Concentrating vs. spreading our footprint: how to meet humanity's needs at least cost to nature

Abstract

This paper is dedicated to Georgina Mace and David MacKay, who sought data-driven solutions to limiting our impacts on the planet, and who believed they are achievable.

Understanding the relative risks of zoonosis emergence under contrasting approaches to meeting livestock product demand

“…To ensure we include risk factors associated with both management and land use, we classify contrasting systems by their yield-their production per unit area, including land used to produce feed and rear animals. Framing systems by yield has helped shed light on other impacts of livestock and crop farming [32], with evidence from five continents and more than 2500 species revealing that impacts on biodiversity and greenhouse gas fluxes would be best limited by combining high-yield production with off-farm retention or restoration of large tracts of intact habitat [33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. Livestock systems are highly contextual, with substantial variation between livestock species, production type (e.g.…”

“…Many microhabitats such as ponds and stands of trees are also less likely to be retained in higher yielding systems, again reducing wildlife–livestock interactions. However, these benefits are not guaranteed: often specific market or policy mechanisms will be needed to actively link yield increases with habitat conservation [39,106]. Data are also needed on the relative importance of specific microhabitats for spillover: some microhabitats such as buildings and farm stores may be more prevalent in high-yield operations and may support generalist species thought to be particularly important reservoirs of novel pathogens [94,102].…”

Sustainable production of healthy, affordable food in theUK: The pros and cons of plasticulture

“…More ‘extensive’ agriculture, will almost by definition reduce the production of some foods. If enough land is to be spared to store enough carbon to offset emissions from UK farming, then a proportion of what remains dedicated to food production will have to focus on intensive production (Balmford, 2021 ). Such intensification is potentially problematic for the welfare of animals, but advances in modern plant biology and the exploitation of novel engineering solutions may provide exciting opportunities for agronomy and horticulture in the UK (UKPSF, 2019 ).…”

Towards an improved evidence‐based Natura 2000 management strategy

“…Conflicts of interest between societal demands, such as food production and biodiversity conservation are commonplace. Yet successful preservation of biodiversity cannot be delivered without simultaneously considering how humanity meets its needs (Balmford, 2021). Available evidence suggests that a land‐sharing approach, whereby human land use and a relaxed form of conservation efforts are combined within the same areas, is a second‐best option because studies almost invariably show that most species would fare least badly under a land‐sparing approach (Phalan et al ., 2011; Balmford, 2021).…”

“…Yet successful preservation of biodiversity cannot be delivered without simultaneously considering how humanity meets its needs (Balmford, 2021). Available evidence suggests that a land‐sharing approach, whereby human land use and a relaxed form of conservation efforts are combined within the same areas, is a second‐best option because studies almost invariably show that most species would fare least badly under a land‐sparing approach (Phalan et al ., 2011; Balmford, 2021). However, without offering the farmers replacement land for their animals, it is not realistic to assume that grazing will be reduced within the studied Natura 2000 sites.…”