Measuring land use impacts of national dietary guidelines: a scoping review of methods, trade-offs and policy implications.

Environmental research. Food systems Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-07-28 DOI:10.1088/2976-601X/ae7089
Niamh M Kelly, Viola King Forbes, Rebecca Wells, Richard Pearson, Kelly Parsons, Christian Reynolds
{"title":"Measuring land use impacts of national dietary guidelines: a scoping review of methods, trade-offs and policy implications.","authors":"Niamh M Kelly, Viola King Forbes, Rebecca Wells, Richard Pearson, Kelly Parsons, Christian Reynolds","doi":"10.1088/2976-601X/ae7089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background.</i> As agriculture uses a substantial proportion of the world's habitable land, it is important to consider how the food we eat, and different dietary patterns, impact the pressures put on land. <i>Aim.</i> This scoping review aims to 1. explore the approaches to measuring potential land use impacts of aligning diets or the food supply with national dietary guidelines, 2. summarise the additional environmental factors included in these studies, and specifically how often biodiversity is included, 3. identify policy recommendations made. <i>Method.</i> The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework was used to identify studies measuring potential land use changes of shifting national diets or the food supply towards national dietary guidelines. Only official national dietary guidelines were included. Due to heterogeneity in how dietary and environmental impacts were calculated, results are represented in terms of increases and decreases, rather than average percentage change. <i>Results.</i> Of the forty-five papers included, only 4 measured biodiversity impacts, compared to 35 measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 24 water, and 10 fertiliser use. Most studies used life cycle assessment to measure the potential land use and environmental impacts. All studies found an increase in fruit and vegetables would be needed to meet dietary guidelines, and all but two found a reduction in meat is required. Papers mostly reported reduction in resource in land use and GHGs (28/45 and 22/35 papers, respectively). Impacts on water, energy and biodiversity, which were less frequently included, were more mixed. Over half of the papers included policy recommendations (<i>n</i> = 29), with the most being to incorporate sustainability into dietary guidelines. <i>Conclusion.</i> A wider range of environmental outcomes should be included when assessing the environmental sustainability of dietary changes to get a more holistic view of the potential trade-offs and co-benefits that need to be navigated with these dietary shifts.</p>","PeriodicalId":520363,"journal":{"name":"Environmental research. Food systems","volume":"3 3","pages":"032002"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13408334/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental research. Food systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/2976-601X/ae7089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. As agriculture uses a substantial proportion of the world's habitable land, it is important to consider how the food we eat, and different dietary patterns, impact the pressures put on land. Aim. This scoping review aims to 1. explore the approaches to measuring potential land use impacts of aligning diets or the food supply with national dietary guidelines, 2. summarise the additional environmental factors included in these studies, and specifically how often biodiversity is included, 3. identify policy recommendations made. Method. The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework was used to identify studies measuring potential land use changes of shifting national diets or the food supply towards national dietary guidelines. Only official national dietary guidelines were included. Due to heterogeneity in how dietary and environmental impacts were calculated, results are represented in terms of increases and decreases, rather than average percentage change. Results. Of the forty-five papers included, only 4 measured biodiversity impacts, compared to 35 measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 24 water, and 10 fertiliser use. Most studies used life cycle assessment to measure the potential land use and environmental impacts. All studies found an increase in fruit and vegetables would be needed to meet dietary guidelines, and all but two found a reduction in meat is required. Papers mostly reported reduction in resource in land use and GHGs (28/45 and 22/35 papers, respectively). Impacts on water, energy and biodiversity, which were less frequently included, were more mixed. Over half of the papers included policy recommendations (n = 29), with the most being to incorporate sustainability into dietary guidelines. Conclusion. A wider range of environmental outcomes should be included when assessing the environmental sustainability of dietary changes to get a more holistic view of the potential trade-offs and co-benefits that need to be navigated with these dietary shifts.

衡量国家膳食指南对土地利用的影响:对方法、权衡和政策影响的范围审查。
背景。由于农业使用了世界上相当大比例的可居住土地,考虑我们所吃的食物和不同的饮食模式如何影响对土地的压力是很重要的。的目标。这个范围审查的目的是:1。探索测量饮食或食品供应与国家膳食指南相一致的潜在土地利用影响的方法,2。2 .总结这些研究中包括的其他环境因素,特别是生物多样性被包括在内的频率。确定已提出的政策建议。方法。乔安娜布里格斯研究所的范围审查框架被用来确定测量国家饮食或食品供应向国家饮食指南转变的潜在土地利用变化的研究。只包括官方的国家膳食指南。由于饮食和环境影响的计算方式存在异质性,结果以增加和减少来表示,而不是平均百分比变化。结果。在纳入的45篇论文中,只有4篇测量了生物多样性的影响,而有35篇测量了温室气体(GHG)排放,24篇测量了水,10篇测量了肥料的使用。大多数研究使用生命周期评估来衡量潜在的土地利用和环境影响。所有的研究都发现,为了满足饮食指南,需要增加水果和蔬菜的摄入量,除了两项研究外,其他研究都发现需要减少肉类的摄入量。大部分论文报告了土地利用和温室气体资源的减少(分别为28/45和22/35)。对水、能源和生物多样性的影响较少,但更为复杂。超过一半的论文包括政策建议(n = 29),其中大多数是将可持续性纳入饮食指南。结论。在评估饮食变化的环境可持续性时,应包括更广泛的环境结果,以便更全面地了解这些饮食变化需要考虑的潜在权衡和共同利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书