Responsible agrivoltaics in temperate Europe: Making systems work for plants, people, and climate

Societal Impact Statement Agrivoltaics, the co‐location of solar panels and crops, is increasingly promoted to expand renewable energy without compromising agricultural areas. However, systems that are poorly designed impact productivity, landscape, and ecology, and face public criticism. Drawing on multi‐year, multi‐site field experience, this opinion paper discusses when and where agrivoltaics can deliver benefits and which trade‐offs are likely. We argue that responsible deployment requires clearer standards and evaluation frameworks that consider plant performance, soil integrity, and societal acceptance. By identifying recurring pitfalls, this work guides various stakeholders seeking to combine renewable energy generation with resilient food production while safeguarding rural landscapes. Summary Meeting climate neutrality goals requires more efficient land use for both food and renewable energy production. Agrivoltaics (AV) has emerged as a promising dual‐use strategy, but its optimal design and most appropriate implementation remain debated. Here, we synthesize insights from multiple years of four AV systems across Belgium, Denmark, and Germany to identify the conditions under which AV can deliver meaningful co‐benefits without compromising agricultural function. Across diverse crops and configurations, we highlight that temperate AV outcomes are governed by solar panel layout, interactions among microclimate modification, soil disturbance, water redistribution, and crop‐specific yield performance. Vertical systems in windy climates can stabilize the microclimate and maintain yields in certain crops. Elevated systems may introduce persistent challenges such as runoff concentration, soil compaction, and disease pressure. Crop and cultivar selection, crop rotation, and construction methods are central design variables, not secondary adjustments. We argue that common performance metrics such as land equivalent ratio can obscure trade‐offs if reference systems and long‐term agronomic effects are not explicitly defined. Moreover, socio‐economic factors—including landscape integration and public acceptance strongly influence deployment feasibility. Together, these observations suggest that AV in temperate climates should be treated as a site‐ and crop‐specific design challenge. We propose that AV deployment requires integrated evaluation frameworks that go beyond energy production and account for plant productivity over time, soil and water integrity, and societal acceptance. Such a multifaceted approach can improve implementation and support AV as a credible contributor to climate mitigation and sustainable land‐use transitions.