Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

Local food crop production can fulfil demand for less than one-third of the population

Nature Food volume 1, pages 229–237 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The distance between the origin and end-point of food supply chains, and the ‘localness’ of food systems, are key considerations of many narratives associated with sustainability. Yet, information on the minimum distance to food crops is still scarce at the global level. Using an optimization model based on ‘foodsheds’ (that is, self-sufficient areas with internal dependencies), we calculate the potential minimum distance between food production and consumption for six crop types around the world. We show that only 11–28% of the global population can fulfil their demand for specific crops within a 100-km radius, with substantial variation between different regions and crops. For 26–64% of the population, that distance is greater than 1,000 km. Even if transnational foodsheds were in place, large parts of the globe would still depend on trade to feed themselves. Although yield gap closure and food loss reductions could favour more local food systems, particularly in Africa and Asia, global supply chains would still be needed to ensure an adequate and stable food supply.

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

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

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

Fig. 1: Food supply and demand for the baseline scenario.
Fig. 2: Optimized simulated distance from food production to consumption.
Fig. 3: Cumulative population distributions for six crops and the crop mix weighted mean.
Fig. 4: Foodsheds for temperate cereals, rice and maize.
Fig. 5: The impact of friction surfaces on optimized food flows.
Fig. 6: Comparison of modelled and reported net food flows.

Data availability

Key outcome data is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3725646.

Code availability

All scripts for the optimization and calculations of the minimum achievable distance are available from the corresponding authors.

References

  1. D’Odorico, P., Carr, J. A., Laio, F., Ridolfi, L. & Vandoni, S. Feeding humanity through global food trade. Earth Future 2, 458–469 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Porkka, M., Kummu, M., Siebert, S. & Varis, O. From food insufficiency towards trade dependency: a historical analysis of global food availability. PLoS ONE 8, e82714 (2013).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Porkka, M., Guillaume, J. H. A., Siebert, S., Schaphoff, S. & Kummu, M. The use of food imports to overcome local limits to growth. Earth Future 5, 393–407 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu, W. et al. Savings and losses of global water resources in food‐related virtual water trade. WIREs Water 6, e1320 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kearney, J. Food consumption trends and drivers. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2793–2807 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Seekell, D. et al. Resilience in the global food system. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 025010 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Suweis, S., Carr, J. A., Maritan, A., Rinaldo, A. & D’Odorico, P. Resilience and reactivity of global food security. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6902–6907 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cottrell, R. S. et al. Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat. Sustain. 2, 130–137 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Morgan, K., Marsden, T. & Murdoch, J. Worlds of Food: Place, Power, and Provenance in the Food Chain (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).

  10. Hinrichs, C. C. The practice and politics of food system localization. J. Rural Stud. 19, 33–45 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  11. DuPuis, E. M. & Goodman, D. Should we go “home” to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism. J. Rural Stud. 21, 359–371 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chaifetz, A. & Jagger, P. 40 years of dialogue on food sovereignty: a review and a look ahead. Glob. Food Secur. 3, 85–91 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Burnett, K. & Murphy, S. What place for international trade in food sovereignty? J. Peasant Stud. 41, 1065–1084 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Weber, C. L. & Matthews, H. S. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 3508–3513 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hertel, T. W., Ramankutty, N. & Baldos, U. L. C. Global market integration increases likelihood that a future African Green Revolution could increase crop land use and CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13799–13804 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pradhan, P., Lüdeke, M. K. B., Reusser, D. E. & Kropp, J. P. Food self-sufficiency across scales: how local can we go? Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 9463–9470 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fader, M., Gerten, D., Krause, M., Lucht, W. & Cramer, W. Spatial decoupling of agricultural production and consumption: quantifying dependences of countries on food imports due to domestic land and water constraints. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 014046 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Horst, M. & Gaolach, B. The potential of local food systems in North America: a review of foodshed analyses. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 30, 399–407 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Coley, D., Howard, M. & Winter, M. Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: a comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy. 34, 150–155 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kreidenweis, U., Lautenbach, S. & Koellner, T. Regional or global? The question of low-emission food sourcing addressed with spatial optimization modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 82, 128–141 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kriewald, S., Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Ros, A. G. C. & Kropp, J. P. Hungry cities: how local food self-sufficiency relates to climate change, diets, and urbanisation. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 094007 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Peters, C. J., Bills, N. L., Wilkins, J. L. & Fick, G. W. Foodshed analysis and its relevance to sustainability. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 24, 1–7 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Verburg, P. H., Ellis, E. C. & Letourneau, A. A global assessment of market accessibility and market influence for global environmental change studies. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 034019 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Porteous, O. High trade costs and their consequences: an estimated dynamic model of african agricultural storage and trade. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 11, 327–366 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chabot, P. & Dorosh, P. A. Wheat markets, food aid and food security in Afghanistan. Food Policy 32, 334–353 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Boulanger, P., Dudu, H., Ferrari, E., Himics, M. & M’Barek, R. Cumulative Economic Impact of Future Trade Agreements on EU Agriculture (JRC, European Commission, 2016); https://doi.org/10.2788/194880

  27. Mbow, C. et al. in Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 5 (IPCC, in the press); https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2019/11/08_Chapter-5.pdf

  28. Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Puma, M. J. et al. A developing food crisis and potential refugee movements. Nat. Sustain. 1, 380–382 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gornall, J. et al. Implications of climate change for agricultural productivity in the early twenty-first century. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2973–2989 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Laroche Dupraz, C. & Postolle, A. Food sovereignty and agricultural trade policy commitments: how much leeway do West African nations have? Food Policy 38, 115–125 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Marchand, P. et al. Reserves and trade jointly determine exposure to food supply shocks. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 095009 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wood, S. A., Smith, M. R., Fanzo, J., Remans, R. & DeFries, R. S. Trade and the equitability of global food nutrient distribution. Nat. Sustain. 1, 34–37 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kummu, M. et al. Bringing it all together: linking measures to secure nations’ food supply. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29, 98–117 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gerten, D. et al. Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 3, 200–208 (2020).

  37. FAO Food Balance Sheets (FAO, 2018).

  38. MacDonald, G. K. et al. Rethinking agricultural trade relationships in an era of globalization. BioScience 65, 275–289 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Portugal-Perez, A. & Wilson, J. S. Export performance and trade facilitation reform: hard and soft infrastructure. World Dev. 40, 1295–1307 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kummu, M. et al. Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wellesley, L., Preston, F., Lehne, J. & Bailey, R. Chokepoints in global food trade: assessing the risk. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 25, 15–28 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Alemu, R., Block, S. A., Headey, D. D., Bai, Y. & Masters, W. A. Where are nutritious diets most expensive? Evidence from 195 foods in 164 countries. In Allied Social Science Associations (ASSA) Annual Meeting https://go.nature.com/2Umkkzc (ASSA, 2019).

  43. Born, B. & Purcell, M. Avoiding the local trap: scale and food systems in planning research. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 26, 195–207 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ericksen, P. J. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Glob. Environ. Change 18, 234–245 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Bondeau, A. et al. Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 679–706 (2007).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. Heino, M. et al. Two-thirds of global cropland area impacted by climate oscillations. Nat. Commun. 9, 1257 (2018).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C. & Sonesson, U. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention (FAO, 2011).

  48. Cassidy, E. S., West, P. C., Gerber, J. S. & Foley, J. A. Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034015 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  49. Klein Goldewijk, K., Beusen, A., Doelman, J. & Stehfest, E. Anthropogenic land use estimates for the Holocene—HYDE 3.2. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 9, 927–953 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  50. Puma, M. J. The Global Food Commodity Database v1.0. (Columbia Univ., 2018).

  51. Francis, R. L., Lowe, T. J., Rayco, M. B. & Tamir, A. Aggregation error for location models: survey and analysis. Ann. Oper. Res. 167, 171–208 (2009).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. MATLAB v.9.5.0.944444 (MathWorks Inc., 2018).

  53. Global Shipping Lane Network World, 2000 (CTA Transportation Network Group, Oak Ridge National Labs, 2000).

  54. Vector Map Level 0 (VMAP0) (National Imagery and Mapping Agency, 1997).

  55. Meijer, J. R., Huijbregts, M. A. J., Schotten, K. C. G. J. & Schipper, A. M. Global patterns of current and future road infrastructure. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064006 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  56. Weiss, D. J. et al. A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in accessibility in 2015. Nature 553, 333–336 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Rodrigue, J.-P., Comtois, C. & Slack, B. The Geography of Transport Systems (Routledge, 2013).

  58. Verlegh, P. W. J. Home country bias in product evaluation: the complementary roles of economic and socio-psychological motives. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 38, 361–373 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hijmans, R. J. raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 3.0-7 (2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank their colleagues from the Water and Development research group for their comments and support. P.K. and M.T. received funding from Maa- ja vesitekniikan tuki ry. through its Majakka project. M.J.P. was supported in whole or in part by the Army Research Office/Army Research Laboratory under award no. W911NF1810267 (Multi-University Research Initiative). The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies either expressed or implied of the Army Research Office or the US Government. M.J. received funding from Maa- ja vesitekniikan tuki ry. M.K. received financial support from the Academy of Finland project WASCO (grant no. 305471), the Academy of Finland SRC project ‘Winland’, the Emil Aaltonen foundation project ‘eat-less-water’ and the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 819202). J.H.A.G. received support from WASCO and ‘eat-less-water’. P.D. was funded by the USDA Hatch Multistate project no. W4190 capacity fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Water and Development Research Group, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

    Pekka Kinnunen, Joseph H. A. Guillaume, Maija Taka, Mika Jalava & Matti Kummu

  2. Institute for Water Futures and The Fenner School of Environment & Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

    Joseph H. A. Guillaume

  3. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Paolo D’Odorico

  4. Department of Crop Sciences, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Stefan Siebert

  5. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA

    Michael J. Puma

  6. Center for Climate Systems Research, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Michael J. Puma

Authors
  1. Pekka Kinnunen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph H. A. Guillaume
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maija Taka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paolo D’Odorico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stefan Siebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael J. Puma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mika Jalava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Matti Kummu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.K., P.K. and J.H.A.G. conceptualized the study. P.K. and J.H.A.G coded the numerical analyses. P.K., J.H.A.G., M.T. and M.K. analysed the data and made the visualizations in consultation with P.D., S.S., M.J.P. and M.J. P.K. drafted the manuscript. P.K., J.H.A.G., M.T., P.D., S.S., M.J.P. and M.K. wrote and edited the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Pekka Kinnunen or Matti Kummu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

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 Note 1, mathematical notation and Figs. 1–12.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kinnunen, P., Guillaume, J.H.A., Taka, M. et al. Local food crop production can fulfil demand for less than one-third of the population. Nat Food 1, 229–237 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0060-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0060-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

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