — whether it should be primarily informative, more tactical, or a mix of both. • Communicate on an equal footing, respect municipal decision-making logic, and connect the project to existing strategies (e.g. climate action plans, urban development strategies). • Build trust through regular, transparent updates, and be open about both opportunities and potential challenges. A targeted and well-prepared dialogue with the right municipal decision-makers — based on an informed understanding of current public sentiment — greatly increases the likelihood that the project will not only be approved, but also be politically supported and firmly anchored in the community over the long term. 32 throughout the project lifecycle, from feasibility and permitting through construction and operation. This includes early, inclusive, and context-sensitive communication and engagement with communities and key stakeholders, tailored to local infrastructure, values, and priorities, ideally offering tangible local and long-term benefits such as jobs, economic participation, investment, or educational partnerships. In short, community engagement as a core project discipline is key to a smooth project implementation and lasting acceptance of AWE projects. Kitepower in Bangor Erris, Ireland. Source: Kitepower 33 5 Annex 5.1 Checklist for organising a public event (“open doors event”) Preparatory activities include:  Identify key stakeholders  Prepare invitation mailing lists and posting/publication options, including personal invitations to key stakeholders (mayor, licensing authority, etc.)  Create invitation email / invitation flyer / press release and define timing of release  Invite media  Organise catering  Hold sufficient number of team briefing sessions  Develop emergency plan: Inform police, fire brigade, public order office  Create an FAQ on the project as a basis for the creation of communication tools and language rules  Create project visuals / simplified visual appearance  Create theme islands and design posters for theme islands: information on posters presented on movable screens/walls during the event, set up by topics (project, technology, environment) with 1-2 experts answering questions of the visitors. Information screens about EKEleVate project in Ketzin. Source: EnerKíte 34 5.2 Checklist for organising a smaller stakeholder meeting Proposed format: World Café. Other formats are possible. In the case of Ketzin, the questions were posed in an open discussion as there were not enough participants for a World Café. Preparation / parameters: ● 60 minutes ● 3-4 tables addressing 3 key questions ● 12-15 min discussion at each table, max. 5 min presentation of key results of each table by moderators ● The last 12-15 minutes are dedicated to the moderators of each table presenting the key findings of each table in 2 to 3 minutes max ● Tools: 1 flipchart paper per table, several markers per table, post-its ● Questionnaires and pens, print out questions and bring them with you Introduction: - Explain the format - Ask for speaking time of max. 1.5 min at the beginning - Ask if participants are you already familiar with airborne wind energy, for example from previous events? - Maybe ask how important is local power supply independent of imports? (energy self-sufficient / energy autonomous?) - Show and compare with figures for Germany, see survey from German Renewable Energy Agency Table 1: Concerns/ Worries: What concerns do you have about the specific project in [Site/location name] (if you have any concerns)? ● What were your first thoughts when you heard about the project? (rather chances, concerns, wishes) - quantitatively query - initiate table ● Have you had any negative experiences with local energy projects and are you worried that they could happen again? ● Are you worried about the impact of the project on you or the environment? ○ Have certain thoughts or worries become entrenched or have new ones arisen? ○ How did those around you perceive the project? ● How do you perceive the communication and the planning process? Do you have the feeling that you have been involved in the planning? Table 2: Opportunities: Where do you see opportunities or what would you find interesting to see? 35 ● Do you see opportunities in energy being produced locally in your municipality? ● Do you see potential in the technology for local economic growth and jobs? ● What opportunities do you see for the image and awareness of your municipality? Do you see potential for airborne wind energy as a lighthouse project? ● Would you be interested in financing models for the technology in which citizens can participate in the future (this is not possible with the current project, as it is a research project)? Table 3: Wishes for future AWE projects. What should future AWE projects consider? ● Which local conditions should be taken into account by planners? ● What factors are important for you to perceive the planning of a local energy project as fair ? ● What do you think of financial benefits, e.g. electricity tariffs for residents? ● Can you imagine making a direct financial contribution to airborne wind energy projects? ● What needs to be done to ensure that you have confidence in the company and in the municipality in the planning process? Table 4: Measures to promote a positive perception of AWE. What should be done to ensure that the local community see the technology positively? ● What could be done specifically in the planning process so that the people want to support AWE? ● What kind of communication could arouse your interest in the project? 36 6 References Abbate, G.; Saraceno, E. What Else Is Emerging from the Horizon? In Advances in Sustainable Energy; Vasel, A., Ting, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 70, pp. 177–213. Alonso-Pardo, J.; Sánchez-Arriaga, G. Kite Model with Bridle Control for Wind-Power Generation. J. Airc. 2015, 52, 917–923. AWEurope, 2020: Key Safety Principles for Airborne Wind Energy operations | Airbornewindeurope Airborne Wind Europe, Public Acceptance of Airborne Wind Energy, https://airbornewindeurope.org/public-acceptance Batel, S.; Devine-Wright, P. Using a Critical Approach to Unpack the Visual-Spatial Impacts of Energy Infrastructures. In A Critical Approach to the Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Infrastructures - Going beyond Green Growth and Sustainability; Batel, S., Rudolph, D., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 43–60. Bell, D.; Gray, T.; Haggett, C. The ‘Social Gap’ in Wind Farm Siting Decisions: Explanations and Policy Responses. Environmental Politics 2005, 14, 460–477. Bosch, A.; Schmehl, R.; Tiso, P.; Rixen, D. Dynamic Nonlinear Aeroelastic Model of a Kite for Power Generation. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 2014, 37, 1426–1436. Bronstein, M.G. Harnessing Rivers of Wind: A Technology and Policy Assessment of High Altitude Wind Power in the US. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2011, 78, 736–746. Bruinzeel, L.; Klop, E.; Brenninkmeijer, A.; Bosch, J. Ecological Impact of Airborne Wind Energy Technology: Current State of Knowledge and Future Research Agenda. In Airborne Wind Energy. Green Energy and Technology; Schmehl, R., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 679–701 A. Buchmayr, L. Van Ootegem, J. Dewulf, and E. Verhofstadt, “Understanding Attitudes towards Renewable Energy Technologies and the Effect of Local Experiences,” Energies 14, no. 22 (2021) Cahoon, T.L.; Harmon, F.G. Airborne Wind Energy: Implementation and Design for the U.S. Air Force. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 31 July–3 August 2011. Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe. Community Engagement and Benefit Sharing: How to Make the Energy Transition Work for People and Communities; April 2025. 37 de Lellis, M.; Mendonça, A.K.; Saraiva, R.; Trofino, A.; Lezana, A. Electric Power Generation in Wind Farms with Pumping Kites: An Economical Analysis. Renew. Energ. 2016, 86, 163–172. P. Esposito, E. Marrasso, C. Martone, G. Pallotta, C. Roselli, M. Sasso, and M. Tufo, “A Roadmap for the Implementation of a Renewable Energy Community,” Heliyon 10, no. 7 (2024) European Commission. Natura 2000: Permitting Procedure. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/natura-2000/permittingprocedure_en (accessed on 23.07.2025) Girrbach, F.; Hol, J.D.; Bellusci, G.; Diehl, M. Towards Robust Sensor Fusion for State Estimation in Airborne Applications Using GNSS and IMU. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2017, 50, 13264– 13269. https://growflowfly.de/home Health Canada. Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results; Government of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2014. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/healthcanada/services/environmental-workplace-health/noise/wind-turbine-noise/wind-turbinenoise-health-study-summary-results.html (accessed on 23.07.2025) Kitekraft 2023, https://www.kitekraft.de/blog-posts-deu/kitekraft-eroeffnet-anschluss-vontestflaeche-an-das-oeffentliche-stromnetz Kenward, M. Airborne Wind Energy: Platypuses Instead of Cheetahs? CleanTechnica, 3 March 2014. Available online: https://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/03/airborne-wind-energyplatypuses-instead-cheetahs/ (accessed on 23.07.2025) Lüthi, S.; Porté-Agel, F. Local Community Acceptance and Stakeholder Engagement in Wind Energy Projects—A Review of Procedural Justice and Project Stakeholder Management Literature; 2021 Malz, E.C. Airborne Wind Energy—To Fly or Not to Fly? A Study on the Power Production of Airborne Wind Energy Systems and Their Integration in the Electricity Generation System; Ph.D. Dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2020. Paulig, X.; Bungart, M.; Specht, B. Conceptual Design of Textile Kites Considering Overall System Performance. In Airborne Wind Energy. Green Energy and Technology; Ahrens, U., Diehl, M., Schmehl, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 547–562. Pohl, J.; Gabriel, J.; Hübner, G. Understanding Stress Effects of Wind Turbine Noise - The Integrated Approach. Energy Policy 2018, 112, 119–128. Roberts, B.W. Quad-Rotorcraft to Harness High-Altitude Wind Energy. In Airborne Wind Energy. Green Energy and Technology; Schmehl, R., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 581– 601. 38 Roberts, B.W.; Shepard, D.H.; Caldeira, K.; Cannon, M.E.; Eccles, D.G.; Grenier, A.J.; Freidin, J.F. Harnessing High-Altitude Wind Power. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2007, 22, 136–144. Salma, V.; Friedl, F.; Schmehl, R. Improving Reliability and Safety of Airborne Wind Energy Systems. Wind Energy 2019, 23, 340–356. Salma, V.; Schmehl, R. Flight Anomaly Detection for Airborne Wind Energy Systems. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1618, 032021. Schmidt, H.; de Vries, G.; Renes, R.J.; Schmehl, R. The Social Acceptance of Airborne Wind Energy: A Literature Review. Energies 2022, 15, 1384. Schmidt, H., Leschinger, V., Müller, F. J., de Vries, G., Renes, R. J., Schmehl, R., & Hübner, G. (2024). How do residents perceive energy-producing kites? Comparing the community acceptance of an airborne wind energy system and a wind farm in Germany. Energy Research & Social Science, 110, 103447. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629624000380 Schmidt, H.; Yupa-Villanueva, R.M.; Ragni, D.; Merino-Martínez, R.; van Gool, P.J.R.; Schmehl, R. Exploring Noise Annoyance and Sound Quality for Airborne Wind Energy Systems: Insights from a Listening Experiment. Wind Energy Science 2025, 10, 579–595 Segreto, M.; Principe, L.; Desormeaux, A.; Torre, M.; Tomassetti, L.; Tratzi, P.; Paolini, V.; Petracchini, F. Trends in Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Across Europe—A Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020, 17(24), 9161. Sommerfeld, M. Optimal Performance of Airborne Wind Energy Systems Subject to Realistic Wind Profiles; Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada, 2020. Tulloch, O. Modelling and Analysis of Rotary Airborne Wind Energy Systems—A Tensile Rotary Power Transmission Design; Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, 2021. https://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/dieagentur/presse/pressemitteilungen/akzeptanzumfrage-2024 Ye, Z.; Chaer, I.; Lawner, H.; Ross, M. Viability of Airborne Wind Energy in the United Kingdom. J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl. 2020, 12, 011008. 39 Acknowledgements The authors wish to express their gratitude to the following persons for their contributions, advise and support in the course of the project. We also thank all the participants of the online and in-person workshops and events for their input, guidance and constructive feedback. Helena Schmidt, TU Delft Nicole Allgaier, EnerKíte GmbH Daniel Busse, SkySails Power Julia Wittmayer, DRIFT Sabine Hielscher, IÖW Ana Miljanovic Rusan, RGI Anika Nicolaas Ponder, IKEM John Aston, Astoneco / IEA Task 62 Gundula Hübner, Martin-LutherUniversität Halle-Wittenberg Michael Krieger, mkrieger UG Björn Rohde-Gartmann, wpd Anika Nicolaas Ponder and Paula Scholz, IKEM Sabine Hielscher, IÖW (Partner JW4A) Katrin Mußhoff, Mayor Ketzin/ Havel 40