Clean energy is crucial for the world, and it is essential that we increase the pace of deployment for these types of energy. Expanding solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower is necessary to diminish reliance on fossil fuels and reduce the long-term impact of climate change.
But the deployment of clean energy also requires land, water, infrastructure and materials. It requires transmission lines, access roads, substations, storage and maintenance systems. Energy projects do not exist in a vacuum. They are built within landscapes where people live and make a living, where species migrate, water bodies flow and ecosystems are already stressed.
In this context, spatial planning plays a critical role.
Spatial planning determines what can and should take place in a certain area. It enables societies to anticipate and resolve the challenges posed by renewable energy development instead of waiting for issues to surface when a project is proposed and then trying to solve them one by one.
When done right, spatial planning enables the development of renewable energy while also protecting biodiversity, landscapes, water resources and local communities.
The goal is not to stop renewable energy. The aim is to make it easier to deploy the right project in the right place.
Why location matters so much
The impact of a renewable energy project depends heavily on the location in which it is built.
A solar energy project built on degraded land, rooftops or brownfield land can have a very different impact than a project built on a protected area or a nature reserve. A wind energy project placed away from important wildlife corridors can have a very different impact than one placed within them. A transmission line that is routed through an already fragmented landscape can have less of an impact on nature than one that is routed through intact ecosystems.
A renewable energy project may be technically identical but result in very different outcomes.
It is precisely because location is so important that planning should not ask only, is the project renewable? It should also ask, is the project located in a suitable site? The latter question brings climate change and energy policy together with biodiversity, land use and environmental governance.
Without spatial planning, a project will be analysed and decided upon without an overarching perspective that helps determine whether this is the right place to build this kind of project. This can lead to delayed development, repeated conflicts and damage to nature.
Developers may waste time and money on sites that are unlikely to lead to final realisation of the project. Local communities may not be part of the process and therefore could be surprised by a project proposal. Conservation groups may join the process only after the design of the project is already in an advanced stage.
Better spatial planning sets a different tone for development.
Going from project-oriented to strategic planning
Many conflicts arise because the current planning system is largely reactive.
Once a project is proposed, a site is proposed, the application for a permit is submitted, and the biodiversity, social and land-use impacts come to the surface. At that stage, stakeholders have often already taken positions. Developers may have invested money and time in a certain site. Communities may feel left out. Authorities may be asked or pressured to approve a project and might not have other options than rejecting a proposal or approving it with modifications.
Strategic spatial planning is designed to be used proactively by developers, decision-makers and civil society stakeholders. It is designed to enable renewable energy development without unnecessary costs or damages.
It happens earlier. It allows opportunities and constraints to be identified before decisions have already been made on project locations. It identifies suitable areas for renewable energy deployment, areas in which renewable energy could develop under strict conditions, and areas where renewable energy should be avoided due to high environmental and/or social values.
While this kind of planning does not replace a project-level assessment, it makes that level of scrutiny much more productive. It also provides greater certainty for developers, community stakeholders and environmental regulators. It helps them focus their efforts on lower-risk areas and prioritise clear decisions, where biodiversity protection is not seen as a hurdle, but as a component of the overall decision-making process.
Sensitive ecosystem avoidance
One of the main roles of spatial planning is to identify those areas which are particularly suitable for avoidance.
There are particular ecosystems that are especially sensitive to infrastructure. This could include a wide range of habitats such as wetlands, ancient woodlands, peatlands, coral reefs, intact grasslands, river corridors, national parks, Key Biodiversity Areas and breeding, feeding or migration sites.
If the infrastructure project is in a very sensitive place, even best-practice design measures may not avoid or limit the environmental impacts.
It is often easier to avoid an area with known environmental values or biodiversity sensitivities than it is to mitigate the effects on the local environment once the damage has been done. Once a piece of infrastructure has been constructed and causes permanent damage to habitats, or migratory pathways are disrupted, mitigation efforts or compensation measures may not be enough to repair these impacts.
Spatial planning can help to identify those areas with known environmental values and sensitivities before development activity starts. This is challenging without good data and spatial information that has been accurately mapped and can inform good decision-making.
Sometimes the ecosystem is very important, but it may not be mapped, or it may only be important seasonally. It may have a species with limited or no research, requiring local and Indigenous knowledge to identify ecological and cultural values that may not be readily identifiable in standard datasets.
Protecting biodiversity requires more than setting aside land for protected areas. It requires an understanding of the functions that different ecosystems perform across landscapes.
Ecological connectivity
Biodiversity needs connected habitats.
Animals move between different areas to feed and breed, or access different seasonal habitats and climate refuges. Rivers need to be kept natural. Migratory pollinators need to move and have connected habitats. Larger animals, birds and fish may need to travel long distances, especially as climate change shifts suitable habitats.
Spatial planning may also help to consider where it is most important to maintain these connections.
If renewable energy infrastructure, highways, fencing and other types of human infrastructure and land-use change are placed across a landscape without considering habitat connectivity, then they can fragment the natural landscape. While a single project may not always cause this, multiple smaller projects may do.
Spatial planning can help to identify the cumulative impact of multiple projects in the same landscape. A single infrastructure project, like a wind farm, solar power site or construction of a new access road, may seem like a low-impact project. Yet the overall impact may be very serious for wildlife if these projects are clustered together.
By identifying sensitive habitats and ecosystems within a wider landscape, it will be easier for planners to identify any potential ecological corridors that could be disrupted, like a key river system, migratory pathway or important network of habitats.
Identifying renewable energy development with low environmental and biodiversity impact
Planning is not just about where development should not happen. It is also about finding where development can happen.
There may be many opportunities for renewable energy development in areas where the environmental and biodiversity impacts are lower. These options span rooftops, parking lots, reclaimed land, brownfields, former mining zones, rights-of-way, reservoirs, altered environments, and agricultural areas where energy generation can be paired with farming.
In certain settings, renewable energy can even drive restoration efforts. A solar array can be maintained alongside native plants, pollinator habitats or light grazing. A wind farm layout could be tailored to bypass particularly sensitive areas. A transmission right-of-way could be maintained as a habitat connector instead of an unmaintained clearing.
None of these outcomes occur by chance. They require deliberate planning, standards and management commitments.
By identifying less-conflicting sites beforehand, governments can speed up clean energy deployment, with the potential for faster permitting, lower risks, less public opposition and better environmental outcomes.
In other words, spatial planning can protect nature and facilitate responsible renewable energy.
Balancing land-use pressures
Land is already squeezed from all sides. Agriculture, forestry, housing, transport, mining, tourism, conservation, water, energy infrastructure and other demands are all competing for the same land area.
Climate change adds more complexity, as certain regions are at higher risk from drought, flood, wildfire or ecological change.
This is why clean energy planning must be linked to broader land-use planning. Planning renewable energy in isolation can generate conflict with food production, biodiversity restoration, water conservation, community needs or other land-use goals.
Planning renewable energy within the broader scope of agriculture and land management, by contrast, increases the chance of identifying win-win scenarios.
This is important because land is more than a place to stand. It is also an environmental resource with carbon storage capacity, habitat support, water filtration, food production, cultural value and space for communities and nature.
Better spatial planning acknowledges all these benefits. This connects closely with the wider idea of land as an environmental resource.
Transmission infrastructure matters, too
Clean energy planning is very often focused on generation sites: where to site a wind farm, solar farm or hydropower project. However, transmission infrastructure can be just as important.
A proposed renewable energy project will probably require power lines, substations, transmission corridors and other infrastructure, which can contribute to habitat fragmentation, wildlife impacts, visual effects or community concerns. In some cases, the biggest impact may not be energy generation but the transmission infrastructure.
Spatial planning should, therefore, include the grid.
Planning the generation and transmission infrastructure together can reduce unnecessary effects and help align the grid with other land-use decisions. It can help route transmission lines away from highly sensitive areas or make better use of an existing corridor or road, rather than having a proposed wind or solar project approved that cannot access the grid.
A clean energy infrastructure system is not only turbines and panels. It is also the grid that carries the energy produced. That grid too should be subject to environmental spatial planning.
Involve communities in the planning process early
Spatial planning is more than a technical mapping exercise. It is also a social and political process.
Local people care deeply about the landscape, livelihood, cultural or heritage sites, land access, community, property value, aesthetics, noise and fairness. Even the best-planned and technically feasible renewable energy project can face significant resistance if it is developed by the government or energy developers without early community input.
That is why it is crucial to bring communities in early, rather than simply waiting to consult them once the priority areas for new development have been identified.
Communities should take part in:
- Defining the criteria for suitable development areas;
- Identifying sensitive areas and local concerns;
- Assessing trade-offs between energy, nature and livelihoods;
- Weighing options for sharing benefits.
It should not be expected that all concerns can be overcome. The clean energy transition will require making difficult decisions. However, better engagement can help increase trust, elicit local knowledge and mitigate errors.
A spatial planning exercise that excludes people is unlikely to deliver in reality.
Data, openness and trust
Spatial planning relies on high-quality data.
Governments and planners need data on biodiversity, land cover, protected areas, species migrations, hydrology, agriculture, cultural heritage, grid capacity, renewable energy potential, climate risk and community needs.
But data alone is not sufficient. The process also has to be open.
Communities should know why some areas are considered suitable, why some are considered unsuitable and how decisions were made. Ambiguous criteria can make planning appear arbitrary and biased. Outdated or incomplete maps can lead to decisions that fail to take critical risks into account.
A good spatial planning exercise should make its assumptions clear and should be open to update as more information becomes available. Biodiversity shifts, climate risks shift, technologies change and energy needs change.
Spatial planning should be robust enough to guide decision-making but flexible enough to incorporate new evidence.
What improved spatial planning can deliver
Improved spatial planning will not eliminate all the conflicts between the clean energy transition and conservation efforts. There will still be difficult decisions, contentious projects and imperfect data.
But it can make managing these conflicts easier.
Improved spatial planning can help to:
- Prevent development from taking place in the worst locations;
- Channel renewable energy projects into safer areas;
- Conserve wildlife corridors;
- Minimise cumulative effects;
- Bolster community confidence;
- Make permits more predictable;
- Advance climate and conservation goals simultaneously.
Most significantly, it can help avoid the idea that the two agendas are an either/or choice: clean energy versus biodiversity conservation.
No society should be asked to choose between the clean energy transition and conservation. Both are required. Climate change poses a serious threat to biodiversity, and declining biodiversity degrades the resilience of landscapes and communities. Viewing the two agendas as mutually exclusive is an error.
The way forward lies in planning them together.
Planning the clean energy transition with conservation in mind
The clean energy transition is a central environmental challenge of this century. It must be conducted with foresight.
A poorly conducted transition will cause local disruption, community resistance and unnecessary pressures on ecosystems. A well-planned transition will lower emissions, safeguard important areas, rehabilitate damaged habitats and enhance community resilience.
Spatial planning is a mechanism that can facilitate this.
It provides a tool that helps decision-makers see the whole landscape and not just an individual project. It links energy and conservation, water, agriculture, infrastructure and government. It supports identifying where development can take place, where it should be restricted and where it should be banned.
This is also part of the wider set of global challenges and solutions facing environmental policy today.
Clean energy is necessary. Biodiversity is necessary. Improved spatial planning can help ensure that the achievement of one does not compromise the achievement of the other.
