Energy, climate, and biodiversity crises pose major challenges to the European Alps. A rapid energy transition is needed, which is linked to the expansion of renewable energies that will lead to further intensified industrial use of the Alpine environment. However, the biodiversity crisis makes the restoration of ecosystems and the proactive preservation of open spaces imperative. Alpine spatial planning serves as a regulatory instrument for addressing land-use conflicts at an early stage. Hence, this article discusses the role of spatial planning for energy transitions in the European Alps. In so doing, we use the Alps as a case study to illustrate currently debated renewable energy transitions in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland—covering solar, wind, and microhydropower—in relation to open spaces. We then proceed, on this basis, to propose an agenda for future development and governance regarding spatial renewable energy planning in the Alps. Th proposed agenda is structured by 3 guiding questions reflecting major issues: energy policy goals, open space preservation, and spatial planning. In addition, 27 research questions specify the development and policy agenda in more detail.
Introduction
The political agenda in Europe is clear; the expansion of renewable energy projects must be accelerated to meet the targets set by the European Commission's Green Deal (EC 2022). The energy transition was fast-tracked through European and national politics in 2022, triggered by the conflict in Ukraine and resulting energy shortfalls in Europe (Dubský and Tichý 2024). Measures to cope with the energy crisis and to guarantee energy supply in Europe were decided, developed, and approved at an unprecedented rate. In the European Alps, the energy transition will be realized by increasing the production capacities of wind turbines and photovoltaic (PV) systems, as large-scale hydropower is already widely exploited. The envisaged energy transition severely affects the Alps because many areas have solar potential and high and steady wind velocities. The revised European Union (EU) Renewable Energy Directive (RED III) will require intensive and close cooperation between all relevant stakeholders and responsible authorities. This highlights 3 issues relevant for spatial planning: First, many countries are currently discussing how approval procedures for renewable energy projects can be streamlined and bundled. Accelerated expansion is essential to achieve the climate targets that have been set by international and national resolutions. Second, spatial planning plays an essential role in balancing interests of regional development, climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and open spaces preservation (Kiessling and Pütz 2021; Meyer et al 2022; Ströbel et al 2025). Hence, spatial planning typically identifies suitable locations for renewable energy projects. Both large-scale PV systems and wind turbines are expected to contribute extensively to Europe's energy transition. An important argument for PV is the option of winter production at higher elevations. Third, the energy transition challenges existing decision-making structures and therein the role of Alpine spatial planning.
Globally, many mountain regions exhibit limited development. However, the European Alps differ greatly, as they have been transformed and developed for centuries. From the 19th century on, industrialization, utilization of hydropower, and later mass tourism have completely transformed societies and livelihoods in the Alps, leaving only few areas in a near-natural state. Such areas are typically found in remote locations above the tree line. We refer to these areas as open spaces and characterize them as contiguous landscapes that are little developed, and, to a large extent, free of technical infrastructure (Job et al 2020; Meyer et al 2022; Riva et al 2024; Ströbel et al 2025). To be more precise:
Open spaces include areas that are without buildings of any kind, that are not predominantly developed (piecemeal, linear or extensive infrastructure), that are potentially able to support vegetation, that are ideally free from traffic or reserved almost completely for non-motorised transport and are thus ‘noise-free.’ Non-structural (in the sense of engineered) infrastructure is not present or is very limited.
(Job et al 2021: 12)
Open spaces are more than just “residual spaces” offering inextensively (ie unintensively) used land. Open spaces provide habitats for animals and plants, ecological connectivity, natural hazard prevention, climate regulation, local/regional identity, agricultural production, nature-based recreation, and the intrinsic value of near-natural areas (ARL 2022). Open spaces can be used for agriculture, forestry, and hunting, to some extent, and have a high recreational quality because of their acoustic and visual tranquility and their closeness to nature. Currently, open spaces attract substantial interest as potential sites for the installation of, for example, large-scale PV systems. However, if these open spaces become intensively usable resources, this could have serious impacts on environmental quality in the Alps overall (Figure 1).
The aim of this article is to discuss the role of spatial planning for energy transitions in the Alps and to propose an agenda for corresponding future development and governance. First, we explore the relationship between spatial planning and renewable energies. Subsequently, we use the Alps as a case study to illustrate currently debated renewable energy transitions in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, covering solar, wind, and microhydropower affecting open spaces. On this basis, we propose an agenda for future development and governance regarding spatial renewable energy planning.
Methodologically, this research takes the Alps as a case study to explore and analyze current developments in energy transitions in 3 Alpine countries, considering 3 renewable energy types, with a focus on the role of spatial planning. We selected the Alpine region as a case study region to illustrate the ongoing political, legal, and planning dynamics of fast-tracking the energy transition. We structured our case study to paint as detailed a picture as possible with the broadest possible view by (1) gaining insights into 3 countries with comparable institutional and planning frameworks and (2) considering 3 different energy sources. The aim is not to compare different countries or energy sources, nor is it about analyzing individual planning projects. The case study serves to illustrate and support the proposed agenda. We used current gray literature and media contributions to both refer to and reflect on current energy transition debates. Additionally, we used our own working experience in these countries, as well as our scholarly exchange within the AlpPlan network in the ARL Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association (ARL n.d.), happening since 2022, as a sounding board to reflect and synthesize both material and experiences into an agenda for research and development.
How spatial planning deals with renewable energy
We refer to spatial planning—in accordance with the European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON) COMPASS project (ESPON 2018)—as the “ensemble of institutions that are used to mediate competition over the use of land and property, to allocate rights of development, to regulate change and to promote preferred spatial and urban form” (Nadin et al 2018: 8). Alexander (2016: 95) states simply that “[t]here is no planning—only planning practices,” drawing on tools, objectives, and context to characterize spatial planning practice. While the objective of spatial planning—in our case, guiding the locations of renewable energy projects—is the same across our 3 study countries, and the planning tools available for this purpose are at least comparable, it is above all the contexts that differ between countries or federal states.
Renewable energy infrastructure requires land. Suitable areas and corridors can only be kept free for the construction and operation of such facilities through overall spatial coordination and cooperation between different administrative levels. Spatial planning is supposed to provide framework conditions for realizing and operating this infrastructure (EspaceSuisse 2023). Clear regulations facilitate the decision-making procedure and provide a reliable framework for project developers (Geissler et al 2022: 13). The spatial planning systems of the federally organized countries of Austria, Germany, and Switzerland follow similar principles in planning renewable energy locations, including “functional and spatial division of labor” and “decentralized concentration” (Münter and Osterhage 2018: 3). These principles are intended to prevent urban sprawl and are primarily based on exclusion criteria for assessing spatial compatibility. Accordingly, regional spatial planning specifies priority areas (German: Vorranggebiete), priority zones (Vorrangzonen), suitable areas (Eignungsgebiete), or exclusion areas (Ausschlussgebiete) (Meyer et al 2022: 49). At the European policy level, so-called renewable go-to areas have recently been introduced (EC 2022). The administrative planning level (eg municipality, region, federal state) that is responsible, or whether sectoral planning approval (eg based on water, environmental, or energy law) is required instead, differs depending on the energy source and the scale of projects.
Spatial planning in the Alpine region is mainly governed by national laws, and the subnational level is responsible for implementing spatial planning. At least this is the case in our study countries of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland with their federal states or cantons. However, transnational cooperation is essential for effective spatial planning. Due to the strong natural, sociocultural, and economic connectivity of the Alpine region, pan-Alpine spatial planning is a key factor (Hüppauff et al 2025). However, given that this would require 8 different states and different legal systems to come together, the undertaking is obviously difficult. In the medium term, the conceptual goal is to develop an “Alpine Spatial Development Perspective” (Chilla et al 2024). To reach that point, the activities surrounding ESPON, the EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP; EUSALP 2020), and the Alpine Convention (Alpine Convention 1991) are particularly relevant. The contracting parties of the Alpine Convention (1991), therefore, in their Framework Convention, defined the common goal to:
ensure the economical and rational use of land and the sound, harmonious development of the whole region. Particular emphasis must be placed on natural hazards, the avoidance of under- and overuse and the conservation or rehabilitation of natural habitats by means of a thorough clarification and evaluation of land use requirements, anticipatory integral planning and coordination of the measures taken.
(Alpine Convention 1991: Art 2, 2b)
Similarly, the subordinate “Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development Protocol” (Alpine Convention 1994) aims to “harmonise the use of the territory with the ecological needs and objectives” and to “use the resources and the territory sparingly and compatibly with the environment” (Alpine Convention 1994: Art 1, objective b). However, these objectives compete with others. Furthermore, these tentative approaches to transnational spatial planning lack the binding instruments and measures required for implementation. In recent years, scholars have introduced concepts such as “integrated regional energy planning” (Nijkamp and Volwahsen 1990), “renewable energy planning” (Terrados et al 2009), “integrated energy planning in cities and territories” (Mirakyan and De Guio 2013), “integrated spatial and energy planning” (Stoeglehner et al 2016; Stoeglehner 2020), “spatial energy planning” (Mostegl et al 2017), and “landscape-based spatial energy planning” (Codemo et al 2023) to integrate the spatial dimensions of energy demand and energy supply. A better integration of spatial planning and the energy transition requires developing spatial structures (including infrastructure and buildings) in such a way that they support the energy transition. The best possible renewable energy supply must be planned and installed for specific settlement structures. The topics of energy, mobility, and settlement are integrated. This requires cross-sector and cross-level cooperation, which ideally reduces energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs. Despite attempts to implement these concepts—for example, the integrated spatial and energy planning (Energieraumplanung) in Austria (Stoeglehner et al 2017)—a comprehensive integration of spatial and energy planning has so far remained unrealized in the Alpine region. Most challenges for spatial renewable energy planning originate not in technical–methodological issues but in governance barriers to cross-sectoral coordination (Cowell and De Laurentis 2021; Kvern et al 2024).
Planning renewable energy infrastructures in the Alps
To illustrate the political and legal dynamics of the energy transition in the Alps, we refer to current debates in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, covering wind energy, microhydropower, and PV projects.
Austria: wind energy
Wind turbines have become an integral feature of Austria's landscape but are not distributed evenly. Most of the turbines are in the eastern flatlands and hilly regions close to Hungary and Slovakia. In fact, the 3 western and most alpine states of Austria (Vorarlberg, Tirol, and Salzburg) have no wind turbines, so far. By the end of 2022, a total of 1371 wind turbines with a capacity of 3573 MW produced approximately 8.2 TWh, contributing 11% of the total energy consumption in Austria (IG Windkraft 2023). The federal government has declared that another 10 TWh are necessary for the energy transition by 2030 and have anchored this goal legally (Sect 4, para 4 of the Renewable Energy Expansion Act or Erneuerbaren-Ausbau-Gesetz; RIS 2021). Studies have identified that the wind potential is sufficient (Gass et al 2013; Gaugl et al 2021), but they have not considered necessary buffer areas to settlements, infrastructure, and conservation areas.
In 2023, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act was amended, and a new framework was created for developing wind turbines (RIS 2023) wherein: (1) an accelerated approval procedure with less extensive investigations of environmental impacts is now possible, and (2) if there are no legally binding plans for priority or exclusion areas for wind turbines at the state level, projects can be implemented without the approval of municipalities and state governments. In 2023 and 2024, Vorarlberg, Tyrol, and Salzburg assessed their wind power potential and developed regulatory planning frameworks. However, under the new legislation, wind turbines can be constructed in Vorarlberg rapidly and without the approval of local or regional governments (Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung 2024). The general criteria for minimizing negative impacts still apply, increasing interest in developing wind turbines in open spaces. Despite the high construction and maintenance costs of wind turbines in open spaces, these investments remain attractive due to subsidies. Once projects are implemented under the current regime, there will be negative effects on bird migration and noise-sensitive species such as black grouse (Zeiler and Grünschachner-Berger 2009), as well as on landscapes; this is already a matter of public debate, with wind turbines facing comparatively low acceptance (Höltinger et al 2016).
Germany: microhydropower
On the northern rim of the Alps, high annual precipitation and a steep topography provide good conditions for hydropower plants. As a result, hydropower has long been important in Bayern. On average, it produces about 15% of the federal state's total electricity generation, with the small hydropower sector, comprising well over 4000 plants of <1 MW capacity, producing about 1.5% of Bayern's total electricity (Popp 2013). Efforts to promote renewable energies have revived earlier plans for hydroelectric power plants, for example, in the Rappenalp valley near Oberstdorf (planned output approximately 7300 MWh/y). At the end of April 2023, the municipal council voted in favor of implementing corresponding plans. The municipality will contribute to the cost of the expert surveys, and, if official approval is granted at the second attempt, it will partner with private financiers for construction. Local investors had planned a hydropower plant in 2007, but, in 2009, the authorities refused to grant permission under the Nature Conservation Law because the project conflicted with the Allgäuer Hochalpen nature conservation area.
Similar examples exist in the Allgäu region of the Bavarian Alps (eg the planned supplementary Gernbach hydropower plant at the Auele hydropower plant) on the upper reaches of the river Iller. They form one of the last ecologically intact wild stream systems in the Bavarian Alps. For the new hydroelectric power plants, kilometer-long diversions would deprive the streams of water. As mentioned above, the planned hydropower plants would be located in the Allgäuer Hochalpen nature conservation area (which is also a Natura 2000 area under the EU's Habitat and Birds Directive). The management plan of the area clearly defines the natural dynamics as a conservation objective as long as no important infrastructural facilities or people are endangered. Despite the fact that the 2023 amendment to the German Law on Renewable Energies (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz) attributes overriding public interest to the expansion of renewable energies, strictly protected areas such as nature conservation areas or Natura 2000 areas are still not considered suitable sites for renewable energy development according to the recent amendments to the Federal Act on Nature Conservation (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz) (KNE 2024).
Switzerland: Solar energy
In 2022, in the face of an impending electricity shortage in winter, the Swiss parliament decided to accelerate the increase in energy production from renewable sources and the achievement of the goals of the Energy Strategy through the following (Jerjen 2022): (1) Federal Act on a Secure Electricity Supply with Renewable Energies (Mantelerlass) as a legal basis for implementing the Energy Strategy 2050, the revised Energy Act of 2017, and the Electricity Supply Act; (2) Federal Act on Urgent Measures for the Short-Term Provision of a Secure Electricity Supply in Winter (Solarexpress); and (3) Federal Act on the Acceleration of Licensing Procedures for Wind Energy Plants (Windexpress). Solarexpress was replaced by Mantelerlass in 2025, and the cantons must designate priority areas for installations of national importance in their cantonal structure plans.
These measures were highly controversial because they prioritized the interests of electricity production over all other interests and interfered heavily with nature and landscape conservation (Jerjen 2022; Neu et al 2024). For example, large-scale PV systems would also be located in unbuilt landscapes, and the obligation to plan and coordinate the spatial aspects of projects would be removed. In the meantime, it has become clear that Solarexpress was a hasty and ill-conceived project and clearly failed to achieve its goal of providing a secure power supply in winter, at least in the short term. The feasibility of the large-scale projects originally envisioned and their connection to the electricity grid are also questionable (Jerjen 2023a, b). To address issues in the construction of renewable energy production plants outside of building zones, Neu et al (2024) proposed a list of criteria that could avoid or mitigate conflicts with objectives concerning conservation and the promotion of biodiversity and landscape quality. This provided the cantons, energy producers, and other interested parties with a planning aid.
Even though the first proposal was quickly corrected in favor of environmental protection, and the environmental impact assessment was not waived, the construction of electricity production plants in biotopes of national importance is now possible. Planning requirements for large-scale PV plants outside building zones have practically been canceled in order to increase production capacity for domestic renewable energy sources in the short term. The national interest in electricity production takes precedence over cantonal, regional, and local interests (Neu et al 2024). The new Article 71a of the Energy Act, dubbed Lex Grengiols, which stipulates that large-scale PV systems (>10 GWh) are site-specific and therefore not subject to planning obligations, was particularly heavily criticized by environmentalists and spatial planners. Moors and moorland, in accordance with Article 78 (5) of the Federal Constitution, as well as water and migratory bird reserves are to be spared. Newly emerging glacier forefields and alpine alluvial plains can, in principle, be used for the production of renewable energies.
Hydropower plants, PV systems, and wind turbines are of national interest if they make a key contribution to achieving the expansion targets. In 2021, a national “roundtable on hydropower” (Runder Tisch Wasserkraft) was held (UVEK 2021). This multistakeholder effort resulted in a broadly supported declaration that the expansion of hydropower should be compatible with the objectives of biodiversity and landscape protection. In addition, 15 storage hydropower projects were proposed that together would be capable of realizing 2.023 TWh of additional controllable winter production. Similar participatory measures for the coordination of solar expansion are still lacking. As a compromise for new dam projects, the most efficient hydropower plants with the lowest environmental impact could be prioritized. In addition, newly emerging glacial lakes could produce hydropower without dams.
In Switzerland, there are only a few large freestanding PV systems to date. Large PV systems have been installed almost exclusively on buildings. According to the Association of Swiss Electricity Companies, currently (as of 4 September 2025) there are 78 planned projects for open-space PV systems in the Alps (VSE 2025). Of these, only 4 have been realized to date; 4 projects are under construction, 6 have been approved, 16 are being assessed for approval, 3 have been accepted by the relevant municipalities, 39 have not undergone any of these steps, and a further 6 projects exist just as ideas. A key reason for the small number of large PV systems realized to date is that remote high-alpine projects must withstand large wind and snow loads and are not profitable despite 60% subsidization of the investment costs (Dyttrich 2025). However, at the federal level, there is little concern about a nationally coordinated approach. A national “concept for the consideration of federal interests,” as established for wind energy in 2020 (ARE 2020), does not exist for PV systems. It is therefore unclear where new renewable energy landscapes should be created and where nature, agriculture, or tourism should be prioritized, and decisions on locations are left to market and project dynamics. In Switzerland, such projects generally require the approval of the local population. Some prominent projects have been rejected by voters (including Alpin Solar Ybrig, projects in Orsières and Ovronnaz and at Melchsee, Alp Run, and Varneralp, as well as SolSarine). The solar parks currently planned are significantly smaller than originally envisaged. The average is about 20 GWh per project (VSE 2025). It would therefore take 100 solar parks to achieve the promised 2 TWh. However, the lack of local acceptance, high costs, and a lack of revenue have contributed to the delay in realization.
Agenda for future development and governance
Based on our insights, we propose an agenda for the future development and governance of the energy transition in the Alpine region. It is aimed at stakeholders from science and practice and is intended to help better coordinate energy policy goals with other environmental and land-use goals. Spatial planning is generally considered to play an important role in this context because, at least in principle, it has the task of coordinating different land-use interests. However, how this role can be successfully fulfilled in practice and which goals can be effectively implemented remain open questions. To address these and more in-depth questions, we have drawn up the following agenda for the future development and governance of the energy transition in the Alps. It is intended to help researchers and practitioners ask the right questions and shape the energy transition in such a way that biodiversity and open spaces are preserved. Our agenda is divided into 3 guiding questions on the roles of (1) energy policy priorities, (2) open spaces, and (3) spatial planning for the energy transition. Further specific research questions are posed in each case.
How do we deal with energy policy priorities?
The expansion of renewable energies conflicts with landscape conservation. This is the case regardless of whether it refers to the expansion of microhydropower, wind energy, or solar energy. Deliberation is difficult, as political priorities in all 3 countries put the expansion of capacities for renewable energy production first. This clear hierarchy of priorities is essential from an energy and climate policy perspective. However, these priorities are associated with major disadvantages for open spaces and biodiversity. Major renewable energy projects do not have to undergo comprehensive impact assessments, and restrictions enforced through nature conservation and planning law are widely suspended. Furthermore, the energy transition in the 3 countries is a national matter and implemented in a top-down approach that marginalizes the local and regional levels. However, at the municipal level, at least, the consent of the local population by vote is required. At the regional level, there are increasing numbers of planning concepts and requirements, such as the energy master plans (Energierichtplan) in Switzerland. However, these are not relevant for Alpine solar plants. Developers can establish new facilities in the “in-between areas” that are not strictly protected under conservation laws and do not interfere with settlement areas. Such areas are often open spaces that fulfill important ecological connectivity functions. These practices call for a clarification of the role of spatial planning.
The following specific research questions arise:
How can the interested parties (eg electricity producers, farmers, tourists, conservationists) be involved in the planning process in order to achieve acceptance for the land use?
Which participation procedures and planning concepts help to promote social acceptance for the expansion of renewable energies in open spaces?
What attitudes and behaviors exist in local communities toward land protection and energy targets?
To what extent do subsidy programs, tax breaks, and market prices influence the choice of open spaces for renewable energies?
Which economic models for renewable energies minimize land consumption and disruption of natural habitats?
How can the public sector intervene to control land consumption in line with nature conservation, for example, through energy prices that reward sustainable land use?
What good practice examples exist for coordination among energy companies, spatial planners, environmentalists, and local communities in the Alps?
Which governance models (eg multilevel governance) are most effective in enabling the integration of energy targets with spatial planning and environmental protection objectives?
How can interregional cooperation be developed to improve network connectivity and optimize energy transport and distribution?
Should open spaces be safeguarded through multifunctionality or restrictive protection?
Planning the energy transition in the Alpine region implies rethinking the concept of nature conservation. Is it possible to expand renewable energies and preserve open spaces at the same time by adopting a multifunctional understanding? Or do we need restrictive measures that prohibit any development and safeguard open spaces to ensure connectivity within and between existing protected areas? The answers to these questions certainly cannot be generalized and must be site-specific. One answer to the latter question in spatial planning is the Alpine Plan in Bayern (Job and Meyer 2022). The Alpine Plan divides the Bavarian Alpine region into 3 zones: A, B, and C. Development zone A (35% of the Bavarian Alps) allows construction measures in accordance with the usual regulations; in zone B (22%), the permissibility of development is decided on a case-by-case basis; and in the quiet zone C (43%), transport infrastructure is not permitted. Due to its large-scale and long-term nature, the Alpine Plan is certainly a special, singular case.
Open spaces are key features in natural climate protection, natural hazard mitigation, and natural heritage (biodiversity). In the Alps, they are threatened by various human activities and resulting land-use conflicts, in particular, their imminent fragmentation through intended renewable energy projects. Recent geographic information system mapping identified spatial categories for the current and future transformation of open spaces (Job et al 2020; ARL 2022; Meyer et al 2022). These categories preselect areas appropriate for the development of renewable energies and those which require critical attention to safeguard open spaces.
The following specific research questions arise:
How can land with potential for renewable energy development be combined with agricultural use and nature conservation?
What multifunctionality (eg agrophotovoltaics or wind power on agricultural land) can spatial planning promote in order to avoid land-use conflicts?
How can wind farms, solar parks, or biomass plants be located in such a way that they have a positive impact on the environment (eg promoting soil fertility through improved vegetative cover)?
Which combined approaches (eg agroforestry models, solar parks in pasture areas) can maintain ecological balance while achieving energy targets?
How can potential sites for wind power, solar energy, and hydropower be optimally integrated into the Alpine landscape?
What innovative approaches are there for combining energy generation and nature conservation (eg through agrophotovoltaics or hybrid energy solutions)?
How can the integration of energy projects into agricultural practices and the simultaneous use of agricultural land for renewable energy production be promoted?
What synergies and conflicts arise between agriculture and energy production from solar or wind energy?
What support instruments and incentive systems can motivate the agricultural sector to invest in renewable energies without compromising soil quality or food production?
What design principles can be applied to minimize the aesthetic and environmental impacts of solar parks, wind turbines, and storage systems?
How should renewable energy infrastructures be planned?
In Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, legislation for and execution of spatial planning are institutionally assigned to the regional (Bundesland, Kanton) and local levels (Region, Gemeinde). Spatial planning aims to steer spatial development and thereby to contribute to balancing societal interests. This includes the implementation of energy transition and climate mitigation goals. Nevertheless, large-scale renewable energy infrastructure is typically regulated first by sectoral laws (energy laws).
Responding to the demands of renewable energy policy stakeholders for integrated spatial planning approaches (Hayek et al 2019), the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences have proposed that Switzerland should broadly define priority areas for energy plants and for landscape and biodiversity (Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences 2022). This could defuse conflicts and reconcile goals in the areas of energy, climate, landscape, and biodiversity. However, the designation and implementation of priority areas are highly contested matters (Salak et al 2019, 2024). Experts expect that, with decisions left to the local people, it may be difficult to overcome their NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude as needed to successfully implement energy, biodiversity, and climate goals. In addition, such a process will simply take too long to quickly establish non-carbon-based energy production. However, Salak et al (2024) showed that there are locations where energy plants enjoy a high level of acceptance among the population, are spatially efficient, and have a low environmental impact. According to the authors, determining these locations requires greater involvement of the population in decision-making processes.
In Austria, the state government of Salzburg considered integrating suitable locations for wind turbines in Alpine areas into the new state development program. The Austrian Alpine Association coordinated experts and developed a dossier that highlighted how the intended program would help to bypass existing quality standards in planning (such as comprehensive analysis and objective reasoning) and could thereby promote fast-tracked development of wind turbines in sensitive open spaces (Austrian Alpine Association 2023). This shows that spatial planning does not help to coordinate and balance interests if it is instrumentalized.
The development and implementation of renewable energy infrastructure must be understood as a multiscalar phenomenon (Hayek et al 2019). Accordingly, every single PV system, hydropower plant, or wind turbine represents global goals and debates, refers to national legal frameworks, and is implemented through subnational funds and instruments in locally specific conditions. Understanding energy transitions as multiscalar and political implies dealing with tensions not only between different actors (eg investors, municipal energy suppliers, local populations) but between different geographic scales too. Addressing the latter tension means discussing which open spaces should be preserved, where they might be located, and whether agriculture, forest, or energy landscapes should dominate.
The following specific research questions arise:
Which landscape and nature conservation aspects must be considered in spatial planning in order to preserve ecosystems and biodiversity?
How can spatial planning function as a guided process for the sustainable use of land resources on the one hand and incorporate market economy and political factors on the other?
How can spatial planning develop multipurpose strategies that enable land to be used for renewable energies without jeopardizing open space and biodiversity?
How can spatial planning establish zones in which positive interactions between energy production and nature can develop (eg green corridors)?
What spatial compensation mechanisms are available to meet the land requirements for renewable energies without losing valuable open spaces?
How can spatial planning ensure transparent, inclusive processes that promote acceptance among the population and develop good communication strategies to reconcile the benefits of renewable energies and land protection?
How do social, cultural, and economic factors influence spatial planning and the acceptance of energy projects in Alpine regions? How can spatial planning be designed in such a way that it takes diverse interests (eg tourism, agriculture, nature conservation) into account while at the same time promoting the energy transition?
Conclusion
The urgency of accelerating the energy transition in Europe in order to achieve climate targets and ensure energy security is undisputed. However, the extent to which the necessary expansion can only be achieved at the expense of landscape conservation is controversial. Large, isolated facilities in protected areas are viewed particularly critically in this respect. The few remaining unbuilt natural areas are essential for the connectivity of habitats of emblematic rare species and make a significant contribution to sustainable development in a strict sense.
PV systems need to be realized primarily at locations that already have sufficient built-up infrastructure (eg pump storage power plants, high-voltage power lines, winter sport ski resorts). However, the amendments adopted by legislators strongly favor the construction of facilities in remote, largely untouched environments, posing new barriers for connectivity. With the intended financial incentives, they also prevent the development of innovative solutions for existing infrastructure within or near to zoned building land—disregarding the fact that the decentralized use of PV on private roofs, public facilities, and large-scale industrial and commercial buildings in work zones can also make a considerable contribution within a reasonable period of time.
Rapid implementation of renewable energy facilities requires an accelerated move toward integrated coordination approaches to prevent the existing trend of ruling out planning processes and instruments. Concepts for wind, water, and solar energy are important for the adaptation of regional spatial planning instruments. At the same time, fundamental policy mechanisms should be maintained, as should basic principles for efficient spatial development (such as concentration of development, weighing of interests, and participation). Without democratically legitimized negotiation mechanisms, a rift opens between climate protection, biodiversity, and landscape conservation on the one hand and nonfossil energy production on the other.
Spatial planning can be slow, may be binding for public authorities but not for private property owners, and often results in modest compromises between different interests. However, spatial planning is not to blame if we as society fail to develop renewable energy infrastructure. Spatial planning always depends on political will and support to enforce ambitious climate and energy goals. Additionally, spatial planning is a moderator of different and often controversial land-use interests, a facilitator of sometimes rather modest compromises. Even so, it still has a stake in conserving open spaces and their role in ensuring connectivity, as fostered by the European Commission's Green Deal.
Finally, any agenda for the future development and governance of the energy transition in the Alps should be multifaceted and interdisciplinary. Only then can it take into account all relevant aspects—from ecological and technological dimensions to spatial planning, institutional frameworks, social acceptance, and economic feasibility.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This contribution was made possible through extensive discussions within the AlpPlan Alpine Spatial Planning Network, funded by the Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association (ARL). We wish to thank the 3 reviewers for their thoughtful feedback and helpful suggestions. Special thanks go to Associate Editor Susanne Wymann von Dach for her constructive support of the manuscript from the outset and for her endless patience with the team of authors.
© 2025 Pütz et al.
This open access article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please credit the authors and the full source.
OPEN PEER REVIEW
This article was reviewed by Sabine Weizenegger, Damian Jerjen, and Valerie Braun. The peer review process for all MountainAgenda articles is open. In shaping target knowledge, values are explicitly at stake. The open review process offers authors and reviewers the opportunity to engage in a discussion about these values.
English (US) ·