IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v111y2021ics0264837721004877.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The land footprint of the global food trade: Perspectives from a case study of soybeans

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Xiaoxuan
  • Yu, Le
  • Cai, Wenjia
  • Ding, Qun
  • Hu, Weixun
  • Peng, Dailiang
  • Li, Wei
  • Zhou, Zheng
  • Huang, Xiaomeng
  • Yu, Chaoqing
  • Gong, Peng

Abstract

The potential adverse impact of international trade on the environment has received growing attention in recent years. Growing environmental pressure poses significant challenges to sustainable development, further highlighting the need for a comprehensive response to tackling the unsustainable food use driven by the soybean trade. Although a significant amount of literature on trade-related land footprints already exists, globally, there has been only a limited amount of research seeking to identify the main issues related to agriculturally driven land-use change and food trade flows that have high land-use impacts. In addition, existing research does not fully reveal the ecological significance of land footprints but instead focuses mainly on physical quantities. There have been few studies that shed any light on the underlying correlations between environmental footprints and the food trade. To address these challenges, in this study, a multi-region input-output (MRIO) model was used to study agricultural land use and changes in carbon losses related to the soybean trade along global supply chains in 2013; the bilateral flows of land and economic value between countries were also modeled. The empirical results of this research indicate that the total land footprint embodied in the global soybean trade in 2013 amounted to 16.51 Mha. Globally, China used the most land resources for the soybean trade and accounted for 9.69 Mha of this footprint. The countries where the soybean trade had the greatest impact on the land and the economy were the USA and Brazil, where 6.74 Mha and 5.76 Mha of land were used for soybeans, respectively. Most of the soybeans from these countries were exported to China. The situation on the supply side was similar as China was also ranked in the top ten countries on the supply side; however, its supply-side land footprint was sufficient to meet internal demand. To further assess the environmental impact of the international soybean trade, carbon loss values (represented by the loss of carbon sequestration capacity) were estimated for the soybean trade at a country level. The total global carbon loss and the social cost of carbon due to the soybean trade in 2013 were estimated at $93.27 billion and $15.48 billion, respectively, with Brazil, the USA, and other countries in South America having the largest figures. It was found that, following a peak in the expansion of the amount of cropland used for planting soybeans, these ecological costs had declined since 2005. Based on these results, we suggest that soybean exporting countries should focus more on improving land-use efficiency and ecological protection in order to minimize the net land footprint of soybeans.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Xiaoxuan & Yu, Le & Cai, Wenjia & Ding, Qun & Hu, Weixun & Peng, Dailiang & Li, Wei & Zhou, Zheng & Huang, Xiaomeng & Yu, Chaoqing & Gong, Peng, 2021. "The land footprint of the global food trade: Perspectives from a case study of soybeans," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:111:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004877
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105764
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721004877
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105764?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Faria, Weslem Rodrigues & Almeida, Alexandre Nunes, 2016. "Relationship between openness to trade and deforestation: Empirical evidence from the Brazilian Amazon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 85-97.
    2. Zhenci Xu & Yingjie Li & Sophia N. Chau & Thomas Dietz & Canbing Li & Luwen Wan & Jindong Zhang & Liwei Zhang & Yunkai Li & Min Gon Chung & Jianguo Liu, 2020. "Impacts of international trade on global sustainable development," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 3(11), pages 964-971, November.
    3. Qiang, Wenli & Niu, Shuwen & Liu, Aimin & Kastner, Thomas & Bie, Qiang & Wang, Xiang & Cheng, Shengkui, 2020. "Trends in global virtual land trade in relation to agricultural products," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Wurtenberger, Laura & Koellner, Thomas & Binder, Claudia R., 2006. "Virtual land use and agricultural trade: Estimating environmental and socio-economic impacts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 679-697, June.
    5. Taheripour, Farzad & Richards, Peter & Tyner, Wallace E., 2019. "Trade War: Global land use implications of Chinese tariffs on US agricultural products," 2019 Annual Meeting, July 21-23, Atlanta, Georgia 291073, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Richards, Peter D., 2012. "Exchange Rates, Soybean Supply Response, and Deforestation in South America," Graduate Research Master's Degree Plan B Papers 138606, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    7. ChaoQing Yu & Xiao Huang & Han Chen & H. Charles J. Godfray & Jonathon S. Wright & Jim W. Hall & Peng Gong & ShaoQiang Ni & ShengChao Qiao & GuoRui Huang & YuChen Xiao & Jie Zhang & Zhao Feng & XiaoTa, 2019. "Managing nitrogen to restore water quality in China," Nature, Nature, vol. 567(7749), pages 516-520, March.
    8. Manfred Lenzen & Daniel Moran & Keiichiro Kanemoto & Arne Geschke, 2013. "Building Eora: A Global Multi-Region Input-Output Database At High Country And Sector Resolution," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 20-49, March.
    9. Kissinger, Meidad & Rees, William E., 2009. "Footprints on the prairies: Degradation and sustainability of Canadian agricultural land in a globalizing world," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2309-2315, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaomei Fan & Hongguang Liu & Mengmeng Wang, 2022. "Study on the Agricultural Land Transfer Embodied in Inter-Provincial Trade in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-15, April.
    2. Giovanni Bausano & Mauro Masiero & Mirco Migliavacca & Davide Pettenella & Paul Rougieux, 2023. "Food, biofuels or cosmetics? Land-use, deforestation and CO2 emissions embodied in the palm oil consumption of four European countries: a biophysical accounting approach," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-31, December.
    3. Ji, Xi & Su, Pinyi & Liu, Yifang & Wu, Guowei & Wu, Xudong, 2023. "Mutual complementarity of arable land use in the Sino-Africa trade: Evidence from the global supply chain," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kissinger, Meidad & Rees, William E., 2010. "An interregional ecological approach for modelling sustainability in a globalizing world—Reviewing existing approaches and emerging directions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(21), pages 2615-2623.
    2. Kan, Siyi & Chen, Bin & Han, Mengyao & Hayat, Tasawar & Alsulami, Hamed & Chen, Guoqian, 2021. "China’s forest land use change in the globalized world economy: Foreign trade and unequal household consumption," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    3. Han, M.Y. & Chen, G.Q. & Dunford, M., 2019. "Land use balance for urban economy: A multi-scale and multi-type perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 323-333.
    4. Han, Mengyao & Chen, Guoqian, 2018. "Global arable land transfers embodied in Mainland China’s foreign trade," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 521-534.
    5. Dongni Han & Deyong Yu & Jiangxiao Qiu, 2023. "Assessing coupling interactions in a safe and just operating space for regional sustainability," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Li, Chaohui & Wu, Xudong & Chen, Guoqian & Han, Mengyao & Chen, Kuang & Yangzong, Ciren & Lo, Dan & Alsaedi, Ahmed & Hayat, Tasawar, 2021. "Pastureland use of China: Accounting variations from different input-output analyses," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2011. "Measuring and locating footprints: A case study of Taiwan's rice and wheat consumption footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 191-201.
    8. Huijuan Xiao & Sheng Bao & Jingzheng Ren & Zhenci Xu & Song Xue & Jianguo Liu, 2024. "Global transboundary synergies and trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals from an integrated sustainability perspective," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Bruckner, Martin & Fischer, Günther & Tramberend, Sylvia & Giljum, Stefan, 2015. "Measuring telecouplings in the global land system: A review and comparative evaluation of land footprint accounting methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 11-21.
    10. Su, Dan & Cao, Yu & Wang, Jiayi & Fang, Xiaoqian & Wu, Qing, 2023. "Toward constructing an eco-account of cultivated land by quantifying the resources flow and eco-asset transfer in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    11. Daniel Moran & Richard Wood, 2014. "Convergence Between The Eora, Wiod, Exiobase, And Openeu'S Consumption-Based Carbon Accounts," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 245-261, September.
    12. Kastner, Thomas & Kastner, Michael & Nonhebel, Sanderine, 2011. "Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1032-1040, April.
    13. Gideon Ndubuisi & Solomon Owusu, 2021. "How important is GVC participation to export upgrading?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(10), pages 2887-2908, October.
    14. Heng Liu & Caizhu Huang & Heng Lian & Xia Cui, 2023. "Hierarchical Spatially Varying Coefficient Process Regression for Modeling Net Anthropogenic Nitrogen Inputs (NANI) from the Watershed of the Yangtze River, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-15, August.
    15. Jun Nakatani & Tamon Maruyama & Kosuke Fukuchi & Yuichi Moriguchi, 2015. "A Practical Approach to Screening Potential Environmental Hotspots of Different Impact Categories in Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-15, August.
    16. Francesco Bandarin & Enrico Ciciotti & Marco Cremaschi & Giovanna Madera & Paolo Perulli & Diana Shendrikova, 2020. "Which Future for Cities after COVID-19 An international Survey," Reports, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, October.
    17. Martinico-Perez, Marianne Faith G. & Schandl, Heinz & Fishman, Tomer & Tanikawa, Hiroki, 2018. "The Socio-Economic Metabolism of an Emerging Economy: Monitoring Progress of Decoupling of Economic Growth and Environmental Pressures in the Philippines," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 155-166.
    18. Lorenzo Caliendo & Robert C. Feenstra & John Romalis & Alan M. Taylor, 2015. "Tariff Reductions, Entry, and Welfare: Theory and Evidence for the Last Two Decades," NBER Working Papers 21768, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Yongke Yuan & Yitong Wang & Jialin Li & Mengwan Zhang, 2023. "Input-output Table and Input-output Model of Import and Export Internalization," Advances in Management and Applied Economics, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15.
    20. Piñero, Pablo & Heikkinen, Mari & Mäenpää, Ilmo & Pongrácz, Eva, 2015. "Sector aggregation bias in environmentally extended input output modeling of raw material flows in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 217-229.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:111:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004877. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.