Scientists Weigh In: The True Impact of Wind and Solar on Biodiversity

By Dr Silpaja Chandrasekar, PhDReviewed by Laura ThomsonMar 6 2025

In a paper published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, researchers surveyed 116 professionals working at the intersection of large-scale wind and solar (LSWS) energy and biodiversity protection in the United States (US). They found that while practitioners perceived these developments to impact biodiversity negatively, the effects were considered less severe than those from fossil fuels and agriculture.

The study emphasized the importance of practitioners in balancing renewable energy expansion with biodiversity conservation. It highlighted the need for greater attention to their role in managing trade-offs during planning and development.

Related Work

Past work identified land use and land cover change as a key driver of biodiversity loss, with energy expansion contributing significantly. Researchers examined the ecological impacts of agriculture, urbanization, forestry, and renewable energy projects, highlighting trade-offs between land use and biodiversity conservation. Studies showed that practitioner perceptions shape decision-making and are influenced by geographic, social, and professional contexts. Variations in these perceptions affect how land-use policies balance development and conservation.

Biodiversity Impact Perceptions

This study analyzed practitioners' perceptions of the impact of LSWS energy development on biodiversity across the US. The research divided the country into smaller regions, aligning with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service geographic zones to capture geographical and biodiversity similarities while maintaining respondent anonymity.

Practitioners were categorized into six broad groups based on their affiliations: federal and state agencies, universities, research institutions, utilities, tribal groups, environmental organizations, and non-profits. Both manual and automated web scraping methods were employed to compile a database of contacts for the survey. A combination of structured keyword searches and snowball sampling helped identify relevant professionals engaged in renewable energy and biodiversity affairs, ensuring diverse representation across regions.

An electronic survey was conducted using Qualtrics, targeting 2,809 practitioners. The survey allowed respondents to self-identify their expertise and indicate whether they worked with wind or solar energy projects. The survey assessed perceptions of biodiversity impacts by asking practitioners to rate the net effect of LSWS projects on native species and ecosystems. To establish a comparative baseline, practitioners evaluated these impacts alongside other land-use changes such as agriculture, urbanization, logging, and fossil fuel extraction using a Likert scale.

The survey classified ecosystems affected by renewable energy projects based on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Habitat Classification Scheme, covering current (2023) and projected future (2050) impacts.

Responses underwent statistical analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test to determine regional variations in perceived biodiversity impacts. Likert scale responses were converted into numerical values to compute regional averages and assess statistical significance. The survey was piloted among 50 participants before official distribution, ensuring clarity and effectiveness. While follow-up interviews were offered to clarify perception trends, response rates were low. The study emphasized that the findings reflect practitioner perceptions rather than objective biodiversity risks, acknowledging the role of personal experiences and biases in shaping responses.

LSWS Biodiversity Impact

Practitioners generally viewed the impact of large-scale solar and wind energy on biodiversity as negative or neutral. Of the 116 surveyed, 46% and 44% perceived solar development as harmful to native plants and animals, respectively, while only 9% saw positive effects.

Wind energy was mostly seen as neutral for plants but negative for animals. Compared to six other land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) drivers, LSWS was rated as having a lower overall impact on biodiversity. By 2050, practitioners expected urban growth, industrial agriculture, and farming to cause more significant harm than LSWS, while fewer anticipated fossil fuel extraction and industrial timber operations to surpass LSWS in impact.

Regional variations in perceptions were evident, with practitioners from most regions except the Southeast and Midwest considering solar energy detrimental to plants and animals. In the Pacific Coast and Northeast, solar's impact was likened to that of fossil fuel extraction, while in the Southwest and Mountain regions, it was viewed as more harmful than industrial timber operations.

Wind energy perceptions varied less, with most regions considering its impact on plants neutral but negative for animals. Practitioners from the mountain region perceived the effects of wind as similar to those of fossil fuel operations. In contrast, those in the other areas expected urban growth and agriculture to impact biodiversity significantly.

Responses also differed by affiliation, with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) generally perceiving fewer impacts from solar than state environmental agencies and research institutions. While non-governmental organization (NGO)-affiliated practitioners often rated LSWS impacts as neutral, state ecological agency respondents saw them as negative, particularly for animals.

Research institute respondents largely agreed on solar's neutral impact on plants but adverse effects on animals. Perceptions of wind energy were more uniform across groups, with most agreeing on neutral implications for plants and adverse effects on animals. The absence of responses from federal agencies and industry representatives limits the study's scope, potentially skewing trends toward conservation-focused perspectives.

Conclusion

The study documented practitioners' perceptions of LSWS impacts on biodiversity, revealing a general net-negative view, though lower than other land-use change drivers like industrial agriculture. Regional differences suggested spatial factors influence these perceptions, with some equating LSWS impacts to fossil fuel extraction. While the study did not propose specific policies, it highlighted the importance of decision-making contexts in balancing renewable energy expansion and biodiversity conservation. As global decarbonization efforts grow, integrating practitioner insights will be crucial to minimizing biodiversity loss.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.