Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Global and regional health and food security under strict conservation scenarios


Global biodiversity is rapidly declining, and goals to halt biodiversity loss, such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, have not been achieved. To avoid further biodiversity loss, area-based protection will form part of new biodiversity targets. We use a state-of-the-art global land-use model, the Land System Modular Model, to explore global and regional human health and food security outcomes under strictly enforced 30% and 50% land protection scenarios. We find protection scenarios cause additional human mortality due to diet- and weight-related changes. Low-income regions such as South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa experience the highest levels of underweight-related mortality, causing an additional 200,000 deaths related to malnutrition in these regions alone. High-income regions, by contrast, are less affected by protection measures. Our results highlight that radical measures to protect areas of biodiversity value may jeopardize food security and human health in the most vulnerable regions of the world.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The health effects of protection measures in 2060.
Fig. 2: Regional weight differences in 2060.
Fig. 3: Food price and food spending across world regions.

Data availability

The LandSyMM output data used in this study are available through Zenodo ( Food consumption data were accessed through FAOSTAT (;. BMI data were accessed through the WHO global health observatory database ( Disease and mortality data were accessed through the global health data exchange (

Code availability

LandSyMM model code is available on request from the authors.


  1. Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164–1168 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Buchanan, G. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Chandler, G. & Gregory, R. D. Assessment of national-level progress towards elements of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Ecol. Indic. 116, 106497 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Butchart, S. H. M. et al. in Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Berkes, F. & Brooks, T. M.) Ch. 3 (IPBES Secretariat, 2019);

  4. Maxwell, S. L. et al. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature 586, 217–227 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Locke, H. Nature needs half: a necessary and hopeful new agenda for protected areas. Nat. N. S. W. 58, 7–17 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67, 534–545 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dinerstein, E. et al. A global deal for nature: guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw2869 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mehrabi, Z., Ellis, E. C. & Ramankutty, N. The challenge of feeding the world while conserving half the planet. Nat. Sustain. 1, 409–412 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kok, M. T. J. et al. Assessing ambitious nature conservation strategies within a 2 degree warmer and food-secure world. Preprint at bioRxiv (2020).

  10. Rosa, I. M. D. et al. Multiscale scenarios for nature futures. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1416–1419 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Obermeister, N. Local knowledge, global ambitions: IPBES and the advent of multi-scale models and scenarios. Sustain. Sci. 14, 843–856 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pereira, L. M. et al. Developing multiscale and integrative nature–people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework. People Nat. 2, 1172–1195 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rabin, S. S. et al. Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators. Earth Syst. Dynam. 11, 357–376 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Springmann, M. et al. Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: a modelling study. Lancet 387, 1937–1946 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Springmann, M. et al. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e451–e461 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dinerstein, E. et al. A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb2824 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Locke, H. et al. Three global conditions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: an implementation framework. Natl Sci. Rev. (2019).

  18. Waldron, A. et al. Protecting 30% of the Planet for Nature: Costs, Benefits and Economic Implications (Campaign for Nature, 2020).

  19. Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. O’Neill, B. C. et al. The roads ahead: narratives for Shared Socioeconomic Pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 169–180 (2015).

  21. Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).

  22. Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C. & Barrow, E. Cornered by PAs: adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Dev. 130, 104923 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kashwan, P. V., Duffy, R., Massé, F., Asiyanbi, A. P. & Marijnen, E. From racialized neocolonial global conservation to an inclusive and regenerative conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 63, 4–19 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017: Building Resilience for Peace and Food Security (FAO, 2017).

  25. Schleicher, J. et al. Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1094–1096 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Allan, J. R. et al. The minimum land area requiring conservation attention to safeguard biodiversity. Preprint at bioRxiv (2021).

  27. Brockington, D. & Wilkie, D. Protected areas and poverty. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370, 20140271 (2015).

  28. Protected Planet Report 2020 (UNEP–WCMC and IUCN, 2021).

  29. Naidoo, R. et al. Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav3006 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dutta, A., Allan, J., Shimray, G., General, S. & Pact, A. I. P. RE: “A ‘Global Safety Net’ to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate”. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb2824 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Simmons, B. A., Nolte, C. & McGowan, J. Tough questions for the “30 × 30” conservation agenda. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19, 322–323 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jung, M. et al. Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water. Nat. Ecol. Evol. (2021).

  33. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2019.2 (IUCN, 2019).

  34. The World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA Partnership, 2019);

  35. Mogg, S., Fastre, C. & Visconti, P. Targeted expansion of protected areas to maximise the persistence of terrestrial mammals. Preprint at bioRxiv (2019).

  36. Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual (Gurobi Optimization, 2019).

  37. Hanson, J. O. et al. prioritizr: Systematic Conservation Prioritization in R. R package version 5.0.3 (2020).

  38. Hurtt, G., Chini, L., Frolking, S. & Sahajpal, R. Land-Use Harmonization (LUH2) (Global Ecology Laboratory, Univ. Maryland, 2017).

  39. Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, accessed April 2019);

  40. Dellink, R., Chateau, J., Lanzi, E. & Magné, B. Long-term economic growth projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 200–214 (2017).

  41. Jones, B. & O’Neill, B. C. Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 84003 (2016).

  42. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change 109, 5–31 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Engström, K. et al. Assessing uncertainties in global cropland futures using a conditional probabilistic modelling framework. Earth Syst. Dynam. 7, 893–915 (2016).

  44. Alexander, P. et al. Drivers for global agricultural land use change: the nexus of diet, population, yield and bioenergy. Glob. Environ. Change 35, 138–147 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Popp, A. et al. Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Climatic Change 123, 495–509 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. GBD Results Tool (IHME, 2020);

  47. KC, S. & Lutz, W. The human core of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017).

Download references


R.C.H., F.W. and P.A. were supported by the UK’s Global Food Security Programme project Resilience of the UK food system to Global Shocks (RUGS, BB/N020707/1). M.J. acknowledges funding from the Nature Map project through Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI). A.A. and M.D.R. acknowledge support through the Helmholtz Association. S.S.R. acknowledges support by the BMBF Germany/ISIPEDIA project. We thank P. Visconti for cross reading the manuscript and contributing to the discussion of the results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



R.C.H., A.A., P.A. and M.D.R. developed the idea. R.C.H., F.W., S.S.R. and M.J. contributed to method development and data analysis. R.C.H. wrote the manuscript and all authors contributed to editing and reviewing the manuscript and approved the final version for submission and publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roslyn C. Henry.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Dan Brockington, Julie Zaehringer and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Results, Figs. 1–7 and Tables 1–6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henry, R.C., Arneth, A., Jung, M. et al. Global and regional health and food security under strict conservation scenarios. Nat Sustain 5, 303–310 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing