Biodiversity and ecosystem service losses driven by land-use change are expected to intensify as a growing and more affluent global population requires more agricultural and forestry products, and teleconnections in the global economy lead to increasing remote environmental responsibility. By combining global biophysical and economic models, we show that, between the years 2000 and 2011, overall population and economic growth resulted in increasing total impacts on bird diversity and carbon sequestration globally, despite a reduction of land-use impacts per unit of gross domestic product (GDP). The exceptions were North America and Western Europe, where there was a reduction of forestry and agriculture impacts on nature accentuated by the 2007–2008 financial crisis. Biodiversity losses occurred predominantly in Central and Southern America, Africa and Asia with international trade an important and growing driver. In 2011, 33% of Central and Southern America and 26% of Africa’s biodiversity impacts were driven by consumption in other world regions. Overall, cattle farming is the major driver of biodiversity loss, but oil seed production showed the largest increases in biodiversity impacts. Forestry activities exerted the highest impact on carbon sequestration, and also showed the largest increase in the 2000–2011 period. Our results suggest that to address the biodiversity crisis, governments should take an equitable approach recognizing remote responsibility, and promote a shift of economic development towards activities with low biodiversity impacts.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Towards diverse agricultural land uses: socio-ecological implications of European agricultural pathways for a Swiss orchard region
Regional Environmental Change Open Access 22 July 2023
Nature Open Access 05 July 2023
Indigenous peoples and local communities as partners in the sequencing of global eukaryotic biodiversity
npj Biodiversity Open Access 03 April 2023
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
The authors declare that all the data, except the land use spatially explicit dataset, supporting the findings of this study are available in the paper and its supplementary information files. The land-use spatially explicit dataset and the computer code used in this work are available upon request.
Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).
MA Board. Millenium Ecosystem Assesment—Ecosystems and Human Well-Being (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005).
West, P. C. et al. Leverage points for improving global food security and the environment. Science 345, 325–328 (2014).
Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).
Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015).
Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112 (2012).
Wilting, H. C., Schipper, A. M., Bakkenes, M., Meijer, J. R. & Huijbregts, M. A. J. Quantifying biodiversity losses due to human consumption: a global-scale footprint analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 3298–3306 (2017).
Verones, F., Moran, D., Stadler, K., Kanemoto, K. & Wood, R. Resource footprints and their ecosystem consequences. Sci. Rep. 7, 40743 (2017).
Laurance, W. F., Sayer, J. & Cassman, K. G. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 29, 107–116 (2014).
Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. & Green, R. E. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333, 1289–1291 (2011).
Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Lucht, W. & Haberl, H. Embodied HANPP: mapping the spatial disconnect between global biomass production and consumption. Ecol. Econ. 69, 328–334 (2009).
Pereira, H. M. et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339, 277–278 (2013).
Reyers, B., Stafford-Smith, M., Erb, K.-H., Scholes, R. J. & Selomane, O. Essential variables help to focus sustainable development goals monitoring. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 97–105 (2017).
Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).
Ehrlich, P. R. & Holdren, J. P. Impact of population growth. Science 171, 1212–1217 (1971).
Stadler, K. et al. EXIOBASE 3: Developing a time series of detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input-output tables. J. Ind. Ecol. 22, 502–515 (2018).
Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).
Blanco, G. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Vijay, V., Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N. & Smith, S. J. The impacts of oil palm on recent deforestation and biodiversity loss. PLoS ONE 11, e0159668 (2016).
Ward, J. D. et al. Is decoupling GDP growth from environmental impact possible? PLoS ONE 11, e0164733 (2016).
Archive: Household Consumption Expenditure—National Accounts—Statistics Explained; http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Archive:Household_consumption_expenditure_-_national_accounts (Eurostat, 2013).
Shao, Q., Schaffartzik, A., Mayer, A. & Krausmann, F. The high ‘price’ of dematerialization: a dynamic panel data analysis of material use and economic recession. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 120–132 (2017).
EU-27 Construction Activity falls by 16% From its Precrisis High by the Second Quarter of 2011 (Eurostat, 2011).
U.S. Forest Resource Facts and Historical Trends (United States Department of Agriculture, 2014).
Seppelt, R., Manceur, A., Liu, J., Fenichel, E. & Klotz, S. Synchronized peak-rate years of global resources use. Ecol. Soc. 19, 50 (2014).
Gerstner, K. et al. Editor’s choice: review: effects of land use on plant diversity—a global meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 1690–1700 (2014).
Alcott, B. Impact caps: why population, affluence and technology strategies should be abandoned. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 552–560 (2010).
Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel (UNEP, 2011).
Abel, G. J., Barakat, B., Kc, S. & Lutz, W. Meeting the sustainable development goals leads to lower world population growth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 14294–14299 (2016).
Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 361, eaam5324 (2018).
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).
United Nations Regional Groups of Member States (United Nations, 2014).
Erb, K.-H. et al. A comprehensive global 5 min resolution land-use data set for the year 2000 consistent with national census data. J. Land Use Sci. 2, 191–224 (2007).
Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1003 (2008).
Statistical Databases; http://faostat.fao.org/ (FAO, 2014).
Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1022 (2008).
Schepaschenko, D. et al. Development of a global hybrid forest mask through the synergy of remote sensing, crowdsourcing and FAO statistics. Remote Sens. Environ. 162, 208–220 (2015).
Potapov, P. et al. The last frontiers of wilderness: tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Sci. Adv. 3, e1600821 (2017).
Müller, M., Pérez Dominguez, I. & Gay, S. H. Construction of Social Accounting Matrices for EU27 with Disaggregated Agricultural Sectors (agroSAM) (European Commission, 2009).
Erb, K. H. et al. Biomass turnover time in terrestrial ecosystems halved by land use. Nat. Geosci. 9, 674–678 (2016).
Erb, K.-H. et al. Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553, 73–76 (2018).
Evans, J. Planted Forests: Uses, Impacts and Sustainability (CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 2009).
Penna, I. Understanding the FAO’s ‘Wood Supply from Planted Forests’ Projections (Centre for Environmental Management, Univ. Ballarat, 2010).
Pereira, H. M. & Daily, G. C. Modeling biodiversity dynamics in countryside landscapes. Ecology 87, 1877–1885 (2006).
Pereira, H. M., Ziv, G. & Miranda, M. Countryside species–area relationship as a valid alternative to the matrix-calibrated species–area model. Conserv. Biol. 28, 874–876 (2014).
Martins, I. S. & Pereira, H. M. Improving extinction projections across scales and habitats using the countryside species–area relationship. Sci. Rep. 7, 12899 (2017).
Hanski, I., Zurita, G. A., Bellocq, M. I. & Rybicki, J. Species–fragmented area relationship. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12715–12720 (2013).
Rybicki, J. & Hanski, I. Species–area relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol. Lett. 16, 27–38 (2013).
Rosenzweig, M. L. Species Diversity in Space and Tme (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995).
Storch, D., Keil, P. & Jetz, W. Universal species–area and endemics–area relationships at continental scales. Nature 488, 78–81 (2012).
Chaudhary, A., Verones, F., de Baan, L. & Hellweg, S. Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species–area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 9987–9995 (2015).
Sodhi, N. S., Lee, T. M., Koh, L. P. & Brook, B. W. A meta-analysis of the impact of anthropogenic forest disturbance on Southeast Asia’s biotas. Biotropica 41, 103–109 (2009).
Hudson, L. N., Newbold, T., Contu, S. & Hill, S. L. L. The 2016 Release of the PREDICTS Database (Natural History Museum Data Portal, 2016).
ArcGIS (Environmental Systems Resource Institute, 2009).
Holt, B. G. et al. An update of Wallace’s Zoogeographic Regions of the World. Science 339, 74–78 (2013).
Bird Species Distribution Maps of the World (BirdLife International and NatureServe, 2014).
Python Language Reference, v.2.7 (Python Software Foundation, 2010).
de Baan, L., Mutel, C. L., Curran, M., Hellweg, S. & Koellner, T. Land use in life cycle assessment: global characterization factors based on regional and global potential species extinction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 9281–9290 (2013).
Holtsmark, B. Harvesting in boreal forests and the biofuel carbon debt. Clim. Change 112, 415–428 (2011).
Houghton, R. A. Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850-2000. Tellus B 55, 378–390 (2003).
Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H. & Nonhebel, S. International wood trade and forest change: a global analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 947–956 (2011).
Global Ecological Zoning for the Global Forest Resources Assessment, 2000 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2001).
Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. Estimating historical changes in global land cover: croplands from 1700 to 1992. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 997–1027 (1999).
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience 51, 933–938 (2001).
Krausmann, F., Erb, K.-H., Gingrich, S., Lauk, C. & Haberl, H. Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: a comprehensive assessment of supply, consumption and constraints. Ecol. Econ. 65, 471–487 (2008).
Lauk, C., Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., Gingrich, S. & Krausmann, F. Global socioeconomic carbon stocks in long-lived products 1900–2008. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 034023 (2012).
Schlesinger, W. H. Are wood pellets a green fuel? Science 359, 1328–1329 (2018).
Pingoud, K., Ekholm, T., Sievänen, R., Huuskonen, S. & Hynynen, J. Trade-offs between forest carbon stocks and harvests in a steady state—a multi-criteria analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 210, 96–103 (2018).
Davis, S. J. & Caldeira, K. Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5687–5692 (2010).
Wiedmann, T. O. et al. The material footprint of nations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6271–6276 (2015).
Marques, A., Verones, F., Kok, M. T., Huijbregts, M. A. & Pereira, H. M. How to quantify biodiversity footprints of consumption? A review of multi-regional input–output analysis and life cycle assessment. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29, 75–81 (2017).
Kitzes, J. An introduction to environmentally-extended input-output analysis. Resources 2, 489–503 (2013).
Kanemoto, K., Lenzen, M., Peters, G. P., Moran, D. D. & Geschke, A. Frameworks for comparing emissions associated with production, consumption, and international trade. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 172–179 (2012).
Miller, R. & Bair, P. Input-Ouput Analysis. Foundations and Extensions (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2009).
Lenzen, M., Wood, R. & Wiedmann, T. Uncertainty analysis for multi-region input–output models—a case study of the UK’s carbon footprint. Econ. Syst. Res. 22, 43–63 (2010).
Moran, D. & Wood, R. Convergence between the Eora, Wiod, Exiobase, and Open EU’s consumption-based carbon accounts. Econ. Syst. Res. 26, 245–261 (2014).
de Koning, A. et al. Effect of aggregation and disaggregation on embodied material use of products in input–output analysis. Ecol. Econ. 116, 289–299 (2015).
Lenzen, M. Aggregation versus disaggregation in input–output analysis of the environment. Econ. Syst. Res. 23, 73–89 (2011).
Wood, R., Hawkins, T. R., Hertwich, E. G. & Tukker, A. Harmonising national input–output tables for consumption-based accounting—experiences from Exiopol. Econ. Syst. Res. 26, 387–409 (2014).
Stadler, K., Steen-Olsen, K. & Wood, R. The ‘Rest of the World’—estimating the economic structure of missing regions in global multi-regional input–output tables. Econ. Syst. Res. 26, 303–326 (2014).
Owen, A., Wood, R., Barrett, J. & Evans, A. Explaining value chain differences in MRIO databases through structural path decomposition. Econ. Syst. Res. 28, 243–272 (2016).
Steen-Olsen, K., Owen, A., Hertwich, E. G. & Lenzen, M. Effects of sector aggregation on CO2 multipliers in multiregional input–output analyses. Econ. Syst. Res. 26, 284–302 (2014).
World Development Indicators, SP.POP.TOTL Population, Total (World Bank, 2015).
World Development Indicators, NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.KD, GDP, PPP (Constant 2011 International $) (World Bank, 2015).
Authors would like to thank the financial support provided by EU-FP7 project DESIRE (project no. FP7-ENV-2012–308552). K.H.E. and T.K. have been funded by the Austrian Science Fund project GELUC (project no. P29130), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) project no. KA 4815/1-1 and ERC grant (ERC-2010–263522 LUISE). K.H.E., T.K. and C.P. have been funded by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) through project no. ESR17-014. T.K. acknowledges support from the Swedish Research Council Formas (project no. 231–2014–1181). M.A.J.H. was supported by the ERC grant (ERC—CoG SIZE 647224).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Marques, A., Martins, I.S., Kastner, T. et al. Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. Nat Ecol Evol 3, 628–637 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0824-3
This article is cited by
Indigenous peoples and local communities as partners in the sequencing of global eukaryotic biodiversity
npj Biodiversity (2023)
Changes in global food consumption increase GHG emissions despite efficiency gains along global supply chains
Nature Food (2023)
Nature Food (2023)