Mindy O’Neall, 44, was elected the 53rd mayor of Fairbanks, Alaska, in 2025, flipping the seat from Republican to Democrat for the first time in a decade and becoming the fourth female municipal chief executive in the city’s history.

The Iowa native drove a stick-shift pickup truck to Alaska to look for adventure 23 years ago—landing first in Anchorage, where she worked as an aide in the state legislature, and then in Fairbanks, home to roughly 30,000 people including the Fort Wainwright military base. She worked at the Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation and the Interior Gas Utility, served as a labor business representative, and founded Blue Canoe Media, a boutique communications and consulting firm.

At the University of Alaska Fairbanks, O’Neall earned a master’s in communication, researching governance and climate impacts in rural Alaska. Prior to her election as mayor, she served on the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly and was executive director of the Cold Climate Housing Research Center, and also serves on boards of the Alaska State Homebuilders Association and Alaska Municipal League. She campaigned on the issues of downtown revitalization, affordable housing, and public safety. She lives in downtown Fairbanks with her dog, Tito, who she pointed out is the true official dog of Alaska, the mutt.

This interview is also available as a Land Matters podcast.

Anthony Flint: For the uninitiated, what kind of place is Fairbanks? And why did you want to be mayor?

Mindy O’Neall: I would say we’re the land of extremes. We are extremely cold in the winter. Some people may be surprised to learn that we can get up to 90 to 100 degrees in the summer. We have exotic animals, grizzly bears and polar bears, and we have extreme industry, like mining and gas and oil development. At the heart of it is the people … who have grit and determination and oftentimes this mindset of abundance … [and a] mindset of scarcity as well. We’re at the end of the line. We have three to four days of food security at any given time.

I’ve been in Alaska for over 23 years. I’m originally from Iowa, and I came up here just like a lot of other folks, looking for adventure. If you’ve ever been to the Midwest, they say, why would you ever want to leave the heartland? And I said, don’t worry, I’ll be back in a year. I just want to go check it out. And, after a year, it was painfully obvious that there was so much more to discover to Alaska that I just had to stay.

One of the things that’s interesting about Alaska is we have seven boroughs, that are kind of like counties in the lower 48. And then we have cities within those boroughs, and so Fairbanks has a borough that has a governing body, which is the assembly, and a mayor, and then within the borough, there are two cities…. We always like to joke that for a place that’s so against government and overregulation, we have a lot of government.

I started my public service during COVID…. We had a mayor that was on paper doing a fine job. But he was very discriminatory to the Alaska Native population here, and after some comments and blow-ups on social media … I just believe that public service is a privilege, and somebody who is in office has to have the respect of every population that is within their community … [a] key piece of public service is showing your community respect, even if you don’t understand them, even if you don’t agree with them. I think that we have lost that on a lot of levels of government these days.

I do think that one of the benefits of being in this position is being a female. This is the first time Fairbanks has had a female mayor in about two decades, and I’m the fourth one since 1903 … a young female in my 40s, leading this community and being a role model for girls in our community to see that there’s somebody like them … in an environment that is sometimes very hostile and sometimes very male-driven.

AF: Everybody’s wrestling with affordability these days, and one big part of that is housing. What are the policies that can help, in your region, whether homebuying or renting?

MO: We suffer from a housing stock that’s from the ’70s. Alaska really got its last big boom during the oil pipeline of the ’70s, and what happened was there was such an explosion of [people] coming up to the state that they built things the way that they knew how to build things, which was without a lot of insulation, built out of whatever that they had. So we suffer from very inefficient housing.

[We need to focus on] building generational wealth outside of homeownership. Building homes and housing has been the game or the business of large, wealthy developers. And in our community, we just can’t really afford that. We don’t have enough folks for a large developer to make money here.… How can we lower the amount of investment [that is necessary for housing]?

AF: The Lincoln Institute has been helping municipalities identify government-owned land that can be used for affordable housing. Do you see opportunities in that approach?

MO: Absolutely, I do. A few facts for you here. Sixty percent of our land in Alaska is federal, and 25 percent is owned by the state of Alaska. 10 percent is owned by Native corporations, and one percent is private. So we have a lot of government land that’s available. Now, about 80 million of those acres are managed for conservation. But that’s still quite a bit of land left for us to use.

We have a parking structure that has been mothballed for probably five years. The university that used it ended up not needing it, and so they literally welded the doors shut, and this building has been sitting there, kind of deteriorating ever since. There was some funding that became available … for land acquisition. We’ve put out an RFP for a developer to then build two or three stories on top of that parking garage, therefore activating the space, using the garage for parking, covered parking, which is very important in Fairbanks, but also getting units into the downtown core. So, that’s one example, and there’s a few others that we have, but I’m really eager to see how that plays out.

AF: What are the unique challenges of living with climate change in Alaska, and what, at the state and local level, can be done about it?

MO: They often call the Arctic the canary in the coal mine, because we start to see the issues of climate change far beyond and far before the lower 48 or other parts of the world. Something’s been happening in our environment for quite some time. We have more wind in Fairbanks, which means that we have more risk for summer fires. In the winter, we’ve had more snow than usual, and it’s also been colder than usual, which means that our ground will not thaw quickly—meaning that when the temperature gets hot in the air, it’s all going to melt into water, but there’s going to be nowhere for it to go because the ground hasn’t thawed yet. And so now we miss out on that water, and we get lots of floods. And then we don’t have moisture in the ground, and so it’s more susceptible to wildfires in the summer.

I don’t think there’s really much we can do about this now. It’s happening. We’re in a cycle of climatic disruption. But we can plan for it. We can plan for extreme events—what we’re going to do when the power goes out and it’s negative 30 degrees.

The other thing is, with planning comes money, and Alaska is a place where we do not collect sales taxes on a statewide basis. Some municipalities do, we do not, as the municipality of Fairbanks. And income taxes. So we pay property taxes, and that’s all we pay. As we address these more and more dramatic events, it’s costing us more and more to repair the roads, costing more and more to protect the utilities that are above and below ground. We’re seeing less and less investment from the federal government for events like that. So as Alaskans, it’s time for us to really think hard about how we want to protect … our assets that we have. And what level of commitment comes from our own pocketbooks.

AF: Leading into that, how have you navigated being a mayor at a time when the federal government is reducing funding, and withdrawing from being a partner on so many issues?

MO: We continue to ask our public employees to do more with less. At the same time, the public expects services to be modern. So, that means we have to invest in technology.

It’s a tough spot. I have all of these ideas and plans for being mayor, and then you come into the office.… The way we want to provide services and make things more efficient … with less and less funding, from the state and from the federal government, we’re going to have to look at ways that we contribute to ourselves. And that comes back to the values that we hold as a community.

It’s tough. It’s definitely something I’m working on—how we do more with less, how we explain the value of good governance, [and] putting our own skin in the game.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, host of the Land Matters podcast, and a contributing editor of Land Lines.

Lead image: The Midnight Sun Festival in downtown Fairbanks, Alaska. Credit: Jacob Boomsma via iStock/Getty Images.

Like most places these days, the United Kingdom needs more housing. But that housing won’t come at nature’s expense—at least not in England, where since 2024, any new construction project must be accompanied by a 10 percent net gain in biodiversity, ideally on the same site.

Whether that entails restoring wetlands or reforesting farmland, the improvements are intended to leave the immediate natural environment better off than it was before the development. But where that proves impossible, the goal of a “net” gain allows developers to engage in off-site conservation efforts or, as a last resort, to purchase biodiversity credits to fund habitat restoration and preservation elsewhere.

Prioritizing biodiversity has direct benefits for humans and other species, from ensuring clean air to protecting habitats. It also helps build climate resilience, whether in the form of trees that provide shade in overheated urban areas or soil that absorbs and stores carbon. The question for many communities is how to pay for such nature-based solutions—and one answer lies in the value of the land itself.

Passed in 2021, England’s Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) rule is a form of land value capture, a strategy that allows communities to recover and reinvest some of the increases in land value that arise from development due to public investment or government actions, such as zoning changes. Researchers at the University of Liverpool are looking at the connection between land value capture and climate adaptation, and investigating how the BNG rule is affecting local fiscal strategies.

UK municipalities already had a few value capture tools available to them, from locally negotiated planning obligations to the Community Infrastructure Levy. Such revenues can fund investments in education, transportation, parks, or other public goods, but “the majority of land value capture in England is used for affordable housing,” says Richard Dunning, professor of land economy and housing at the University of Liverpool.

That left Dunning and his colleague, fellow University of Liverpool professor Alex Lord, curious about the impacts of the Biodiversity Net Gain rule—both its measured contributions to biodiversity and its impact on other value capture programs. The UK’s other main value capture tools are mostly used at the local level on a case-by-case basis, Dunning says. As a national policy, BNG has essentially moved the environment to the front of the queue, ahead of other land value capture opportunities that fund, say, affordable housing.

“[If] the first thing a developer needs to do is to ensure that they leave the environment in measurably better condition than when they started, that is effectively the first request you have made of them,” Lord explains. Whether that could “crowd out other forms of investment” is one of the questions the professors aim to answer by focusing on three unique case studies with support from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

“It could be the case that putting biodiversity first in the queue actually makes the development worth more, so that there’s actually more [value] available to go into some other things,” Lord explains. For instance, many studies of statistically identical houses with or without nearby trees have found a price inflation effect for the homes set on leafy streets, he says. “So it’s entirely conceivable that the value of the development as a whole is enhanced as a result of there being on-site biodiversity.”

One of the three case studies Lord and Dunning will examine is London Dock in Wapping, a mixed-use development creating more than 2,000 homes and 7.5 acres of public green space on a 15-acre brownfield site in Central London. The developer’s investor brochure appears to position the on-site nature enhancements not as a bureaucratic requirement, but as a premium selling point, calling attention to its living roofs and 171 trees planted, as well as to its targeted 437 percent increase in biodiversity.

The three case studies will span a range of contexts, from those high-value former industrial docks in Central London, to a college expansion project in the historic, premium-priced university town of Cambridge, to the adaptive repurposing of a disused glassworks in Birmingham. In addition to examining how promised biodiversity increases are measured and monitored, Lord and Dunning want to understand how developers are responding to BNG in different settings; for example, is there a greater incentive to pursue off-site biodiversity credits for projects in high-value locations, where any loss of livable square footage takes a bigger bite out of profits?

While England’s BNG program—which was introduced to Parliament through the 2021 Environment Act—has sparked interest around the world, “we’re only a couple of years into the policy, so the evidence base for it is limited at the moment,” Dunning says. “So that’s the kind of exemplary nature of the case study approach these are first snapshots of what’s going on.”

Lord and Dunning’s project was among eight chosen for support through a recent request for proposals studying the use of land value capture to support climate adaptation and disaster risk management. Such case studies can help practitioners and policymakers implement effective LVC tools to support climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction, ultimately resulting in more climate-resilient, fiscally healthy communities, says Patrick Welch, associate director of urban sustainability at the Lincoln Institute.

“Our research over the past few years has documented the real potential for land value capture to help fill the multi-trillion-dollar urban climate adaptation gap,” Welch says. “However, we lack well-documented examples of these instruments being used in practice, which are essential to improve our understanding of the full, practical potential for land value capture to advance climate goals and reduce the impacts of sea level rise, flooding, extreme heat, and other climate impacts.”

The seven other proposals selected for support will document case studies on four continents and span a range of climate risk adaptation strategies—from flood mitigation, to wildfire recovery and prevention, to issues of water scarcity and extreme heat. The research topics include:

• Bogotá, Colombia’s use of a betterment levy to finance an ecological cycling corridor along the Córdoba Canal. In the past, funds generated through this land value capture tool were mostly used to pay for road expansion and vehicular infrastructure, but in this case the levy helped support an intervention that integrates flood-risk mitigation, environmental restoration, and active mobility.
• A year after the Eaton Fire destroyed thousands of homes as well as critical water and utility infrastructure in Altadena, California, Los Angeles County is turning to a land-based financing instrument to help pay for disaster recovery, through the Altadena Wildfire Recovery Infrastructure Financing District.
• Planned relocation from at-risk coastal areas is a much-discussed but fraught climate adaptation strategy; Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs, implemented in a handful of coastal Florida counties, may offer a promising, market-based approach to the challenge. By allowing development rights to be shifted from vulnerable areas to safer locations, TDRs can reduce risk exposure while compensating landowners without relying entirely on public buyouts.
• As many places face increased water scarcity but lack the financing needed to adapt to such conditions, Luján de Cuyo, a fast-growing midsized city in Argentina’s semi-arid wine region, may offer lessons for similar communities. The municipality has assembled six coordinated land value capture tools—betterment contributions, differential rent charges, idle land surcharges, sale of building rights, strategic tax exemptions, and transfer of development rights—to generate dedicated revenue streams for water efficiency infrastructure, aquifer recharge protection, and compact development.
• After repeated stormwater disasters hit Foshan, China, in the 2010s, the Nanhai District developed the Climate-Linked Development Right Cycling (CDRC) This land-based financing tool designates formal flood retention zones, reallocates development rights from high-risk to low-risk areas, and captures land value increments generated through adjusted floor area ratios (FAR) in safer areas, which are earmarked exclusively for urban flood adaptation infrastructure.
• In Melbourne, Australia, some 1,200 acres of industrial land is being rezoned and transformed into a high-density, mixed-use development at Fishermans Bend—but the site is highly vulnerable to flooding, and the entire region is projected to face water security pressures. Since most of the land is privately owned, a Development Contributions Plan, required as a condition of planning approval, is financing climate resilience infrastructure, from flood mitigation and drainage upgrades to water management systems.
• The innovative, market-based Stormwater Retention Credit program in Washington, DC, which has been in operation for over a decade, requires developers to strictly manage density-related stormwater runoff, but allows them to satisfy some obligations by purchasing credits from unrelated Green Stormwater Infrastructure projects, channeling private capital into financing climate resilience across the city.

These selected case studies will be published on the Lincoln Institute website in 2027; in the meantime, learn more about land value capture and climate adaptation—and learn more about Lincoln Institute RFPs, fellowships, and research opportunities.

Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: Redevelopment projects in South London’s Elephant & Castle neighborhood have added thousands of homes in tandem with new green spaces. Credit: Ogulcan Aksoy via Getty Images.

When the next big hurricane hits New Orleans —it’s not really an if, unfortunately —residents want to be prepared with a thoughtful, equitable evacuation strategy. Maybe even a plan for permanent relocation, if it comes to that.

The mass evacuation from Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was tragic and traumatizing for so many residents; it’s not a process anyone would want to repeat. But low-lying areas of New Orleans—much of which is built on drained marshland that continues to sink—are still very much at risk from flooding and hurricane damage.

“We all were forced to relocate after Hurricane Katrina, some for months, and some for years,” says Beth Butler, executive director of A Community Voice (ACV), a resident-led organization serving New Orleans’ 7th, 8th, and 9th wards. “Then we were able to cobble together our lives back here, and yet, at the same time, as climate change [has intensified], what we’re finding is that for six months every year during hurricane season, we’re under the threat of completely losing everything,” she says.

With newly announced support from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, ACV will partner with the Climigration Network and Buy-In Community Planning over the next year and a half to use exploratory scenario planning to help residents design and think through a range of possible futures related to relocation. That includes deciding if, and how, they would want to move out of harm’s way as climate risk intensifies.

“The reality is that if this event takes place, we will have nowhere to stay. We will not be able to return home,” says ACV chairperson and treasurer Debra Campbell. “And it’s inevitable that this will happen, but we do need to make a plan, because the city is not making a plan for us.”

Exploratory scenario planning is a type of community visioning process in which participants consider a range of possible futures—including the external or driving forces that might create such scenarios, and the actions or responses each might demand of the community.

Campbell has been working with Buy-In Community Planning to survey residents about their past evacuation experiences and what a more intentional relocation process should look like. Among the considerations residents have raised—such as more evacuee bus stops for people with limited mobility, and better mental health support, particularly for children—was the importance of a culturally aware receiving community that would allow families and friends to stay together. After Katrina, “We were scattered around the United States like cockroaches,” Campbell says, “forced to stay in places where we didn’t feel welcomed.”

With the help of the Climigration Network, A Community Voice has been meeting with the mayors of smaller cities a few hours up the Mississippi River from New Orleans, exploring options for temporary or permanent resettlement. As a short-term goal, Campbell says the group might like to secure a large building where 70 or more residents could evacuate together. (Some residents already have evacuation plans with family members outside the city.)

“I think that would be a start,” Campbell says. “Now, if something should happen where we would have to stay longer, in Natchez, [Mississippi], there are houses that they need renovated, so maybe that’s something to consider; we’d wind up in their community and not in an isolated area, and that would be one of the quicker things to do, rather than build from the ground up.”

In an example of community-driven, participatory scenario planning, members of A Community Voice will lead their fellow residents in collaborative workshops to design, test, and refine four to six potential relocation scenarios. ACV hopes the engagement design could create a model for other communities facing climate challenges and similarly difficult questions about the future.

“Sometimes it’s hard for people to confront the fact that we might have to relocate,” Butler says. “Even though, in the back of everyone’s mind, they know it—because we already had to do it once.”

The New Orleans project is one of four climate mobility-focused exploratory scenario planning proposals recently selected for support through the Lincoln Institute’s Consortium for Scenario Planning. The chosen projects span multiple continents, contexts, and climate risks, says Heather Hannon, director of planning practice and scenario planning at the Lincoln Institute.

“Our team believes exploratory scenario planning will be a valuable tool for these communities confronting dynamic and complex uncertainties around climate mobility,” Hannon says. “It’s a participatory and creative framework that brings together a wide range of people to imagine a range of futures and then co-develop strategies to help them adapt as the future unfolds. We look forward to learning from these projects and helping other communities do similar work.”

Some of the other projects selected include:

• An interdisciplinary team of researchers and practitioners will host XSP workshops in three urban regions of Brazil, each facing different climate mobility challenges: Florianópolis, a populous coastal island with increasing flooding risks; Porto Alegre, where large-scale flooding displaced thousands of residents and exposed systemic vulnerabilities in 2024; and São Paulo, Brazil’s largest metropolis and a key destination for internal migrants.
• The Nuvoni Centre for Innovation Research will introduce exploratory scenario planning as an anticipatory tool for low-income settlements in Nairobi, Kenya, where 2024 rains and flooding caused loss of life and property in riverside communities—with a focus on Mukuru, which is experiencing both mass displacement and in-migration due to affordable housing interventions.

The projects were selected as part of an RFP process managed by the Consortium for Scenario Planning. Past projects have focused on disaster recovery and resilience (2024), housing affordability (2023), changing food systems (2022), climate strategies (2021), and equity and low-growth scenarios (2020).

Learn more about Lincoln Institute RFPs, fellowships, and research opportunities.

Jon Gorey is staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: Downtown Natchez, Mississippi. Credit: Wayne Hsieh via Flickr/Creative Commons.

The politics of energy in the US lately seem to have dimmed the immediate-term prospects of solar power. But squint a little and you can see a sunnier vision for this form of renewable energy. In truth, photovoltaic technology continues to grow ever more cost-effective as a means to address not just climate change but energy needs in general. And because demand for solar energy means demand for space to situate solar panels or panel arrays, recent years have seen a rise in innovative dual-use solar projects, which combine space for clean electricity generation with complementary uses.

One prominent—and promising—example is the rise of agrivoltaics: using elevated solar panels on agricultural land, allowing farm animals to graze or crops to grow among panel rows. Globally, the deployment of agrivoltaic projects has grown significantly in recent years, from generating a collective 5 megawatts of peak energy in 2012 to 14 gigawatts in 2021. (For context, one gigawatt is roughly enough to simultaneously power every home in a city the size of San Francisco.)

The strategy caught on first in European and southeast Asian countries with limited arable land, as a means of achieving renewable energy targets without sacrificing agricultural capacity or food security. The concept of combining solar energy generation with agriculture dates back to at least the 1980s, and the term “agrivoltaics” was coined in 2011 by French researcher Christian Dupraz at the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRAé) in studies exploring the benefits of combined land use.

In Japan, pioneer Akira Nagashima analyzed crop growth below photovoltaic modules within the first research pilot systems in 2004 and promoted the technology as “solar sharing.” Thanks in part to governmental support beginning in 2012, Japan now counts more than 3,000 small-scale agrivoltaic systems. In 2014, China installed the first large-scale agrivoltaic systems and remains the country with the largest installed capacity in the world. In Europe, the first prototype of a suspended mobile solar panel system was built in Austria in 2007. France was the first European country to systematically support agrivoltaics in the late 2010s; Germany, Italy, and others have since developed their own programs.

The US has been slower to adopt the practice, but a map maintained by the National Lab of the Rockies InSPIRE team shows more than 600 such projects around the country today. As recently as ten years ago “there wasn’t a map, and there was none of this happening” in the US, says Matthew Sturchio, a faculty affiliate in ecology at Colorado State University whose research focuses on ecovoltaic projects more broadly. Some of Sturchio’s recent research focused on grassland management in the Front Range of Colorado, finding that shade from raised solar panels can mitigate the effects of chronic aridity, as well as unusually hot and dry seasons. Studies by researchers in Arizona and elsewhere have similarly addressed the role solar can play in addressing arid climate impacts on crops and rangelands.

The configuration of ecovoltaic systems varies based on their goals and context. Some designs feature widely spaced panel rows that allow tractors and farm equipment to operate between them. Others employ elevated mounting structures that raise panels high enough to leave room for grazing livestock or tall crops beneath. Fixed-tilt systems offer simplicity and lower costs, while tracking systems that follow the sun’s path can optimize both energy generation and crop light exposure throughout the day. Research from the University of Arizona found that tomatoes, peppers, and other vegetables grown under solar panels showed increased production compared to traditional full-sun cultivation, while using significantly less water.

The most popular application of agrivoltaics in the US involves grazing livestock beneath and around solar panels. Of 250 or so projects involving livestock in 2025, more than 230 include sheep, according to Inside Climate News (resulting in the irresistible term “lambscaping.”) The American Solar Grazing Association estimates US solar sites now host about 5,000 sheep.

The steady proliferation of dual-use efforts underscores the growing recognition that renewable energy is partly a land use issue. “Most of our responses to climate change implicate land to some degree,” notes Patrick Welch, associate director of urban sustainability at the Lincoln Institute, who says even in the context of renewables, not all those implications are wise. “You see examples of forests being clearcut to place a large-scale solar farm,” he continues, or solar displacing agricultural areas. “So you’re taking away land that was providing a function.” And those instances can also spark public opposition to renewable projects more broadly.

“Our responses to climate change, most of them, to some degree implicate land,” notes Patrick Welch, associate director of urban sustainability at the Lincoln Institute, and even in the context of renewables not all those implications are wise. “You see examples of forests being clearcut to then place a large-scale solar farm,” he continues, or solar displacing agricultural areas. “So you’re taking away land that was providing a function.” And those instances can also spark public opposition to renewable projects.

The upshot has been increased emphasis on making the most of land and other surfaces that don’t involve displacement. Welch points to geospatial analysis by the Chesapeake Conservancy’s Conservation Innovation Center (CIC) that concludes that sites like rooftops, parking canopies, industrial lands, and degraded properties could add up to enough space to support Maryland’s renewable energy goals. “Local context matters a lot,” Welch says, “but there are ways to resolve these conflicts over land use that are kind of more win-win.”

That goes beyond traditional agriculture projects. Grassland solar installations can also be havens for pollinators—the bees, butterflies, and other insects essential to agricultural productivity and ecosystem health; even neighboring farms could enjoy improved pollination levels that can boost crop yields. Several US states including Minnesota have developed pollinator-friendly solar standards and incentive programs.

Another dual-use solar application—dubbed “floatovoltaics”—deploys panels on pontoons atop reservoirs, irrigation ponds, and aeration basins at wastewater treatment facilities, generating clean energy without consuming land. The surrounding water cools the panels, which can increase their efficiency by several percentage points compared to ground-mounted systems in hot climates. Simultaneously, the panels shade the water surface, reducing evaporation—a critical benefit in drought-prone regions.

Studies suggest floating solar can reduce reservoir evaporation by 70 percent or more in covered areas, preserving substantial water volumes for irrigation or municipal use. In agricultural contexts, floating solar on irrigation reservoirs allows farmers to generate income from generating electricity while improving water conservation. Japan, South Korea, and China have become global leaders in this technology, with installations ranging from small farm ponds to massive reservoir-scale projects. As the technology matures and costs decline, floating solar is expanding into new markets, particularly in Southeast Asia and South America, where appropriate water bodies are available.

According to market researcher Exactitude Consultancy, the overall global floating-solar market was valued at approximately $8.7 billion in 2025 and is projected to soar to more than $75 billion by 2034. Other estimates vary, but the trend is toward growth. The Asia-Pacific region continues to lead global deployment; Japan makes up about 14 percent of the global market revenue in 2024, and the world’s largest installation is currently the Dezhou Dingzhuang Floating Solar Farm in China, which generates around 550 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, enough to power 50,000 homes. Dual-use projects have limits, of course. Agrivoltaic systems typically cost more to construct than conventional ground-mounted solar, requiring specialized mounting structures, increased spacing between panels, and other considerations that complicate design. Agricultural integration can also involve constraints that may reduce overall energy generation compared to single-purpose solar arrays.

Cost remains a challenge for floatovoltaics, too: Analysis suggests that the cost of energy from such systems may be around 20 percent higher than from ground-mounted photovoltaic systems, largely due to specialized flotation equipment. Still, the lower land acquisition costs and higher energy yields from water-cooled panels help offset those costs. And as deployment spreads and the technology matures, the cost premium should continue to decline.

Meanwhile, policy and regulatory frameworks haven’t always kept pace with new technology and new ideas, and adjusting these frameworks to recognize and reward dual-use approaches can be a challenge. But as energy demands continue to grow, and solar remains a key option, the benefits are undeniable. For example, life cycle assessment research focused on grazing has found that agrivoltaics produces 3.9 percent less emissions and 0.5 percent less energy demand compared to conventional photovoltaic systems and sheep grazing separately. “The point of ecovoltaics is looking at where you are in the world, and what is the type of ecosystem service that would be most useful on this landscape,” Sturchio says.

While some funding may be on hold for the moment, the larger trend is clear, he says. “No matter what the social opinion of solar is, it is happening and it is happening in large scale. So we all want to know what the best version of this is, if there’s a best version, what the trade-offs are, what the synergies are.” In Europe and Southeast Asia, some countries may end up using 10 to 20 percent of their agricultural land for dual-use projects.

Technological refinement will likely improve the economics and performance of these solar experiments. Semi-transparent solar panels that allow controlled light transmission, for example, could enable even more flexible agrivoltaic designs. Advances in mounting structures, panel efficiency, and agricultural techniques specifically adapted to solar integration also seem likely.

Politics notwithstanding, climate change will continue to pressure both energy systems and agricultural productivity. Given that dual-use solar projects offer a pathway that addresses both challenges, their future looks bright.

Rob Walker is the author of City Tech: 20 Apps, Ideas, and Innovators Changing the Urban Landscape and The Art of Noticing. More of his writing can be found at robwalker.substack.com.

Lead image: Sheep and solar panels coexist in a field in Germany. Credit: Frederick Doerschem via iStock/Getty Images Plus.