The graphic below details the breakdown of global land allocation and use based on areal extent. Only 71 percent of Earth’s land surface is defined as habitable; the remaining 29 percent comprises of glaciers and barren land. Here, ‘barren land’ refers to land cover in which less than one-third of the area has vegetation or other cover; barren land typically has thin soil, sand or rocks and includes deserts, dry salt flats, beaches, sand dunes, and exposed rocks.
Humans use half of global habitable area for agricultural production (of the remainder, 37 percent is forested; 11 percent as shrubbery; and only one-percent is utilised as urban infrastructure).
More than three-quarters of our agricultural land is used for the rearing of livestock through a combination of grazing land and land used for animal feed production. Despite being dominant in land allocation for agriculture, meat and dairy products supply only 17 percent of global caloric supply and only 33 percent of global protein supply. In other words, the 11 million square kilometres used for crops supply more calories and protein for the global population than the almost 4-times larger area used for livestock.
Visualising land use areas on a global map is perhaps the most relatable way to understand the scale of different land uses across the world. In the chart below we show the graphic displayed above – on the breakdown of global land use & cover – by scale on a global map.
Here, land use groupings are aggregated to show the total surface area allocated for each. Note that these are not used to represent the distribution of each: this figure does not mean the United States is wholly used for livestock, or that Europe comprises only of barren land. It is used to indicate the global areal extent of each land use only.
We see that:
- global land allocated to livestock – either in the form of grazing land or cropland used for animal feed is equivalent to the area of the Americas (North, Central and South America combined);
- cropland (minus land used for the production of animal feed) is equivalent to the area of East Asia-Pacific, extending as far south as Thailand;
- forested area is equal to Africa (minus Libya), the Middle East and South Asia;
- global freshwater (inland water bodies) approximates to the area of Mongolia
- total build-up land (villages, towns, cities & infrastructure) would fit into an area the size of Libya;
- shrub land is equivalent to an area the size of East Asia-Pacific, from Malaysia southwards;
- barren land is equivalent to the size of Europe;
- glaciers (permanent ice & snow) approximates to an area of Antarctica & Greenland combined.
The visualisation below shows human land use over the long-term (since 10,000 BC), and details the change in total land used for cropland, grazing land and built-up/urban area in hectares. This can also be viewed by select countries and all regions using the “change country/region” option below.
The visualisation below shows total land used for agriculture (which is a combination of cropland and grazing land) over the long-term, measured in hectares. In the following sections you can find disaggregated data for cropland and grazing land change over time.
The visualisation below shows total cropland (which does not include land for grazing) over the long-term, measured in hectares.
The visualisation below shows total grazing land over the long-term, measured in hectares.
We use roughly half of global habitable land for agriculture. But how much of total land area is utilised for agriculture across the world? In the map below we see the share of total (both habitable and non-habitable) land area used for agriculture from 1961-2014.
There is large variability in the share of land a given country uses for agriculture. Allocation ranges from less than ten percent, particularly across countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Scandinavian region to close to 80 percent across most regions (including the UK, Uruguay, South Africa, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia). It’s important to note that this metric includes both land used for arable (cropland) production and pasture land for livestock grazing; this means that agriculture can consume a large share of land area, even in arid and semi-arid regions where extensive arable farming is not possible. We will explore this difference in cropland and pastureland in the following section.
If we view the map below in “chart” mode, we see how the allocation of land to agriculture has changed over time across the global regions. The share of land used for agriculture has been slowly increasing across most of the world’s regions over the past few decades. However, land use across Europe and Central Asia- particularly within the European Union (EU) zone- and North America has been declining.
There are two main uses of agricultural land: arable farming (which is land dedicated to growing crops), and pastureland (which includes meadows and pastures used for livestock rearing). In the chart below we see a global map of land used for arable agriculture (as a share of total land area).
For most countries, as we will show in the section below, land use for livestock grazing is dominant relative to arable farming. For most countries, land dedicated to cropland is typically below 20 percent, with many countries dedicating less than 10 percent. There are some notable exceptions, however; countries in South Asia and Europe allocate a large share of land area to arable farming. India, Bangladesh, Ukraine and Denmark all dedicated more than half of total land area to cropland in 2015.
For most countries, the majority of agricultural land is used for livestock rearing in the form of pastureland. In the map below we see the share of permanent meadows and pasture as a percentage of total land area.
As a contrast to arable farming, land use for livestock in Europe and South Asia, in particular, is typically less than 20 percent. However, most continental regions have countries where pastureland reaches close to half of total land area. In some countries (particularly in Central Asia, including Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan) this can reach up to 70 percent. Livestock farming can take place across a range of diverse climatic and environmental regions (for example, ranging from cattle rearing in temperate regions to sheep farming in hilly and semi-arid terrain); meaning that this type of agriculture is potentially less geographically-constrained than arable farming.
The visualisation below shows the change in the average cropland use per person over the long-term (since 10,000 BC), measured in hectares per person.
Global population has more than doubled over the last 50 years. To meet the demands of a rapidly growing population on a planet with finite land resources, reducing our per capita land footprint is essential.
In the chart below we have plotted trends of the average arable land use per person across the world’s regions. Overall we see that the arable land use per capita has declined across all regions since 1961. Per capita land use is highest in North America– more than double the land use of any other region. Land use in Asia– both in South and East Asia is lowest (5-6 times less than in North America). Rates of reduction in South Asia have been the most dramatic; per capita land use in 2014 was roughly one-third of its value in 1961.
The visualisation below shows the change in the average agricultural land use (which is the sum of cropland and grazing area) per person over the long-term (since 10,000 BC), measured in hectares per person.
If we extend our land coverage above from arable land use to total agricultural land (which is the sum of arable, permanent crops and pastures and meadows), we still see overall declines in land per person but with different rates and patterns of reduction. Overall, we see that agricultural land per person is higher than that of arable land. At the global level, per capita agricultural land use is now less than half its value in 1961.
Africa in particular has seen dramatic reductions in agricultural land per person – now less than one-third of per capita land 50 years ago. The Americas (North and South) and Africa have notably higher per capita agricultural land use relative to Europe and Asia.
In the chart below we see the global area of land use in agriculture by major crop types, from 1961 to 2014. Overall, we see that the majority of our arable land is used for cereal production; this has grown from around 650 to 720 million hectares (an area roughly twice the size of Germany) over this period. The total land area used for coarse grains has remained approximately constant over this 50 year period, and is the 2nd largest user of arable land.
The most dramatic increase in land allocation is in the production of oilcrops. Total land area used for oilcrop production has increased almost 3-fold since 1961– an area just short of the size of Mexico. All other crop types take up less than 100 million hectares of global area.
The amount of land required to produce food has wide variations depending on the product–this is especially true when differentiating crops and animal products. In the chart below we have plotted the average land required (sometimes termed the “land footprint”) to produce one gram of protein across a range of food types.
At the bottom of the scale, we see that cereal crops typically have a small land impact per unit of protein (although such protein is often lacking in some essential amino acids). At the upper end of the spectrum we find meat products, with the land required for beef or mutton up to 100 times larger than cereals. However, it’s important to note the differences in land required across the meat products: poultry and pork have a land footprint 8-10 times lower than that of beef. This means individuals can make notable reductions in the environmental impact of their diets simply by substituting lower-impact meat products for beef or mutton.
Is the expansion of global agricultural land likely to continue in the coming decades? In the chart below we see the trends of global land under arable and permanent crops from 1961-2014, in addition to UN FAO projections of arable land use through to 2050. This projection is published in the FAO’s World agriculture towards 2030/2050 Report.1
The FAO predicts that global arable land use will continue to grow to 2050, however, this is likely that this rate of expansion (towards eventual decline) will be at a slower rate than over the past 50 years. Most of this growth is projected to result from developing countries, meanwhile arable land use in developed countries is likely to continue its decline.
This FAO projection of continued arable land expansion through to 2050 was disputed by Ausubel, Wernick & Waggoner in a widely-discussed paper in 2013 which predicted we had reached a global peak in farmland use in 2009.2
The authors, which only had land use data available to 2009 predicted we had reached ‘peak farmland’, with continued decline in arable land use of around 0.2 percent per year from 2010-2060.
In the chart below we have plotted this ‘peak and decline’ projection but have extended actual land use trends through to the year 2014. As we see, over the period 2009-2014, arable land use has continued to increase, diverging from Ausubel’s earlier projection. Whilst premature, the authors’ model for estimating arable land requirements provides a useful explanation of the variables which will determine at what date we reach this peak. We discuss these determinants, and where Ausubel’s predictions diverge from actual trends here.
The projections of farmland above are limited in scope to land used for crop production (i.e. arable land plus land under permanent crop production). These estimates do not include land used for grazing and livestock production.
The chart below maps a range of published estimates of total agricultural area over time (which is the sum of arable land and permanent crops, plus permanent meadows and pastures for grazing). You can note that the areal extent of our agricultural land is significantly larger than that of the farmland analysed above (about three times larger). These estimates come from a range of sources, including the UN FAO, OECD and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Also shown is the actual agricultural areal extent from 1980 onwards, as reported by the UN Food and Agricultural Organization.
Some projections vary significantly – for example, the MEA scenario 1 suggests that the world will not peak in agricultural land prior to 2050. However, most projections suggest a peaking of land expansion in the timespan between 2020 and 2040. Our measured agricultural area appears to be most closely aligned to the FAO/IMAGE projection, which is characterised by a very slow increase in areal extent over the coming decades before peaking around 2040.
The quantity of land required for arable agriculture is determined by a range of factors relating to population, dietary consumption, and food system dynamics/productivity. As we discussed earlier in the entry, Ausubel, Wernick & Waggoner (2013) applied a simplified model of these variables to predict when the world would reach ‘peak farmland’.3
Ausubel defines it as the IMPACT model, where land use is determined by five key variables:
- P = Population (number of people to feed)
- A = Affluence (in GDP per capita)
- C1 = Consumption 1 (in kcal/GDP), where kcal refers to the annual national or global food supply in kilocalories from both vegetal and animal sources. C1 provides a measure of how much our kilocalorie (i.e. food) intake increases (or decreases) as we get richer or poorer.
- C2 = Consumption 2 (in Crop Production Index [PIN]/kcal) using the FAO Crop Production Index, which measures the relative level of aggregate volume of agricultural crop production indexed to a base year. C2 tracks the ratio of crop production for food, feed, fuel, fiber, and tobacco to the supply of food calories. This means it provides a measure of how much food is produced relative to how much food is eaten (i.e. the efficiency of the system in delivering food from the field to peoples’ plates). If we reallocate more food towards feed and fuel, for example, we would have to continue increasing agricultural output to ensure food supplies remain adequate.
- T = Technology (in hectares/Crop PIN) tracks how much land farmers use relative to total crop value. This is a measure of agricultural yield/productivity.
We are therefore left with the equation, where:
Im (arable land in hectares) = P * A * C1 * C2* T
Or the rate of change in arable land is equal to the sum of the rates of change in these variables (in percent per year):
im = p + a + c1 + c2 + t
In order to assess why Ausubel et al. (2013) predicted we would reach ‘peak farmland’ prematurely, we assessed how their predicted values for each of the variables differed from actual values over the period 2009-2014. It should be noted that the authors derived their rate of decline (at 0.2 percent per year) based on an average prediction over the period 2010-2060; therefore a divergence from this value over the first 5-year period does not necessarily confirm these averaged predictions to be false.
In the table below, we provide a comparison of the values used in Ausubel’s projection, and our own analysis of changes in these variables from 2009-2014 (measured in percent change per year). Whilst Ausubel predicted a 0.2 percent decline in arable land area per year, our analysis suggests a 0.37 percent increase per year over this 5-year period. This correlates very closely to the actual land in land use; FAO figures suggest this also grew at 0.37 percent per year.
|Variable||Ausubel prediction (2010-2060)||OWID analysis (2009-2014)||Actual change in land (2009-2014)|
|Affluence (GDP per capita)||1.80%||1.8%|
|Food supply/GDP (kcal/GDP)||-1.60%||-1.4%|
|Total change in arable land (per year)||-0.20%||0.37%||0.37%|
The following discussions on global land use (particularly in relation to agriculture) cover a number of definitions and combined categories. It is therefore useful to understand the differences between land use terminology; for example, the definition of “arable land” versus “agricultural land”.
To provide some clarity on the definitions used here (and the common terminology within the literature) we have visualised these land use categories and groupings in the chart below. Also shown are the definitions of each. The groupings and definitions shown below are based on the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and should therefore be consistent with most international data sources.
The Land Area of the World is 13,003 million ha. 4,889 million ha are classified as ‘agricultural area’ by the FAO (this is 37.6% of the Land Area).
The agricultural area use is divided into 3 categories: arable land (28% of the global agricultural area), permanent crops (3%) and permanent meadows and pastures (69%) which account for the largest share of the world’s agricultural area.4
What do these words mean?
The agricultural area is the sum of arable land, permanent crops, permanent meadows and pastures.
The FAO definition for arable land is land under temporary agricultural crops (multiple-cropped areas are counted only once), temporary meadows for mowing or pasture, land under market and kitchen gardens and land temporarily fallow (less than five years). The abandoned land resulting from shifting cultivation is not included in this category. Data for “Arable land” are not meant to indicate the amount of land that is potentially cultivable.'5
The same source defines permanent crops as follows: ‘Permanent crops are divided into temporary and permanent crops. Permanent crops are sown or planted once, and then occupy the land for some years and need not be replanted after each annual harvest, such as cocoa, coffee and rubber. This category includes flowering shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees and vines, but excludes trees grown for wood or timber. And again from the same source the definition for permanent meadows and pastures is ‘land used permanently (five years or more) to grow herbaceous forage crops, either cultivated or growing wild (wild prairie or grazing land).’
The FAO definition for fallow land is ‘the cultivated land that is not seeded for one or more growing seasons. The maximum idle period is usually less than five years.’