Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 178 (2023) 113250

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Circularity and landscape experience of agrivoltaics: A systematic review of

literature and built systems
I. Sirnik a, *, J. Sluijsmans b, D. Oudes a, S. Stremke a
a
Wageningen University & Research, Environmental Sciences Group, Landscape Architecture Chair Group, PO Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands
b
Wageningen Environmental Research, Team Regional development & Spatial Use, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708PB, Wageningen, the Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global challenge. Innovative agrivoltaic systems that combine agriculture
Renewable energy and solar energy production is one set of the solutions to reduce these emissions. While circularity is a pressing
Energy transition issue in agriculture and landscape experience in solar energy production, these issues have received little
Public acceptance
attention in relationship to agrivoltaics. This study examines aspects of circularity and landscape experience in
Circular agriculture
Visibility
built agrivoltaic projects reported in scientific literature and recently constructed agrivoltaic projects in the
Land use Netherlands. Understanding circularity and landscape experience in agrivoltaics contributes to enabling agri­
Agriphotovoltaic culture transitions and increasing public acceptance.
Agrophotovoltaic Peer-reviewed literature was used to examine which aspects of circularity and landscape experience were
Energy landscape addressed in 16 international agrivoltaics cases. Critical performance indicators were used for circularity and
spatial properties for landscape experience. Furthermore, a systematic analysis of ten Dutch agrivoltaic cases was
conducted by examining their visibility, accessibility, patch configuration and agricultural land-use beneath the
agrivoltaic system.
The results show that contribution to regional economy and vitality of the rural area is the most frequently
mentioned circularity indicator, which is found in 82% of the international cases and 60% of the Dutch cases.
Low visibility and low accessibility of agrivoltaic systems were found in the majority of Dutch agrivoltaic cases.
Limited attention to landscape experience was found in the studied literature. This study provides valuable
recommendations for research, farmers and policy makers for advancing transitions towards circular agrivoltaic
power plants that pay more attention to landscape experience.

1. Introduction using photovoltaics (PV) and agriculture on the same area of land [5].
While monofunctional solar power plants (SPP) are often criticised for
Climate change has become a severe threat to humanity. If concen­ creating land use competition with food production [6], agrivoltaics is
trations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to rise, the risks considered to be multifunctional [7]. Globally, agrivoltaics have grown
facing humanity and the Earth in general will increase significantly [1]. exponentially in terms of installed capacity in recent years, reaching
Many countries have agreed to limit global warming to 1.5 ◦ C compared 2800 MW in 2020 from an initial 5 MW in 2012 [8]. Multiple classifi­
to pre-industrial levels [2]. Consequently, the Dutch government aims to cations for agrivoltaics have emerged in recent years. Willocks et al. [9]
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands by 55% compared have proposed that the way land is used beneath the PV arrays can be
to 1990 [3]. In addition to climate change, global population growth used as a defining parameter for the classification of agrivoltaics.
also increases the demand for energy and food [3]. One of the solutions Accordingly, they distinguish between ‘rangevoltaics’ (PV arrays with
to mitigate the challenges posed by climate change and food security is livestock beneath) and ‘agrovoltaics’ (PV arrays with crops beneath).
agrivoltaics [4]. Another classification has been proposed by Sekiyama & Nagashima
‘Agrivoltaics’ refers to the combination of electricity production, [10], dividing agrivoltaics into three classes: (1) conventional

Abbreviations: AVPP, agrivoltaic power plant; CPICA, critical performance indicators of circular agriculture; PV, photovoltaic; SPP, solar power plant; TRL,
technology readiness level.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: igor.sirnik@wur.nl (I. Sirnik).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113250
Received 10 August 2022; Received in revised form 19 January 2023; Accepted 6 March 2023
Available online 17 March 2023
1364-0321/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
I. Sirnik et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 178 (2023) 113250

stilt-mounted systems, (2) PV arrays placed between the agricultural elevated structures to allow access for agricultural machinery. Although
rows and (3) greenhouses with PV arrays placed on the roofs. Another the land use combination of agriculture and PV may be favourable in
classification is the Deutsches Institut für Normung standard with terms of the public acceptance of agrivoltaics, these elevated and often
number DIN SPEC 91434:2021–05 [11]. Classes are first defined ac­ permanent structures may affect landscape experience and, conse­
cording to the type of agricultural production and, second, to energy quently, detract public acceptance [21]. Landscape change, the
production. This research combines the definitions for agrivoltaics accompanying landscape experiences and low public acceptance may
provided by the Deutsches Institut für Normung standard [11] and restrain the application of agrivoltaics [5]. Several studies have inves­
Willockx et al. [9]. The agrivoltaic systems considered in this study are tigated agrivoltaics and its effects on the environment and landscape.
installations that consist of PV arrays installed over crops designated for Gomez-Casanovas et al. [22] studied the benefits of agrivoltaics for
food production. Agrivoltaics with livestock beneath are included if the mitigating climate change. Other papers investigated the shading
agrivoltaic power plant (AVPP) is designated for grazing with economic properties of agrivoltaics on crop production (for example [23]) and rain
revenue. In this research, ‘agrivoltaic system’ is defined as the technical water harvesting in agrivoltaic systems [24]. Mamun et al. [4] investi­
hardware installation with PV arrays and an AVPP as the ensemble of gated microclimate conditions underneath PV arrays. However, there is
agrivoltaic system and the land underneath and in-between PV arrays. an overall lack of studies that examine the landscape experience of
The primary focus of the growing body of literature on agrivoltaics is agrivoltaics (for example [21]).
on optimising the synergy between agricultural yield and electricity Public acceptance of agrivoltaics can be influenced by their circu­
production [12]. At the same time, societal considerations on circularity larity and effects on landscape experience, but these factors have hardly
are starting to influence policy and research agendas for agriculture been studied before. This research therefore aims to explore how
[13], and issues related to landscape change and experience those circularity and landscape experience are addressed in agrivoltaics,
agendas of SPP [14]. However, in the field of agrivoltaics – the combi­ supported by an overview of agrivoltaic cases from around the world
nation of agriculture and solar power plants (Fig. 1) – little scientific and a more detailed study of cases in the Netherlands. This research
attention is thus far being paid to circularity and landscape experience. answers two research questions: (1) Which aspects of circularity and
Both circularity and landscape experience have the potential to become landscape experience are addressed in the international literature on
significant factors in the public acceptance of agrivoltaics and, conse­ agrivoltaics? (2) What are the key technical properties and aspects of
quently, the timely implementation of local projects. circularity of built agrivoltaic systems in the Netherlands, and how are
With regard to circularity, circularity and circular economy are landscape users’ experiences addressed?
concepts that lead towards sustainable systems. Circular economy aims
to generate economic and social prosperity and protect the environment 2. Methods and materials
by preventing pollution and facilitating sustainable development [15].
There are 114 definitions for ‘circular economy’ [16]; the concept is A systematic review was used to identify and analyse literature on
both vague and wide-reaching [17]. The circularity of food production circularity and landscape experience of agrivoltaic cases [25]. This
systems is commonly denoted as circular agriculture [15]. ‘Circular methodology limits research bias [26], presumes a protocol-driven
agriculture’ is used for analysis in this research. It assists in ensuring four approach to mark out potential investigative opportunities [25] and is
goals: (1) economic sustainability, (2) the conservation of biodiversity, explicit and reproducible [27]. Peer-reviewed literature and conference
(3) environmental sustainability and (4) social sustainability (i.e. proceedings – both peer-reviewed and not – were used to study inter­
providing food security, eradicating poverty and improving health and national cases. A more detailed insight in circularity and landscape
living conditions) [15]. These four goals form part of the ten indicators experience of agrivoltaic cases was examined by a case study in the
of circular agriculture (CPICA) introduced by Dagevos & de Lauwere Netherlands [28]. The Netherlands was selected due to the recent rapid
that are used in this study [18]. implementation of agrivoltaics, the availability of detailed national
With regard to landscape experience, AVPPs, similarly to ‘conven­ datasets, such as landscape openness and attractiveness, and the op­
tional’ SPPs, change the landscape, and this is often met with low public portunity to study the cases in the field during the COVID-19 pandemic.
acceptance [19]. A ‘landscape’ is defined as: “an area, as perceived by
people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural 2.1. Literature review of circularity and landscape experience of
and/or human factors.” [20]. The implementation of agrivoltaics affects agrivoltaics
how users (e.g. inhabitants, farmers, tourists) experience a landscape.
Different from conventional SPPs, agrivoltaic systems often use higher Two databases were used to search for peer-reviewed literature and
conference proceedings: Scopus and Web of Science. In the search query,
specific keywords were used to identify relevant literature. The specific
keywords were distributed into three clusters according to the topic of
the research: ‘Agrivoltaics’, ‘Landscape experience’ and ‘Circularity’
(Fig. 2). The search was conducted for publication title, abstract and
keywords. To focus our research on circularity and landscape experi­
ence, two search queries were used for each database. The first search
query contained the keywords from clusters Landscape experience and
Agrivoltaics, and the second query contained the keywords from the
clusters Agrivoltaics and Circularity (Fig. 2). The next literature selec­
tion was subject to the following conditions: (1) the agrivoltaic case had
been built, (2) the publication had been peer-reviewed or was a con­
ference proceedings – either peer reviewed or not, (3) the publication
was in English and (4) was published before January 31, 2022.
The identified international agrivoltaic cases were situated exclu­
sively in the Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 3). The highest number of
agrivoltaic cases was reported for North America (7), followed by Asia
Fig. 1. The link between agriculture and circularity, solar power plants and (6) and Europe (3). In South America, Africa and Australia, zero agri­
landscape experience, as well as between circularity/landscape experience and voltaic cases were found in the studied literature.
agrivoltaics. The absence of literature on agrivoltaic cases in the Netherlands in

2
I. Sirnik et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 178 (2023) 113250

Fig. 2. Keywords used for the two search queries in Web of Science and Scopus.

Fig. 3. Locations of international agrivoltaic cases studied in this research, depicted with orange circles. Source of Basemap: Efrainmaps [29].

both databases led to a search for grey literature of Dutch cases. An cases of which the landscape integration and experience could be
initial search was performed for two magazines: Solar Magazine [30] examined. TRL four refers to a built “small scale prototype” [33]. The
and PV Magazine [31]. Both magazines focus on renewable energy so­ agrivoltaic cases were named according to the toponym of the nearby
lutions worldwide and on solar energy projects in the Netherlands. The urban settlement.
grey literature used for the research of Dutch agrivoltaic cases is listed in Nine out of ten agrivoltaic systems were located on agricultural land;
the Appendix. Further research was conducted using Google search only Etten-Leur was situated on non-agricultural land, adjacent to the
engine [32], using the key term ‘The Netherlands’ with the combination A58 motorway (Fig. 5).
with the keywords listed in the Agrivoltaic cluster (Fig. 2). The grey Dutch agrivoltaic cases showed high variability in terms of technical
literature sources are clustered for each Dutch agrivoltaic case and are details (Table 1). For each agrivoltaic case, data pertaining to the
provided in the Appendix. location, year of construction, surface, TRL, height, patch type and
orientation of the PV arrays was collected. Location and year of con­
struction were retrieved from the literature. If the surface area of the
2.2. Introduction to the agrivoltaic cases in the Netherlands AVPP was not found in the literature, it was calculated by means of GIS
tools, using satellite or photogrammetry imagery. The TRL was assessed
Dutch agrivoltaic cases (Fig. 4) were selected according to the according to the completed project level [33]. If the height of the agri­
following criteria: (1) the agrivoltaic case should be described at least in voltaic structure was not reported in the literature, it was determined
one publication, (2) it should be built and characterised with a tech­ through field work and available imagery. The orientation of the PV
nology readiness level classification (TRL) of at least four, and (3) it arrays was retrieved from literature and available imagery. The patch
should be in line with the agrivoltaics definition presented earlier in this type was assessed using spatial analysis [38]. Additional data on
research. The minimum TRL of four was employed to identify agrivoltaic

3
I. Sirnik et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 178 (2023) 113250

being 10 and the lowest 0. The attractiveness values of the host land­
scapes showed relatively low variability, ranging from 6.0 (Sint-Oe­
denrode) to 9.0 (Broekhuizen) (Table 1).
Further field research reveiled that two cases changed from agri­
cultural to non-agricultural land uses beneath the PV arrays. In Etten-
Leur, sheep continued to graze, but not for economic production. In
Haren, crops were ceased to be grown beneath the PV arrays, but were
cultivated between them. Both cases were kept in the study because
their description in the studied literature matches the definition of AVPP
as defined in the introduction.

2.3. Analytical framework

The study of landscape experience and circularity in the agrivoltaic

cases required a comprehensive analytical framework. The framework
was developed deductively, using literature, and is divided into two
parts: circularity and landscape experience.

2.3.1. Circularity
This research makes use of the critical performance indicators of
circular agriculture (CPICA) to define aspects of circular agriculture in
agrivoltaic cases [18]. The CPICA are: (1) soil preservation; (2) closing
nutrient cycles; (3) reduction of greenhouse gases and ammonia; (4) sus­
tainable energy; (5) maintenance of biodiversity; (6) nature conservation; (7)
animal welfare; (8) animal health; (9) using residual flows from the food
industry; and (10) contribution to regional economy and vitality of the rural
area. The CPICA have been used in several studies, such as a proposal for
circular agriculture towards the year 2030 [17] and in a study about
Fig. 4. Map of the Netherlands with Dutch agrivoltaic cases, depicted with circular business models and circular agriculture in agricultural prac­
yellow circles. Source of the base map: PDOK [34]. tices [18]. In this research, we omitted the indicator sustainable energy
(4) because agrivoltaics by definition provide sustainable energy [42].
The level of circularity for each agrivoltaic case is estimated through the
number of the identified CPICA.

2.3.2. Landscape experience

In this research, four spatial properties of agrivoltaic cases were
studied to identify aspects of landscape experience: accessibility, visi­
bility, patch configuration and agricultural land use beneath PV arrays.
Accessibility, visibility and patch configuration are the spatial properties
adopted from a similar study that addresses landscape experience of
SPPs [38]. Land use beneath PV arrays was chosen due its impact on
landscape experience [43].

Fig. 5. Imagery of studied Dutch agrivoltaic cases. Scale of the images varies. 2.3.2.1. Accessibility. The accessibility of the agrivoltaic cases affects
Images were retrieved from various sources [34–37].
the landscape experience of users. This part of the spatial analysis was
inspired by the study of Oudes & Stremke [38], where the authors
accessibility of the Dutch cases was retrieved by short interviews with analysed the accessibility of SPP cases. Their method was translated to
agrivoltaics farmers and developers. agrivoltaic cases, and the following options for accessibility of agri­
Table 1 shows that all agrivoltaic cases were built after 2019. The voltaic cases were used: accessible, open upon request and inaccessible.
surface area of the AVPPs ranges from 0.02 ha (Boekel) up to 9.50 ha
(Lochem). The average TRL is 6.1, however, only two cases reach TRL 9. 2.3.2.2. Visibility. Visibility describes whether a landscape user can
The height of the agrivoltaic systems varies from 1 m (Stadskanaal) to 3 observe an AVPP from a certain location [44,45]. Visibility can be
m (Babberich, Wadenoijen and Etten-Leur). Half of the agrivoltaic cases modified by adding landscape elements [46,47]. In this research, we
uses an east to west orientation, while the other half are oriented to­ distinguished between three levels: visible, partly visible and invisible
wards the south. A high variability in landscape openness levels was [45]. In our spatial analysis of agrivoltaic cases, the location of the
identified. Openness is defined as the amount of space perceivable to the landscape user was defined with a buffer of 10 m around the perimeter
landscape user [41]. The openness classification used in this research of the AVPP. The 10 m buffer was defined to consistently study visibility,
was adopted from Weitkamp et al. [39]. The landscape of the Babberich independent of the presence of infrastructural elements such as roads or
case demonstrated the lowest level of openness (0.20 ha). Haren, Stad­ walking paths.
skanaal and Sint-Oedenrode present the only agrivoltaic cases in land­
scapes with openness levels above the average value of openness (60.2
2.3.2.3. Patch configuration. The shape of the patch occupied by PV
ha). The plots hosting the agrivoltaic systems showed relatively high
arrays affects the landscape experience [48]. The relationship between
attractiveness. The classification for attractiveness was adopted from
the original plot and the agrivoltaic system’s PV modules leads to
Lankhorst et al. [40]. The average attractiveness value of the landscapes
different spatial configurations, which are identified as ‘patch types’.
with agrivoltaic cases is 7.1, with the highest value for attractiveness
Spatial analysis of patch type was conducted on SPPs in a study by Oudes

4
I. Sirnik et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 178 (2023) 113250

Table 1
Key technical and spatial features of the Dutch agrivoltaic cases. TRL varies between 1 and 10, where 1 stands for ‘Basic research, principles postulated and observed
but no experimental proof available’ and 10 for ‘Full commercial application, technology available for consumers’. In the orientation category, E stands for east, S
stands for south and W stands for west. Openness classification was adopted from Weitkamp et al. [39] and attractiveness from Lankhorst et al. [40].
Name of agrivoltaic Generaldata Technical details Host landscape properties
case
Location of agrivoltaic Year of Area of agrivoltaics TRL Height of structure Orientation Open-ness Attractiveness
case construction system (ha) (m) (ha)

Babberich 51◦ 53′ 57.35′′ N 6◦ 2020 3.20 8 3 E-W 0.2 7.7

7′ 33.95′′ E
Wadenoijen 51◦ 52′ 21.76′′ N 2021 1.20 6 3 E-W 49.0 7.3
5◦ 21′ 6.76′′ E
Broekhuizen 51◦ 29′ 15.03′′ N 2020 0.11 5 2.5 S 16.5 7.8
6◦ 9′ 17.87′′ E
Sint-Oedenrode 51◦ 34′ 50.83′′ N 2020 0.13 6 2.1 E-W 205.3 6.0
5◦ 25′ 36.56′′ E
Boekel 51◦ 36′ 40.52′′ N 2020 0.04 6 2.1 S 13.6 7.0
5◦ 42′ 3.80′′ E
Haren 53◦ 10′ 55.06′′ N 2021 2 9 1.80 S 79.3 7.2
6◦ 37′ 30.68′′ E
Someren 51◦ 26′ 33.83′′ N 2021 0.03 4 2.5 E-W 48.4 6.4
5◦ 39′ 58.05′′ E
Stadskanaal 52◦ 59′ 40.60′′ N 2021 0.14 4 1 E-W 143.7 7.3
7◦ 2′ 57.48′′ E
Lochem 52◦ 9′ 54.60′′ N 2021 9.50 4 2.5 S 33.6 7.1
6◦ 23′ 27.84′′ E
Etten-Leur 51◦ 33′ 44.00′′ N 2020 3 9 3 S 12.2 7.4
4◦ 39′ 26.18′′ E

& Stremke [38]. The same method and classifications were translated
into a spatial analysis of AVPP patch types in this research. Three types
of patch configurations were classified in Dutch agrivoltaic cases:
responsive, irresponsive and split. The ‘responsive type’ PV patch
mimics the shape of the plot in how the original parcellation structure
remains recognisable. The coverage of the original plot is relatively high
(65–90%). ‘Irresponsive patch type’ is self-referential and results in
space being left over within the plot. The coverage of the original plot is
between 50 and 75%. The ‘split type’ is characterised by the matching
shape of the PV patch to the plot; the coverage of the original plot is low
(25–50%).

2.3.2.4. Agricultural land use underneath PV arrays. The selection of

crops in the agricultural landscape affects landscape experience [43]. Fig. 6. Number of international agrivoltaic cases with identified critical per­
formance indicators of circular agriculture.
Consequently, the landscape experience of AVPPs is affected by the kind
of agricultural land used beneath the PV arrays. Agricultural land use
was categorized using ten agricultural sectors, in this research (1) arable contribution to the regional economy by showing the economic benefits
farming, (2) bulb growing, (3) tree nursery, (4) fruit growing, (5) of dual land use, producing both food and electricity on the same area
greenhouse horticulture, (6) outdoor vegetable production, (7) dairy [51]. Agrivoltaic impact on crop yield was reported as being beneficial
farming, (8) poultry farming, (9) pig farming and (10) other livestock in most international agrivoltaic cases compared to the cropland
farming [49,50]. without PV arrays. A study on agrivoltaics in Oregon, in the United
States of America (US), reported a higher yield of lettuce on land with
3. Results and discussion agrivoltaics than land without [52]. The results are in line with a study
from Arizona (US), which reported total fruit production rates twice as
The results are presented and discussed in four parts. The first two high underneath PV arrays compared to open fields [53]. The yield in­
sections (3.1 and 3.2) focus on the findings with respect to the inter­ crease was also noticed in the livestock sector. The study by Andrew
national agrivoltaic cases. The third and fourth section (3.3 and 3.4) et al. [54] demonstrated higher growth increase in weaned Polypay
focus on the agrivoltaic cases in the Netherlands. lambs underneath agrivoltaic systems compared to livestock living in
open pastures. However, several international agrivoltaic cases also re­
ported lower crop yield underneath PV arrays compared to open fields.
3.1. Circularity in international agrivoltaic cases For example, pasture yield in one agrivoltaic case in Oregon produced
38% lower herbage underneath PV arrays [54]. Another study showed
From the nine studied critical performance indicators for circularity, decreased yield of rice crop in Japan, caused by a decrease in the number
seven were found in the international literature on agrivoltaic cases of panicles [55]. The authors argued that grain yield was positively
(Fig. 6). The CPICA contribution to regional economy and vitality of the correlated with the amount of solar radiation.
rural area was identified in 13 out of a total of 16 agrivoltaic cases. Another way in which agrivoltaics contributes to CPICA contribution
Animal welfare was found in three agrivoltaic cases, and the remaining to regional economy and vitality of the rural area is by increasing food
CPICA were identified in one or zero agrivoltaic cases. security [56]. Food security is dependent on crop yield stability. Agri­
The findings show that contribution to regional economies and vitality of voltaics have the potential to increase and stabilise yield by reducing
rural areas presents the most significant component of circularity in in­ evapotranspiration and soil temperature [57]. Additionally, the
ternational agrivoltaic cases. Several agrivoltaic cases illustrated the

5
I. Sirnik et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 178 (2023) 113250

literature demonstrated that agrivoltaics decrease the risk of food The same study showed that cumulative carbon dioxide uptake in chil­
shortage and market shocks, particularly for non-irrigated crops [57]. tepin was 33% greater underneath PV arrays compared to open fields.
Crop stability influences the economy as a whole and is consequentially Nevertheless, the uptake of carbon dioxide in jalapeño was 11% lower
beneficial for regional and local economies. One study in India underneath agrivoltaic arrays. Nature conservation and using residual
demonstrated a higher ‘land equivalent ratio’ efficiency of land with flows from food industry were not reported in any of the studied literature
agrivoltaics compared to land without [51]. These findings are in line for international cases.
with the study by Andrew et al. [54], which demonstrated an increased
land equivalent ratio of up to 1.81 for pasture production and 2.04 for
3.2. Landscape experience of international agrivoltaic cases
spring lamb production.
Agrivoltaics positively affect animal welfare and animal health by
Of the 16 identified international cases, landscape experience was
lowering levels of livestock heat stress. It was reported that livestock
discussed in only one agrivoltaic case in Switzerland [58]. Agrivoltaics
spent their time predominantly in the shade underneath PV panes [58].
had a negative visual impact on the natural landscape due to the
A study by Andrew et al. [54] showed that lambs completed up to 96%
elevated structure of agrivoltaic systems, which was very visible from a
of ruminating and idling activities underneath PV arrays. The same
distance. The selection of the crop type can also effect the landscape
study demonstrated lower heat stress among livestock grazing under­
experience. Arable farming is used in most international agrivoltaic
neath PV arrays, stating that PV arrays provided “pleasant temperatures
cases (56%), followed by outdoor vegetable production (44%), other
for livestock” [56]. Andrew et al. [54] suggested that agrivoltaics affect
livestock farming (13%) and fruit growing (13%) (Fig. 7). Herbs, to­
livestock by limiting the body tempearture of the animals .
matoes and lettuce were found in the highest number of agrivoltaic
Agrivoltaics has a demonstrable positive impact on soil properties in
cases; six, four and three, respectively. Maize soybean and pepper crops
the international cases, contributing to closing nutrient cycle and soil
were identified only in two cases each. Other crops were only found in
preservation. In western India, a case study reported the reduced evap­
single instances (Fig. 7).
oration underneath the PV arrays reduced soil salinity, possibly due to
The crop selection in agrivoltaics is influenced also by environmental
reduced evapotranspiration [56]. As a result, the soil beneath the PV
factors and the amount of solar irradiance received by the crop. Due to
arrays became favourable for growing tomatoes. The same study
reduced solar irradiation underneath PV arrays in agrivoltaic sites,
demonstrated that bacteria growth underneath PV arrays directly hel­
shade-tolerant crops often offer higher potential compared to shade-
ped to enhance soil fertility by increasing carbon and nitrogen
intolerant crops due to their ability to endure low light [4]. Further­
concentrations.
more, crop performance is affected by shading, which is plant-specific
Maintenance of biodiversity in agrivoltaics depends on the diversity of
and linked to different plant adaptations [60]. The crop selection of
crops and animals, which are prime land users beneath PV arrays. The
the studied international agrivoltaic cases shows that several crops are
changes in biodiversity underneath PV arrays were discussed in the
shade-intolerant, such as corn in Italy [61], rice in Japan [55] and to­
agrivoltaic case in Malaysia. The authors found higher biodiversity
mato in western India [62].
levels underneath agrivoltaic systems through the increased numbers of
lace bugs [59]. The lace bugs were attracted to the higher humidity
environment underneath PV arrays. These results are in line with Toledo 3.3. Circularity in agrivoltaic cases in the Netherlands
& Scognamiglio [21], who argued that higher levels of biodiversity can
be reached underneath agrivoltaic systems. Fewer circular aspects were found in Dutch agrivoltaic cases
A study in Arizona (US) discussed the importance of growing crops compared to international agrivoltaic cases. Three out of nine CPICA
beneath PV arrays to enhance carbon dioxide uptake from the atmo­ were identified in Dutch agrivoltaic cases (Fig. 8). Contribution to
sphere [53] contributing to reduction of greenhouse gases and ammonia. regional economy and vitality of the rural area was identified in more than
half agrivoltaic Dutch cases. Maintenance of biodiversity and soil

Fig. 7. Number of agrivoltaic cases with specific crop type or land uses identified in international literature. Crop type or land uses are clustered in four agricultural
sectors (arable farming, outdoor vegetable production, fruit growing and other livestock farming). The percentage between brackets indicates the share of studied
international agrivoltaic cases with a crop type or land use in that agricultural sector. A single case can contain multiple crop types or land uses. Agricultural sectors
tree nursery, greenhouse horticulture, bulb farming, dairy farming, poultry farming and pig farming were not identified in any of the studied international agri­
voltaic cases.

6
I. Sirnik et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 178 (2023) 113250

users in Dutch agrivoltaic cases; this was reported on in the literature of

two cases: Haren and Wadenoijen. In the Haren case, it was mentioned
that agrivoltaic systems represented added value to the landscape in
terms of aesthetic addition to the existing facilities, such as a shop,
tearoom and petting zoo. The agrivoltaic case in Wadenoijen was
identified as having a positive impact on the landscape experience, and
it was noted that it looked more attractive compared to the plastic foils
used in the previous situation. In the following section, the results of the
analysis of four spatial properties are presented: accessibility, visibility,
patch configuration and agricultural land use underneath PV arrays.

3.4.1. Accessibility of Dutch agrivoltaic cases

Eight out of ten Dutch AVPP agrivoltaic cases were accessible upon
request (Table 2). Only Sint-Oedenrode and Etten-Leur were inacces­
Fig. 8. Number of Dutch agrivoltaic cases with identified critical performance sible to the public. The literature on Lochem reported the existence of
indicators of circular agriculture. elements used to welcome and invite landscape users, such as infor­
mation boards and rest points with picnic tables for cyclists and pe­
preservation were identified in two Dutch agrivoltaic cases. The other six destrians. The elements were located near the agrivoltaic system to
CPICA were not identified in any of the Dutch agrivoltaic cases. We ensure the visitors could see the AVPP. In the literature on the Haren
found one negative and one ‘unchanged’ aspect of circularity of agri­ agrivoltaic case, it is argued that the agrivoltaic system presents an
voltaics systems. Stadskanaal reported lower biodiversity levels under­ added value to the landscape for the neighbourhood and environment
neath PV arrays, and Babberich reported the same amount of crop by aesthetic addition to the existing facilities.
diseases compared to the agricultural land covered by foil. The lack of accessibility for landscape users implies that the owners
In the cases of Babberich and Wadenoijen, it was reported that of Dutch AVPPs are not in favour of the general public being able to
agrivoltaics benefited the economy through crop and energy production. access the sites. The most likely reason for this is the risk of the distur­
The energy production benefits for the local economy were discussed in bance of work-related processes and potential damage to agrivoltaic
the Stadskanaal agrivoltaic case, where higher crop yield on the edges of systems and crops. These results are similar to the results of the study of
fields underneath PV arrays was reported. Another practice that sup­ accessibility of SPPs where most of the cases were inaccessible to
ports the regional economy is the financial participation of inhabitants landscape users [38]. AVPP access offers the opportunity to enhance the
in the vicinity of agrivoltaic projects. For example, the inhabitants near public’s knowledge of sustainable energy, the energy transition and
the Etten-Leur agrivoltaic case were given priority to financially invest agriculture. Furthermore, this concept may contribute to increasing
in the agrivoltaic project. Another contribution to regional economy was public acceptance of future AVPPs. The open access principle is also used
the creation of additional jobs, as reported in the literature on the Haren in ‘energy gardens’ where renewable energy installations are placed in a
case. public places with open access [64].
Regional economies also depend on the quality and quantity of crop
yields. The quality of the yield can be improved as agrivoltaic systems 3.4.2. Visibility of Dutch agrivoltaic cases
can support a longer growth period for crops [53]. A longer growth Spatial analysis demonstrated low visibility in the majority of Dutch
period of crops underneath PV arrays was reported in the Babberich agrivoltaic cases (Fig. 9). The AVPP in Someren and Stadskanaal were
case. The quantity and reliability of crop yields can also be increased by completely hidden from landscape users, where the level of invisibility
agrivoltaics, as was identified in Wadenoijen and align with the study on was found to be 100%. Partly visible sections were detected in Lochem,
agrivoltaic case in Italy. The study confirmed that agrivoltaics have the Haren and Babberich, with less than 35% of the entire perimeter of the
potential to stabilise crop yield by reducing evapotranspiration and the AVPP being visible. Three agrivoltaic cases showed visibility percent­
soil temperature underneath the PV arrays [57]. ages higher than 50%: Etten-Leur, Haren and Wadenoijen. The average
A positive impact was reported in maintenance of biodiversity under levels of visibility, partial visibility and invisibility of Dutch cases were
the PV arrays. In Broekhuizen, it was reported that biodiversity was 27%, 9% and 64%, respectively. The results suggest that very few of the
stimulated in poor quality soil through the use of diverse flower vari­ studied AVPPs can be observed by landscape users. However, landscape
eties. In the Haren case, it was argued that the agrivoltaics system users are encouraged to appreciate the view of the AVPPs in two agri­
positively influenced levels of biodiversity. These results are in line with voltaic cases: Haren and Lochem. The literature on the Haren case
the study by Walston et al. [63], whom demonstrated that agrivoltaic mentioned how the visibility of the AVPP was enhanced through the
systems are beneficial for enhancing biodiversity levels. In Stadskanaal, avoidance of fences, which separated agrivoltaics system from land­
however, lower biodiversity levels were reported compared to agricul­ scape. Instead of a fence, a ditch filled with water was used to prevent
tural land without agrivoltaic systems. Fewer insects and plant species the visitors from entering the AVPP. In the Lochem case, welcoming
were found underneath the PV arrays. Plants also experienced water
stress in the shade of the PV arrays. Soil preservation was reported in two
Dutch agrivoltaic cases: Broekhuizen and Haren. In Broekhuizen, it was Table 2
argued that soil will not be exhausted at the end of the PV lifespan. In the Accessibility of Dutch agrivoltaic cases.
case of Haren, it was suggested that PV arrays positively affected soil. Agrivoltaic case Accessibility
Animal health, closing nutrient cycles, animal welfare, using residual flows Etten-Leur Inaccessible
from the food industry, nature conservation and reduction of greenhouse Broekhuizen Accessible upon request
gases and ammonia were not reported in any of the studied literature for Sint-Oedenrode Inaccessible
Boekel Accessible upon request
Dutch cases.
Haren Accessible upon request
Someren Accessible upon request
Stadskanaal Accessible upon request
3.4. Landscape experience of agrivoltaic cases in the Netherlands Lochem Accessible upon request
Babberich Accessible upon request
Wadenoijen Accessible upon request
Agrivoltaic systems affected the landscape experience of landscape

7
I. Sirnik et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 178 (2023) 113250

Fig. 10. Three types of patch configurations. The characteristics of the patch
are: alignment to plot and coverage of the plot by the PV patch. The area with
blue lines represents land covered by PV arrays, and the area with orange lines
Fig. 9. Degree of visibility of solar infrastructure of Dutch agrivoltaic cases. represents a plot. Example of each patch configuration: Responsive patch is the
Babberich case, The irresponsive patch is Wadenoijen case and split patch is the
Broekhuizen case.
elements were installed, including an information board and picnic ta­
bles, intended to invite visitors to view the AVPP. However, the litera­
ture on two agrivoltaic cases reported that the owners were planning on Table 3
introducing screening elements around the AVPP to reduce their visi­ Patch types of Dutch agrivoltaic cases.
bility. In the Haren case, there was the intention to plant shrubs to screen
Agrivoltaic case Patch type
the view from the pathways, and in Wadenoijen, there were plans to
Etten-Leur Split
install hedgerows adjacent to the agrivoltaic system to reduce visibility
Broekhuizen Split
from the neighbouring houses. Sint-Oedenrode Split
Due to the scarcity of publications on visibility in agrivoltaics, the Boekel Split
results were compared with the visibility analysis of conventional SPPs Haren Split
in Germany, Italy, United Kingdom and the Netherlands, conducted by Someren Split
Stadskanaal Split
Oudes & Stremke [38]. Average visibility showed similar results on ‘not
Lochem Responsive
visible’ level of parameter. The average ‘not visible’ value of our study Babberich Responsive
showed 64%, which is comparable to the values (63%) found in the Wadenoijen Irresponsive
study by Oudes & Stremke [38]. Although the average values are com­
parable, the values of the individual cases differ substantially from those
in the study by Oudes & Stremke [38]. of literature on the topic. In the study by Oudes & Stremke [38], eight of
Our results imply that AVPPs are somewhat hidden from the land­ 11 studied SPP cases fall into the responsive, irresponsive and split type
scape users. The literature also suggests that several agrivoltaic cases patch configurations. Among them, three, two and three SPP cases
introduced barriers to reduce visibility. Nevertheless, in some agri­ correspond to responsive, irresponsive and split type of patch configu­
voltaic cases, there was no need to add elements to reduce visibility due ration, respectively. The results show different distributions of patch
to pre-existing elements in the host landscape (e.g. hedgerows). Hiding configuration among the SPPs, compared to the results of this research,
AVPPs from landscape users may affect public acceptance. This confirms where the split patch configuration of AVPPs is predominant. The shape
the participative study of SPPs in Slovenia, which argus that public of PV patches of SPPs fall into the category where the PV patches are
acceptance could be enhanced by placing SPPs in less visible areas [65]. independent of the existing shape of the plot. The most likely reason for
Another study by Fernandez-Jimenez et al. [44] suggests lowering the this is that AVPPs are more focused on the crop delineation than plot
visual impact of SPPs by building them in less visible locations, thereby shape.
enhancing public acceptance. In the study by Lobaccaro et al. [66], conducted in the US, China and
Europe, it is suggested that AVPPs are characterised by smaller PV
3.4.3. Patch configuration of Dutch agrivoltaic cases patches compared to SPPs. Moreover, Scognamiglio [67] suggests that
Three patch configurations were identified in Dutch agrivoltaic the shape of the PV patch depends on the features of the available land
cases: responsive, irresponsive and split type (Fig. 10). area, which is influenced by the topography and boundaries of the
Most Dutch agrivoltaic systems showed a shape that matched the landscape. Scognamiglio argues that the patch of PV arrays should be
shape of the plot. However, substantial parts of some plots were not designed in a way that suits the pattern of the landscape, and they
covered by PV arrays; up to 50%. This patch configuration type is should be merged with the landscape through the following properties:
referred to as ‘split’. Irresponsive and responsive patch configuration size and shape of the patch, type of pattern, grain and colour. The cases
types are only applied in one and two cases, respectively (Table 3). studied in this research are mostly in line with the guidelines proposed
The TRL may have influenced the patch configuration of the AVPP. by Scognamiglio [67], since the predominant patch configurations
TRLs equal or higher than eight (TRL 8: agrivoltaic systems complete correspond to the categories where shape of the PV patch matches the
and qualified) may affect the surface of AVPP in the way that the area shape of the plot. Nevertheless, a substantial part of the plots of Dutch
covered by PV arrays is larger compared to the prototype. However, the agrivoltaic cases were unoccupied by PV patches. One possible reason
shape of agricultural plots remain the same. In instances of higher TRL for this could be the relatively low TRLs of Dutch agrivoltaic cases
values, the AVPP patch configuration may be different due to the larger (Table 1).
scale of the area covered by PV arrays. Several Dutch agrivoltaic cases
with relatively low TRLs demonstrated relatively small areas occupied 3.4.4. Agricultural land use underneath PV arrays of Dutch agrivoltaic
by the agrivoltaic system. Patch configuration is likely to change when cases
the project scale of the AVPP is increased. Land beneath agrivoltaic systems in the Netherlands was mostly used
The results are compared to the results of SPP studies due to the lack for fruit production. This is followed by other livestock farming, arable
farming, bulb growing and greenhouse horticulture – 30%, 10%, 10%

8
I. Sirnik et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 178 (2023) 113250

and 10% respectively (Fig. 11). Tree nursery, outdoor vegetable pro­ [3], increasing the land equivalent ratio up to 47.2%. Sheep grazing was
duction, dairy farming, poultry farming and pig farming were not found reported in three Dutch agrivoltaic cases, the highest number of agri­
in Dutch agrivoltaic cases. In two agrivoltaic cases, the land underneath voltaic cases and equal to raspberry production. The reason for this high
the PV arrays had three different uses: Stadskanaal and Haren. Land use number of agrivoltaic cases with sheep grazing beneath may be due to
was monofunctional in three agrivoltaic cases: Etten-Leur, Boekel and practical reasons. Agrivoltaic systems do not affect stock density, can
Broekhuizen. The other five cases contained two different land uses. provide shelter for livestock and have the added benefit of controlling
Sheep farming and raspberry production were the predominant uses for vegetation growth [4,72]. There are relatively few studies on livestock
the land, found in three agrivoltaic cases. These were followed by red in agrivoltaics [73], nevertheless sheep farming was reported in
berries, blueberries, strawberries and flowers, which were reported in Australia [74] and Oregon (US) [54].
two cases. Mushrooms, plum trees, nut trees, barley and chicory were The choice of land use in agrivoltaic cases is also impacted by
reported in Lochem, Wadenoijen, Haren, Stadskanaal and Stadskanaal, legislation. Governmental policies affect the crop selection in AVPP [4].
respectively. On the one hand, local land policy presents a significant barrier for
Solar irradiance affects the crop selection [4] and crop yield. The agrivoltaics development in the US [75]. On the other hand, the Dutch
global solar horizontal irradiation is adequate for agrivoltaics in lati­ government promotes building multifunctional SPPs [76]. Nevertheless,
tudes of less than 45◦ [68]. The geographical latitude of the Dutch there are still many uncertainties regarding crop selection in AVPP,
agrivoltaic cases are between 51◦ and 53◦ , so shade-tolerant crops which remains a key issue for the scientific community [21].
should be primary used in the Netherlands. Moreover, the study by
Dinesh & Pearce [69] suggests the selection of shade-tolerant crops for
maximising crop yield. This is confirmed by the crop selection of 3.5. Limitations
mushrooms (Shitake) in the Lochem case. Mushroom growth in agri­
voltaic cases was also reported in one agrivoltaic case in China [70], For this study, five data and methodological limitations can be
which receives similar solar irradiation as Lochem. The difference in identified. First, agrivoltaics is a dynamic field with a growing number
global horizontal irradiation between both location is 550 kWh/m2 per of cases [8]. However, the existing literature on agrivoltaics and agri­
year. voltaic cases is still limited due to the novelty of agrivoltaics. The lack of
In the agrivoltaic case study by Trommsdorff et al. [12] in Germany, literature was particularly noticeable through the absence of
different crops were reported: potato, celeriac, clover grass and winter peer-reviewed literature on Dutch agrivoltaic cases. This is why we had
wheat. The Köppen-Geiger climate class Cfb is the same as in Dutch to rely on grey literature and field work. Second, ‘circularity’ has
agrivoltaic case [71]. The difference of global horizontal irradiation numerous definitions. In this research, we limited circularity to meaning
between the location of the study by Trommsdorff et al. [12] and the circular agriculture and nine CPICA. Agrivoltaics may touch upon more
Netherlands is roughly 180 kWh/m2. Crop selection may still be influ­ circularity aspects than were studied in this research. However, they are
enced by different policies, soil type and other environmental condi­ not reported in the studied literature yet. Third, part of our research is
tions. The crop selection was most likely influenced by economic limited to a single country, The Netherlands, which results in relatively
reasons, such as the lack of need for common agricultural machinery and low number of built agrivoltaic cases. Agrivoltaic cases outside the
the relatively low structure of agrivoltaic systems compared to agri­ Netherlands could not be examined by means of field work due to travel
voltaic systems for arable farming. Furthermore, agrivoltaic systems limitations put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was
offer protection from extreme weather conditions; this was reported in ongoing at the time of study. Fourth, the number of studied international
both the Babberich and Wadenoijen cases. Tree growth underneath PV agrivoltaic cases was limited by the pool of peer-reviewed literature in
arrays is rare according to studied literature, however, it does occur. databases Scopus and Web of Science. Using additional databases would
Olive tree growth was reported in an agrivoltaic case in southern Spain mean a higher number of studied international cases that would influ­
ence the results. Finally, the land use underneath PV panels is a dynamic

Fig. 11. Number of agrivoltaic cases with specific crop type or land uses identified in the literature of Dutch cases. Crop type or land uses are clustered in five
agricultural sectors (fruit growing, arable farming, bulb growing, greenhouse horticulture and other livestock farming). The percentage between brackets indicates
the share of studied Dutch agrivoltaic cases with a crop type or land use in that agricultural sector. A single case can contain multiple crop types or land uses.
Agricultural sectors tree nursery, outdoor vegetable production, dairy farming, poultry farming and pig farming were not identified in any of the studied Dutch
agrivoltaic cases.

9
I. Sirnik et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 178 (2023) 113250

parameter, changing yearly in some agrivoltaic cases. Retrieving more production were found in several international agrivoltaic cases, such as
detailed land use data from all studied cases would provide more insight lower crop production. A loss of biodiversity was reported in one Dutch
in this dynamic land use. agrivoltaic case and another Dutch case reported that the amount of
Potential errors in the analysis may have affected the TRL and the plant diseases did not change after PV installation. The results suggest
visibility levels of agrivoltaic cases. TRL classification is not exact and that circularity in international and Dutch cases is mainly based upon an
was created for photovoltaic technology in general [33]. An economic perspective.
agrivoltaics-specific TRL classification could improve results. However, Due to climate change and the rising incidences of extreme weather
such a specific classification does not yet seem to exist, most probably events, the security of crop yields is becoming an important factor in
due to the novelty of the technology. Futhermore, grey literature con­ ensuring economic income for farmers. International agrivoltaic cases
tains more potential source errors, compared to peer-reviewed litera­ showed several synergies between food and energy production that were
ture. Consequentially, the results based on grey literature might be less not found in Dutch agrivoltaic cases, such as animal health, animal
accurate compared to the results based on peer-reviewed literature. welfare and reduction of greenhouse gases. To ensure a smooth transi­
Nevertheless, the growth of peer-review literature in agrivoltaics [8] tion to circular agriculture, aspects of circularity should be more inte­
will provide more peer-review literature for future research. grated into agrivoltaic systems. Farmers, agrivoltaic developers and
policy makers can learn from synergies in successful agrivoltaics ex­
4. Conclusion amples and can implement these insights in future developments and
policies.
This research provides a detailed overview of circularity and land­ Landscape experience is an important part of agrivoltaics due to the
scape experience in agrivoltaics. The study was guided by two research impact of AVPP on landscape experience and, consequently, public
questions: (1) Which aspects of circularity and landscape experience are acceptance. In one international agrivoltaic case, it was argued that
addressed in the international literature on agrivoltaics? (2) What are AVPPs had a negative effect on the landscape due to their elevated
the key technical properties and aspects of circularity of built agrivoltaic structure. Even though our spatial analysis of Dutch agrivoltaic cases
systems in the Netherlands, and how are landscape users’ experiences indicated low accessibility and visibility, some suggested that agri­
addressed? voltaics improved landscape experience and has a preferable aesthetics
Internationally, agrivoltaic cases showed the most identified aspect compared to plastic foil or greenhouses. The visual appearance of the
of circularity was contribution to regional economy and vitality of the rural previous agricultural system is therefore essential in assessing landscape
area, which was identified in 82% of the international agrivoltaic cases. experience. The spatial analysis revealed that most APV systems cover
However, none of the studied cases addressed nature conservation or less than 50% of their plots, and that patch shape matches the shape of
usage of residual flows from food industry. Contrary to the aspects about the plot. The Dutch agrivoltaic cases showed a high variability of crop
circularity, landscape experience was largely absent in the international selection for a relatively small area of the Netherlands, with the majority
literature on agrivoltaics. Landscape experience was only identified in of cases being used by the fruit growing sector. Nevertheless, the patch
one agrivoltaic case in Switzerland. Considering the current attention to configuration was influenced by TRL, and further improvement of
landscape experience of conventional SPPs in both research and prac­ technology and business cases of AVPP may increase the share of the
tice, increased attention to this topic for agrivoltaics is expected and plot used as AVPP.
relevant for future research. This study provides recommendations for future research into cir­
On the level of the Netherlands, results revealed that the most cular agrivoltaic power plants with attention to landscape experience.
identified aspect of circularity in Dutch cases is the same as in interna­ Using this research as a basis, future research should explore alternative
tional cases, namely contribution to regional economy and vitality of the designs of AVPPs that consider landscape experience, for example the
rural area. It was identified in 60% of the Dutch agrivoltaic cases. The accessibility and visibility of AVPPs. Furthermore, future research
CPICA animal health, closing nutrient cycle, animal welfare, using residual should study how the currently missing circularity indicators could be
flows from food industry, nature conservation and reduction of greenhouse implemented, such as nature conservation and using residual flows from
gases and ammonia were not mentioned in any of the Dutch agrivoltaic food industry. Legislation is an important driver for advancing these
cases. Due to the high number of circularity aspects that were not aspects of agrivoltaics. There are already several countries that are
mentioned (six out of nine CPICA), one may infer that Dutch stake­ introducing legal guidelines, standards and legislation for agrivoltaics
holders currently pay less attention to circularity compared to their in­ (e.g. Italy, Germany). Policy makers, in collaboration with farmers,
ternational colleagues. Similarly, ‘landscape experience’ was only developers and landscape users, should devise legislation that supports
addressed in the literature of one Dutch agrivoltaic case. Furthermore, innovation of circularity and landscape experience of AVPPs.
Dutch agrivoltaic cases showed relatively low accessibility and visibil­ The identified synergies and trade-offs of studied agrivoltaic cases
ity. These findings suggest that most Dutch AVPPs are designed to be show advantages and disadvantages of agrivoltaics in the context of
hidden from landscape users. Low visibility was identified in 30% of circularity and landscape experience. Decision-making processes can
cases, meaning the entire perimeter was identified as ‘not-visible’. benefit from these results to improve policies for designing AVPP in
However, in one case, the literature reported the existence of inviting aspects of circularity and contribute to accelerate energy transition with
elements for landscape users, such as information boards, rest points for higher public support. Moreover, the missing circularity aspects in the
cyclists and picnic tables. Dutch agrivoltaic cases tend to be inaccessible studied agrivoltaic cases can be included in the design of future AVPPs.
or only accessible upon request, which may be a drawback for landscape The results also show the advantages of agrivoltaics compared to con­
users wishing to visit AVPPs. ventional monofunctional SPPs, providing evidence to promote agri­
Together, the results on both levels clearly show that international voltaics in a circular manner with attention to landscape experience
agrivoltaic cases have higher levels of variability in terms of circularity rather than monofunctional SPPs.
compared to Dutch cases. One possible reason for this may be that a Agrivoltaics is a relatively novel concept that is already showing
higher number of international agrivoltaic cases were studied, there was promising results in terms of energy, food production and, more
more detailed literature and there were longer observation times. Many recently, mitigating conflicts between the two. It provides synergies in
synergies between food and energy production were identified in both the context of nature conservation, accelerating the energy transition
international and Dutch agrivoltaic cases. Several agrivoltaic cases re­ and providing crop protection whilst ensuring yield stability. There are
ported that PV arrays protected the crops from extreme weather con­ also challenges facing agrivoltaics, much like other types of SPP,
ditions and consequently improved the security of the crop yield. Apart including low public acceptance due to changes in landscape experience.
from synergies, trade-offs between food production and energy Nevertheless, agrivoltaics may have the potential to become a leading

10
I. Sirnik et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 178 (2023) 113250

solution for future proof farming, contributing to the energy transition performance ratio and its policy implications. Appl Energy 2020;265:114737.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114737.
and mitigating climate change. In turn, it also contributes to circular
[14] Oudes D, van den Brink A, Stremke S. Towards a typology of solar energy
agriculture, meeting environmental targets and reaching the Sustainable landscapes: mixed-production, nature based and landscape inclusive solar power
Development Goals set by the United Nations such as ensuring zero transitions. Energy Res Social Sci 2022;91:102742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
hunger and creating affordable, clean energy. erss.2022.102742.
[15] Velasco-Muñoz JF, Mendoza JMF, Aznar-Sánchez JA, Gallego-Schmid A. Circular
economy implementation in the agricultural sector: definition, strategies and
Declaration of competing interest indicators. Resour Conserv Recycl 2021:170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2021.105618.
[16] Harris S, Martin M, Diener D. Circularity for circularity’s sake? Scoping review of
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial assessment methods for environmental performance in the circular economy.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Sustain Prod Consum 2021;26:172–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
spc.2020.09.018.
the work reported in this paper.
[17] Erisman JW, Verhoeven F, Louis Bolk Instituut. Integraal op weg naar
kringlooplandbouw 2030. 2020. p. 528146. https://edepot.wur.nl/. [Accessed 10
Data availability May 2022].
[18] Dagevos H, de Lauwere C. Circular business models and circular agriculture:
perceptions and practices of Dutch farmers. Sustainability 2021;13:1–15. https://
Data will be made available on request. doi.org/10.3390/su13031282.
[19] Roddis P, Roelich K, Tran K, Carver S, Dallimer M, Ziv G. What shapes community
Acknowledgments acceptance of large-scale solar farms? A case study of the UK’s first ‘nationally
significant’ solar farm. Sol Energy 2020;209:235–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2020.08.065.
This study is part of the Wageningen Solar Research Programme [20] Council of Europe. Council of Europe. European landscape convention, vol. 2000.
supported by Wageningen University & Research. Furthermore, we like Eur Treaty Ser – No; 2000.
[21] Toledo C, Scognamiglio A. Agrivoltaic systems design and assessment: a critical
to thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and review, and a descriptive model towards a sustainable landscape vision (three-
critique. dimensional agrivoltaic patterns). Sustainability 2021;13. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su13126871.
[22] Gomez-Casanovas N, Blanc-Betes E, Moore CE, Bernacchi CJ, Kantola I,
Appendix A. Supplementary data DeLucia EH. A review of transformative strategies for climate mitigation by
grasslands. Sci Total Environ 2021;799:149466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. scitotenv.2021.149466.
[23] Abidin MAZ, Mahyuddin MN, Zainuri MAAM. Solar photovoltaic architecture and
org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113250. agronomic management in agrivoltaic system: a review. Sustainability 2021;13.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147846.
References [24] Jain P, Raina G, Sinha S, Malik P, Mathur S. Agrovoltaics: step towards sustainable
energy-food combination. Bioresour Technol Rep 2021;15:100766. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biteb.2021.100766.
[1] IPCC. The intergovernmental panel on climate change: climate change 2021: the
[25] Briner RB, Denyer D. Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and
physical science basis (summary for policymakers). Sixth Asse: Cambridge
scholarship tool. The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management; 2012.
University Press In Press; 2021.
p. 112–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199763986.013.0007.
[2] Dutch government. Omzien naar elkaar, vooruitkijken naar de toekomst. Dutch
[26] Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences. Blackwell
Governmnet. https://www.kabinetsformatie2021.nl/documenten/publicaties/202
Publishing; 2012.
1/12/15/coalitieakkoord-omzien-naar-elkaar-vooruitkijken-naar-de-toekomst;
[27] Pickering C, Byrne J. The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature
2021. accessed December 8, 2022.
reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. High Educ Res Dev
[3] Casares de la Torre FJ, Varo-Martinez M, López-Luque R, Ramírez-Faz J,
2014;33:534–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841651.
Fernández-Ahumada LM. Design and analysis of a tracking/backtracking strategy
[28] Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Canadian Journal of Action
for PV plants with horizontal trackers after their conversion to agrivoltaic plants.
Research 2009;14:69–71.
Renew Energy 2022;187:537–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.01.081.
[29] Efrainmaps. World map 2022. http://tapiquen-sig.jimdo.com. accessed May 6,
[4] Mamun MA, al, Dargusch P, Wadley D, Zulkarnain NA, Aziz AA. A review of
2022.
research on agrivoltaic systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;161:112351.
[30] Solarmagazine. Solar magazine. https://solarmagazine.nl/home; 2022. accessed
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112351.
January 31, 2022.
[5] Ketzer D, Schlyter P, Weinberger N, Rösch C. Driving and restraining forces for the
[31] PVmagazine. PV magazine. https://www.pv-magazine.com/; 2022. accessed
implementation of the Agrophotovoltaics system technology – a system dynamics
January 31, 2022.
analysis. J Environ Manag 2020;270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[32] Google. Google. https://www.google.com/; 2022. accessed January 31, 2022.
jenvman.2020.110864.
[33] Rose A de, Buna M, Strazza C, Olivieri NN, Stevens T, Peeters L, et al. Technology
[6] Späth L. Large-scale photovoltaics? Yes please, but not like this! Insights on
readiness level : guidance principles for renewable energy technologies. https://
different perspectives underlying the trade-off between land use and renewable
publications.europa.eu/portal2012-portlet/html/downloadHandler.jsp?identifier
electricity development. Energy Pol 2018;122:429–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
=1da3324e-e6d0-11e7-9749-01aa75ed71a1&format=pdf&language=en&prod
enpol.2018.07.029.
uctionSystem=cellar&part=; 2017. accessed January 24, 2022.
[7] Oudes D, Van Den Brink A, Stremke S. Towards a typology of solar energy
[34] PDOK. Hét platform voor hoogwaardige geodata, PDOK (Publieke Dienstverlening
landscapes: mixed-production, nature based and landscape inclusive solar power
op de Kaart). https://www.pdok.nl/; 2021. accessed December 14, 2021.
transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci 2022;91:102742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[35] Google. Google Earth. https://earth.google.com/web/; 2021. accessed January 15,
erss.2022.102742.
2022.
[8] Gorjian S, Bousi E, Özdemir ÖE, Trommsdorff M, Kumar NM, Anand A, et al.
[36] Sentinelhub. Sentinelhub. https://www.sentinel-hub.com/; 2022. accessed
Progress and challenges of crop production and electricity generation in agrivoltaic
February 28, 2022.
systems using semi-transparent photovoltaic technology. Renew Sustain Energy
[37] Jonge Baas M de. Engie en Katholieke Universiteit Leuven starten proef met
Rev 2022;158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112126.
zonnepanelen, aardbeien en frambozen. https://solarmagazine.nl/nieuws-zonne-
[9] Willockx B, Uytterhae gen B, Ronsijn B, Herteleer B, Cappelle J. A standardized
energie/i24973/engie-en-ku-leuven-starten-proef-met-zonnepanelen-aardbeien-
classification and performance indicators of agrivoltaic systems, vol. 2020. Eu
en-frambozen; 2021. accessed July 24, 2022.
Pvsec; 2020. p. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.4229/EUPVSEC20202020-6CV.2.47.
[38] Oudes D, Stremke S. Next generation solar power plants? A comparative analysis of
[10] Sekiyama T, Nagashima A. Solar sharing for both food and clean energy
frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;145:
production: performance of agrivoltaic systems for corn, A typical shade-intolerant
111101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111101.
crop. Environments - MDPI 2019;6. https://doi.org/10.3390/
[39] Weitkamp G, Bregt A, van Ron L. Measuring visible space to assess landscape
environments6060065.
openness. Landsc Res 2011;36:127–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/
[11] DIN. Agri-photovoltaic systems – requirements for primary agricultural use English
01426397.2010.549219.
translation of Deutsches Institut für Normung SPEC 91434:2021-05 2021:1–25.
[40] Lankhorst JR-K, De Vries S, Buijs A. Mapping landscape attractiveness: a GIS-based
https://www.beuth.de/en/technical-rule/din-spec-91434/337886742. accessed
landscape appreciation model for the Dutch countryside. Research in Urbanism
January 10, 2022.
Series 2011;2:147–61.
[12] Trommsdorff M, Kang J, Reise C, Schindele S, Bopp G, Ehmann A, et al. Combining
[41] Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Brown T. Environmental preference: a comparison of four
food and energy production: design of an agrivoltaic system applied in arable and
domains of predictors. Environ Behav 1989;21:509–30.
vegetable farming in Germany. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;140. https://doi.
[42] Pearce JM. Photovoltaics - a path to sustainable futures. Futures 2002;34:663–74.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110694.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00008-3.
[13] Schindele S, Trommsdorff M, Schlaak A, Obergfell T, Bopp G, Reise C, et al.
Implementation of agrophotovoltaics: techno-economic analysis of the price-

11
I. Sirnik et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 178 (2023) 113250

[43] Junge X, Schüpbach B, Walter T, Schmid B, Lindemann-Matthies P. Aesthetic [60] Marrou H, Wery J, Dufour L, Dupraz C. Productivity and radiation use efficiency of
quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in lettuces grown in the partial shade of photovoltaic panels. Eur J Agron 2013;44:
Switzerland. Landsc Urban Plann 2015;133:67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2012.08.003.
landurbplan.2014.09.010. [61] Svanera L, Ghidesi G, Knoche R. AgroVoltaico®: 10 years design and operation
[44] Fernandez-Jimenez LA, Mendoza-Villena M, Zorzano-Santamaria P, Garcia- experience. AIP Conf Proc 2021;2361. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0055869.
Garrido E, Lara-Santillan P, Zorzano-Alba E, et al. Site selection for new PV power [62] Trommsdorff M, Vorast M, Durga N, Padwardhan S. Potential of agrivoltaics to
plants based on their observability. Renew Energy 2015;78:7–15. https://doi.org/ contribute to socio-economic sustainability: a case study in Maharashtra/India. AIP
10.1016/j.renene.2014.12.063. Conf Proc 2021:2361. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0054569.
[45] Apostol D, Palmar J, Pasqualetti M, Smardon R, Sullivan R. The Renewable Energy [63] Walston LJ, Mishra SK, Hartmann HM, Hlohowskyj I, McCall J, Macknick J.
Landscape preserving scenic values in our sustainable future. Routledge; 2017. Examining the potential for agricultural benefits from pollinator habitat at solar
[46] Stremke S, Schöbel S. Research through design for energy transition: two case facilities in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 2018;52:7566–76. https://doi.
studies in Germany and The Netherlands. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00020.
2019;8:16–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-02-2018-0010. [64] Energietuinen. Energietuin assen-zuid. https://onlinetouch.nl/nmfdrenth
[47] Bevk T, Golobič M. Contentious eye-catchers: perceptions of landscapes changed e/e-magazine-energietuin-assen-zuid?html=true#/18/; 2022. accessed April 26,
by solar power plants in Slovenia. Renew Energy 2020;152:999–1010. https://doi. 2022.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.108. [65] Bevk T, Golobič M. Contentious eye-catchers: perceptions of landscapes changed
[48] Scognamiglio A. Photovoltaic landscapes”: design and assessment. A critical review by solar power plants in Slovenia. Renew Energy 2020;152:999–1010. https://doi.
for a new transdisciplinary design vision. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;55: org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.108.
629–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.072. [66] Lobaccaro G, Croce S, Lindkvist C, Munari Probst MC, Scognamiglio A, Dahlberg J,
[49] Borman GD, de Boef WS, Dirks F, Gonzalez YS, Subedi A, Thijssen MH, et al. et al. A cross-country perspective on solar energy in urban planning: lessons
Putting food systems thinking into practice: integrating agricultural sectors into a learned from international case studies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;108:
multi-level analytical framework. Global Food Secur 2022;32:100591. https://doi. 209–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.041.
org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100591. [67] Scognamiglio A. Photovoltaic landscapes”: design and assessment. A critical review
[50] Agrimatie Agro & food portal. https://www.agrimatie.nl/. [Accessed 14 February for a new transdisciplinary design vision. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;55:
2022]. 629–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.072.
[51] Trommsdorff M, Vorast M, Durga N, Padwardhan S. Potential of agrivoltaics to [68] Yu P, Toon OB, Neely RR, Martinsson BG, Brenninkmeijer CAM. Composition and
contribute to socio-economic sustainability: a case study in Maharashtra/India. AIP physical properties of the asian tropopause aerosol layer and the North American
Conf Proc 2021:2361. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0054569. tropospheric aerosol layer. Geophys Res Lett 2015;42:2540–6. https://doi.org/
[52] Adeh EH, Good SP, Calaf M, Higgins CW. Solar PV power potential is greatest over 10.1002/2015GL063181.
croplands. Sci Rep 2019;9:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47803-3. [69] Dinesh H, Pearce JM. The potential of agrivoltaic systems. Renew Sustain Energy
[53] Barron-Gafford GA, Pavao-Zuckerman MA, Minor RL, Sutter LF, Barnett-Moreno I, Rev 2016;54:299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.024.
Blackett DT, et al. Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the [70] Wang D, Sun Y, Lin Y, Gao Y. Analysis of Light Environment Under Solar Panels
food–energy–water nexus in drylands. Nat Sustain 2019;2:848–55. https://doi. and Crop Layout 2018;2048(53). https://doi.org/10.1109/pvsc.2017.8521475.
org/10.1038/s41893-019-0364-5. [71] Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger
[54] Andrew AC, Higgins CW, Smallman MA, Graham M, Ates S. Herbage yield, lamb climate classification. Meteorol Z 2006;15:259–63. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-
growth and foraging behavior in agrivoltaic production system. Front Sustain Food 2948/2006/0130.
Syst 2021;5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.659175. [72] Gses. Utility scale solar: dual purpose land usage opportunities. https://www.gses.
[55] Gonocruz RA, Nakamura R, Yoshino K, Homma M, Doi T, Yoshida Y, et al. Analysis com.au/utility-scale-solar-dual-purpose-land-usage-opportunities/; 2022. accessed
of the rice yield under an agrivoltaic system: a case study in Japan. Environments May 8, 2022.
2021;8. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments8070065. [73] Andrew A. Lamb growth and pasture production in agrivoltaic production system.
[56] Chowdhury K, Mandal R. Agrivoltaic: a new approach of sustainable development. Oregon State University; 2020.
Lecture notes in civil engineering, vol. 131. LNCE, Springer Singapore; 2021. [74] Guerin TF. Impacts and opportunities from large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV)
p. 513–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6412-7_37. electricity generation on agricultural production. Environ Qual Manag 2019;7–14.
[57] Agostini A, Colauzzi M, Amaducci S. Innovative agrivoltaic systems to produce https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.21629.
sustainable energy: an economic and environmental assessment. Appl Energy [75] Pascaris AS. Examining existing policy to inform a comprehensive legal framework
2021;281:116102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116102. for agrivoltaics in the. U.S. Energy Policy 2021;159:112620. https://doi.org/
[58] Benghida D, Sabrina B. Investment in agrophotovoltaics: efficient solutions from 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112620.
Switzerland. Int J Innovative Technol Explor Eng 2019;8:61–4. https://doi.org/ [76] RES. 2,7 TWh duurzame energie in 2030. https://gemeentebestuur.haarlem.nl/bes
10.35940/ijitee.L2497.1081219. tuurlijke-stukken/20200391602-2-Bijlage-1-Concept-RES-Noord-Holland-Zuid-8-
[59] Othman NF, Jamian S, Su ASM, Ya’Acob ME. Tropical field assessment on pests for april-2020.pdf. [Accessed 8 May 2022].
Misai Kucing cultivation under agrivoltaics farming system. AIP Conf Proc 2019;
2129. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5118010.

12