PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE Ten facts about land systems for sustainability Patrick Meyfroidta,b,1 , Ariane de Bremondc,d,1,2 , Casey M. Ryane,1,2 , Emma Archerf , Richard Aspinallg, Abha Chhabrah , Gilberto Camarai, Esteve Corberaj,k,l , Ruth DeFriesm , Sandra Dıazn , Jinwei Dongo , Erle C. Ellisp , Karl-Heinz Erbq , Janet A. Fishere, Rachael D. Garrettr , Nancy E. Golubiewskis, H. Ricardo Graut, J. Morgan Groveu, Helmut Haberlq , Andreas Heinimannv,w , Patrick Hostertx,y , Esteban G. Jobba gyz, Suzi Kerraa, Tobias Kuemmerlex,y , Eric F. Lambina,bb,cc, Sandra Lavoreldd, Sharachandra Leleee,ff , Ole Mertzgg , Peter Messerliv,hh , Graciela Metternichtii , Darla K. Munroejj , Harini Nagendrakk , Jonas Østergaard Nielsenx,y , Dennis S. Ojimall,mm, Dawn Cassandra Parkernn , Unai Pascualc,oo,pp , John R. Porterqq , Navin Ramankuttyrr, Anette Reenberggg , Rinku Roy Chowdhuryss, Karen C. Setott , Verena Seufertuu,vv , Hideaki Shibataww , Allison Thomsonxx, Billie L. Turner IIyy,zz,aaa , Jotaro Urabebbb , Tom Veldkampccc , Peter H. Verburguu , Gete Zelekeddd , and Erasmus K. H. J. zu Ermgassena,b Edited by Gretchen Daily, Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; received June 7, 2021; accepted November 13, 2021 Land use is central to addressing sustainability issues, including biodiversity conservation, climate change, food security, poverty alleviation, and sustainable energy. In this paper, we synthesize knowledge accumu- lated in land system science, the integrated study of terrestrial social-ecological systems, into 10 hard truths that have strong, general, empirical support. These facts help to explain the challenges of achieving sustainability in land use and thus also point toward solutions. The 10 facts are as follows: 1) Meanings and values of land are socially constructed and contested; 2) land systems exhibit complex behaviors with abrupt, hard-to-predict changes; 3) irreversible changes and path dependence are common features of land systems; 4) some land uses have a small footprint but very large impacts; 5) drivers and impacts of land-use change are globally interconnected and spill over to distant locations; 6) humanity lives on a used planet where all land provides benefits to societies; 7) land-use change usually entails trade-offs between different benefits—"win–wins" are thus rare; 8) land tenure and land-use claims are often unclear, overlap- ping, and contested; 9) the benefits and burdens from land are unequally distributed; and 10) land users have multiple, sometimes conflicting, ideas of what social and environmental justice entails. The facts have implications for governance, but do not provide fixed answers. Instead they constitute a set of core princi- ples which can guide scientists, policy makers, and practitioners toward meeting sustainability challenges in land use. land use j sustainability j social-ecological systems j governance How human societies use, manage, and interact with Paris Climate Agreement or the Convention on land is key to addressing current sustainability issues Biological Diversity. Despite the centrality of land use including nature conservation, climate change, food to these debates, long-disproven misconceptions, security, poverty alleviation, and energy transitions, partial framings, and ill-conceived ideas continue to framed in high-level political agreements from the permeate these discussions, such as the misconcep- 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to the tion that there is abundant land available globally Author contributions: P. Meyfroidt, A.d.B., and C.M.R. designed research; P. Meyfroidt, A.d.B, and C.M.R. performed research; P. Meyfroidt, A.d.B., C.M.R., E.A., R.A., A.C., G.C., E.C., R.D., S.D., J.D., E.C.E., K.-H.E., J.A.F., R.D.G., N.E.G., H.R.G., J.M.G., H.H., A.H., P.H., E.G.J., S.K., T.K., E.F.L., S. Lavorel, S. Lele, O.M., P. Messerli, G.M., D.K.M., H.N., J.Ø.N., D.S.O., D.C.P., U.P., J.R.P., N.R., A.R., R.R.C., K.C.S., V.S., H.S., A.T., B.L.T., J.U., T.V., P.H.V., G.Z., and E.K.H.J.z.E. wrote the paper; and E.A., R.A., A.C., G.C., E.C., R.D., S.D., J.D., E.C.E., K.-H.E., J.A.F., R.D.G., N.E.G., H.R.G., J.M.G., H.H., A.H., P.H., E.G.J., S.K., T.K., E.F.L., S. Lavorel, S. Lele, O.M., P. Messerli, G.M., D.K.M., H.N., J.Ø.N., D.S.O., D.C.P., U.P., J.R.P., N.R., A.R., R.R.C., K.C.S., V.S., H.S., A.T., B.L.T., J.U., T.V., P.H.V., G.Z., and E.K.H.J.z.E. contributed to the content, reviewed, and edited the paper. The authors declare no competing interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY). 1 To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: patrick.meyfroidt@uclouvain.be, ariane.bremond@unibe.ch, or casey.ryan@ed.ac.uk. 2 A.d.B. and C.M.R. contributed equally to this work. Published February 7, 2022. PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 7 e2109217118 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 j 1 of 12 that is “unused” or “uncontested” (1). Misconceptions of com- highlights a dual notion. On the one hand, there is solid biophysi- plexities also distort potential solution spaces, for instance with cal and ecological knowledge allowing us to measure scientifically the frequent advocacy for single, silver-bullet solutions to indicators of change in ecosystem functions, such as climate regu- issues that should instead be framed as wicked problems (2). lation. On the other hand, the interpretation of these physical We challenge these received wisdoms (3) through 10 facts that measures as affecting benefits from land ultimately lies in people’s have broad empirical support from land system science (LSS). views and definitions, which can be broadly shared but also con- Land systems are terrestrial social-ecological systems where flicting (16, 17). Certain specific land system changes, such as soil human and environmental systems interact through land use erosion and organic matter loss, which are typically part of what and are the focus of the interdisciplinary field of LSS (4, 5). From people define as land degradation, have generally overwhelm- knowledge accumulated over decades by a large and diverse ingly negative impacts on human societies, but definitions of land LSS community, we extracted key insights that scientists, policy degradation usually go beyond these specific aspects. Shifting cul- and decision makers, and practitioners should understand about tivation and the use of fire for vegetation management are two land use. These insights are akin to “stylized facts” or “empirical recurring and disputed examples of the role of indigenous and regularities” in economics or ecology, i.e., empirical generaliza- traditional land use practices that are mobilized in land degra- tions supported by a solid body of evidence that represent the dation debates. Judgments on whether these practices lead to current state of knowledge on land systems. They are structured degradation have long been rooted in deep ethnocentric values around four core, higher-level facts (numbers 1, 2, 6, and 10; and beliefs about civilization versus the savage, and “modern” see Fig. 1) and six more specific ones stemming from these. versus “backward” (18–20). Reflecting these various definitions These facts build on and derive from each other, but each and uncertainties, estimates of the global extent of land degra- expresses a singular idea. dation range from 10 to 60 Mkm2 (10, 21). This large range and Fact 1 provides a foundation, as meanings and values about varying interpretations complicate international efforts to land underpin all purposes and thus how human societies inter- address degradation and restoration such as the United Nations act with land. Fact 2 and its corollaries (3 to 5) establish that Convention to Combat Desertification and Sustainable Devel- land systems have the properties of complex systems, which opment Goals’ objectives of land degradation neutrality (22). hold across spatial and temporal contexts. Together, Facts 1 These multiple values, meanings, and “ways of knowing” under- through 5 thus establish basic properties of land systems. Fact line the need for land governance processes that bridge diverse 6 and its corollaries (7 to 9) describe contingent realities: facts knowledge and value systems (15, 23) and also explain why that are, at present, empirically correct, but which might top-down policy agendas, often rooted in one dominant value change. Fact 10 concludes by describing normative founda- system, are generally contentious and resisted (24). tions on which to build solutions to land-related sustainability challenges. Instead of an exhaustive review of the state of 2. Land System Dynamics Are Complex, with Feedbacks and knowledge on land systems (see refs. 6–9 for foundational Interactions Leading to Both Abrupt Changes and Stability. works), we focus on key lessons from LSS that can serve as com- Land systems are complex social-ecological systems, with multi- mon ground for scientists, policy makers, and practitioners to ple interactions between natural processes, socioeconomic and collaborate on addressing pressing challenges around land. cultural dynamics, technologies, and governance systems across We highlight how each fact implies distinct challenges for sus- spatial and temporal scales (6). Further complexities arise tainability and discuss the implications of these facts for the because the scales at which societal decisions are made often governance of sustainable land systems. do not match with the scale of environmental dynamics. These complex, cross-scale interactions can lead to abrupt, sometimes Ten Facts unpredictable, structural transformations in land use and eco- 1. Land Is a Source and Focus of Multiple Meanings and Values. system dynamics, known as regime shifts (25–27). Prominent Land is first a biophysical reality. However, it is also humanity’s examples include the sudden emergence of large-scale defores- home; it constitutes landscapes and it is culturally and symbol- tation frontiers in the tropics or massive land abandonment follow- ically loaded. Notions of land being “valued” or “useful,” or ing the breakdown of the Soviet Union (28, 29). Complexity the converse, are necessarily social constructions, reflecting implies that some seemingly rational interventions, such as intensi- diverse beliefs and perspectives of the different people who live fying agriculture or forestry in order to spare land for nature, may in, use, and govern land (10, 11). Land is embedded in knowl- trigger counteracting rebound effects, resulting in further agricul- edge and belief systems, religious or otherwise, and is an tural or forestry expansion (5). Technological advances such as soil anchor for memories, identity, and heritage as well as for improvement, agricultural mechanization, and genetic improve- hopes and aspirations, through which people develop a diver- ment of crops can trigger profound and rapid changes in the way sity of values relating to land and nature, and land becomes a land is used and the spatial distribution of land uses (28). Complex place (12, 13). Land can be a source of power and prestige or interactions driven by positive feedbacks can lead to abrupt a space to occupy for (geo)political purposes, and it is also a changes, while negative feedbacks and time lags can strongly hin- core source of livelihoods and economic profit, including a der or slow other land system changes, creating stability that can means to capture subsidies or rents. Meanings and values of be desirable or undesirable (30). Examples of negative feedbacks land are dynamic over time and influence the claims regarding are poverty traps that maintain households in low agricultural pro- the use and expected benefits of land (14, 15). ductivity systems (31, 32) or public subsidies that may improve As a crucial example, notions of degradation and restoration resilience of agriculture to market (commodity price volatility) or build on biophysical aspects but are socially constructed and thus environmental (e.g., extreme weather events) stressors and shocks potentially highly contested. Broadly, defining land degradation but may also hinder needed systemic transformations (33). as the set of processes that drive the decline of land-based Despite this complexity, it is possible to build contextual gen- biodiversity, ecosystem functions, or their benefits to people (10) eralizations of causal mechanisms which can support explanations 2 of 12 j PNAS Meyfroidt et al. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 Ten facts about land systems for sustainability Fig. 1. Ten empirical realities (facts) about land systems that have strong, general support. Challenges summarize the issues that arise from each fact when trying to manage and govern land systems for sustainability. Implications summarize how governance of land systems for sustainability could be improved by acknowledging these facts and challenges. The 10 facts are structured through four higher-level facts (1, 2, 6, and 10) and several lower-level facts that derive from these higher-level ones (3, 4, and 5 deriving from 2; 7, 8, and 9 deriving from 6), yet they all express specific realities that imply distinct challenges. and interventions; examples include middle-range theories on a change, and therefore may not appreciate what has been per- forest transitions, land-use spillovers, the conditions under which manently lost (52, 53). Overall, land-use change may thus lead to intensification can lead to land sparing (5, 34, 35), or archetypes the loss of option value (i.e., the value of having a more diverse set of the outcomes of large-scale land acquisitions (36). However, of options in the future) which implies challenges for sustainability complexity does make prediction of the consequences of inter- and intergenerational justice. Therefore, over short to medium ventions hard and sometimes impossible, as with many other time scales it is more important to monitor and govern gross land- sustainability domains, partly explaining why projections of future use changes, such as initial clearing of primary forest, rather than land use tend to be so variable (37). net land-use changes, such as changes in total forest cover. Fur- thermore, restoration, although crucial (54), often cannot fully bring 3. Some Land-Use Changes Have Irreversible Social and Envi- ecosystems back to their original state, which may anyway be hard ronmental Impacts at the Scale of Decades to Centuries. Many to identify. Instead, where a return to a past reference state is land systems have constrained future options, due to land-use infeasible, restoration should focus action along a gradient includ- changes that crossed critical thresholds and created path ing both “hybrid” (55) and “novel” ecosystems (56) approaches. dependence. This can constitute “lock-in” situations, where combined biophysical, infrastructural, technological, institu- 4. Certain Land Uses Have a Small Spatial Extent but Large tional, and behavioral processes act to inhibit change (38) or Spillover Impacts. Some land uses have widespread impacts far reduce the resilience of systems in response to perturbations. larger than their own relatively small land footprint. These small- Impacts resulting from such situations can be social and environ- footprint, high-spillover land uses can drive extensive impacts by mental, can be positively or negatively valued, and may be hard influencing the spatial structure of landscapes and by catalyzing to reverse (39–41). Examples are conversion of prime agricul- cascading effects of other land uses around them or distantly. tural land to urban or other impervious land covers (42–44), These land uses may lead to fragmentation of other land covers old-growth forest destruction (45), peatland drainage (46), soil (e.g., roads inducing deforestation and natural habitat fragmen- salinization (47), as well as legacies of political boundaries, eco- tation) or may structure other land uses around them (e.g., with nomic development trajectories, or infrastructure that create urban configuration and transport infrastructure shaping other behavioral or energy lock-ins, such as in mobility patterns (48, land uses, energy extraction, and waste disposal patterns). 49). Increasing returns to scale or agglomeration economies can Key land uses that have such large spillover effects include act as a key mechanism reinforcing these lock-ins. Disturbed land cities and urban areas (57, 58) with their effects on resource might be restored to some extent, sometimes through hysteresis consumption patterns, urban heat islands, or outdoor nighttime pathways, but key impacts can be considered irreversible in a lighting (59–61); roads and channelization of waterways (62); and time frame relevant to human societies, e.g., biodiversity compo- hydropower dams and resource extraction infrastructures (63, 64), sition, soil organic carbon, or biogeochemical cycles may take cen- including mining (65), as well as renewable energy projects (66). turies to recover in secondary forests or grasslands (50, 51). A Within a landscape, a plot of intensive cropland can generate major complication is that irreversibility is often unacknowl- large externalities or spillovers, such as effluents and pesticide edged due to the phenomenon of “shifting baselines” or leaching, or impacting biodiversity through changed connectivity. “environmental amnesia”: People become progressively used These large spillover impacts can be positive as well as negative, to the new state so that they are no longer aware that it represents e.g., if very intensive local footprints in one place, such as dense Meyfroidt et al. PNAS j 3 of 12 Ten facts about land systems for sustainability https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 urbanization or intensive agriculture, lead to lower impacts accelerated over recent decades. As a result, ∼25% of the ∼130 elsewhere, such as through reduced urban sprawl or agricultural Mkm2 of ice-free land has been converted by humans (natural expansion (67). ecosystems converted to cropland, settlements, mining, etc. or for- The indirect impacts of such small-footprint, high-spillover est converted to grassland) (10, 81–84). An additional ∼50% of land uses are often less visible and less well understood than Earth’s ice-free land is modified by land management to various direct impacts (68, 69). Nonetheless, managing these spillover degrees, without having experienced full conversion to another impacts is often more important than direct impacts. ecosystem type but with potentially large environmental impacts; examples include forest used for wood harvesting, hunting, and 5. Land Systems Are Interconnected Globally. Land system other products collection, and grasslands used for grazing changes are increasingly influenced by distant drivers, which may (83, 85). In total, three-quarters of the ice-free land surface is have possibly unintended or unexpected consequences in other thus used or managed by humans. Half of the remainder has places (70). Such couplings of land systems occur at local, extremely low vegetation productivity (e.g., deserts), so only regional, and global scales, and globalization has reinforced the ∼12 to 16% of the ice-free land surface remains as vegetated complexity of influences that can operate on any single piece of land without direct land use influence, mostly in inaccessible land. Broad patterns of land use can often be explained by a few tropical and boreal regions. Yet, even these remaining lands are structural socioenvironmental factors, but distant influences influenced by humans by other global environmental change increase the number of determinative processes and make it processes, including climatic and atmospheric changes. more complicated to foresee and predict the specific trajectories Some of the transformed land fulfills a narrow set of functions of land system change. For example, increases in forest cover, (e.g., intensive cropland that essentially provides food and such as in high- or middle-income regions, can be linked to income), but much land provides multiple benefits, so that even deforestation in other, often tropical, regions through various land managed for crop or forestry production can have nature forms of displacement or leakage. Furthermore, spillovers from conservation potential and provide valuable ecosystem services. policies like REDD+ or certification systems to conserve forests Land without active use or management, including what is some- can displace deforestation locally and distantly through multiple times referred to as “wilderness,” also provides societal benefits pathways, e.g., by inducing population movements, or creating including water provisioning, carbon sequestration, and cultural incentives for land managers abroad to expand production to and psychological benefits (86–88). Given the scarcity of unused serve market demands (68, 71). Positive spillovers can also occur, land, different actors and land uses often compete for the same for example when more sustainable land-use practices are intro- land, and this competition is likely to exacerbate in the future. Land duced or supported in an area by distant land users. requirements, and conflicts and competition with other land These distant linkages result in the consumption of land- uses, are often ignored in sectoral sustainability assessments, based goods being increasingly physically and mentally such as in identifying grand challenges of renewable wind detached from the land itself, blurring the perception by con- energy (89). Nature conservation and carbon sequestration are sumers of the impacts linked to land use. Many benefits of land actively expanding land uses, supported by a growing policy use are appropriated distantly toward 1) cities, where an increas- momentum, such as Half-Earth and Nature Needs Half initia- ing share of the global population reside, and 2) internationally, tives, the Bonn Challenge on landscapes restoration and refor- as reduced costs and regulatory barriers expand global trade (10, estation, and the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration. These 72). Around 40% of the global material resource extraction and expanding land uses are therefore often in competition with use has been linked to internationally traded goods and services current livelihoods (90, 91), although they can also support (73). International trade represents ∼23% of global economic out- them. put, while embodying 21 to 37% of land use and 17 to 30% of Overall, land provides functions no matter whether people biodiversity loss (74). Trade has heterogeneous effects on land- are aware of them or intentionally use them, and all changes in use efficiency (such as overall yields per land unit area); some land use can therefore alter these functions, benefits, and serv- trade relations may lead to concentrating production on land with ices. There is very little land potentially available for expansion the highest efficiency, while others may lead to expanding pro- of agriculture, urbanization, climate change mitigation, or biodi- duction into less-suitable areas and degradation of land systems versity conservation land uses that is “empty” or “free” of trade- (75, 76). Globalization and access to very large markets can also offs (1). lead to high spatial concentration of some land uses in specific localities where they can have large impacts, such as deforesta- 7. Land Use Entails Trade-Offs More Often than Win–Wins; Maximizing One Benefit of Land, Such as Climate Change Miti- tion and economic returns linked to vanilla production in Mada- gation, Nearly Always Reduces Other Benefits for Some. As gascar or avocado production in Michoac an in Mexico (77, 78). most land already delivers some benefits that are heteroge- These distant couplings imply that 1) new approaches are neously distributed, and as people across and within societies needed to reconnect actors to the consequences of their deci- attribute different meanings and values to land, trade-offs sions, 2) local solutions to land system challenges may only dis- between benefits and detriments are typical land system out- place problems if distant connections are not considered, and comes (15, 92, 93). A key example is trade-offs between nature 3) the boundaries of LSS need to expand to genuinely encom- conservation and food production (67). Such trade-offs occur pass consumption of material and nonmaterial benefits and its between people or places with differential access to benefits dynamic interactions with the required land uses. and detriments (94–96), or between spatiotemporal scales such 6. People Use or Manage over Three-Quarters of Earth’s Ice- as global versus local issues or current versus future outcomes. Free Land, and Even Seemingly Unused Land Provides Benefits Even the level of congruence between different environmental to People. Human impacts on Earth through land use are indicators such as biodiversity and carbon stocks is highly het- ancient (8, 79, 80), although the pace of land use change has erogeneous across scales and geographies (97–99). 4 of 12 j PNAS Meyfroidt et al. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 Ten facts about land systems for sustainability While trade-offs are prevalent, they can partly be mitigated, low- or medium-income countries, an estimated ∼20% (9.1 Mha and win–wins can be crafted. Some lands carry especially high of 45.9 Mha) of large-scale agricultural and forestry concessions values of some functions or benefits, so land-use planning can overlapped with indigenous or community lands (130). In urban help mitigate trade-offs such as by improving the crop yield to areas, competing and overlapping claims to land is a central carbon emission ratio in agricultural production (100). Synergies issue framed around “rights to the city,” including rights to between certain outcomes can exist and can be key levers for decide on whether land is used for, inter alia, private real estate, transformation (101, 102) but often have to be actively fostered, recreation, shopping, or social housing (131). including by bringing different stakeholders’ perspectives closer Contested tenure and claims challenge the effectiveness and to each other (103). Some key examples are the cattle ranching efficiency of many interventions and policies aimed at improving sector in Brazil, where win–wins can be fostered between envi- sustainability of land use. Some, such as REDD+ interventions ronmental conservation and economic development through to conserve forests, or the establishment of payments for eco- intensification and improved integration of crop and livestock system services, are acutely hampered by contested claims, which systems (104–106) or agroecology and agroforestry systems blur the legitimacy of some actors to intervene on certain lands that can provide improvements in both yields and environmental and complicate the identification of the land managers that can conditions (107, 108). Globally, about 21% of Indigenous Peo- actually enact and ensure land use changes (132). Land formaliza- ples’ lands overlap with protected areas, covering >40% of the tion, or government programs to enhance land tenure security, global protected area and providing synergies between conser- can play an important role in interventions for environmental vation goals and indigenous people’s livelihoods (109, 110). But conservation (133) or agricultural productivity (134) but can also these opportunities for synergies are often easier to identify contribute to increased environmental degradation or social mar- when systems are locked in a highly degraded state and provide ginalization (135, 136). very low or poorly diversified benefits [e.g., degraded pastures in the Amazon (111) or low-intensity farming in Ethiopia (112)] or 9. Benefits and Risks from Land Use Are Unevenly Distributed, and Control over Land Resources Is Increasingly Concentrated in cultural landscapes where human use and ecosystems have among Fewer Actors. Inequality prevails in the absence of equal- coevolved over a long time. Further, these synergies may occur izing forces (137). Uneven distribution of assets and benefits in for only certain outcomes, with other trade-offs remaining (113). society reflects power differentials and manifests in many aspects The ubiquity of trade-offs implies that prioritizing a single goal including land access, tenure, control, quality, and the monetary on a land e.g., nature conservation as in the Half-Earth framing, or and nonmonetary benefits from land. It encompasses aspects of tree planting as in the “Trillion Trees Initiative,” would severely social, ethnic, and gender inequalities (138). Land distribution is impact other functions if these trade-offs are not explicitly taken strongly unequal: Globally, farms below 2 ha represent around into account (114). Using more land for strict, so-called fortress 84% of farms but cover only ∼12% of total farmland (139, 140). In conservation would impact human benefits derived from this land contrast, the largest 1% of farms (>50 ha) operate over 70% of (115). Maximizing carbon sinks on land through large-scale refor- the world’s farmland (140). Across a set of low- and middle- estation or bioenergy production, for instance is unlikely to pro- income countries, the top 10% of landowners—across urban and vide adequate cobenefits for food security, nature conservation, rural areas—own between 35 and 80% of the land area and 45 or water provision (116–118). and 60% of the land value, while the poorest 50% of rural house- 8. A Large Proportion of Land Globally Has Multiple Overlapping, holds only control ∼1 to 10% of land by value (141). In many Unclear, and Contested Tenure and Claims. The multiple values of countries, inequality in the monetary value of land owned is even land (Fact 1) interact with societal power relations and asymme- higher than in land area (142). Land distribution is most unequal tries to produce struggles about land tenure and claims. Multiple in Latin America, and less unequal in some Asian countries like systems of governance and tenure overlap, including customary China and Vietnam. Land concentration has been increasing and legal. Further, there are often different tenure systems for dif- globally since the 1980s (142). In most low- and lower-middle- ferent benefits that land can provide. Rights, including access, income countries, farm sizes overall have decreased between use, and extraction, can all belong to different people, and claims 1960 and 2010, but the opposite is true in high-income countries apply on different aspects (e.g., ownership versus use rights, and in other countries such as Brazil, with farms increasingly indigenous or community lands with constrained rights, mining polarized between small and large farms (140), and medium- exploration) (119, 120). Access is often established through multi- scale farms are gaining ground in some parts of Africa (143). Yet, ple ways of making claims, of which legal titles are only one form, adequate data on land value and its distribution remain scarce while many other forms are more important in practice (e.g., phys- (144), and land ownership is only one dimension of inequality. ical claims, barriers, trust, and local social norms) (121, 122). Despite this uneven distribution, smallholders produce a high For much land, who legally holds rights and titles is unclear, share of land-use outputs and have higher yields on aggregate; with some actors benefiting from these ambiguities. Indeed, in a set of 55 countries covering 51.1% of global agricultural perhaps up to ∼65% of the world’s land area is covered by vari- area, for instance, farms under 2 ha represent 24% of agricultural ous forms of customary rights by Indigenous Peoples and local area but produce 30 to 34% of food supply (145). This is despite communities, but only a small part of this is formally recognized smallholders disproportionately living on less-favored agricul- as either owned by (10%) or controlled by (8%) them [http:// tural land and in remote areas (146, 147), with a lack of access to www.landmarkmap.org/ (123)]. Although consistent global data better-quality land as well as declining soil fertility that constitute on tenure is still lacking, evidence of widespread tenure over- key mechanisms of poverty traps (148). Land inequality also mani- laps exist for countries such as Brazil [which has overlapping fests in many other aspects, such as access to cities and their claims on 50% of the total registered public or private territory services (149) and to information and communication tools: Only (124)], Peru (125), Malawi (126), Mozambique (127), Cameroon 24 to 37% of farms of <1 ha are served by 3G or 4G mobile serv- (128), and Indonesia (129), to name just a few. Over a set of 12 ices, compared to 74 to 80% of farms of >200 ha in size (150). Meyfroidt et al. PNAS j 5 of 12 Ten facts about land systems for sustainability https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 Risks, such as climate change impacts on yields, also dispropor- interventions perceived as unfair or ineffective by at least some tionately affect poor populations in particular in drylands and of the stakeholders. Avoiding this requires scientists and policy pastoral systems (118). Inequalities are also strong and growing makers to explicitly ask what and whose beliefs and values are in urban areas (151), with very distinct patterns in terms of speed being put forward or marginalized and to seek to understand and magnitude of urban growth in the Global South, but also the values of those whose voices are infrequently heard (163, specific challenges in terms of youth unemployment, infant mor- 164). Inclusiveness should go beyond those who hold formal tality, poor housing quality, water, sanitation, and waste treat- rights on the land, or directly benefit from it, to include all those ment infrastructure, or air pollution (152). who derive or may derive value from the land but are not repre- As the baseline situation and trend is of increasing inequal- sented formally. Shortcomings in these aspects not only foster ity, this fact suggests that, in practice, interventions on land sys- injustice but also often contribute to failures and ineffective land tems almost always have consequences on the distribution of use, such as with many large-scale land investments. land-derived benefits. Without explicit consideration of inequal- Power differentials are pervasive in land systems and in sustain- ity, land-use interventions are likely to reinforce or reproduce ability challenges (165). Frequently a policy or implementation these current inequalities. effort, no matter its intent, may reproduce the effects and linkages that keep power imbalances in place. These interventions, even if 10. Social and Environmental Justice Related to Land Use Includes Multiple Forms of Recognition, Procedural, Distributive, and done “in the name of sustainability [will be] perceived to be unjust” Intergenerational Justice. In contemporary land dynamics, actors by those that are marginalized (166). Transformative change oper- mobilize multiple visions of justice. The conventional notion of ates not only by fostering desired pathways but also by weakening the nation-state as the arbiter of justice, for instance, has been the forces that resist change (166). Conflicts can be shaped into challenged by globalized supply chains and private governance opportunities for transformative change and new pathways for systems (153, 154). Further, as in other sustainability domains, collaboration (167). New approaches are still in development to social characteristics mediate experiences of environmental account for these multiple forms of justice in linkages that cross harms and benefits (155, 156). As land is home, and is culturally scales and geographic distances (168, 169). and symbolically loaded, aspects of recognition justice have been increasingly mobilized in land system issues, as some Solutions Are More Successful When They Are Contextual and groups strive to make others acknowledge that their distinct Adaptive, Avoiding Silver Bullets or “One-Size-Fits-All” Panaceas. identities and histories are particularly and intimately linked to The complexity of land systems implies that adaptive governance their lands (156–158). This relationship between identity and is needed to adjust to unpredicted changes and changing goals land may also be linked to the marginalization of peoples by (170). Adaptive governance builds on regularly updated scenar- states or society, and the claims people make to lands can be ios, monitoring systems, learning, and flexible institutions that contested and vulnerable as a result. These recognition issues may foster human agency and can be supported by contextual theo- underpin issues of procedural justice, which relate to decision- ries that identify key mechanisms and their conditions (5). This making about land, who decides, and how, and on what terms, contrasts with approaches that focus on identifying single solu- interests are considered (155, 157). Trade-offs and inequities in tions applied across a wide set of contexts or optimal solutions to land system issues also link to issues of distributive justice—how maximize single benefits from a given area of land. goods and harms are distributed or concentrated among people, Solutions are often imperfect and transient, as new actors and including land ownership but also other degrees of access or land uses emerge over time, and not only the values and goals rights to harvest natural resources (159). The presence of irrevers- but also the pathways to reach them are dynamic (171, 172). ible impacts on land that occur over multiple human generational “Political entrepreneurs” and “problem-brokers” continuously timescales requires consideration of intergenerational justice as identify and frame distant or indirect spillovers as new issues to land-use dynamics may constrain benefits to future generations be addressed (173). High-level, universal goals (e.g., SDGs, Paris or their opportunities (155, 160). Policy and governance pro- Climate Agreement, Aichi Biodiversity Targets) are crucial to cesses that do not acknowledge these multiple forms of justice mobilize and monitor efforts toward sustainability, but solutions are likely to be considered unjust by some actors. that function in a given context can be dysfunctional in other contexts—e.g., intensification to reduce natural habitat conver- Implications for Land System Governance for Sustainability sion can be successful in certain contexts but lead to rebound Taken together, the facts above have implications for develop- effects in others (174–176)—or fail to achieve the balance of ing and implementing interventions to unlock the potential of benefits desired by stakeholders (177). Different governance land systems to help realize just and sustainable development. interventions targeting multiple scales from local to global are The six implications that we highlight below do not constitute a needed to find the balance between developing context-sensitive policy agenda but rather are intended as core principles on solutions and tackling systemic interactions across scales and which actors ranging from public to business and civil society sectors (178). may seek to build land-use practices, governance approaches and arrangements, strategic visions, and policy instruments that Governance of Land Systems Is More Effective When Considering can rise to the challenge of sustainable land use globally. Spillovers across Spatial and Temporal Scales. Interventions guid- Just Solutions to Land Challenges Acknowledge Multiple ing land-use decisions should be based on their overall expected Perceptions, Beliefs, and Values, the Multiple Visions of Justice, impacts at broader spatial scales, instead of focusing only on and Power Differentials. When scientists, policy makers, and civil the direct local land footprint. This is key, for example, when society design assessment criteria or governance interventions, opening a new road, allowing mining operations, densifying failure to account for the different ways by which distinct groups settlements, or intensifying agriculture, all of which are likely to express their values and notions of justice (161, 162) results in have large spillover effects. 6 of 12 j PNAS Meyfroidt et al. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 Ten facts about land systems for sustainability New forms of polycentric and hybrid, public–private gover- Managing land to balance trade-offs identified by stakeholders, nance can leverage change in distant regions and across jurisdic- focusing on key functions of land (food, nature, a sense of place) is tional boundaries. Polycentric governance refers to situations likely to provide the most socially acceptable climate and conserva- where many centers of decision-making, formally independent tion cobenefits, in contrast with prioritizing functions such as cli- of each other, such as nation-states, local communities, nongovern- mate change mitigation that can be achieved by other ways (15). mental organizations and transnational companies, share decision- Engaging with stakeholders’ values and goals can contribute to making (179). Distant interactions imply responsibilities but also transforming trade-offs into synergies, for example through serious create dependency upon other places and jurisdictions (e.g., games and other participatory approaches (193). Negotiated and vulnerability to climate change through land dependence afar). socially acceptable compensation can also contribute to mitigate Such situations require novel governance arrangements that these trade-offs. Yet, ultimately, not all trade-offs can be addressed have been proposed to steer urban-land teleconnections (180), by managing the supply side of land systems, and there is a need the behavior of transnational corporations (181), supply chains for more effective approaches for managing the demand and con- (182), trade agreements (183), and distant linkages more broadly sumption of benefits that land systems provide (10, 165, 167, 194). (184). These governance approaches build on improved transpar- ency in supply chains (185) and monitoring of impacts on affected To Avoid Reinforcing Inequalities, Governance Interventions Need land systems across scales (4). Local actors can increase their to Explicitly Address Inequalities and Acknowledge Unclear Land leverage through coalitions with distant actors to develop land- Tenure. Distributional impacts and effectiveness of interventions use planning across scales (186). However, these approaches are often linked, for example in interventions for improving agri- bring new sovereignty and legitimacy challenges, which are only cultural productivity or ecosystem services delivery. However, the starting to be explored. precise relationships vary. Market-based interventions, such as Policies and Management That Prevent Undesired, Irreversible payments for ecosystem services, and private or public–private Impacts Bring More Overall Benefits than Trying to Restore hybrid supply chain policies are increasingly promoted by various Land Afterward. This implication echoes the mitigation hierar- stakeholders. These approaches are not necessarily designed chy in biodiversity conservation and land degradation and res- with equity as a strong focus and may reinforce inequality as well toration planning—a framework requiring implementing actions as land concentration. When they fit into, rather than challenge, in the following order of priority: 1) avoid, 2) minimize, 3) restore existing social relations which govern resource access, they tend or remediate, and 4) offset environmental impacts of activities to be blunt instruments with respect to distributive and proce- and land use (22, 187, 188). This hierarchy aims to prevent unde- dural justice (195). Yet, it is also possible to design such instru- sired “lock-ins” that limit choices in the future. Irreversible land- ments in ways that foster both equity and effectiveness (196). This use changes are akin to large investments in specific productive debate also covers other instruments such as protected areas capital, which can limit choices for decades (189). Changes that (197, 198), for which meta-analysis evidence suggests that posi- are largely irreversible or create path dependence like urbaniza- tive conservation outcomes were more likely to occur with inter- tion have to be carefully planned to target land on which they can ventions that addressed equity (199). Interventions to improve bring the largest benefits accounting for long-term effects. Resto- environmental sustainability of commodity supply chains through ration can be more effective when it does not aim to strictly return transparency may also have perverse equity impacts (185). Con- ecosystems to their past state but instead to manage “novel versely, policies aiming to reduce poverty can have spillover ecosystems” more sustainably (190). Values and perceptions of impacts on environmental aspects such as deforestation (200). land evolve over time, so governance interventions should seek Across a spectrum of approaches and possible outcomes, the key to maintain a wide choice of possible future land uses. finding for policy is that if the sole metric is effectiveness in terms of increasing the amount of products or services outputs, it is Land-Use Decisions That Foster Synergies Are Important but likely to affect equity, whether that is the intention or not. Need to Be Combined with Mitigating Unavoidable Trade-Offs and Managing Demand. The spatial heterogeneity and concen- Land formalization, or enhancing land tenure security, can tration of potential benefits argue for spatial planning to focus play an important role but should not be considered a panacea. and intensify land uses where they deliver the highest benefits Depending on the conditions, it can encourage sustainable land (urban areas, highly valuable croplands, high-biodiversity-value management (201) but also, if uncoordinated with other poli- lands) and where synergies can be achieved (167). Globally, there cies, induce land degradation, deforestation (136), or land con- is room for improvement in balancing multiple trade-offs to deliver centration (202). Effective land tenure and registration policies a broader set of benefits to human societies (191). However, can build on existing local institutions (203). Other policies to messy, regularly renegotiated compromises aiming for accept- address land inequality may include redistributive land policies able balance among different targets are more likely to endure and agrarian reform, land market regulations, land taxes, in par- than optimizations that inevitably become outdated when priori- ticular for large tracts of land left unproductive, antieviction and ties, or the social-ecological systems themselves, change. tenancy laws, mechanisms to increase accountability of compa- Nature conservation as a land use is increasingly competing nies and investors, fostering collective and women’s land rights, with other land uses. Therefore, the pursuit of environmental goals and broader transformations of food systems (135, 142). is not politically neutral but comes with social, distributive, and Thus, interventions on land can be improved by 1) acknowl- justice implications, which deserve more attention (192). Further, edging unclear and overlapping and contested land tenure even land that appears “unmanaged” has importance for human instead of assuming that land always has a clear and uncon- societies and Earth system dynamics, and such absence of formal, tested tenure holder, 2) identifying and targeting the actors that institutionalized, or visible management is, de facto, a manage- can enact land-use changes even if distinct from the de jure ment decision that implies trade-offs and should be acknowledged landholder, and 3) enhancing local institutions that are able to in decision-making processes. function with local land tenure systems. New institutional Meyfroidt et al. PNAS j 7 of 12 Ten facts about land systems for sustainability https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 arrangements could govern rights and duties of multiple actors acknowledging these facts and their implications can help to to use the same land for various functions. build more solid foundations for much-needed conversations on land use and sustainability. Conclusion These 10 facts synthesized from LSS constitute hard truths that help to delineate the key challenges but also provide major oppor- Data Availability. All study data are included in the main text. tunities for governing land systems for sustainability. Achieving Acknowledgments sustainability through land systems is challenging precisely This work was supported by the European Research Council under the European because multiple beliefs and values exist; because land sys- Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreements 677140 tems are complex, with irreversibility and path dependence, MIDLAND, no. 757995 HEFT, 741950 MAT_STOCKS, 101001239 SYSTEM- large impacts of land uses with small footprints, and distant spill- SHIFT); the Marie Skłodowska-Curie (MSCA) Innovative Training Network overs; because we live on a used planet where trade-offs are actions under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 765408 COUPLED); the “Marıa de Maeztu” prevalent, claims are overlapping and contested, and benefits Programme for Units of Excellence of the Spanish Ministry of Science and from land are unequally distributed; and because actors mobilize Innovation (grants CEX2019-000940-M and MDM-2017-0714); the NASA multiple, sometimes conflicting, visions of justice. Avoiding irre- Land-Cover Land-Use Change Program (grant no. NNX17AI15G); the Swiss versible negative impacts is always preferable, but beyond this, Academy of Sciences (grant no. FNW0003_003-2018-00); the National progressing toward sustainability through land use is often about Research Foundation’s Rated Researcher’s Award (grant no. 119789); the UK Natural Environment Research Council Landscape Decisions Fellowship (grant negotiating fair and acceptable trade-offs and compensations, no. NE/V007904/1); and the “Nature4SDGs” project (grant no. BT/IN/TaSE/ rather than about achieving optimal outcomes, or stable peace 73/SL/2018-19) funded by NERC-Formas-DBT [UK Natural Environment among actors. These facts do not provide simple answers to cur- Research Council-Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development- rent land-related debates on how to manage trade-offs and syn- Indian Department of Biotechnology (from the Ministry of Science & Technol- ergies, how to organize the multifunctionality of land systems ogy, Government of India)]. This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, Canada across places and scales, and how to set up fair procedures and (109238-004), which supported C.M.R. and J.A.F. The views expressed herein distribution of land benefits. However, they do point to how do not necessarily represent those of IDRC or its Board of Governors. This work answers could be developed and provide common ground for contributes to the Global Land Programme (GLP) glp.earth as well as the GLP science and policy, as well as a research agenda. We hope that Japan Nodal Office. a Earth and Life Institute, UCLouvain, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; b Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique F.R.S.-FNRS, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium; c Centre for Environment and Development, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland; d Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742; e School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FF, United Kingdom; f Department of Geography, Geoinformatics and Meteorology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa; g Independent Scholar, James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland; h Space Applications Centre, Indian Space Research Organisation, Ahmedabad 380015, India; i Earth Observation Directorate, National Institute for Space Research, S~ e dos Campos, SP 12227-010, Brazil; j Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, ao Jos Universitat Aut onoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain; k Department of Geography, Universitat Aut onoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain; l Instituci o Catalana de m Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Barcelona 08010, Spain; Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027; n Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biologıa Vegetal, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientıficas y T ecnicas and Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Fısicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de C ordoba, X5000HUA C ordoba, Argentina; o Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; p Department of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 21250; q Institute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, 1070 Vienna, Austria; r Environmental Policy Lab, ETH Z€ urich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland; s Joint Evidence, Data, and Insights Division, Ministry for the Environment, Auckland 1010, New Zealand; t Instituto de Ecologıa Regional, Universidad Nacional de Tucum an, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientıficas y T ecnicas, Yerba Buena, Tucum an 4107, Argentina; Baltimore Urban Field Station, USDA Forest Service, Baltimore, MD 21228; v Wyss Academy for Nature at the University of u Bern, 3011 Bern, Switzerland; Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland; x Geography Department, Humboldt-Universit€ w at zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany; y Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems, Humboldt-Universit€ at zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany; z Grupo de Estudios Ambientales, Instituto de Matem atica Aplicada de San Luis, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientıficas y T ecnicas, Universidad Nacional de San Luis, 5700 San Luis, Argentina; aa Economics and Global Climate Cooperation, Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY 10010; bb School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; cc Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; dd Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, CNRS, Universit e Grenoble Alpes, Universit e Savoie Mont-Blanc, 38000 Grenoble, France; ee Centre for Environment & Development, ATREE, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560064, India; ff Indian Institute of Science Education & Research, Pune 411008, India; gg Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, 1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark; Institute of Geography, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland; ii Earth and Sustainability Science Research Centre, University of New South hh Wales, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia; jj Department of Geography, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43202; kk School of Development, Azim Premji University 562125 Karnataka, India; ll Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523; mm Ecosystem Science and Sustainability Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523; nn School of Planning, Faculty of the Environment, Waterloo Institute for Complexity and Innovation, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1; oo Basque Centre for Climate Change, BC3 48940 Leioa, Bizkaia, Spain; pp Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, 48009 Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain; qq Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark; rr Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4; ss Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610; tt Yale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511; uu Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; vv Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (430c), Institute of Social Sciences in Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany; ww Field Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Hokkaido University, 060-0809 Hokkaido, Japan; xx Field to Market: The Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture, Washington, DC 20002; yy School of Geographical Science and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281; zz School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281; aaa Global Institute of Sustainability and Innovation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281; bbb Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8578, Japan; ccc Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Enschede 7522 NB, The Netherlands; and ddd Water and Land Resource Centre, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 1 E. F. Lambin et al., Estimating the world’s potentially available cropland using a bottom-up approach. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 892–901 (2013). 2 R. DeFries, H. Nagendra, Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science 356, 265–270 (2017). 3 M. Leach, R. Mearns, The Lie of the Land: Challenging Received Wisdom on the African Environment (BOYE6, 1996). 4 P. H. Verburg et al., Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: A global land project perspective. Anthropocene 12, 29–41 (2015). 5 P. Meyfroidt et al., Middle-range theories of land system change. Glob. Environ. Change 53, 52–67 (2018). 6 R. R. Rindfuss, S. J. Walsh, B. L. Turner, II, J. Fox, V. Mishra, Developing a science of land change: Challenges and methodological issues. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 13976–13981 (2004). 7 J. A. Foley et al., Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005). 8 E. F. Lambin, H. J. Geist, Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Local Processes and Global Impacts (Springer Science & Business Media, 2006). 9 B. L. Turner, II, E. F. Lambin, A. Reenberg, The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 20666–20671 (2007). 8 of 12 j PNAS Meyfroidt et al. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 Ten facts about land systems for sustainability 10 IPBES, “The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration” (IPBES, 2018). 11 C. Schill et al., A more dynamic understanding of human behaviour for the Anthropocene. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1075–1082 (2019). 12 Y.-F. Tuan, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience (University of Minnesota Press, 1977). 13 K. M. Chan et al., Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 1462–1465 (2016). 14 T. M. Li, What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 39, 589–602 (2014). 15 E. C. Ellis, U. Pascual, O. Mertz, Ecosystem services and nature’s contribution to people: Negotiating diverse values and trade-offs in land systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 38, 86–94 (2019). 16 P. Blaikie, H. Brookfield, Land Degradation and Society (Routledge, 1987). 17 J. F. Reynolds et al., Global desertification: Building a science for dryland development. Science 316, 847–851 (2007). 18 C. Padoch, M. Pinedo-Vasquez, Saving slash-and-burn to save biodiversity. Biotropica 42, 550–552 (2010). 19 S. J. Pyne, Fire: A Brief History (University of Washington Press, 2019). 20 W. Nikolakis, E. Roberts, Indigenous fire management: A conceptual model from literature. Ecol. Soc. 25, 11 (2020). 21 H. K. Gibbs, J. M. Salmon, Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Appl. Geogr. 57, 12–21 (2015). 22 A. L. Cowie et al., Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy 79, 25–35 (2018). 23 M. Teng€ o et al., Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—Lessons learned for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26, 17–25 (2017). 24 L. Temper, D. del Bene, J. Martinez-Alier, Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global environmental justice: The EJAtlas. J. Polit. Ecol. 22, 255–278 (2015). 25 D. M€ uller et al., Regime shifts limit the predictability of land-system change. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 75–83 (2014). 26 N. Ramankutty, O. Coomes, Land-use regime shifts: An analytical framework and agenda for future land-use research. Ecol. Soc. 21, 1 (2016). 27 J. C. Rocha, G. Peterson, O. € Bodin, S. Levin, Cascading regime shifts within and across scales. Science 362, 1379–1383 (2018). 28 M. R. Zak, M. Cabido, D. C aceres, S. Dıaz, What drives accelerated land cover change in central Argentina? Synergistic consequences of climatic, socioeco- nomic, and technological factors. Environ. Manage. 42, 181–189 (2008). 29 F. Schierhorn et al., Post-Soviet cropland abandonment and carbon sequestration in European Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 27, 1175–1185 (2013). 30 C. Brown, P. Alexander, A. Arneth, I. Holman, M. Rounsevell, Achievement of Paris climate goals unlikely due to time lags in the land system. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 203–208 (2019). 31 O. T. Coomes, Y. Takasaki, J. M. Rhemtulla, Land-use poverty traps identified in shifting cultivation systems shape long-term tropical forest cover. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 13925–13930 (2011). 32 L. J. Haider, W. J. Boonstra, G. D. Peterson, M. Schl€ uter, Traps and sustainable development in rural areas: A review. World Dev. 101, 311–321 (2018). 33 UN Environment Programme, “A multi-billion-dollar opportunity: Repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems” (UN Environment Programme, 2021). 34 K. A. Henderson, C. T. Bauch, M. Anand, Alternative stable states and the sustainability of forests, grasslands, and agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 14552–14559 (2016). 35 V. Rodrıguez Garcıa, F. Gaspart, T. Kastner, P. Meyfroidt, Agricultural intensification and land use change: Assessing country-level induced intensification, land sparing and rebound effect. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 085007 (2020). 36 C. Oberlack et al., Archetype analysis in sustainability research: Meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making. Ecol. Soc. 24, 26 (2019). 37 R. Prestele et al., Hotspots of uncertainty in land-use and land-cover change projections: A global-scale model comparison. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3967–3983 (2016). 38 K. C. Seto et al., Carbon lock-in: Types, causes, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 425–452 (2016). 39 W. F. Laurance et al., The 10 Australian ecosystems most vulnerable to tipping points. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1472–1480 (2011). 40 M. E. Fern andez-Gim enez et al., Exploring linked ecological and cultural tipping points in Mongolia. Anthropocene 17, 46–69 (2017). 41 J. Rocha et al., Toward understanding the dynamics of land change in Latin America: Potential utility of a resilience approach for building archetypes of land- systems change. Ecol. Soc. 24, 17 (2019). 42 C. Bren d’Amour et al., Future urban land expansion and implications for global croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 8939–8944 (2017). 43 J. van Vliet, D. A. Eitelberg, P. H. Verburg, A global analysis of land take in cropland areas and production displacement from urbanization. Glob. Environ. Change 43, 107–115 (2017). 44 J. van Vliet, Direct and indirect loss of natural area from urban expansion. Nat. Sustain. 2, 755–763 (2019). 45 D. M. A. Rozendaal et al., Biodiversity recovery of Neotropical secondary forests. Sci. Adv. 5, eaau3114 (2019). 46 L. S. Wijedasa et al., Carbon emissions from South-East Asian peatlands will increase despite emission-reduction schemes. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4598–4613 (2018). 47 D. J. Pannell, Dryland salinity: Economic, scientific, social and policy dimensions. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 45, 517–546 (2001). 48 D. Block-Schachter, J. Zhao, Hysteresis & urban rail. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 15, 78–91 (2015). 49 H. Haberl et al., Contributions of sociometabolic research to sustainability science. Nat. Sustain. 2, 173–184 (2019). 50 B. Jaroszewicz et al., Białowie_za forest—A relic of the high naturalness of European forests. Forests 10, 849 (2019). 51 F. Isbell, D. Tilman, P. B. Reich, A. T. Clark, Deficits of biodiversity and productivity linger a century after agricultural abandonment. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1533–1538 (2019). 52 P. H. Kahn Jr., R. L. Severson, J. H. Ruckert, The human relation with nature and technological nature. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18, 37–42 (2009). 53 D. Pauly, Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 430 (1995). 54 R. L. Chazdon, Second Growth: The Promise of Tropical Forest Regeneration in an Age of Deforestation (University of Chicago Press, 2014). 55 J. R. Miller, B. T. Bestelmeyer, What’s wrong with novel ecosystems, really? Restor. Ecol. 24, 577–582 (2016). 56 R. J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, J. A. Harris, Novel ecosystems: Implications for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 599–605 (2009). 57 K. C. Seto et al., Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 7687–7692 (2012). 58 D. Moran et al., Carbon footprints of 13 000 cities. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064041 (2018). 59 K. J. Gaston, J. Bennie, T. W. Davies, J. Hopkins, The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: A mechanistic appraisal. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 88, 912–927 (2013). 60 W. Zhang, G. Villarini, G. A. Vecchi, J. A. Smith, Urbanization exacerbated the rainfall and flooding caused by hurricane Harvey in Houston. Nature 563, 384–388 (2018). 61 K. Huang, X. Li, X. Liu, K. C. Seto, Projecting global urban land expansion and heat island intensification through 2050. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 114037 (2019). 62 W. F. Laurance et al., A global strategy for road building. Nature 513, 229–232 (2014). 63 A. C. Lees, C. A. Peres, P. M. Fearnside, M. Schneider, J. A. S. Zuanon, Hydropower and the future of Amazonian biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 25, 451–466 (2016). 64 A. J. Bebbington et al., Resource extraction and infrastructure threaten forest cover and community rights. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 13164–13173 (2018). 65 L. J. Sonter et al., Mining drives extensive deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Commun. 8, 1013 (2017). 66 J. A. Rehbein et al., Renewable energy development threatens many globally important biodiversity areas. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3040–3051 (2020). 67 B. T. Phalan, What have we learned from the land sparing-sharing model? Sustainability 10, 1760 (2018). 68 P. Meyfroidt et al., Focus on leakage and spillovers: Informing land-use governance in a tele-coupled world. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 090202 (2020). 69 R. I. McDonald et al., Research gaps in knowledge of the impact of urban growth on biodiversity. Nat. Sustain. 3, 16–24 (2020). Meyfroidt et al. PNAS j 9 of 12 Ten facts about land systems for sustainability https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 70 E. F. Lambin, P. Meyfroidt, Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 3465–3472 (2011). 71 R. Heilmayr, K. M. Carlson, J. J. Benedict, Deforestation spillovers from oil palm sustainability certification. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 075002 (2020). 72 IPBES, “Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services” (IPBES Secretariat, 2019). 73 T. O. Wiedmann et al., The material footprint of nations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 6271–6276 (2015). 74 T. Wiedmann, M. Lenzen, Environmental and social footprints of international trade. Nat. Geosci. 11, 314–321 (2018). 75 I. Jadin, P. Meyfroidt, E. F. Lambin, International trade, and land use intensification and spatial reorganization explain Costa Rica’s forest transition. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035005 (2016). 76 N. Roux, T. Kastner, K.-H. Erb, H. Haberl, Does agricultural trade reduce pressure on land ecosystems? Decomposing drivers of the embodied human appro- priation of net primary production. Ecol. Econ. 181, 106915 (2021). 77 J. C. Llopis et al., Effects of protected area establishment and cash crop price dynamics on land use transitions 1990–2017 in north-eastern Madagascar. J. Land Use Sci. 14, 52–80 (2019). 78 K. Cho, B. Goldstein, D. Gounaridis, J. P. Newell, Where does your guacamole come from? Detecting deforestation associated with the export of avocados from Mexico to the United States. J. Environ. Manage. 278, 111482 (2021). 79 E. C. Ellis et al., Used planet: A global history. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 7978–7985 (2013). 80 L. Stephens et al., Archaeological assessment reveals Earth’s early transformation through land use. Science 365, 897–902 (2019). 81 E. C. Ellis, N. Ramankutty, Putting people in the map: Anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 439–447 (2008). 82 S. Luyssaert et al., Land management and land-cover change have impacts of similar magnitude on surface temperature. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 389–393 (2014). 83 K.-H. Erb et al., Land management: Data availability and process understanding for global change studies. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 512–533 (2017). 84 A. Arneth et al., “Framing and context” in Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustain- able Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems, P. R. Schukla et al., Eds. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019), pp. 1–98. 85 K.-H. Erb et al., Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553, 73–76 (2018). 86 R. de Groot et al., Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 50–61 (2012). 87 S. M. Dıaz et al., “The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Summary for policy makers” (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Plat- form on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2019). 88 R. Chaplin-Kramer et al., Global modeling of nature’s contributions to people. Science 366, 255–258 (2019). 89 P. Veers et al., Grand challenges in the science of wind energy. Science 366, eaau2027 (2019). 90 H. Haberl et al., “Finite land resources and competition” in Rethinking Global Land Use in an Urban Era, K. C. Seto, A. Reenberg, Eds. (MIT Press, 2014), pp. 35–69. 91 J. Niew€ ohner et al., “Land use competition: Ecological, economic and social perspectives” in Land Use Competition: Ecological, Economic and Social Per- spectives, Human-Environment Interactions, J. Niew€ ohner et al., Eds. (Springer International Publishing, 2016), pp. 1–17. 92 C. Raudsepp-Hearne, G. Peterson, Scale and ecosystem services: How do observation, management, and analysis shift with scale—Lessons from Qu ebec. Ecol. Soc. 21, 16 (2016). 93 L. V. Rasmussen et al., Social-ecological outcomes of agricultural intensification. Nat. Sustain. 1, 275–282 (2018). 94 I. Jadin, P. Meyfroidt, E. F. Lambin, Forest protection and economic development by offshoring wood extraction: Bhutan’s clean development path. Reg. Environ. Change 16, 401–415 (2016). 95 M. Poudyal et al., Who bears the cost of forest conservation? PeerJ 6, e5106 (2018). 96 A. Marques et al., Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 628–637 (2019). 97 M. J. P. Sullivan et al., Diversity and carbon storage across the tropical forest biome. Sci. Rep. 7, 39102 (2017). 98 J. Ferreira et al., Carbon-focused conservation may fail to protect the most biodiverse tropical forests. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 744–749 (2018). 99 A. M. Osuri et al., Tree diversity and carbon storage cobenefits in tropical human-dominated landscapes. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12699 (2020). 100 T. D. Searchinger, S. Wirsenius, T. Beringer, P. Dumas, Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature 564, 249–253 (2018). 101 R. DeFries, C. Rosenzweig, Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 19627–19632 (2010). 102 S. Lavorel, B. Locatelli, M. J. Colloff, E. Bruley, Co-producing ecosystem services for adapting to climate change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190119 (2020). 103 P. Messerli et al., “Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The future is now–Science for achieving sustainable development” (United Nations, 2019). 104 J. D. B. Gil et al., Tradeoffs in the quest for climate smart agricultural intensification in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064025 (2018). 105 A. C. Soterroni et al., Future environmental and agricultural impacts of Brazil’s Forest Code. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 074021 (2018). 106 J. C. dos Reis et al., Integrated crop-livestock systems: A sustainable land-use alternative for food production in the Brazilian Cerrado and Amazon. J. Clean. Prod. 283, 124580 (2020). 107 C. Kremen, A. M. Merenlender, Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362, eaau6020 (2018). 108 G. Tamburini et al., Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba1715 (2020). 109 S. T. Garnett et al., A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374 (2018). 110 N. Dawson et al., The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecol. Soc. 26, 19 (2021). 111 F. Cammelli, R. D. Garrett, J. Barlow, L. Parry, Fire risk perpetuates poverty and fire use among Amazonian smallholders. Glob. Environ. Change 63, 102096 (2020). 112 J. Hammond, M. van Wijk, N. Teufel, K. Mekonnen, P. Thorne, Assessing smallholder sustainable intensification in the Ethiopian highlands. Agric. Syst. 194, 103266 (2021). 113 J. Qiu et al., Land-use intensity mediates ecosystem service tradeoffs across regional social-ecological systems. Ecosyst. People 17, 264–278 (2021). 114 Z. Mehrabi, E. C. Ellis, N. Ramankutty, The challenge of feeding the world while conserving half the planet. Nat. Sustain. 1, 409–412 (2018). 115 J. Schleicher et al., Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1094–1096 (2019). 116 R. B. Jackson et al., Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 310, 1944–1947 (2005). 117 L. R. Boysen et al., The limits to global-warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal. Earths Futur. 5, 463–474 (2017). 118 IPCC, “Special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terres- trial ecosystems (SR2)” (IPCC, 2017). 119 K. E. Giller et al., Competing claims on natural resources: What role for science? Ecol. Soc. 13, 34 (2008). 120 P. E. Peters, Challenges in land tenure and land reform in Africa: Anthropological contributions. World Dev. 37, 1317–1325 (2009). 121 J. C. Ribot, N. L. Peluso, A theory of access. Rural Sociol. 68, 153–181 (2003). 122 A. Kronenburg Garcıa, H. van Dijk, Towards a theory of claim making: Bridging access and property theory. Soc. Nat. Resour. 33, 167–183 (2020). 123 Rights and Resources Initiative, “Who owns the world’s land? A global baseline of formally recognized indigenous and community land rights” (Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, 2015). 124 G. Sparovek et al., Who owns Brazilian lands? Land Use Policy 87, 104062 (2019). 125 C. M. Anderson, G. P. Asner, W. Llactayo, E. F. Lambin, Overlapping land allocations reduce deforestation in Peru. Land Use Policy 79, 174–178 (2018). 126 K. Deininger, F. Xia, Assessing the long-term performance of large-scale land transfers: Challenges and opportunities in Malawi’s estate sector. World Dev. 104, 281–296 (2018). 10 of 12 j PNAS Meyfroidt et al. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 Ten facts about land systems for sustainability 127 K. Deininger, D. Byerlee, Rising Global Interest in Farmland (The World Bank, 2011). 128 B. Schwartz, D. Hoyle, S. Nguiffo, “Emerging trends in land-use conflicts in Cameroon: Overlapping natural resource permits threaten protected areas and for- eign direct investment” (World Wildlife Federation, 2011). 129 D. L. A. Gaveau et al., Overlapping land claims limit the use of satellites to monitor no-deforestation commitments and no-burning compliance. Conserv. Lett. 10, 257–264 (2017). 130 R. de Leon et al., “Global capital, local concessions” (Rights and Resources Initiative, 2013). 131 D. Harvey, The right to the city. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 27, 939–941 (2003). 132 C. Hoang, P. Satyal, E. Corbera, ‘This is my garden’: Justice claims and struggles over forests in Vietnam’s REDD+. Clim. Policy 19, S23–S35 (2019). 133 B. E. Robinson et al., Incorporating land tenure security into conservation. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12383 (2018). 134 S. Lawry et al., The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries: A systematic review. J. Dev. Effect. 9, 61–81 (2017). 135 O. De Schutter, The role of property rights in the debate on large-scale land acquisitions. Int. Dev. Policy 6, 53–77 (2015). 136 B. Probst, A. BenYishay, A. Kontoleon, T. N. P. dos Reis, Impacts of a large-scale titling initiative on deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Sustain. 3, 1–8 (2020). 137 M. Scheffer, B. van Bavel, I. A. van de Leemput, E. H. van Nes, Inequality in nature and society. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 13154–13157 (2017). 138 C. Doss, C. Kovarik, A. Peterman, A. Quisumbing, M. van den Bold, Gender inequalities in ownership and control of land in Africa: Myth and reality. Agric. Econ. 46, 403–434 (2015). 139 S. K. Lowder, J. Skoet, T. Raney, The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev. 87, 16–29 (2016). 140 S. K. Lowder, M. V. S anchez, R. Bertini, Farms, Family Farms, Farmland Distribution and Farm Labour: What Do We Know Today? (FAO, 2019). 141 L. Bauluz, Y. Govind, F. Novokmet, “Global land inequality” (International Land Coalition, 2020). 142 International Land Coalition, “Uneven ground: Land inequality at the heart of unequal societies” (International Land Coalition, 2020). 143 T. S. Jayne et al., Africa’s changing farm size distribution patterns: The rise of medium-scale farms. Agric. Econ. 47, 197–214 (2016). 144 O. T. Coomes, G. K. MacDonald, Y. le Polain de Waroux, Geospatial land price data: A public good for global change science and policy. Bioscience 68, 481–484 (2018). 145 V. Ricciardi, N. Ramankutty, Z. Mehrabi, L. Jarvis, B. Chookolingo, How much of the world’s food do smallholders produce? Glob. Food Sec. 17, 64–72 (2018). 146 E. B. Barbier, J. P. Hochard, Land degradation and poverty. Nat. Sustain. 1, 623–631 (2018). 147 E. B. Barbier, J. P. Hochard, Poverty-environment traps. Environ. Resour. Econ. 74, 1239–1271 (2019). 148 C. B. Barrett, L. E. M. Bevis, The self-reinforcing feedback between low soil fertility and chronic poverty. Nat. Geosci. 8, 907–912 (2015). 149 D. J. Weiss et al., A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in accessibility in 2015. Nature 553, 333–336 (2018). 150 Z. Mehrabi et al., The global divide in data-driven farming. Nat. Sustain. 4, 154–160 (2020). 151 T. Elmqvist et al., Eds., Urban Planet: Knowledge towards Sustainable Cities (Cambridge University Press, 2018). 152 H. Nagendra, X. Bai, E. S. Brondizio, S. Lwasa, The urban south and the predicament of global sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 1, 341–349 (2018). 153 N. Fraser, Abnormal justice. Crit. Inq. 34, 393–422 (2008). 154 S. Boillat et al., Why telecoupling research needs to account for environmental justice. J. Land Use Sci. 15, 1–10 (2020). 155 D. Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature (Oxford University Press, 2007). 156 T. Sikor, A. Martin, J. Fisher, J. He, Toward an empirical analysis of justice in ecosystem governance. Conserv. Lett. 7, 524–532 (2014). 157 N. Fraser, A. Honneth, Redistribution or Recognition?: A Political-Philosophical Exchange (Verso, 2003). 158 A. Martin et al., Justice and conservation: The need to incorporate recognition. Biol. Conserv. 197, 254–261 (2016). 159 E. Schlager, E. Ostrom, Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Econ. 68, 249–262 (1992). 160 A. Gosseries, Theories of intergenerational justice: A synopsis. SAPIENS 1, 1 (2008). 161 J. Martinez-Alier, The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2002). 162 N. Zafra-Calvo et al., Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: Insights from the global south. Glob. Environ. Change 63, 102115 (2020). 163 D. Naraya, R. Patel, K. Schafft, A. Rademacher, S. Koch-Schulte, Can Anyone Hear Us?: Voices of the Poor (The World Bank, 2000). 164 U. Pascual et al., Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat. Sustain. 4, 567–572 (2021). 165 W. C. Clark, A. G. Harley, Sustainability science: Toward a synthesis. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45, 331–386 (2020). 166 A. Martin et al., Environmental justice and transformations to sustainability. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 62, 19–30 (2020). 167 WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change, Rethinking Land in the Anthropocene: From Separation to Integration (WBGU, 2021). 168 S. Boillat et al., Distant interactions, power, and environmental justice in protected area governance: A telecoupling perspective. Sustainability 10, 3954 (2018). 169 E. Corbera, L. M. Busck-Lumholt, F. Mempel, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos, “Environmental justice in telecoupling research” in Telecoupling: Exploring Land-Use Change in a Globalised World, C. Friis, J. Ø. Nielsen, Eds. (Palgrave Studies in Natural Resource Management, Springer International Publishing, 2019), pp. 213–232. € 170 L. Schultz, C. Folke, H. Osterblom, P. Olsson, Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 7369–7374 (2015). 171 R. DeFries, The Big Ratchet: How Humanity Thrives in the Face of Natural Crisis (Basic Books, 2014). 172 M. J. Colloff et al., An integrative research framework for enabling transformative adaptation. Environ. Sci. Policy 68, 87–96 (2017). 173 M. G. Bastos Lima, U. M. Persson, P. Meyfroidt, Leakage and boosting effects in environmental governance: A framework for analysis. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 105006 (2019). 174 F. Taheripour, T. W. Hertel, N. Ramankutty, Market-mediated responses confound policies to limit deforestation from oil palm expansion in Malaysia and Indonesia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 19193–19199 (2019). 175 N. Villoria, Consequences of agricultural total factor productivity growth for the sustainability of global farming: Accounting for direct and indirect land use effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 125002 (2019). 176 N. B. Villoria, Technology spillovers and land use change: Empirical evidence from global agriculture. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 101, 870–893 (2019). 177 G. J. Wells, J. Fisher, R. Jindal, C. M. Ryan, Social as much as environmental: The drivers of tree biomass in smallholder forest landscape restoration programmes. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 104008 (2020). 178 B. Reyers, C. Folke, M.-L. Moore, R. Biggs, V. Galaz, Social-ecological systems insights for navigating the dynamics of the anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 267–289 (2018). 179 E. Ostrom, Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 100, 641–672 (2010). 180 K. C. Seto, A. Reenberg, Eds., Rethinking Global Land Use in an Urban Era (MIT Press, 2014). 181 C. Folke et al., Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1396–1403 (2019). 182 E. F. Lambin et al., The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 109–116 (2018). 183 L. Kehoe et al., Inclusion, transparency, and enforcement: How the EU-mercosur trade agreement fails the sustainability test. One Earth 3, 268–272 (2020). 184 D. K. Munroe et al., Governing flows in telecoupled land systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 38, 53–59 (2019). 185 T. A. Gardner et al., Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Dev. 121, 163–177 (2019). 186 T. K. Rudel, P. Meyfroidt, Organizing anarchy: The food security–biodiversity–climate crisis and the genesis of rural land use planning in the developing world. Land Use Policy 36, 239–247 (2014). Meyfroidt et al. PNAS j 11 of 12 Ten facts about land systems for sustainability https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 187 W. N. S. Arlidge et al., A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. Bioscience 68, 336–347 (2018). 188 B. Phalan et al., Avoiding impacts on biodiversity through strengthening the first stage of the mitigation hierarchy. Oryx 52, 316–324 (2018). 189 G. C. Unruh, J. Carrillo-Hermosilla, Globalizing carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 34, 1185–1197 (2006). 190 R. J. Hobbs, E. S. Higgs, J. A. Harris, Novel ecosystems: Concept or inconvenient reality? A response to Murcia et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 645–646 (2014). 191 K.-H. Erb et al., Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nat. Commun. 7, 11382 (2016). 192 A. Chhabra et al., “Multiple impacts of land-use/cover change” in Land-Use and Land-Cover Change (Springer, 2006), pp. 71–116. 193 S. M. Redpath et al., Games as tools to address conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 415–426 (2018). 194 T. Vaden et al., Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 236–244 (2020). 195 E. Corbera, K. Brown, W. N. Adger, The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Dev. Change 38, 587–613 (2007). 196 B. Lliso, U. Pascual, S. Engel, On the role of social equity in payments for ecosystem services in Latin America: A practitioner perspective. Ecol. Econ. 182, 106928 (2021). 197 D. Brockington, D. Wilkie, Protected areas and poverty. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20140271 (2015). 198 P. J. Ferraro, R. L. Pressey, Measuring the difference made by conservation initiatives: Protected areas and their environmental and social impacts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20140270 (2015). 199 J. A. Oldekop, G. Holmes, W. E. Harris, K. L. Evans, A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 30, 133–141 (2016). 200 P. J. Ferraro, R. Simorangkir, Conditional cash transfers to alleviate poverty also reduced deforestation in Indonesia. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1298 (2020). 201 P. H. Verburg et al., “Creating an enabling environment for land degradation neutrality and its potential contribution to enhancing well-being, livelihoods and the environment” (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 2019). 202 M. B. Dwyer, The formalization fix? Land titling, land concessions and the politics of spatial transparency in Cambodia. J. Peasant Stud. 42, 903–928 (2015). 203 C. Toulmin, Securing land and property rights in sub-Saharan Africa: The role of local institutions. Land Use Policy 26, 10–19 (2009). 12 of 12 j PNAS Meyfroidt et al. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 Ten facts about land systems for sustainability