Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70267188

Practitioners’ perceived risks to biodiversity from renewable energy expansion through 2050

Abstract

Large-scale (e.g., > 1 megawatt capacity) wind and solar energy (hereafter, LSWS) developments are increasing to aid decarbonization. However, LSWS can also negatively affect biodiversity. Planners and other interested parties’ perceptions about the impact of LSWS on biodiversity will thus affect how trade-offs are managed during planning and buildout. We present a survey of professionals (n=116) working at the intersection of LSWS and biodiversity protection across the United States concerning: (1) perceived environmental impacts from LSWS expansion; and (2) how these impacts compare to other land-use and land-cover change drivers. We find that practitioners perceive LSWS to impact biodiversity negatively but less so than other land-cover change drivers, including fossil fuels and agriculture. This highlights the need for increased attention to the role of practitioners in advancing renewable energy and biodiversity conservation.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 18.771115062337024° to 71.35706654962706° latitude; -178.2421875° to -66.796875° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Daphne Condon, Tyler Scott, Adam B. Smith, Toni Lyn Morelli, Uzma Ashraf, Alex Mojica, Hrithika Chittanuru, Rachel Luu, Rae Bear, Rebecca R. Hernandez. 2025-02-27. Practitioners’ perceived risks to biodiversity from renewable energy expansion through 2050. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04558-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Facilitating psychological safety in science and research teams

Science is increasingly dependent on large teams working well together. Co-creating knowledge in this way, usually across disciplines and institutions, requires team members to feel comfortable taking interpersonal risks with each other; in other words, to have what is known as “psychological safety”. Although the importance of psychological safety for team functioning is increasingly well understood, the behaviours necessary to foster psychological safety are harder to define. We suggest that science facilitation expertise offers a path forward for scientific teams – particularly through the integration of outside facilitators or team members taking on the facilitation role – to identify dynamics that can promote or curtail psychological safety, interpret those dynamics accurately, and intervene appropriately to shift a group towards greater psychological safety. We describe how specific practices can support this cycle of observation, interpretation, and action to promote psychological safety across the team process and at key moments. We conclude with recommendations for how research teams might embed these facilitation practices into their work, and how institutions can drive more widespread recognition and development of the expertise needed to cultivate psychologically safe scientific teams.

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Science facilitation: Navigating the intersection of intellectual and interpersonal expertise in scientific collaboration

Today’s societal challenges, such as climate change and global pandemics, are increasingly complex and require collaboration across scientific disciplines to address. Scientific teams bring together individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise to work collaboratively on creating new knowledge to address these challenges. Within a scientific team, there is inherent diversity in disciplinary cultures and preferences for interpersonal collaboration. Such diversity contributes to the potential strength of the created knowledge but can also impede progress when teams struggle to collaborate productively. Facilitation is a professional practice-based form of interpersonal expertise that supports group members to do their best thinking. Although facilitation has been demonstrated to support group functioning in a wide range of contexts, its role in supporting scientific teams has been largely overlooked. This essay defines scientific facilitation as a form of interactional expertise and explains how facilitating scientific teams requires skills in managing interpersonal interactions as well as understanding how different types of disciplinary knowledge integrate in the creation of new knowledge. Next, it explains how this science facilitation expertise may be developed through metacognition. Finally, it provides examples of how scientific facilitation could be more widely incorporated into research by describing three pathways to expand the use of facilitation theory and techniques in collaborative scientific research: developing facilitation skills among scientists leading teams, using broadly trained facilitators, and using specialised science facilitators. The strengths and risks of each path are discussed, and criteria are suggested for selecting the right approach for a given team science project.

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications