Historically, human uses of land have transformed and fragmented ecosystems1,2, degraded biodiversity3,4, disrupted carbon and nitrogen cycles5,6 and added prodigious quantities of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the atmosphere7,8. However, in contrast to fossil-fuel carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, trends and drivers of GHG emissions from land management and land-use change (together referred to as ‘land-use emissions’) have not been as comprehensively and systematically assessed. Here we present country-, process-, GHG- and product-specific inventories of global land-use emissions from 1961 to 2017, we decompose key demographic, economic and technical drivers of emissions and we assess the uncertainties and the sensitivity of results to different accounting assumptions. Despite steady increases in population (+144 per cent) and agricultural production per capita (+58 per cent), as well as smaller increases in emissions per land area used (+8 per cent), decreases in land required per unit of agricultural production (–70 per cent) kept global annual land-use emissions relatively constant at about 11 gigatonnes CO2-equivalent until 2001. After 2001, driven by rising emissions per land area, emissions increased by 2.4 gigatonnes CO2-equivalent per decade to 14.6 gigatonnes CO2-equivalent in 2017 (about 25 per cent of total anthropogenic GHG emissions). Although emissions intensity decreased in all regions, large differences across regions persist over time. The three highest-emitting regions (Latin America, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa) dominate global emissions growth from 1961 to 2017, driven by rapid and extensive growth of agricultural production and related land-use change. In addition, disproportionate emissions are related to certain products: beef and a few other red meats supply only 1 per cent of calories worldwide, but account for 25 per cent of all land-use emissions. Even where land-use change emissions are negligible or negative, total per capita CO2-equivalent land-use emissions remain near 0.5 tonnes per capita, suggesting the current frontier of mitigation efforts. Our results are consistent with existing knowledge—for example, on the role of population and economic growth and dietary choice—but provide additional insight into regional and sectoral trends.
This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Computer codes or algorithms used to generate results that are reported in the paper and central to the main claims are available at https://github.com/ChaopengHong/Land-use_Emissions.
Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).
Haddad, N. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500052 (2015).
Marques, A. 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).
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).
Houghton, R. A. Land‐use change and the carbon cycle. Glob. Change Biol. 1, 275–287 (1995).
Gruber, N. & Galloway, J. An Earth-system perspective of the global nitrogen cycle. Nature 451, 293–296 (2008).
Houghton, R. A. et al. Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences 9, 5125–5142 (2012).
Carlson, K. M. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of global croplands. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 63–68 (2017).
Matthews, H. D. & Caldeira, K. Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L04705 (2008).
Smith, S. M. et al. Equivalence of greenhouse-gas emissions for peak temperature limits. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 535–538 (2012).
Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Schaeffer, M., Knutti, R. & Riahi, K. Impact of short-lived non-CO2 mitigation on carbon budgets for stabilizing global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 075001 (2015).
Collins, W. J. et al. Increased importance of methane reduction for a 1.5 degree target. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 054003 (2018).
Peters, G. P. et al. Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 118–122 (2017).
Le Quéré, C. et al. Drivers of declining CO2 emissions in 18 developed economies. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 213–217 (2019).
FAO. FAOSTAT http://faostat.fao.org/ (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2019).
Houghton, R. A. The annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use, 1850–1990. Tellus B 51, 298–313 (1999).
Carlson, K. M. et al. Carbon emissions from forest conversion by Kalimantan oil palm plantations. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 283–287 (2013).
Morton, D. C. et al. Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 14637–14641 (2006).
Barona, E., Ramankutty, N., Hyman, G. & Coomes, O. T. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 024002 (2010).
Yan, X., Akiyama, H., Yagi, K. & Akimoto, H. Global estimations of the inventory and mitigation potential of methane emissions from rice cultivation conducted using the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23, GB2002 (2009).
Huber, V., Neher, I., Bodirsky, B. L., Hofner, K. & Schellnhuber, H. J. Will the world run out of land? A Kaya-type decomposition to study past trends of cropland expansion. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 024011 (2014).
Hosonuma, N. et al. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 044009 (2012).
IPCC. Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (IPCC, 2019); https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
Hansis, E., Davis, S. J. & Pongratz, J. Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 1230–1246 (2015).
Davis, S. J., Burney, J. A., Pongratz, J. & Caldeira, K. Methods for attributing land-use emissions to products. Carbon Manag. 5, 233–245 (2014).
Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).
US EPA. Global Anthropogenic Non‐CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2030. Report No. 430-R-12-006 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2012); www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/epa_global_nonco2_projections_dec2012.pdf
Janssens-Maenhout, G. et al. EDGAR v4.3.2 Global Atlas of the three major greenhouse gas emissions for the period 1970–2012. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 959–1002 (2019).
Houghton, R. A. & Nassikas, A. A. Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 456–472 (2017).
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1783–1838 (2019).
Gibbs, H. K. et al. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 16732–16737 (2010).
Sánchez, P. A. Tripling crop yields in tropical Africa. Nat. Geosci. 3, 299–300 (2010).
Felix, M. & Gheewala, S. H. A review of biomass energy dependency in Tanzania. Enrgy. Proced. 9, 338–343 (2011).
Sola, P., Ochieng, C., Yila, J. & Iiyama, M. Links between energy access and food security in sub Saharan Africa: an exploratory review. Food Secur. 8, 635–642 (2016).
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C. & Sonesson, U. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2011); http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2697e.pdf
D’Odorico, P., Carr, J. A., Laio, F., Ridolfi, L. & Vandoni, S. Feeding humanity through global food trade. Earths Futur. 2, 458–469 (2014).
Lamb, A. et al. The potential for land sparing to offset greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 488–492 (2016).
Clark, M. & Tilman, D. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 064016 (2017).
Kanter, D. R. & Searchinger, T. D. A technology-forcing approach to reduce nitrogen pollution. Nat. Sustain. 1, 544–552 (2018); author correction 1, 719 (2018).
Paustian, K. et al. Climate-smart soils. Nature 532, 49–57 (2016).
Herrero, M. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 452–461 (2016).
Ritchie, H., Reay, D. S. & Higgins, P. Beyond calories: a holistic assessment of the global food system. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2, 57 (2018).
Bajželj, B. et al. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 924–929 (2014).
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018); erratum 363, eaaw9908 (2019).
Stehfest, E. Food choices for health and planet. Nature 515, 501–502 (2014).
Jiang, Y. et al. Water management to mitigate the global warming potential of rice systems: a global meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 234, 47–54 (2019).
Jiang, Y. et al. Higher yields and lower methane emissions with new rice cultivars. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 4728–4738 (2017).
Roque, B. M. et al. Effect of the macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis on methane production and rumen microbiome assemblage. Animal Microbiome 1, 3 (2019); correction 1, 4 (2019).
Lamb, W. F. & Minx, J. C. The political economy of national climate policy: architectures of constraint and a typology of countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 64, 101429 (2020).
Clark, M. A. et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2° C climate change targets. Science 370, 705–708 (2020).
Hurtt, G. C. et al. Harmonization of global land use change and management for the period 850–2100 (LUH2) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 5425–5464 (2020).
Pongratz, J., Reick, C., Raddatz, T. & Claussen, M. A reconstruction of global agricultural areas and land cover for the last millennium. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB3018 (2008).
Houghton, R. A. et al. Changes in the carbon content of terrestrial biota and soils between 1860 and 1980: a net release of CO2 to the atmosphere. Ecol. Monogr. 53, 235–262 (1983).
Heinimann, A. et al. A global view of shifting cultivation: recent, current, and future extent. PLoS One 12, e0184479 (2017).
Leifeld, J., Wust-Galley, C. & Page, S. Intact and managed peatland soils as a source and sink of GHGs from 1850 to 2100. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 945–947 (2019).
Hooijer, A. et al. Current and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences 7, 1505–1514 (2010).
van der Werf, G. R. et al. Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 697–720 (2017).
Tubiello, F. N. et al. The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 015009 (2013).
Conant, R. T., Berdanier, A. B. & Grace, P. R. Patterns and trends in nitrogen use and nitrogen recovery efficiency in world agriculture. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 27, 558–566 (2013).
IPCC. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Vol. 4 (IPCC, 2006).
FAO. Global Agro-Ecological Zones (GAEZ v3.0) http://www.fao.org/nr/gaez/en/ (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012).
Davis, S. J., Peters, G. P. & Caldeira, K. The supply chain of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 18554–18559 (2011).
Davis, S. J. & Caldeira, K. Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5687–5692 (2010).
Peters, G. P. & Hertwich, E. G. CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 1401–1407 (2008).
UN. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. Report No. ST/ESA/SER.A/423 (United Nations, 2019); https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf
FAO. Food Balance Sheets: A Handbook (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2001); http://www.fao.org/docrep/pdf/011/x9892e/x9892e00.pdf
Robinson, T. P., Franceschini, G. & Wint, W. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s gridded livestock of the world. Vet. Ital. 43, 745–751 (2007).
Robinson, T. P. et al. Mapping the global distribution of livestock. PLoS One 9, e96084 (2014).
Herrero, M. et al. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20888–20893 (2013).
IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Allen, M. R. et al. A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci 1, 16 (2018).
Cain, M. et al. Improved calculation of warming-equivalent emissions for short-lived climate pollutants. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2, 29 (2019).
Le Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 2141–2194 (2018).
Lawrence, D. M. et al. The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2973–2998 (2016).
A. LoPresti helped with preliminary analysis; E. Hansis made important contributions to the development of the BLUE model. K. Hartung helped with additional BLUE simulations. We thank A. Jain and D. Goll for providing ISAM and ORCHIDEE-CNP data. We thank R. A. Houghton and A. A. Nassikas for providing data from ref. 29. We thank R. T. Conant for providing crop-specific fertilizer application rates. The manuscript also benefitted from discussions with R. Andrew, L. Chini, H. van Grinsven, K. Hartung, R. A. Houghton, S. Kloster, E. Lambin, D. Lobell, P. Meyfroidt, G. Peters, Y. Qin, T. Raddatz, J. Randerson, M. Raupach, D. Tong and T. West. C.H., J.A.B. and S.J.D. were supported by the US National Science Foundation and US Department of Agriculture (INFEWS grant EAR 1639318). J.P. and J.E.M.S.N. were supported by the German Research Foundation’s Emmy Noether Programme (PO1751/1-1). R.B.J. acknowledges support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (grant GBMF5439).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature thanks Jan Minx, David Reay, Stefan Wirsenius and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data figures and tables
Extended Data Fig. 1 Differences in global cumulative land-use emissions attributed to processes and products, obtained using different accounting methods.
a–r, Estimated global cumulative land-use emissions attributed to processes (a–c) and products (d–r) over 1961–2017, using different accounting methods to distribute land-use change emissions over time and to products. Our base results (a, d) reflect emissions occurring in each year owing to past changes in land use (legacy emissions; left), calculated using GWP100, and allocated among crops and livestock by land area used. Different methods to distribute land-use change emissions over time have also been evaluated, that is, all future emissions from a change in land use are assigned to the year of the change (committed emissions; middle) and committed emissions amortized uniformly over 20 years (uniformly distributed emissions; right). Different methods to distribute land-use change emissions to products have also been evaluated, that is, allocating among crops and livestock by change in land area (g–i), calories of production (j–l), mass of production (m–o) and change in mass of production (p–r) (see Methods). Error bars denote uncertainty ranges (68% intervals), determined by uncertainties in land-use change emissions and in agricultural emissions, as well as uncertainties in the GWP100 values. Carbon uptake from agriculture abandonment (negative emissions) is not shown.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Global land-use emissions by product group in 2017, with two accountings of the emissions related to feed crops.
Our base case allocates the feed crop emissions to the crops themselves (bars). The results of the other accounting—allocating the feed crop emissions to the livestock that consumed the feed—are shown by dots. Numbers are the emissions related to crops fed to livestock (negative values for crops and positive values for livestock) in units of Mt CO2-eq.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Uncertainties in global and regional land-use GHG emissions over the period 1961–2017 related to emission metrics.
a–i, Curves show trends in CO2 (orange), CH4 (green), N2O (purple) and total GHG emissions (black) for the global total (a) and for each region (b–i). For our base case, we aggregate all GHG emissions (that is, CO2, CH4 and N2O) in units of CO2-eq using GWP100 values of CH4 and N2O. Solid curves show trends in CH4, N2O and total GHG emissions calculated using GWP100, with the shading reflecting the range of uncertainty in GWP100 values. To assess the sensitivity of the results to metric choices, we also estimate emissions using the GWP* method. Dashed curves show trends in CH4 and total GHG emissions calculated using GWP* (in units of CO2-e*). For CO2 and N2O, CO2-eq and CO2-e* emissions are identical. The length of CO2-e*emissions records is reduced because interannual variability is smoothed with a 20-year running average.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Comparison of global and regional agricultural emissions between this work, EDGAR and USEPA.
a–i, Curves show trends in agricultural emissions for the global total (a) and for each region (b–i), estimated in this work (green; based on FAO data), by EDGAR (orange) and by USEPA (blue). All estimated emissions are converted into CO2-equivalents, based on the same GWP100 values from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (34 for CH4 and 298 for N2O). The shaded areas reflect the range of uncertainty in agricultural emissions in this work, determined by Monte Carlo analysis (performed by varying activity data, parameter values and emission factors from those used in the FAO database).
Extended Data Fig. 5 Comparison of global and regional land-use change emissions between two bookkeeping models.
a–i, Curves show trends in land-use change emissions for the global total (a) and for each region (b–i), estimated by BLUE (black; used in this work) and H&N (orange; available until 2015 only). The average of the bookkeeping models (green line) is also shown. The range from the uncertainty simulations with BLUE is shown as the 68% uncertainty range of our estimates (grey areas), with the five additional simulations using different assumptions indicated by thin lines: different assumptions on land-use transitions (purple) and different assumptions on carbon values (green).
Extended Data Fig. 6 Comparison of global and regional land-use emissions, obtained using different land-use change emissions from two bookkeeping models.
a–i, Curves show trends in land-use emissions for the global total (a) and for each region (b–i), obtained using land-use change emissions from BLUE (black; used in this work) and H&N (orange; available until 2015 only). The average of the two bookkeeping models (green line) is also shown. In this work, we combined agricultural emissions from the FAO with land-use change emissions estimated by the BLUE model to calculate total land-use emissions. We performed sensitivity analyses by also combining the agricultural emissions from the FAO with the land-use change emissions estimated by another bookkeeping model (H&N) and with the average of two bookkeeping models (BLUE and H&N). Lighter grey areas represent uncertainty ranges (68% intervals) of our estimates, determined by uncertainties in land-use change emissions and in agricultural emissions, as well as uncertainties in the GWP100 values. Darker grey areas show uncertainties only related to land-use change emissions, determined from additional simulations with the BLUE model.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Comparison of global and regional trends in land-use emissions and Pale factors, obtained using different land-use change emission inventories.
a–i, Curves show trends in land-use emissions (black), emissions intensity of land use (orange) and agricultural production (red) for the global total (a) and for each region (b–i), using land-use change emissions from BLUE (solid lines; used in this work) and the combination of two bookkeeping models (dashed lines; available until 2015 only). In this work, we combined agricultural emissions from the FAO with land-use change emissions estimated by the BLUE model to perform Pale analysis of land-use emissions. We also performed an additional Pale analysis by using agricultural emissions from the FAO combined with the average of land-use change emissions from two bookkeeping models (BLUE and H&N). Lighter grey areas represent uncertainty ranges (68% intervals) of our estimates, determined by uncertainties in land-use change emissions and in agricultural emissions, as well as uncertainties in the GWP100 values. Darker grey areas show uncertainties related only to land-use change emissions, determined from additional simulations with the BLUE model.
Extended Data Fig. 8 Global and regional trends in Pale factors contributing to land-use emissions during 1961–2017, decomposed into land-use change emissions and agricultural emissions.
a–i, Curves show changes in the Pale factors contributing to land-use change (LUC, solid lines) emissions and agricultural (Ag, dashed lines) emissions over the period 1961–2017 for the global total (a) and for each region (b–i) relative to 1961. Results shown are for our base assumptions (see Extended Data Fig. 1), and different curves are labelled in a. Oceania is not shown.
a–i, Estimated land-use emissions for each region (a–i) by process, product group and GHG emitted. In each panel, net emissions are shown by the bold black line.
Extended Data Fig. 10 Changes in 2007–2017 in Pale factors of the 50 country–product sources with the largest annual emissions.
a–d, Bars show the per cent change in annual land-use emissions (a), per capita production (b), land intensity of production (c) and emissions intensity of land use (d) for each country–product combination.
a–c, Curves show trends in emissions intensity of processes including CH4 emissions from rice (a) and dairy cattle (b) production and N2O emissions from fertilizer use for rice production (c). d–i, Curves show trends in emissions intensity of major agricultural products including rice (d), maize (e), soybeans (f), oil palm (g), dairy cattle (h) and sheep and goats (i). Total emissions per calorie of agricultural production (d–i) in the six countries that produce the most of each product tend to decrease over time, but in all cases remain greater than zero.
About this article
Cite this article
Hong, C., Burney, J.A., Pongratz, J. et al. Global and regional drivers of land-use emissions in 1961–2017. Nature 589, 554–561 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03138-y
Nature Communications (2021)
Nature Geoscience (2021)
Altered growth conditions more than reforestation counteracted forest biomass carbon emissions 1990–2020
Nature Communications (2021)