Introduction
How familiar are you with "data centers," the type of facility that's currently a hot topic in various places?
These facilities are designed to process and store vast amounts of data, driven by the proliferation of smartphones and the evolution of cloud services. However, are you aware that their development has provoked opposition from residents in various locations, leading to lawsuits?
There's an important point to keep in mind as we continue this article. Data center development is not simply an infrastructure development issue. It needs to be viewed from multiple perspectives, including local communities, the environment, the economy, and legal systems.
So why does data center development clash with local communities? Let's delve deeper into the truth behind this.
What are the real reasons why data center development is causing regional friction?
If I were to summarize the core message of the magazine article "Where," it would be the fact that Japan lacks comprehensive environmental legislation, and regulations are left to local government urban planning and district planning. This is the root cause of the problem.
A recurring pattern occurs where, after a developer moves in, residents protest, demanding the project be halted, and this escalates into a lawsuit. Japan's legal system is only able to respond reactively to development pressure from developers.
In this situation, it is dangerous to proceed with development based solely on the criterion of "it is legal at this time." For businesses that value their brand image, not just large developers, development that disregards the surrounding environment poses a significant reputational risk.
Specific impacts of data center development on local communities and key countermeasures.
① Negative economic impact
- Because smooth connections to the power grid and robust water and sewage networks are necessary, areas around train stations and in urban areas are more likely to be targeted than suburban areas.
- The construction of a massive, impersonal box in a place meant to attract people spoils the landscape and sunlight.
- Development in prime locations in front of train stations could accelerate urban decay.
- This will also drag the surrounding residential areas into decline, leading to an aging population and an increase in vacant houses.
② Environmental negative impacts
- Because it constantly consumes vast amounts of electricity, greenhouse gas emissions increase.
- Many regions have weak obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Relying on electricity from thermal power plants could be counterproductive to decarbonization.
- Using diesel or heavy oil as fuel also increases the risk of air pollution.
③ Social problems
- In residential areas that are becoming "marginal new towns," development will accelerate decline rather than revitalize the region.
- There is a possibility that losses will occur that cannot be covered by the increase in tax revenue for local governments.
- Risks that include an aging population, dilapidated housing, and an increase in vacant houses.
Key points for countermeasures:
A project design that involves dialogue with residents from the initial stages is essential.
- Incorporate community contributions such as park development in conjunction with DC construction.
- Development that targets legal loopholes should be avoided, and an approach that is compatible with local communities is necessary.
Plan with future regulatory tightening in mind.
- The use of soil requires harmony with the surrounding environment, landscape, and urban development.
- Businesses that have a significant impact on the environment, disasters, or local communities are often subject to stricter regulations later on.
The government needs to establish comprehensive environmental legislation.
- In Europe and the United States, the concept of "no net loss" (compensating for lost data through regeneration) is gaining traction.
- First, we need a framework for understanding what functions will be lost and how to compensate for them.
Lessons learned from mega solar power development and their application to data centers
We can learn important lessons from the problems of "mega solar" projects that have been repeated in the past. The opposition from residents to large-scale solar power generation projects that spread throughout Japan in 2015 shows no sign of abating.
Even with mega solar power plants, avoiding regulations under the Agricultural Land Act resulted in development pressure being directed towards slopes on privately owned forests, leading to decreased water retention, increased risk of landslides, and destruction of the landscape, causing conflict among residents. This is similar to what happened with golf courses and resort development during the bubble economy, clearly showing that development tends to flow into areas where the legal framework is lax.
Local governments inherently have the authority to impose their own checks and balances through ordinances and urban planning, but they hesitate to act if they are too afraid of the risk of lawsuits from companies. If they do not exercise the authority they are entitled to, the problems that surfaced with mega solar power plants could be repeated with data centers.
In a case involving a Japanese company establishing its European headquarters in Berlin, Germany, it was argued that simply paving the vacant lot with concrete would eliminate its water permeability, and the company was required to create an equivalent function elsewhere. This illustrates the importance of having a clear understanding of what functions will be lost and how to compensate for them, rather than arguing about the feasibility of development on a case-by-case basis.
Summary
Japan lacks comprehensive environmental legislation, and many regulations are left to local government urban planning and district planning. This is the root cause of regional friction in data center development.
In many cases, after a developer has moved in, residents protest and file lawsuits demanding the project be halted. Even if construction is "legal at the moment," its long-term continuation is risky. For businesses that value their brand image, not just large developers, development that disregards the surrounding environment poses a significant reputational risk.
Even without waiting for legal disputes, this could provoke social backlash and damage the company's value. It is essential to incorporate community contributions, such as park development in conjunction with DC construction, and to design projects that involve dialogue with residents from the initial stages.
Furthermore, even without regulations, there is no guarantee that development can continue under the same conditions in the future. For projects that have a significant impact on the environment, disasters, and local communities, it is not uncommon for regulations to be tightened later. Businesses should plan their projects with rule changes in mind.
Local governments also have the authority to exercise, but it is necessary to respond without being overly afraid of litigation risks. Making environmental impacts visible and establishing systems that allow local communities to participate are the minimum requirements to prevent future disputes.
In Europe and the United States, the concept of "no net loss" is gaining traction. This idea involves compensating for lost functions through regeneration. The important thing is not to argue about the feasibility of development on a case-by-case basis, but to first establish a framework for how to identify lost functions and how to compensate for them.
As a work-related insight, this teaches us the essential aspects of "risk management." It's not just about following the rules, but also about how to fulfill social responsibility, how to predict future risks, and how to build relationships with stakeholders—these questions apply to all areas of business.
Environmental problems cannot be solved by technology alone. Legal systems, local communities, and corporate ethics must be harmonized. This is not limited to data center development. Our work, too, should be considered within a larger context, not in the context of individual projects.
