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.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


  1. 1.

    Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).

  2. 2.

    Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).

  3. 3.

    MA Board. Millenium Ecosystem Assesment—Ecosystems and Human Well-Being (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005).

  4. 4.

    West, P. C. et al. Leverage points for improving global food security and the environment. Science 345, 325–328 (2014).

  5. 5.

    Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).

  6. 6.

    Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015).

  7. 7.

    Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112 (2012).

  8. 8.

    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).

  9. 9.

    Verones, F., Moran, D., Stadler, K., Kanemoto, K. & Wood, R. Resource footprints and their ecosystem consequences. Sci. Rep. 7, 40743 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Laurance, W. F., Sayer, J. & Cassman, K. G. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 29, 107–116 (2014).

  11. 11.

    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).

  12. 12.

    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).

  13. 13.

    Pereira, H. M. et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339, 277–278 (2013).

  14. 14.

    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).

  15. 15.

    Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).

  16. 16.

    Ehrlich, P. R. & Holdren, J. P. Impact of population growth. Science 171, 1212–1217 (1971).

  17. 17.

    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).

  18. 18.

    Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).

  19. 19.

    Blanco, G. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  20. 20.

    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).

  21. 21.

    Ward, J. D. et al. Is decoupling GDP growth from environmental impact possible? PLoS ONE 11, e0164733 (2016).

  22. 22.

    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).

  23. 23.

    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).

  24. 24.

    EU-27 Construction Activity falls by 16% From its Precrisis High by the Second Quarter of 2011 (Eurostat, 2011).

  25. 25.

    U.S. Forest Resource Facts and Historical Trends (United States Department of Agriculture, 2014).

  26. 26.

    Seppelt, R., Manceur, A., Liu, J., Fenichel, E. & Klotz, S. Synchronized peak-rate years of global resources use. Ecol. Soc. 19, 50 (2014).

  27. 27.

    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).

  28. 28.

    Alcott, B. Impact caps: why population, affluence and technology strategies should be abandoned. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 552–560 (2010).

  29. 29.

    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).

  30. 30.

    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).

  31. 31.

    Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 361, eaam5324 (2018).

  32. 32.

    Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).

  33. 33.

    United Nations Regional Groups of Member States (United Nations, 2014).

  34. 34.

    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).

  35. 35.

    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).

  36. 36.

    Statistical Databases; http://faostat.fao.org/ (FAO, 2014).

  37. 37.

    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).

  38. 38.

    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).

  39. 39.

    Potapov, P. et al. The last frontiers of wilderness: tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Sci. Adv. 3, e1600821 (2017).

  40. 40.

    Müller, M., Pérez Dominguez, I. & Gay, S. H. Construction of Social Accounting Matrices for EU27 with Disaggregated Agricultural Sectors (agroSAM) (European Commission, 2009).

  41. 41.

    Erb, K. H. et al. Biomass turnover time in terrestrial ecosystems halved by land use. Nat. Geosci. 9, 674–678 (2016).

  42. 42.

    Erb, K.-H. et al. Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553, 73–76 (2018).

  43. 43.

    Evans, J. Planted Forests: Uses, Impacts and Sustainability (CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 2009).

  44. 44.

    Penna, I. Understanding the FAO’s ‘Wood Supply from Planted Forests’ Projections (Centre for Environmental Management, Univ. Ballarat, 2010).

  45. 45.

    Pereira, H. M. & Daily, G. C. Modeling biodiversity dynamics in countryside landscapes. Ecology 87, 1877–1885 (2006).

  46. 46.

    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).

  47. 47.

    Martins, I. S. & Pereira, H. M. Improving extinction projections across scales and habitats using the countryside species–area relationship. Sci. Rep. 7, 12899 (2017).

  48. 48.

    Hanski, I., Zurita, G. A., Bellocq, M. I. & Rybicki, J. Species–fragmented area relationship. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12715–12720 (2013).

  49. 49.

    Rybicki, J. & Hanski, I. Species–area relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol. Lett. 16, 27–38 (2013).

  50. 50.

    Rosenzweig, M. L. Species Diversity in Space and Tme (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995).

  51. 51.

    Storch, D., Keil, P. & Jetz, W. Universal species–area and endemics–area relationships at continental scales. Nature 488, 78–81 (2012).

  52. 52.

    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).

  53. 53.

    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).

  54. 54.

    Hudson, L. N., Newbold, T., Contu, S. & Hill, S. L. L. The 2016 Release of the PREDICTS Database (Natural History Museum Data Portal, 2016).

  55. 55.

    ArcGIS (Environmental Systems Resource Institute, 2009).

  56. 56.

    Holt, B. G. et al. An update of Wallace’s Zoogeographic Regions of the World. Science 339, 74–78 (2013).

  57. 57.

    Bird Species Distribution Maps of the World (BirdLife International and NatureServe, 2014).

  58. 58.

    Python Language Reference, v.2.7 (Python Software Foundation, 2010).

  59. 59.

    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).

  60. 60.

    Holtsmark, B. Harvesting in boreal forests and the biofuel carbon debt. Clim. Change 112, 415–428 (2011).

  61. 61.

    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).

  62. 62.

    Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H. & Nonhebel, S. International wood trade and forest change: a global analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 947–956 (2011).

  63. 63.

    Global Ecological Zoning for the Global Forest Resources Assessment, 2000 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2001).

  64. 64.

    Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. Estimating historical changes in global land cover: croplands from 1700 to 1992. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 997–1027 (1999).

  65. 65.

    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).

  66. 66.

    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).

  67. 67.

    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).

  68. 68.

    Schlesinger, W. H. Are wood pellets a green fuel? Science 359, 1328–1329 (2018).

  69. 69.

    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).

  70. 70.

    Davis, S. J. & Caldeira, K. Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5687–5692 (2010).

  71. 71.

    Wiedmann, T. O. et al. The material footprint of nations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6271–6276 (2015).

  72. 72.

    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).

  73. 73.

    Kitzes, J. An introduction to environmentally-extended input-output analysis. Resources 2, 489–503 (2013).

  74. 74.

    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).

  75. 75.

    Miller, R. & Bair, P. Input-Ouput Analysis. Foundations and Extensions (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2009).

  76. 76.

    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).

  77. 77.

    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).

  78. 78.

    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).

  79. 79.

    Lenzen, M. Aggregation versus disaggregation in input–output analysis of the environment. Econ. Syst. Res. 23, 73–89 (2011).

  80. 80.

    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).

  81. 81.

    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).

  82. 82.

    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).

  83. 83.

    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).

  84. 84.

    World Development Indicators, SP.POP.TOTL Population, Total (World Bank, 2015).

  85. 85.

    World Development Indicators, NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.KD, GDP, PPP (Constant 2011 International $) (World Bank, 2015).

Download references


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).

Author information


  1. Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    • Alexandra Marques
    •  & Arnold Tukker
  2. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    • Alexandra Marques
    • , Inês S. Martins
    • , Joana Canelas
    •  & Henrique M. Pereira
  3. Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany

    • Alexandra Marques
    • , Inês S. Martins
    • , Joana Canelas
    •  & Henrique M. Pereira
  4. Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    • Thomas Kastner
  5. Institute of Social Ecology (SEC), Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    • Thomas Kastner
    • , Christoph Plutzar
    • , Michaela C. Theurl
    • , Nina Eisenmenger
    •  & Karlheinz Erb
  6. Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation Ecology and Landscape Ecology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    • Christoph Plutzar
  7. Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Department of Environmental Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    • Mark A. J. Huijbregts
    •  & Jelle P. Hilbers
  8. Industrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    • Richard Wood
    •  & Konstantin Stadler
  9. Institute for Ecological Economics, Vienna University of Business and Economics, Vienna, Austria

    • Martin Bruckner
  10. Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

    • Joana Canelas
  11. Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Den Haag, The Netherlands

    • Arnold Tukker
  12. Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal

    • Henrique M. Pereira


  1. Search for Alexandra Marques in:

  2. Search for Inês S. Martins in:

  3. Search for Thomas Kastner in:

  4. Search for Christoph Plutzar in:

  5. Search for Michaela C. Theurl in:

  6. Search for Nina Eisenmenger in:

  7. Search for Mark A. J. Huijbregts in:

  8. Search for Richard Wood in:

  9. Search for Konstantin Stadler in:

  10. Search for Martin Bruckner in:

  11. Search for Joana Canelas in:

  12. Search for Jelle P. Hilbers in:

  13. Search for Arnold Tukker in:

  14. Search for Karlheinz Erb in:

  15. Search for Henrique M. Pereira in:


All authors provided input into the final manuscript. A.M., I.S.M., M.B., M.A.J.H., T.K., K.E. and H.M.P. designed the study. A.M., I.S.M., T.K., C.P., M.T., N.E., K.H.E., R.W. and K.S. contributed data. A.M., I.S.M. and T.K. performed the analysis. A.M. and H.M.P. wrote the paper with help from all the authors and coordinated the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Marques.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Figures 1–7 and Supplementary Tables 1, 11–13, and 16

  2. Reporting Summary

  3. Supplementary Tables

    Supplementary Tables 2–10, 14, 15, and 17–19

About this article

Publication history