Renewable energy deployment: assessing benefits and challenges for ecosystem services

Highlights

• Renewable energy systems reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.
• Effective policies drive renewable energy adoption.
• Socio-economic benefits include job creation and improved public health.
• Ecological planning minimizes negative environmental impacts.
• Future research should focus on data collection and adaptive management.

1 Introduction

The urgency of addressing climate change has accelerated global adoption of renewable energy systems (RES) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support sustainable development. Solar, wind, hydro, and biomass energies reduce dependence on fossil fuels, the dominant source of carbon emissions (Pangestu, 2023) while improving energy security and economic resilience (Eitan, 2021). International agreements such as the Paris Agreement emphasize renewable energy's role in meeting carbon reduction targets (Guðmundsdóttir et al., 2018), and renewable technologies contribute to decarbonization, job creation, and innovation (Sarmiento et al., 2019). This transition is also intrinsically linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action), while impacting SDG 15 (Life on Land) through the land-use requirements of energy infrastructure. Renewable energy is projected to supply roughly 85% of global electricity by 2050 (de Assis Espécie et al., 2019; IRENA, 2019).

Public support for renewable energy reflects its perceived importance in climate mitigation and energy access. Growing public awareness influences policy priorities and investment decisions (Hamilton et al., 2018). However, deployment faces challenges including technological advancement, infrastructure needs, land availability, and public acceptance (Copping et al., 2020). Although renewable energy reduces emissions, its implementation can alter land use, fragment habitats, and affect biodiversity and ecosystem services depending on siting (Tallis et al., 2015; Gkalonaki and Karatzas, 2022). Careful planning is therefore required to balance climate benefits with ecological impacts.

Ecosystem services encompass provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural benefits defined by frameworks such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and IPBES (Hales et al., 2004; Dong et al., 2018). Provisioning services supply food, freshwater, timber, fiber, energy, and genetic resources (Liu et al., 2023); regulating services include climate regulation, water purification, flood control, disease regulation, and carbon sequestration (Khan et al., 2013); supporting services sustain soil formation, nutrient cycling, primary production, and habitat provisioning (Kyere-boateng et al., 2022); and cultural services provide recreational, aesthetic, spiritual, and heritage values (McPhearson et al., 2014). These categories highlight how renewable energy deployment and land-use change can both support and challenge ecosystem functioning.

Balancing trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services is essential during renewable energy transitions. Solar and wind installations enhance regulating services by reducing emissions and improving air quality (Li et al., 2016; Brauman et al., 2007) but may fragment habitats and alter cultural landscapes (Rodriguez et al., 2006; Dennedy-Frank et al., 2016). Frameworks such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and IPBES help align agricultural, industrial, and conservation objectives (Brauman et al., 2007; Carpenter et al., 2009). Integrating spatial data with multi-criteria decision analysis supports evaluation of land-use impacts, while community engagement and traditional ecological knowledge promote equitable, biodiversity-focused planning (Jacobo and Rodríguez, 2024; Teague and Kreuter, 2020).

Healthy ecosystems provide essential services such as carbon sequestration by forests (Wang et al., 2018) and flood control and water purification by wetlands (Zhao et al., 2022). Conversely, degradation from agriculture, bioenergy expansion, and urbanization reduces service provision (Huang et al., 2014). Policymakers can strengthen ecosystem resilience by prioritizing conservation and sustainable management (Schmutz and Sendzimir, 2018). Integrating green infrastructure such as pairing solar PV with wetland restoration can enhance carbon sequestration and biodiversity (Semeraro et al., 2020).

Recent literature underscores the importance of incorporating ecosystem services into renewable energy planning. Geoscientific research supports ecological balancing and impact mitigation (Oguanobi and Joel, 2024); landscape preferences and ecosystem services improve siting decisions (Šalak et al., 2024); and evaluating trade-offs among technologies enhances ecological outcomes (Picchi et al., 2020). Together, these studies highlight the need for ecosystem-informed renewable energy development.

Examining case studies helps identify best practices for minimizing impacts and maximizing ecological benefits (Casalegno et al., 2014). Understanding ecological ramifications is essential to ensuring renewable technologies contribute positively to sustainability and ecosystem health (Shi et al., 2015). This review synthesizes current knowledge to support researchers, policymakers, and practitioners navigating renewable energy development in the context of ecosystem service management (Picchi et al., 2020).

This review aims to: (1) examine ecosystem services affected by RES; (2) evaluate positive and negative impacts of major renewable technologies; (3) identify strategies to mitigate adverse effects and enhance benefits; and (4) recommend ways to integrate ecosystem-services considerations into renewable energy planning and policy.

2 Types of renewable energy systems

The quest for sustainable and renewable energy sources has intensified as countries work to reduce emissions and strengthen energy security. This section provides an overview of Solar Photovoltaic (PV), Concentrating Solar Power (CSP), Wind Energy, Hydropower, and Biomass and Bioenergy. Each technology presents distinct benefits, environmental footprints, and mitigation needs. By examining their characteristics and impacts, we can better understand how to harness their potential while minimizing ecological effects. Figure 1 summarizes environmental footprints and mitigation strategies across technologies. Supplementary Table S1 outlines key characteristics, impacts, mitigation strategies, and references to support decision-making.

2.1 Solar energy

Solar energy is a central component of global renewable energy transitions. This section examines the two primary technologies harnessing solar power: PV and CSP.

2.1.1 Solar photovoltaic (PV)

While PV deployment is fundamental to global decarbonization strategies, its land-use requirements and life cycle emissions necessitate rigorous environmental scrutiny. Life cycle assessment (LCA) shows impacts across production, operation, and disposal. Manufacturing crystalline silicon PV cells has a notable carbon footprint, though technological advances are reducing these impacts (Carvalho et al., 2019). High-concentration PV systems also exhibit lower life cycle emissions than flat-plate systems (Fthenakis and Kim, 2012).

Large-scale PV installations can compete with agricultural land and natural habitats, leading to biodiversity loss and habitat degradation, as observed in Vietnam (Shimada and Takeuchi, 2023). Off-grid PV systems requiring battery storage may also cause environmental degradation (Júnior and Almeida, 2023). The extensive land requirements of utility-scale PV can alter hydrological cycles and soil quality. Urban integration, such as rooftop PV, reduces land-use pressures (Arief et al., 2023). Materials used in PV systems, including silicon and rare metals, pose environmental challenges during extraction and processing (Vadiyala, 2020). Recycling and repurposing PV materials remain active research areas that could reduce end-of-life impacts (Milousi et al., 2019).

2.1.2 Concentrating solar power

CSP systems use mirrors or lenses to concentrate sunlight and generate heat. Technologies such as parabolic troughs, power towers, linear Fresnel reflectors, and Stirling dishes each offer distinct performance characteristics (Hernandez et al., 2014; Natraj et al., 2022; Reis et al., 2023). Despite their clean energy potential, CSP systems require substantial land, causing habitat loss and fragmentation, as documented in the Mojave Desert (Carlisle et al., 2015). Infrastructure such as access roads and transmission lines can further disrupt ecosystems (Cameron et al., 2012). Water use for cooling is another major concern, particularly in arid regions (Moore-O'Leary et al., 2017). Dry-cooling technologies and hybrid CSP-PV systems can reduce water demand (Jü et al., 2017). CSP installations may also influence local microclimates through large reflective surfaces (He et al., 2016). Thorough environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are essential to identify and mitigate ecological risks (Rubino et al., 2021). Continued research and improved land-use practices will be critical for maximizing CSP benefits while minimizing environmental impacts (Toub et al., 2021; Reis et al., 2023).

2.2 Wind energy

Wind energy is essential in the transition to renewable power, offering a clean alternative to fossil fuels. However, expanding wind farms raises concerns about wildlife impacts, particularly on birds and marine species. Wind turbines pose direct collision risks, causing approximately 368,000 bird fatalities annually in North America (Sheppard et al., 2015). Larger birds, including raptors and migratory species, are especially vulnerable (Thaxter et al., 2017). Collision rates depend on turbine design and siting, including height, rotor speed, and proximity to migration routes and breeding areas (McClure et al., 2021). Wind farms may also displace species by altering nesting and foraging habitats (Marques et al., 2019).

Offshore wind energy reduces land-use conflicts but introduces marine impacts. Marine birds face collision risks and habitat displacement (Adams et al., 2017), while construction and maintenance activities can disturb fish populations and other marine organisms (Shields, 2014). Comprehensive EIAs and adaptive management are essential to balance energy production with biodiversity conservation (Duerr et al., 2023). Strategic siting, technological innovations, and ongoing monitoring can reduce ecological impacts while supporting continued wind-energy expansion (Schuster et al., 2015).

2.3 Hydropower

Hydropower is a widely used renewable energy source that provides substantial electricity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, constructing dams and reservoirs significantly alters riverine ecosystems by disrupting natural water flow, sediment transport, and nutrient cycling, negatively affecting aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem health (Anderson et al., 2018). Operational impacts such as water stratification and hydropeaking further stress aquatic organisms and may create low-oxygen zones (Albrecht et al., 2023). Despite economic benefits such as job creation and improved energy security, hydropower development can impose social costs. Large reservoirs may displace communities, reduce agricultural land, and create inequities when economic gains are unevenly distributed (Nhiakao et al., 2022; Fu and Li, 2019). Effective management can yield positive socio-economic outcomes by supporting regional development, providing reliable electricity, and stimulating local industries (Xia et al., 2024). Community engagement in planning and decision-making helps ensure local needs are addressed and promotes sustainable water-resource management (Schmutz et al., 2014). Recognizing hydropower's ecological and social trade-offs and implementing best practices for environmental stewardship can help maximize benefits while minimizing negative impacts (Peek et al., 2021).

2.4 Biomass and bioenergy

Biomass and bioenergy are significant renewable energy sources addressing climate and energy-security challenges. However, producing biomass for energy often entails substantial land-use change, affecting biodiversity, carbon emissions, and sustainability. The cultivation of bioenergy crops frequently converts natural habitats or agricultural land into production areas, leading to habitat loss and fragmentation. Monoculture plantations such as switchgrass or miscanthus displace native flora and fauna, reducing species richness and altering ecosystem dynamics (Winberg et al., 2023). Intensified land use increases fertilizer and pesticide application, contributing to soil degradation and water-quality decline (Lotze-Campen et al., 2013). While biomass is often considered carbon-neutral, its carbon footprint varies widely depending on land-use history; converting forests or grasslands can release substantial carbon, undermining climate benefits (Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2014). Sustainability can be improved by minimizing land-use change and prioritizing residues or waste materials from existing agricultural and forestry operations (Nunez and Alkemade, 2021). Agroforestry systems that integrate biomass production with traditional agriculture can also enhance biodiversity and provide economic benefits (Perry et al., 2016).

The socio-economic impacts of biomass and bioenergy production are complex. Bioenergy development can create jobs and stimulate rural economies (Martins and Pereira, 2017), but competition for land between food and energy crops may increase food prices and insecurity, particularly where agricultural land is limited (Marshall et al., 2020). Large-scale projects may also trigger land-tenure conflicts and displace local populations, especially in developing regions (Newbold et al., 2020). Engaging local communities in decision-making is essential to ensure rights and needs are respected (Wilting et al., 2017). By prioritizing sustainable practices and community participation, biomass can deliver benefits while minimizing ecological and social impacts (Jung et al., 2019).

2.5 Comparative assessment of environmental footprints

Understanding the environmental footprints of energy technologies requires evaluating both lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and land requirements, expressed as power density. These metrics reveal substantial differences across energy systems and highlight the trade-offs that shape sustainable energy planning. Coal has the highest lifecycle emissions, underscoring the need for cleaner alternatives. Renewable technologies, including solar PV, CSP, wind, biomass, and hydropower exhibit far lower lifecycle emissions, though their land-use implications vary considerably (Table 1).

Table 1. Comparative environmental footprints of major energy technologies: lifecycle emissions and land requirements.

Solar PV and wind energy consistently demonstrate the most favorable combination of low emissions and efficient land use, making them central to decarbonization strategies. CSP and biomass show wider variability in both emissions and power density, reflecting differences in technology design, feedstock characteristics, and land-use intensity. Hydropower offers low emissions but presents complex ecological and social trade-offs tied to reservoir creation and landscape transformation. These contrasts highlight the need to integrate lifecycle analysis, ecological assessment, and land-use planning when comparing renewable options. Table 1 summarizes lifecycle emissions, power-density values, and supporting references for major energy technologies.

2.6 Emerging technological mitigation

Recent technological innovations are critical for enhancing energy efficiency and mitigating the ecological footprints of renewable energy deployment, particularly in solar and wind generation. In solar energy, bifacial panels utilize both front and rear surfaces to capture sunlight, potentially increasing energy output by over 20% and reducing land requirements, particularly in high-albedo environments (Hasan et al., 2023; Szabó et al., 2024). Simultaneously, Floating Photovoltaic (F-PV) systems utilize water bodies to spare terrestrial ecosystems and improve panel efficiency via cooling effects, offering a vital solution for regions with strict land-use constraints (Vélez-Henao and García-Mazo, 2022; Kabir, 2024). In the wind sector, the integration of artificial intelligence, such as smart curtailment systems like IdentiFlight, leverages real-time data to predict bird movements and dynamically adjust turbine operations, thereby minimizing avian collision risks while optimizing generation (Chen et al., 2023; Ohalete et al., 2023).

Beyond generation hardware, advancements in grid management and storage are transformative for system resilience. Solid-state batteries offer higher energy densities and reduced flammability compared to traditional lithium-ion options, enabling more effective management of renewable intermittency (Behabtu et al., 2020; Lv et al., 2025). These storage solutions complement smart grid technologies, which utilize advanced metering and real-time monitoring to optimize electricity flows and empower consumer engagement through demand response systems (Srivastava, 2022; Uzondu and Lele, 2024). Furthermore, hybrid energy systems that combine solar and wind with advanced storage and machine-learning optimization ensure continuous supply despite generation fluctuations, marking a pivotal evolution toward a secure and ecologically sustainable energy future (Ohalete et al., 2023; Yan et al., 2024).

3 Environmental impacts of renewable energy systems

While RES offer numerous benefits, including lower carbon emissions and enhanced energy security, they also present various ecological and socio-economic challenges. This section examines the environmental impacts of RES, including carbon emissions reduction potential, resource consumption, waste generation, and associated ecological trade-offs. Evaluating these factors clarifies deployment complexities and supports strategies that enhance benefits while limiting environmental and social impacts.

3.1 Carbon emissions reduction

Transitioning from fossil fuel-based energy systems to renewable energy sources is essential for significantly reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change. Renewable technologies such as wind, solar, and biomass produce substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels, the primary drivers of global warming (Arroyo and Miguel, 2020). Fossil fuel combustion accounted for approximately 80% of energy-related CO₂ emissions in 2020 (Wang et al., 2023). In contrast, lifecycle emissions from solar PV systems are 20 to 50 times lower than those of coal-fired power plants (Gao et al., 2022), and wind energy systems also emit far less than natural gas (Hamilton et al., 2018). Although biomass is often considered carbon-neutral due to CO₂ uptake by plants, land-use changes for biomass production can generate significant emissions when forests or grasslands are converted to energy crops (Stokes and Warshaw, 2017). Sustainably managed biomass, particularly from waste materials or residues, can nonetheless function as a low-carbon alternative (Zhang et al., 2021).

RES offer long-term benefits beyond immediate emissions reductions. They help stabilize global temperatures, mitigate climate impacts, and improve air quality by producing minimal air pollutants compared to fossil fuels. This reduction in pollution yields major public health benefits, including lower rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (Huang et al., 2023). Additionally, integrating renewables into the energy mix enhances energy security, reduces exposure to fossil fuel price volatility, and supports economic stability and job creation in the expanding renewable energy sector (Wei et al., 2022). As nations pursue climate targets and sustainable energy transitions, continued investment in renewable technologies remains crucial for achieving a low-carbon future (Rakowska and Ozimek, 2021).

3.2 Resource consumption and waste generation

Understanding resource consumption and waste generation is crucial for evaluating the overall sustainability of renewable energy technologies. Life cycle assessments (LCA) analyze environmental impacts from material extraction through production, use, and disposal (Pan et al., 2020). Producing solar PV panels requires substantial inputs such as silicon, metals, and glass, entailing energy-intensive extraction and processing (Raugei et al., 2012). Similarly, wind turbine manufacturing depends on rare earth metals and other materials, potentially creating notable environmental footprints if unsustainably sourced (Davis et al., 2016). While renewable technologies emit far less during operation than fossil fuels, their upstream extraction and manufacturing processes can generate significant impacts. For example, biomass production may drive land-use change, habitat loss, and elevated carbon emissions when forests are cleared for energy crops (Zhang, 2017).

The disposal of RES, particularly solar panels and wind turbine blades, poses growing waste-management challenges, as these materials are difficult to recycle and may contribute to landfill accumulation if improperly handled (Nur et al., 2023). Circular-economy strategies that promote material reuse and recycling can mitigate these impacts (Kumba et al., 2024). Waste-to-energy technologies also offer opportunities to convert waste streams into usable energy, improving resource efficiency (Islam et al., 2024). However, raw material extraction for renewable technologies often results in habitat destruction, soil erosion, and water pollution (Anonas et al., 2023). Mining for lithium, cobalt, and other critical minerals used in batteries and renewable systems can adversely affect local ecosystems and communities (Zhang et al., 2015). Rising global demand for these materials has intensified competition, increased prices, and encouraged unsustainable extraction practices (Ravi et al., 2014). Addressing these challenges is essential to ensure the clean-energy transition does not compromise environmental integrity or social equity. LCAs underscore the need for sustainable material sourcing and effective waste-management practices (Pan et al., 2020). Strengthening these approaches enables the renewable energy sector to advance sustainability while minimizing its ecological footprint.

3.3 Land-use intensity and biodiversity impacts

Solar PV systems operate at just 0.01–0.20 W/m², with typical installations yielding 2–7 W/m² compared to roughly 2,500 W/m² from fossil fuel plants (Picchi et al., 2020). Utility-scale solar systems often require substantial land areas, which can compete with agriculture and threaten food production and natural habitats (Dinesh and Pearce, 2016). Similarly, wind farms have notable land requirements, particularly access roads, which account for about 80% of direct land use in China (Yang et al., 2025). Spatial analyses show that wind and solar infrastructure can reduce migratory-species connectivity by up to 18%, and higher infrastructure density increases habitat fragmentation (Šalak et al., 2024). Agrivoltaic systems offer dual-use benefits, boosting crop yields by 20%−30% per hectare while maintaining pollinator diversity comparable to adjacent farmland (Hanes et al., 2017). In contrast, dedicated energy-crop plantations can incur up to 25% greater biodiversity loss than mixed-cropping landscapes (Grilli et al., 2015; Krēslina et al., 2020). PV-dominated areas have experienced 5%−8% declines in the Biodiversity Intactness Index (Sansilvestri et al., 2021), and offshore wind farms average 3–5 bird and bat fatalities per turbine annually (Dannheim et al., 2019). Marine service mapping underscores the need to site installations away from high-value habitats (Papathanasopoulou et al., 2016).

3.4 Ecological trade-offs

Integrating RES into landscapes involves managing complex ecological trade-offs to balance energy production with ecosystem services. Renewable technologies such as wind, solar, and hydropower can significantly alter land use and ecosystem dynamics. For example, constructing wind farms can fragment habitats, affecting wildlife populations and ecosystem services (Zhao and Li, 2020). Similarly, large-scale solar installations can displace natural habitats and disrupt local ecosystems (Stosch et al., 2019). The challenge is to ensure that benefits such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions and enhanced energy security do not come at the expense of critical ecosystem services, including biodiversity, water purification, and carbon sequestration.

Several examples illustrate these trade-offs. In the Mekong River Basin, hydropower expansion has reduced fish biodiversity and altered sediment transport, both essential for healthy aquatic ecosystems (Ziv et al., 2012). In the Netherlands, solar deployment raised concerns about land-use conflicts among energy production, agriculture, and biodiversity, though agrivoltaics can enhance land productivity while minimizing ecological impacts (Picchi et al., 2020). In Northeast China, forest conservation projects increased carbon storage but reduced water availability for local communities, underscoring the need for integrated strategies that consider multiple ecosystem services simultaneously (Jia et al., 2022). These examples show that while renewable energy supports climate mitigation and energy security, it can also generate substantial ecological impacts if poorly managed. Ecosystem services frameworks and stakeholder engagement are essential for identifying and mitigating trade-offs and fostering synergies between RES and ecosystem service provision, enabling more sustainable energy transitions (Qin et al., 2015).

4 Socio-economic impacts of renewable energy systems

The transition to RES is not only critical for environmental sustainability but also has far-reaching socio-economic implications. As nations worldwide adopt renewable technologies, it is essential to understand how these systems influence economic growth, job creation, and public health. This section examines the economic, social, and public-health impacts of renewable energy, emphasizing key benefits and associated challenges.

4.1 Economic benefits

Transitioning to RES offers significant economic benefits beyond environmental sustainability, including job creation, local development, enhanced energy security, and cost reductions. The renewable energy sector provides major employment opportunities, with IRENA reporting approximately 11.5 million jobs in 2018 and continued growth projections. In developing countries, renewable technologies have substantially contributed to job creation and local economic development, particularly in Southeast Asia and Africa, diversifying local economies (Karimi and Karimi, 2024). Additionally, renewable energy projects stimulate local economies by increasing tax revenues and attracting investment, leading to infrastructure and service improvements in rural areas (Singh et al., 2019).

RES enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels, mitigating risks of supply disruptions and price volatility (Ranganathan et al., 2023). This transition strengthens energy independence, especially for nations with abundant renewable resources (Eze et al., 2023). Declining costs of solar panels and wind turbines, driven by technological advances and economies of scale, have made renewables increasingly competitive with fossil fuels (Li et al., 2023). For example, solar PV costs have fallen by over 80% since 2010, making solar one of the most affordable electricity sources (Drean, 2022). Lower operational and maintenance costs further support economic stability and affordability, benefiting consumers through reduced electricity prices (Nazarov et al., 2024). These economic benefits are essential for fostering sustainable growth, strengthening economic resilience, and improving quality of life (Malinowski, 2021).

4.2 Social implications

The social implications of RES include community engagement, public acceptance, and health benefits from improved air quality. Understanding these aspects is crucial for a successful transition to sustainable energy systems. Engaging local stakeholders in planning and decision-making ensures their concerns are addressed, leading to smoother implementation and greater acceptance (Segreto et al., 2020). However, local opposition may arise due to concerns about environmental impacts, aesthetic changes, and ecosystem disruptions (Phadke, 2011). Transparent communication, participatory planning, and attention to local values are essential for building trust and fostering acceptance (Mishra et al., 2024). The “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) phenomenon reflects tensions between support for renewable energy and reluctance to host projects. Strengthening community ownership and collaboration can improve local support (Mikalauskas and Mikalauskiene, 2017).

RES also provide major social benefits, including improved public health from enhanced air quality. Fossil fuel combustion is a major source of pollutants linked to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases (Segreto et al., 2020). Reducing fossil fuel use and expanding renewable energy can improve air quality and health outcomes. Studies show that greater renewable deployment can prevent premature deaths and reduce healthcare costs associated with air pollution (Buonocore et al., 2019). Cleaner energy transitions also decrease hospital visits and pollution-related illnesses (Mujtaba and Shahzad, 2020). Access to clean energy enhances wellbeing by providing reliable electricity for essential services such as healthcare, education, and sanitation. In rural areas, renewable systems can empower communities by improving living conditions and supporting economic development (Sadabadi et al., 2024). Prioritizing social dimensions in planning and implementation strengthens community wellbeing and supports a sustainable energy future (Senyapar, 2023).

4.3 Navigating land-use conflicts and safeguarding ecosystem services

Renewable energy developments often ignite land-use conflicts when large-scale solar and wind farms encroach upon ancestral territories or areas already under agricultural or conservation pressure (Lovering et al., 2022). Mega-projects have been shown to dispossess vulnerable communities through land grabbing that bypasses fair acquisition procedures, deepening socio-economic precarity and eroding trust in governance (Yenneti et al., 2016). Poor transparency in decision-making exacerbates both physical relocation and psychological displacement; studies of Canadian wind-farm siting report backlash driven by cultural loss and severed place attachment (Karanasios and Parker, 2018; Temper et al., 2020). At the same time, infrastructure siting can threaten biodiversity hotspots and undermine ecosystem services, with solar farms and turbines requiring extensive land clearance that risks long-term ecological damage (Rehbein et al., 2020; Tallis et al., 2018; Kiesecker et al., 2019).

Global ecosystem services are valued at US$125-140 trillion per year (Costanza et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2023), and payments for ecosystem services can raise local incomes by 8%−12% in energy-project regions (Liu et al., 2024). Rural biogas adoption in Kyrgyzstan reduced indoor pollution by 30% and improved household energy security by 20% (Mehta et al., 2021), while biomass integration has strengthened livelihoods (Bühring and Silveira, 2018). Ecosystem-services valuation mechanisms also improve project bankability by addressing market failures and policy uncertainty (Owusu and Sarkodie, 2016). Surveys show 60%−75% public support for renewables but 25%−40% concern over landscape impacts (Almpanopoulou et al., 2017). Scenario-based environmental assessments can increase net ecosystem-services values by up to 18% through optimized land-use planning (Bejagam et al., 2021; Pascali et al., 2020). Emerging socio-ecological evaluation frameworks emphasize collaborative policy design to balance energy goals with ecosystem health (Gupta et al., 2023).

To navigate these socio-political challenges, policy frameworks must embed free, prior, and informed consent and integrate Indigenous knowledge systems to guide low-impact site selection and resource management (Wu et al., 2024; Arshad et al., 2023). Participatory planning using tools such as GIS for community mapping and co-design processes foster local ownership and align projects with cultural and ecological values (Flacke and Boer, 2017; Knuth et al., 2022). Alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms, including mediation and negotiation, build trust and support equitable benefit-sharing (Waris et al., 2019), while legal strategies that empower local and Indigenous voices secure compensation and stewardship roles (Oduro et al., 2024; Pfeiffer and Mulder, 2013). Coupled with systematic conservation planning and adaptive governance, these measures can mitigate conflicts, ensuring renewable energy transitions are both ecologically sustainable and socially just.

4.4 Metrics and indicators for measuring impacts and benefits

Robust frameworks of metrics and indicators are crucial for evaluating the impacts and benefits of RES on ecosystem services. These frameworks assess both the positive contributions of renewable energy and the potential trade-offs associated with deployment. For example, provisioning-services metrics such as food production can be measured through changes in crop yields or the use of agricultural residues for bioenergy (Pătru-Stupariu et al., 2020). Water-provision indicators, including water availability and quality are also critical, as projects like hydropower can significantly alter local hydrological cycles (Ramalho et al., 2023).

Regulating-services indicators, such as carbon sequestration, track ecosystem carbon-storage capacity and changes in carbon stocks over time (Trifonova et al., 2022). Air-quality metrics assess reductions in pollutants resulting from decreased fossil-fuel reliance, often monitored through environmental observation programs (Casalegno et al., 2014). Supporting-services metrics include biodiversity indices that capture impacts on avian and aquatic species (Vercelloni et al., 2018), while soil-health indicators such as soil organic carbon, nutrient cycling, and erosion rates are especially relevant for bioenergy crop systems (Oguanobi and Joel, 2024).

Cultural-services indicators include recreational-value assessments using surveys and valuation tools to gauge public preferences for landscapes altered by renewable installations (Song and Gao, 2024). Aesthetic-value metrics evaluate visual quality and community perceptions of project integration (Wehbi, 2024). Integrated metrics, such as ecosystem-service valuation, quantify the economic value of services affected by renewable energy, offering essential insights into trade-offs (Grilli et al., 2016). Trade-off and synergy analyses using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) or integrated assessment models (IAMs) evaluate costs and benefits across multiple ecosystem services (Picchi et al., 2020).

Engaging in comprehensive LCAs is essential for understanding full environmental impacts, including resource extraction, manufacturing energy use, operational emissions, and end-of-life disposal or recycling (Hooper et al., 2017). A diverse suite of metrics is needed to capture these impacts comprehensively. By employing these indicators, stakeholders gain clearer insights into ecological trade-offs and synergies, supporting better-informed decision-making and sustainable energy practices. Continuous research should refine these metrics and develop innovative monitoring techniques to ensure renewable energy development aligns with ecological wellbeing and sustainability goals (Knowlton et al., 2021). Tables 2, 3 summarize key metrics used to evaluate impacts and benefits across ecosystem-service categories.

Table 2. Metrics and indicators for measuring impacts of RES on ecosystem services.

Table 3. Summary of benefits of RES on ecosystem services and metrics and indicators.

5 Policy and governance considerations

The development of RES is deeply influenced by policy and governance frameworks. Effective policies provide the legal, regulatory, and financial foundations necessary for transitioning to sustainable energy sources. By establishing clear guidelines, setting ambitious targets, and offering financial incentives, these frameworks drive innovation and investment in renewable energy. The following sections examine how policy promotes sustainable renewable-energy practices, integrates ecological considerations into planning, and supports effective governance. Together, they highlight the need for robust governance to balance energy production with environmental and socio-economic benefits.

5.1 Role of policy in promoting sustainable renewable energy practices

Effective promotion of renewable energy deployment relies on policy frameworks that provide legal, regulatory, and financial support for sustainable energy transitions. Robust regulations, such as Ghana's Renewable Energy Act of 2011, establish guidelines, clarify stakeholder roles, and set ambitious targets to drive investment and innovation. Policies promoting net metering also encourage solar PV adoption and strengthen grid resilience (Takase et al., 2022).

Financial incentives, including feed-in tariffs, tax credits, and grants reduce upfront capital costs and make renewable projects economically viable. By offering fixed payments to renewable producers, countries can stimulate investment in solar, wind, and biomass. Innovative financing mechanisms, such as green bonds and public-private partnerships, further mobilize private capital and support economic growth (Elavarasan et al., 2020). Strategic planning aligns renewable development with broader sustainability goals by considering social, economic, and environmental implications. Opportunity-mapping tools help identify suitable sites and minimize impacts on sensitive habitats (Eze et al., 2023). Moreover, community engagement and transparent communication build public support and address land-use and environmental concerns (Acheampong et al., 2019). Prioritizing these policy elements enables sustainable development that balances energy production with ecosystem-service provision.

5.2 Importance of integrating ecological considerations into energy planning

Integrating ecological considerations into energy planning is crucial for aligning renewable energy development with environmental sustainability and biodiversity conservation. As demand for renewable energy grows, it is important to assess and manage ecological impacts. This integration enhances ecosystem resilience by recognizing the interconnectedness of energy systems and natural environments. Through this approach, planners can identify critical habitats, migration corridors, and biodiversity hotspots needing protection during development, allowing such areas to be avoided. Additionally, ecological planning can guide deployment toward already disturbed or degraded sites suitable for solar installations, thereby reducing pressure on intact ecosystems and supporting broader landscape sustainability (Zyl et al., 2021).

Assessing project impacts on ecosystem services helps develop strategies that minimize negative effects and enhance synergies (Yiğitcanlar and Teriman, 2014). For example, incorporating green infrastructure such as green roofs and urban forests into urban planning can mitigate impacts of renewable installations while providing additional ecosystem services (Staniūnas et al., 2012). Integrating ecological considerations also strengthens community engagement and acceptance. Involving local communities in planning and addressing ecological concerns increases support for renewable initiatives (Ványolós et al., 2023). Community participation in biomass-energy planning, for instance, enhances social acceptance while prioritizing biodiversity conservation and soil health (Xiao et al., 2011). By fostering collaboration among developers, policymakers, and communities, ecological integration supports more sustainable and socially acceptable energy solutions. As the global renewable-energy transition accelerates, the importance of ecological integration in planning will continue to grow (Qin et al., 2024).

5.3 Examples of policy frameworks

Effective policy instruments such as feed-in tariffs, competitive auctions, and public-private partnerships are essential for scaling renewable energy while delivering socio-economic and ecosystem services benefits (Karimi and Karimi, 2024). Supplementary Table S2 summarizes examples of policy frameworks across regions, highlighting key instruments, primary outcomes (capacity growth, economic gains, and ecosystem-services co-benefits), and peer-reviewed documentation. This overview enables quick comparison of approaches and demonstrates how tailored policy mixes drive deployment and resilience worldwide. Meta-analyses show that policies aligned with regional socio-ecological contexts maximize uptake and co-benefits (Ewim et al., 2023). Embedding transparent long-term targets and diversified financing streams into regulatory frameworks cultivates green innovation, landscape resilience, and a strong foundation for comparative global policy analysis (Ayorinde et al., 2024).

In the Global South, policy frameworks are increasingly aligning energy access with sustainability by responding to both environmental and social imperatives. For instance, China's 14th Five-Year Plan prioritizes the ecological integration of its massive renewable expansion, emphasizing the harmonization of new projects with preservation goals (He et al., 2023). Similarly, India's National Solar Mission has incorporated land-use guidelines designed to minimize agricultural conflict, illustrating a proactive approach to balancing energy development with food security (Khosla et al., 2020; Hunt et al., 2024). Furthermore, South Africa's Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP) exemplifies how policy can enforce socioeconomic mandates, requiring projects to contribute directly to local community development (Akom et al., 2021; González et al., 2023). Collectively, these examples reflect a broader trend where renewable energy policy is framed within the context of sustainable development, linking energy access inextricably to ecological health and community welfare (Diallo and Ouoba, 2023; Prontera and Rubino, 2024; Kumba and Olanrewaju, 2024).

Elsewhere in Asia, Vietnam's aggressive feed-in tariffs and streamlined permitting doubled wind and solar capacity in 5 years, improving air quality and flood regulation in coastal provinces (Uzondu and Joseph, 2024; Nkordeh et al., 2023). Across ASEAN, regional cooperation and targeted grants have similarly accelerated solar and wind deployment (Damu et al., 2023; Polzin et al., 2015).

In other developing countries, Brazil's Prosolar program used tax incentives and low-interest financing to expand rooftop and utility-scale solar, easing deforestation pressures in Amazon-adjacent watersheds (Ewim et al., 2023). Mexico's 2015 energy reform opened the electricity market to competition, tripling wind capacity through auctions and investment guarantees (Chukwuemeka et al., 2023). Chile's transparent renewable auctions cut solar generation costs by more than 50% in 5 years and attracted major international investment (Eze et al., 2023; Hunt et al., 2024). The ECOWAS Renewable Energy Policy targets 48% renewables by 2030 through harmonized procurement and capacity building (Ballo et al., 2022). Similarly, Nigeria's Renewable Energy Master Plan supports local manufacturing and community microgrids for underserved areas (Odebala, 2023). In eastern Africa, Kenya's feed-in tariff scheme drove geothermal and solar investment (Kumar, 2020), while Tanzania's participatory microgrids illustrate how local governance enhances socio-economic and cultural outcomes (Altassan, 2023; Silva et al., 2018).

Developed countries also demonstrate strong policy leadership. In the United States, California's Renewable Portfolio Standard spurred major solar and wind growth through incremental clean-energy targets (Cetković and Buzogány, 2016; Anderson et al., 2017), while New York's Clean Energy Standard aims for 70% renewables by 2030, aligning local and statewide priorities (Reynolds, 2025). Canada's Clean Growth Strategy pairs emissions targets with clean-tech investments to benefit disadvantaged communities (Menezes and Zheng, 2018; Kovalskyi et al., 2024). The EU's Renewable Energy Directive set binding 20/20/20 targets for 2020, driving feed-in tariffs, portfolio standards, and research funding across member states (Bórawski et al., 2022; Janiszewska, 2019). Denmark achieved roughly 47% wind-generated electricity by 2019 through stable tariffs and community ownership (Eze et al., 2023; Strachan et al., 2015), while Germany's Energiewende used multi-faceted policies to spur solar, wind, and biomass innovation (Ossowska, 2019; Davis and Elmessiry, 2021). Finland and Sweden set carbon-neutrality goals supported by strong bioenergy and hydropower incentives (Adedoyin et al., 2020; Lahrech et al., 2024), and Portugal targets 80% renewables by 2030 through financial incentives (Witkowska et al., 2021). Iceland's 100% renewable electricity mix underscores the value of aligning policy with local resource endowments (Tol, 2012).

6 Future directions and research needs

To develop sustainable energy practices that protect ecological integrity, it is essential to address current gaps in understanding the ecological and socio-economic impacts of renewable energy deployment. Key research gaps highlight the need for integrated spatial planning, comprehensive data, and long-term monitoring to inform adaptive management. Future studies should adopt innovative methodologies, conservation-planning frameworks, and incorporate ecological and social metrics. Additionally, emerging technologies can mitigate negative impacts, including advanced energy-storage systems, smart-grid infrastructure, and community-based initiatives.

6.1 Critical research gaps and unanswered questions

Despite growing research on interactions between ecosystem services and RES, significant gaps remain. Addressing these gaps is crucial for developing policies and strategies that promote sustainable energy while protecting ecological integrity. One key area for further study is the integration of ecosystem services into energy planning and decision-making, as many assessments focus on individual technologies without considering cumulative ecological impacts (Perrotti and Stremke, 2018). Additionally, limited national and regional ecosystem-services data hinders understanding of renewable-energy impacts, with many studies excluding these services from indicators due to data constraints (Feng et al., 2023). Most research also emphasizes facility-level impacts, neglecting broader landscape-scale and ecosystem-level effects that are critical for evaluating long-term consequences of renewable deployment (Iranzo et al., 2025).

Furthermore, several key controversies and unanswered questions require urgent attention, particularly regarding the trade-offs between “land-sparing” (intensifying generation in dedicated zones) and “land-sharing” strategies (integrating renewables into agricultural or natural landscapes, such as agrivoltaics). The ecological outcomes of these opposing approaches remain poorly quantified across diverse biomes, creating significant gaps in understanding their relative environmental impacts (Ramos et al., 2023; Albou et al., 2024; Böhm et al., 2024). Simultaneously, the long-term cumulative impacts of offshore wind farms on marine stratification, nutrient cycling, and food webs represent a major knowledge void, with empirical data remaining scarce despite expanding global capacity (Pender et al., 2024; Sobczuk et al., 2025; Turhan et al., 2025). Finally, the lifecycle sustainability of RES hardware, specifically the end-of-life management of PV panels and composite turbine blades, is frequently overlooked in ecosystem service assessments, highlighting an urgent need for improved recycling strategies to prevent hazardous waste accumulation and support a circular economy (Miranda et al., 2024; Tayebi et al., 2024; Cameron et al., 2025).

The complex, context-dependent trade-offs and synergies between renewable energy development and ecosystem services require deeper investigation. Understanding how different technologies interact with local ecosystems and communities is essential (Schneider and Kubíčková, 2020). Long-term monitoring studies are also needed, as short-term assessments often miss full ecological responses. Continuous monitoring is vital for evaluating long-term effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services and for informing adaptive management (Rehbein et al., 2020). Supplementary Table S3 summarizes these key research gaps.

6.2 Future directions and perspectives

Moving beyond the identification of gaps, the future of renewable energy research must pivot toward actionable, forward-looking perspectives. Advancing the sustainability of renewable energy deployment requires targeted research that deepens understanding of its ecological, social, and economic implications. A priority for future work is the development of comprehensive spatial-planning frameworks that maximize energy generation while minimizing impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Conservation planning provides a robust foundation for identifying areas where renewable energy can be deployed with minimal ecological conflict (Margules and Pressey, 2000; Cowling et al., 2008). Building on this foundation, emerging research in systematic conservation planning and multi-objective spatial optimization should continue integrating biodiversity objectives directly into renewable-energy siting to identify low-conflict zones for wind and solar development (Kiesecker et al., 2024).

A second priority is the need for longitudinal assessments of ecosystem-service trade-offs, which clarify how renewable infrastructure reshapes ecological functions and benefits over time. Such studies are essential for informing adaptive management and understanding cumulative landscape-scale impacts (Sawyer et al., 2022). Once projects move into implementation, rigorous monitoring becomes critical. Future studies should adopt Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) designs to evaluate ecological responses, ensuring that pre-construction baselines and unaffected reference sites are included in assessments (Iranzo et al., 2025).

Recent advances in spatial modeling underscore the importance of moving beyond project-level assessments toward integrated, landscape-scale planning. Incorporating natural capital data into energy-system models, such as Delafield et al. (2024) using the ADVENT-NEV model can substantially shift optimal infrastructure configurations, revealing pathways that meet decarbonization goals while reducing harm to nature. Similarly, Climate-Smart Siting approaches (Ashraf et al., 2024) use optimization routines to identify areas where renewable development poses the least risk to species with shifting ranges under climate change. These innovations are complemented by harmonized, multi-scale planning frameworks (Badelt et al., 2025) that emphasize transparent data integration to align local ecosystem values with national energy targets.

Future research should also integrate ecological and social metrics into renewable-energy siting. Approaches such as urban-metabolism modeling can quantify ecosystem service flows within energy-planning contexts, while participatory and socio-ecological assessments ensure community perspectives, equity considerations, and benefit-sharing mechanisms are embedded in decision-making (Perrotti and Stremke, 2018). Addressing persistent knowledge gaps in under-studied ecosystems, especially tropical and subtropical regions facing rapid biodiversity loss, remains essential for developing globally relevant planning frameworks (Newbold, 2018). Finally, comprehensive evaluations of the socio-economic impacts of renewable-energy projects, including community engagement, public acceptance, and benefit distribution, are needed to support equitable and socially robust energy transitions (Oguanobi and Joel, 2024). Collectively, these research directions will strengthen the evidence base guiding sustainable renewable-energy development, as summarized in Supplementary Table S4.

6.3 Potential for innovative technologies to mitigate negative impacts

Innovative technologies offer significant opportunities to mitigate the ecological impacts of RES. By integrating cutting-edge solutions, stakeholders can enhance sustainability, reduce resource consumption, and minimize adverse ecosystem effects. For instance, combining renewable systems with complementary technologies can optimize resource use and reduce environmental burdens. Using CSP for seawater desalination addresses both energy and water scarcity while lowering the carbon footprint of water production (Alhaj and Al-Ghamdi, 2019). Energy-storage innovations, including battery and pumped-hydro systems are critical for managing intermittency in solar and wind generation. Advancements in lithium-sulfur and solid-state batteries promise higher energy density and reduced environmental impacts (Goliński and Foltynowicz, 2018).

Smart-grid technologies further support efficient integration of renewables into existing systems. Through advanced communication and control capabilities, smart grids optimize distribution, enhance reliability, and reduce energy losses (Vovchenko et al., 2019; Arshad et al., 2023). Innovative design approaches and eco-friendly materials also help reduce environmental impacts. Bird- and bat-friendly turbine designs aim to lower wildlife fatalities (Yan et al., 2020), while sustainable materials in solar-panel and turbine manufacturing reduce lifecycle carbon footprints. Research into biodegradable or recyclable materials further enhances sustainability and reduces waste generation (Séin-Echaluce and Fidalgo-Blanco, 2021).

Additionally, innovative technologies can empower communities to participate directly in renewable energy production. Community-based initiatives, such as cooperative solar projects and local wind farms enable residents to invest in and benefit from renewable systems, strengthening energy security and promoting social equity (Liu, 2023). Supplementary Table S5 summarizes these technologies and their potential to mitigate negative impacts.

7 Conclusion

This review highlights that while RES are essential for combating climate change, their large-scale deployment presents complex ecological challenges that must not be overlooked. Although renewable technologies offer profound socio-economic benefits, ranging from job creation to improved public health, these gains must be balanced against potential habitat fragmentation and biodiversity loss. Achieving a truly sustainable energy future requires moving beyond a singular focus on carbon reduction to a holistic framework where ecosystem services are central to energy planning. Ultimately, researchers, policymakers, and developers must collaborate to embed ecological design principles into regulatory frameworks, ensuring that the global transition to clean energy does not come at the cost of the very ecosystems it aims to protect.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsuep.2026.1598381/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Chun Kai Leung, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

Reviewed by: Muhammad Tamoor, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), China

Andrew Lovett, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom