Pacific Coast practitioners perceive that large-scale solar energy development and fossil fuel extraction have equal impacts on biodiversity, a view held currently and projected until 2050.
Practitioners compared the direct net impacts on biodiversity from the land footprint of large-scale wind and solar energy (LSWS) with impacts from other industrial-scale land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) drivers, including agriculture, farming, urban growth, timber harvest, and fossil fuel extraction and operations.
Pawson et al. (2006) in 'Clear-fell harvest impacts on biodiversity: past research and the search for harvest size thresholds' (Can J Res) analyze the impacts of clear-fell harvesting on biodiversity and investigate harvest size thresholds.
Practitioners in the Southeast and Midwest expect industrial agriculture and farming to have a greater impact on biodiversity than solar energy by 2050.
Practitioners across all regions expect that urban, agrarian, and farming land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) will have greater impacts on biodiversity by 2050 compared to large-scale wind and solar (LSWS).
Sinha et al. (2018) outlined best practices for responsible land use to improve biodiversity at utility-scale solar facilities.
The researchers identified keywords related to LSWS and biodiversity, including biodiversity conservation, photovoltaic solar energy project planning, electricity grid management, and native ecosystems, to use as structured search terms for identifying practitioners.
Practitioners perceive the relative impact of large-scale solar and wind energy on biodiversity as less than any of the six other examined drivers of land-use and land-cover change (LULCC), with relative impact values ranging from 0.42 to 0.97 on a Likert scale.
Phalan et al. (2011) in 'Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally' (Food Policy) discuss strategies to reduce the negative impacts of global food production on biodiversity.
Sushinsky et al. (2013) investigated strategies for urban growth that minimize negative impacts on biodiversity.
Jones, Pejchar, and Kiesecker (2015) investigated how oil, natural gas, and wind energy infrastructure affect land use for biodiversity and the flow of ecosystem services.
Gasparatos et al. (2017) examined the implications of renewable energy development on biodiversity, specifically in the context of transitioning to a Green Economy.
Jackson (2011) analyzed policy conflicts between renewable energy development and nature conservation, specifically regarding biodiversity.
The survey of practitioners regarding LSWS impacts on biodiversity required ranking relative impacts for two temporal scales: current (2023) and future (2050).
The study surveyed 116 US-based practitioners, revealing a general net-negative perception of large-scale solar energy impacts on biodiversity.
Agreement among practitioners that biodiversity impacts from urban growth will surpass those from wind development ranged from 85% among NGO practitioners to full consensus among state environmental agency practitioners.
The study investigates the perceptions of governmental, academic, and non-profit practitioners working at the intersection of large-scale renewable energy (LSWS) development and biodiversity.
Practitioners in the Midwest, Southwest, and Mountain regions perceived a greater relative impact on biodiversity from industrial agriculture and farming than from wind energy.
Large-scale wind and solar energy (LSWS) development may catalyze expansion into controversial development frontiers, such as prime agricultural land (Sustainable Development Goal 2.4), forests, or land needed to protect biodiversity (Sustainable Development Goal 15.1, 15.5).
The paper 'Global projections of future cropland expansion to 2050 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage' by A. Molotoks, E. Stehfest, J. Doelman, et al. (2018) models the impacts of future cropland expansion on biodiversity and carbon storage.
The paper 'Biodiversity and wind energy in Kenya: Revealing landscape and wind turbine perceptions in the world’s wildlife capital' by E. Nordman and J. Mutinda (2016) examines perceptions of wind energy and biodiversity in Kenya.
Haines-Young (2009) analyzed the relationships between land use and biodiversity.
The physical overlap between large-scale wind and solar (LSWS) and biodiversity on a global scale is debated, which leads to varied perceptions regarding the extent and acceptability of project impacts.
On average, practitioners across all regions except the Mountain region report that wind energy has less impact on all biodiversity categories than other land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) drivers, with scores ranging from -1 to -0.33.
The majority of respondents from NGOs, research institutes, and state environmental agencies viewed projected urban development as a greater threat to biodiversity than solar energy (range 62–93%).
Practitioners in all regions except the Pacific Coast foresee future urban growth having a greater impact on biodiversity than wind energy, with 86–94% of respondents holding this view.
Practitioner responses regarding the impacts of solar and wind energy on biodiversity are unevenly distributed across different geographic regions.
Human disturbance from land-use activities is typically harmful to biodiversity, even at low intensities, though exceptions exist, such as increased vertebrate biodiversity on Indigenous-managed lands as noted by Schuster et al. (2019).
Niebuhr et al. (2022) demonstrate that renewable energy infrastructure impacts biodiversity beyond the specific area it occupies.
Practitioners across regions perceive that drivers of land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) other than large-scale wind and solar (LSWS) pose a greater threat to biodiversity.
Decision-making entities generally perceive large-scale wind and solar (LSWS) energy projects as a threat to local biodiversity.
Advances in low-impact, wildlife-friendly large-scale wind and solar (LSWS) design suggest that decarbonization projects on marginal lands pose a lower risk to biodiversity, according to research by Obermeyer et al. (2011) and Sinha et al. (2018).
Katovich (2024) quantified the effects of energy infrastructure on bird populations and biodiversity.
Scholars have identified six predominant drivers of land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) that impact biodiversity: agriculture, pasturelands, urban growth, forestry, fossil fuel extraction, and fossil fuel operations.
Agriculture intensification and conservation-centric urban planning may partially alleviate biodiversity pressures, but these tactics cannot eliminate impacts rapidly or entirely.