Global and regional health and food security under strict conservation scenarios (original) (raw)

References

  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); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3832053
  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 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.04.236489 (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. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz136 (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. Chang_e 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 https://doi.org/10.1101/839977 (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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7 (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); www.keybiodiversityareas.org
  35. Mogg, S., Fastre, C. & Visconti, P. Targeted expansion of protected areas to maximise the persistence of terrestrial mammals. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/608992 (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 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=prioritizr (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); www.protectedplanet.net
  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); http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool
  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