Nuclear wastelands and the future of nature conservation: Can decommissioned sites become havens for biodiversity?
As the climate crisis intensifies and ecosystems shift faster than conservation measures can adapt, scientists are increasingly looking to unconventional spaces for solutions. One of the more provocative ideas is to use derelict land – particularly decommissioned nuclear power stations – as refuges for plant species threatened by climate change. These protorefuges would host novel or hybrid ecological communities, offering a lifeline to species displaced from their traditional habitats.
The concept is partly inspired by unexpected examples of nature reclaiming anthropogenic landscapes. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, established after the 1986 nuclear disaster, has become a case study in how wildlife can recover in the absence of human intervention. Populations of large mammals, birds and plants have reappeared, apparently thriving in the radioactive silence.
But caution is needed.
Research suggests that while many common species persist across radiation gradients, rarer or more sensitive species remain restricted to less contaminated areas. The ecological legacy of radiation, particularly at the genomic and epigenetic levels in plants, is still being unravelled.
What makes Chernobyl exceptional is precisely its exceptionalism.
Large, long-term exclusion zones are not common, and comparisons with other nuclear incidents highlight key differences. In the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, the Japanese government made considerable efforts to decontaminate the area for eventual human reoccupation. The assumption that decommissioned nuclear sites will remain undisturbed for decades is therefore optimistic.
Different timescales
Decommissioning timescales vary widely. Some sites are partially reused within ten years, while others take several decades to fully dismantle. Political and economic instability can prolong operations beyond the original timelines, and technical setbacks during clean-up can delay access to these sites. In addition, the management of radioactive materials – whether treated on site or transported elsewhere – adds further logistical complexity.
This raises the question: are nuclear sites really the most suitable refuges for biodiversity?
In practice, other types of brownfield sites may offer more viable, controllable options. Closed landfills, for example, have shown surprising potential for biodiversity. Over time, such areas tend to accumulate plant diversity, with larger sites supporting richer bird and insect communities. Similarly, abandoned mining sites – sand and gravel pits, limestone quarries and tailings dams – can become havens for rare and endangered plant species. Often dismissed as ecological scars, these landscapes reveal an underestimated capacity for spontaneous regeneration. In many cases, minimal human intervention is the best strategy.
Urban environments
Urban environments offer another, albeit partial, alternative. Although they cannot replicate the complexity of wild habitats, urban green spaces and brownfield sites can act as stepping stones in fragmented landscapes, supporting both common and threatened flora. The idea of conserving biodiversity in ‘novel ecosystems’ – ecosystems composed of species mixes that have no historical precedent – remains controversial. Ethical debates continue about the legitimacy of human-made refuges. But as the rate of biodiversity loss accelerates, pragmatic approaches are gaining ground.
One of the most proactive strategies proposed is assisted translocation: the deliberate movement of species to areas where they are more likely to survive under future climatic conditions.
Incorporating such efforts into ecological restoration projects at an early stage can improve long-term success. However, not all species are equally amenable to translocation. Habitat specialists and rare plants often struggle to establish viable populations in new locations. Even with careful planning, outcomes are uncertain and failures are not uncommon. Ex-situ conservation methods – such as seed banks and cultivation in botanical gardens – can only support a limited number of species and ecosystems.
Structural weaknesses
The challenges are compounded by structural weaknesses in current conservation frameworks. Protected areas, the cornerstone of biodiversity policy, often assume static species distributions. Yet climate models consistently predict that many species will move beyond these designated boundaries. Management strategies have been slow to adapt. Tools such as species distribution models, which combine occurrence data with climate projections, hold promise for identifying future habitats. But their reliability is limited by inconsistencies in methodology, data quality and the treatment of uncertainty.
Amid these complexities, conservation priorities are also being reconsidered. Rare species tend to attract most attention, but common species play an equally important role in ecosystem functioning. Declines in common taxa are often less visible, but can have profound consequences. A more balanced conservation agenda would address both ends of the rarity spectrum, ensuring ecosystem resilience as well as species conservation.
Underlying all these efforts are persistent gaps in knowledge and infrastructure.
Many species remain undescribed or poorly documented. Taxonomic expertise is declining and biodiversity monitoring efforts are often biased towards charismatic or flagship species. The result is a patchy understanding of species distributions, particularly in remote or under-explored regions. These so-called Linnean and Wallacean gaps limit the precision of conservation planning at the very moment it is most needed.
Renewable energy
One final consideration brings the conversation full circle. As nuclear power plants are phased out, governments are under pressure to replace lost capacity with renewable energy. This transition is itself spatially intensive. The siting of solar farms and wind turbines in ecologically sensitive areas threatens to undo conservation gains. Brownfields, including former industrial sites, offer a more sustainable way forward – serving both climate and biodiversity goals without further encroaching on intact ecosystems.
In this context, the proposal to use decommissioned nuclear sites for biodiversity conservation is emblematic of a wider shift. Conservation in the Anthropocene is no longer just about preserving wilderness; it’s about finding space for nature in a landscape transformed by human activity. Whether in the ruins of energy infrastructure, the remnants of industrial extraction, or the edges of our cities, the future of biodiversity may depend on our ability to see potential where we once saw only waste.
References
Bacler-Żbikowska, B. and Nowak, T. (2022) ‘Role of Post-industrial Sites in Maintaining Species Diversity of Rare, Endangered and Protected Vascular Plant Species on the Example of the Urban-Industrial Landscapes’, in Dyczko, Jagodziński and Woźniak (eds). Green Scenarios: Mining Industry Responses to Environmental Challenges of the Anthropocene Epoch. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 245-264.
Beaumont, L. J., Hughes, L. and Pitman, A. J. (2008) ‘Why is the choice of future climate scenarios for species distribution modelling important?’, Ecology letters, 11(11), pp. 1135-1146.
Beresford, N. A. and Copplestone, D. (2011) ‘Effects of ionizing radiation on wildlife: what knowledge have we gained between the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents?’, Integrated environmental assessment and management, 7(3), pp. 371-373.
Braidwood, D. W., Taggart, M. A., Smith, M. and Andersen, R. (2018) ‘Translocations, conservation, and climate change: use of restoration sites as protorefuges and protorefugia’, Restoration Ecology, 26(1), pp. 20-28.
Brown, M. J., Bachman, S. P. and Nic Lughadha, E. (2023) ‘Three in four undescribed plant species are threatened with extinction’, New Phytologist, 239.
Council of Europe (2018) Nuclear safety and security in Europe. Available at: https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=25050&lang=en (Accessed: 20 June 2024).
Diallo, M. et al. (2021). ‘Plant translocations in Europe and the Mediterranean: Geographical and climatic directions and distances from source to host sites’, Journal of Ecology, 109(6), pp. 2296-2308.
Deryabina, T. G., Kuchmel, S. V., Nagorskaya, L. L., Hinton, T. G., Beasley, J. C., Lerebours, A. and Smith, J. T. (2015) ‘Long-term census data reveal abundant wildlife populations at Chernobyl’, Current Biology, 25(19), pp. 824-826.
Duda, A. and Jimura, T. (2024) ‘Nuclear accident sites and tourism: a comparative analysis of the Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones’, Current Issues in Tourism, pp. 1-18.
Elliott, C. P., Tomlinson, S., Lewandrowski, W. and Miller, B. P. (2024) ‘Species distribution and habitat attributes guide translocation planning of a threatened short-range endemic plant’, Global Ecology and Conservation, 51, e02915.
European Commission (n.d.) Decommissioning of nuclear facilities. Available at: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/nuclear-energy/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities_en (Accessed: 14 June 2024).
Gaston, K. J. and Fuller, R. A. (2007) ‘Biodiversity and extinction: losing the common and the widespread’, Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 31(2), pp. 213-225.
Huntley, B., Allen, J. R., Bennie, J., Collingham, Y. C., Miller, P. A. and Suggitt, A. J. (2018) ‘Climatic disequilibrium threatens conservation priority forests’, Conservation Letters, 11(1), e12349.
Kovalchuk, I., Abramov, V., Pogribny, I. and Kovalchuk, O. (2004) ‘Molecular aspects of plant adaptation to life in the Chernobyl zone’, Plant Physiology, 135(1), pp. 357-363.
Macgregor, C. J., Bunting, M. J., Deutz, P., Bourn, N. A., Roy, D. B. and Mayes, W. M. (2022) ‘Brownfield sites promote biodiversity at a landscape scale’, Science of the Total Environment, 804, 150162.
Marshall, C. (2023) Pressure on nature threatens many flowering plants with extinction. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67011558 (Accessed: 16 June 2024).
Minteer, B. A. and Collins, J. P. (2010) ‘Move it or lose it? The ecological ethics of relocating species under climate change’, Ecological Applications, 20(7), pp. 1801-1804.
Møller, A. P. and Mousseau, T. A. (2011) ‘Conservation consequences of Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents’, Biological Conservation, 144(12), pp. 2787-2798.
Nuclear Energy Institute (2016) Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants. Available at: https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/decommissioning-nuclear-power-plants# (Accessed: 21 June 2024).
Planchuelo, G., Kowarik, I. and Von der Lippe, M. (2020) ‘Endangered plants in novel urban ecosystems are filtered by strategy type and dispersal syndrome, not by spatial dependence on natural remnants’, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 18.
Porfirio, L. L. et al. (2014) ‘Improving the use of species distribution models in conservation planning and management under climate change’, PLoS One, 9(11), e113749.
Rehbein, J. A., Watson, J. E., Lane, J. L., Sonter, L. J., Venter, O., Atkinson, S. C. and Allan, J. R. (2020) ‘Renewable energy development threatens many globally important biodiversity areas’, Global change biology, 26(5), pp. 3040-3051.
Schaefer, J. (2023) As we fight to protect species on the brink of extinction, let’s not forget the familiar ones. Available at: https://theconversation.com/as-we-fight-to-protect-species-on-the-brink-of-extinction-lets-not-forget-the-familiar-ones-199307 (Accessed: 21 June 2024).
Spiess, T. and De Sousa, C. (2016) ‘Barriers to renewable energy development on brownfields’, Journal of environmental policy & planning, 18(4), pp. 507-534.
Swingland, I.R. (2013) ‘Biodiversity, Definition of’, in Levin, S.A. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 399-410.
Thomas, C. D. (2011) ‘Translocation of species, climate change, and the end of trying to recreate past ecological communities’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(5), pp. 216-221.
Torfs, M. (2023) Akkoord met Engie over langer openhouden kerncentrales is rond, meldt minister van Energie Tinne Van der Straeten. Available at: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/12/03/klimaatdebat-de-zevende-dag/ (Accessed: 16 June 2024).
Towns, D. R. and Ferreira, S. M. (2001) ‘Conservation of New Zealand lizards (Lacertilia: Scincidae) by translocation of small populations’, Biological Conservation, 98(2), pp. 211-222.
Tropek, R. et al. (2010) ‘Spontaneous succession in limestone quarries as an effective restoration tool for endangered arthropods and plants’, Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(1), pp. 139-147.
Vandeputte, B. (2022) Bijna 10 miljard euro en 30 jaar later: in dit Duitse stadje weten ze wat het afbreken van een kerncentrale betekent. Available at: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/06/13/hoe-moet-je-een-kerncentrale-veilig-afbreken/ (Accessed: 16 June 2024).
Velásquez-Tibatá, J., Salaman, P. and Graham C.H. (2013) ‘Effects of climate change on species distribution, community structure, and conservation of birds in protected areas in Colombia’, Regional Environmental Change, 13(2), pp. 235–248.
Vergara-Asenjo, G., Alfaro, F. M. and Pizarro-Araya, J. (2023) ‘Linnean and Wallacean shortfalls in the knowledge of arthropod species in Chile: Challenges and implications for regional conservation’, Biological Conservation, 281, 110027.
Virkkala, R., Heikkinen, R.K., Kuusela, S., Leikola, N. and Pöyry, J. (2019) ‘Significance of Protected Area Network in Preserving Biodiversity in a Changing Northern European Climate’, in Leal Filho, Barbir, and Preziosi (eds.) Handbook of Climate Change and Biodiversity. New York: Springer.
Vitt, P., Belmaric, P. N., Book, R. and Curran, M. (2016) ‘Assisted migration as a climate change adaptation strategy: lessons from restoration and plant reintroductions’, Israel Journal of Plant Sciences, 63(4), pp. 250-261.
Wiens, J. A., Stralberg, D., Jongsomjit, D., Howell, C. A. and Snyder, M. A. (2009) ‘Niches, models, and climate change: assessing the assumptions and uncertainties’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, pp. 19729-19736.
World Nuclear Association (2022) Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities. Available at: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities (Accessed: 16 June 2024).