Quantifying Biodiversity Losses Due to Human Consumption: A Global-Scale Footprint Analysis

Abstract

It is increasingly recognized that human consumption leads to considerable losses of biodiversity. This study is the first to systematically quantify these losses in relation to land use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the production and consumption of (inter)nationally traded goods and services by presenting consumption-based biodiversity losses, in short biodiversity footprint, for 45 countries and world regions globally. Our results showed that (i) the biodiversity loss per citizen shows large variations among countries, with higher values when per-capita income increases; (ii) the share of biodiversity losses due to GHG emissions in the biodiversity footprint increases with income; (iii) food consumption is the most important driver of biodiversity loss in most of the countries and regions, with a global average of 40%; (iv) more than 50% of the biodiversity loss associated with consumption in developed economies occurs outside their territorial boundaries; and (v) the biodiversity footprint per dollar consumed is lower for wealthier countries. The insights provided by our analysis might support policymakers in developing adequate responses to avert further losses of biodiversity when population and incomes increase. Both the mitigation of GHG emissions and land use related reduction options in production and consumption should be considered in strategies to protect global biodiversity.

Evaluation and selection of functional diversity metrics with recommendations for their use in life cycle assessments

“…Some LCIA methods attempt to assess impacts like global warming (e.g. De Schryver et al 2009;Wilting et al 2017) and freshwater use (e.g. Pfister et al 2009;Verones et al 2017) on biodiversity, but the vast majority of LCIA approaches look at biodiversity impacts by land use and land use change only.…”

“…Approaches which analyse the impacts of land use occupation and change on species abundance or species richness, usually by applying species-area relationships (SARs) are however dominating the current state of the art in LCIA. Recent examples of studies presenting such indicators include de Baan et al (2014), Chaudhary et al (2015) and Wilting et al (2017). In the case of non-land use impacts, the link between species richness and anthropogenic influences is weak at best.…”

A novel maximum entropy approach to hybrid monetary-physical supply-chain modelling and its application to biodiversity impacts of palm oil embodied in consumption

“…Global multi-regional input-output (MRIO) models provide a comprehensive mapping of the global supply chain network in monetary units and show how consumer demand in one country is linked to biodiversity loss in another (Lenzen et al 2012, Kitzes et al 2017, Moran and Kanemoto 2017, Verones et al 2017, Wilting et al 2017. However, the commodity details of MRIOs are too low to allow studying footprints of specific products such as different oil crops and vegetable oils (Wiedmann et al 2011).…”

Human footprint in biodiversity hotspots

“…; Wilting et al . ). Regardless of the chosen approach, however, all such studies stress the importance of transforming governance perspectives in order to reduce impacts on global biodiversity hotspots.…”

“…; Moran and Kanemoto ; Wilting et al . ), our approach focuses on drivers of biodiversity loss. We accounted for total NPP pot appropriation by agricultural production (ie croplands and pastures) within biodiversity hotspots and assigned this NPP pot appropriation to final consumers (eg households and government).…”