Human presence is a necessary part of the solution for environmental conservation and land use

Throughout history, overpopulation has consistently been recognised as a significant issue, causing concern even among early civilisations. In certain societies, such as the Neanderthal, Maori, Fijian and Congolese, cannibalism emerged to control population and provide a source of sustenance for the rest of the tribe (Culotta, 1999; Rubinstein, 2004). The Greeks were also among the first to raise awareness about the problem of overpopulation, expressing concerns about food supplies and population growth (Harrow, 1996). Even parts of the Bible can be seen as advocating population control to maintain balance in the world (Ehrlich, 1968), although it can be considered contradictory to the dictum “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1: 28).

These concerns have persisted over time and have been reinforced by the works of influential researchers on public policies. Examples include The Population Bomb (Ehrlich, 1968) and The Limits of Growth (Meadows et al., 1972), which made dire predictions about the future of humanity. These concerns continue to be relevant with regular media reports or reports by institutional agencies such as the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) indicating that we have passed the sustainable equilibrium point. Moreover, more extreme predictions are made pointing towards global warming exceeding 5 °C by 2100, undeniably alarming and posing an existential threat to the lives and well-being of billions. Furthermore, despite lacking recognition by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), the concept of the ‘Anthropocene epoch’ is now present in scientific literature.

In the light of these ideas, human activity is often seen as incompatible with the preservation of the planet, and directly affects the continuance of the human population itself (Shukla et al., 2019). This is partly due to the limited availability of agricultural land and political proposals to control anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Although it has been nearly 250 years since Malthus (1798) and 150 years since William Stanley Jevons (Missemer, 2012) sounded the alarm, the message remains the same: humans are the problem.

In this challenging situation, it is apparently difficult to reconcile continued human population growth with environmental conservation or the establishment of protected areas. Around the world, there are various types of such protected areas, including rural parks and marine protected areas, that attempt to balance human presence with environmental conservation. Indeed, some argue that humans should be removed from these areas altogether. In contrast, I aim to demonstrate that the presence of humans in many regions is not detrimental but rather beneficial. Even in densely populated areas such as Europe, humans living in close contact with natural environments should be considered integral to conservation efforts. The issue of overpopulation is often graphically depicted through images of densely populated areas in China or India. However, other densely populated but highly developed areas such as Monaco, Macao, Singapore or Malta are rarely represented in these portrayals.

My discussion explores different examples and briefly evaluate them to illustrate that the conservation of these areas is only possible thanks to human involvement. I discuss whether humans are the problem or the solution to environmental issues, focusing on three different aspects: land abandonment, wildfires, and land expropriation for conservation. Some considerations about the global impact of humans are also highlighted.

Abandonment of agricultural land is a significant land-use change observed in developed countries due to urbanisation, globalisation, and desertification (Geeson et al., 2002). The phenomenon has raised concerns about potential loss of diversity and cultural values (Palmer et al., 2010; Rackham, 2008). Studies suggest that land abandonment is expected to increase in the future (Rounsevell et al., 2006). To give some examples, within the European Union, an annual abandonment rate of 3–4 per cent of total agricultural area has been reported. In Spain, the abandonment rate is projected to reach 0.8 per cent of total agricultural land per year by 2030 (Keenleyside & Tucker, 2010). The government of the Canary Islands (Spain) estimates that approximately 60 per cent of agricultural land in the archipelago has been abandoned in the last few decades.¹ This has happened more extensively since tourism development began in the 1960s. Currently, specific programmes for the recovery of these areas are lacking as a result of difficulties in identifying owners and differences in soil categories and management – even though for many commentators these abandoned lands are considered as opportunities for restoration (Perino et al., 2019).

In the developing world, the cessation of extensive farming has led to a significant increase in dry grasslands and dwarf shrublands on marginal land (Hernández, 1997). Initially, these abandoned fields are prone to erosion due to sparse initial vegetation cover, unfavourable soil properties, and the lack of maintenance of soil and water conservation structures (Gallart et al., 1994; Imeson et al., 1998). Understanding how vegetation and soil properties change in these abandoned fields, as well as how vegetation patterns evolve, is crucial for implementing management programmes focusing on erosion mitigation, restoration, or reforestation (Lesschen et al., 2008). Changes in vegetation patterns can also indicate the onset of desertification in arid areas. However, in some cases land abandonment can have positive effects, such as changes in vegetation cover that can affect water resource availability, soil properties and geodynamics (Lasanta et al., 2006; Ruecker et al., 1998).

In the case of Europe, sustainability requirements and minimum wage regulations in agriculture are making it nearly impossible to maintain productivity. This has shifted the market focus to developing countries and resulted in severe land abandonment in Europe. Taking Spain as an example, the irrigated crops in the Parque Nacional de Doñana area will receive approximately €100,000 per hectare if agricultural activities are abandoned.² This poses a significant threat to the production of crops such as raspberries in the region, where competitive viability is linked to economies of scale. The restriction of cultivated areas will, therefore, dramatically affect productivity due to issues of production scale and increases in fixed costs, while positive effects on the protected areas will be relatively significant.

Another notable example is the case of olive oil in Spain. Spain stands out as the largest producer and exporter of virgin olive oil worldwide. However, the cost of olive oil has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. This surge can be attributed to a combination of factors, including retail purchasing schedules, consumer habits, tax rates, and adverse climate conditions. These factors contribute to increasing vulnerability among the population to cope with challenges of food supply, often due to political decisions.

Fortunately, the growing opposition in Western societies towards traditional agriculture and livestock farming³ may not affect the food supply too much thanks in part to technological advances, such as in the field of artificial meat production. Scientific solutions will counteract possible decisions to impose restrictions on agriculture and livestock to protect the planet's ‘sustainability’. Thus, human technology and development (supported by a substantial human population) could be the answer to the problem.

Since the early twentieth century, fire has been viewed as a disaster to be avoided if possible because of the risk to life and to valuable assets (Kornas, 1958; Molinier, 1968). However, Leopold et al. (1963) highlighted the negative consequences of fire suppression in ecosystems, leading to the recognition of fire as an endogenous factor influenced by community structure and composition (White, 1979). Currently, fire is widely regarded as a natural force in most plant communities, and its natural occurrence should be allowed wherever feasible (Perry, 1994). Indeed, in Mediterranean ecosystems fire is considered a significant influence on vegetation structure (Naveh, 1975; Trabaud, 1994).

Fire has long been a subject of debate and a source of paradoxes, stemming from the apparent contradiction between its controlled use in everyday life and the threat it poses to life and property when uncontrolled. A particular paradox and disruptive element of fire ecology is fire suppression, especially in non-commercial protected forest areas (Arévalo & Naranjo-Cigala, 2018; Fernandes et al., 2011; Silva et al., 2010). The paradox lies in the fact that ‘natural’ fires typically burn a limited number of hectares each year. However, with current fire management practices and conservation, all fires are suppressed for extended periods whenever possible. Consequently, catastrophic forest fires (greater than1,000 hectares as classified in many areas as Europe) can occur in a single event after 10–15 years owing to factors such as biomass accumulation (often due to the lack of human use of these areas), an increase in fire-prone plant species, biomass continuity due to excessive growth of understorey that connects with the canopy, and/or weather conditions.

On the other hand, human casualties resulting from forest fires have decreased in developed countries (although dramatic events are still possible in highly populated areas). This outcome is noteworthy given continuous population growth since the end of the twentieth century, even in developed nations. From this perspective, the link between economic growth, development, and improved safety of citizens becomes apparent. Since 1980, the number of deaths caused by forest fires in the USA has fallen steadily (although some peaks in particular years are evident⁴).

Apart from the ethical issues of land expropriation (Rothbard, 2002) for conservation of forests, coastal areas or grasslands, there are important conservation implications of carrying out such actions. Even if there is a favourable offer from the perspective of the expropriator, the action should be considered illegal in terms of property rights without the agreement of the owner, regardless of the jurisdiction of the area. In this case, we consider that expropriation is the removal of any of the owners' rights to the land by any institutions by force.

Some researchers recommend involving local people in restoration programmes as a more effective way of achieving success than financial incentives (Mazón et al., 2021). Other researchers just focus on financial incentives through tax reductions, public financial benefits, or reductions in tax rates. However, these also have limitations because the bureaucracy of public authorities hinders access to these complex programmes (Górriz et al., 2020).

Promoting biodiversity on privately owned land can be accomplished through various approaches, such as regulatory measures and elevating the standards of care expected from landowners and users towards the conservation of their property. However, the effectiveness of these measures is limited by costs related to monitoring and enforcement. An alternative and potentially more effective strategy would be to encourage the cooperation of landholders. This can be achieved by introducing economic incentives that emphasise the value of biological features on private land, thereby encouraging landholders to perceive them as assets rather than liabilities (Clough, 2000).

The concept of market ecology has been developed in recent decades with several in-depth analyses (e.g. Anderson & Leal, 2001), although primarily focused on the supply and maintenance of resources needed by humans. From an ecological standpoint, the role of the market in conservation for individuals, populations, communities, and ecosystems has also been examined, offering different solutions that are being implemented today (Arévalo, 2021).

While humans have often been seen as the cause of environmental problems, I would like to argue in favour of the idea that humans can be the solution to these problems, as seen in the previous examples. The quantitative and statistical analysis provided by the study conducted by Pooley et al. (2022) demonstrates how societies become wealthier and resources more abundant as the population increases. Using appropriate comparative statistical variables, as defined by these authors, such as price time, the results are extremely consistent, reducing the cost of basic resources as well as increasing abundance due to greater availability. Economists such as Julian Simon (1998) and Bjorn Lomborg (2003) have long recognised that the physical concept of resources as finite and restricted fails to account for the human capacity for adaptation and technological advances. Although some economic and welfare indicators defy numerical analysis, people are actively working towards making the planet a safer and happier place. Numerous indicators have shown dramatic improvements in the quality of life (Lomborg, 2020). Obviously, despite these advances, there are areas on the planet where progress is hindered by geopolitical challenges, leaving them underserved.

There remains a widespread and misleading perception that humanity and its activities are inherently harmful and incapable of managing their negative environmental impact. This perception is even promoted by international organisations that advocate for resource control or population management (Crist et al., 2022), often drawing on the experiences gained during the recent Covid pandemic (Perkins et al., 2021).

Humanity undoubtedly faces numerous environmental challenges. However, the solutions put forward by influential individuals in the case of climate variability, environmental degradation or poverty, such as by King Charles III, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jane Goodall, Greta Thunberg, or by international institutions such as the World Economic Forum, have the potential to jeopardise the quality of life for a significant portion of Western populations or, worse still, to fail to improve the lives of those in the developing world. Garret Hardin's assertion that “the population problem has no technical solution” (Hardin, 1968, p. 1243) has been rendered obsolete by technological advances and improvements in the quality of life for a large sector of the human population.

As mentioned earlier, a well-fed population has the capacity to develop innovative solutions to today's problems, which are likely to differ from the environmental challenges we will face in 50 years' time. It is essential to avoid falling into the trap of William Stanley Jevons's decision to save paper only to speculate on its value, assuming that the world's paper supply is a fixed quantity that cannot grow alongside the continuous expansion of demand (Mosselmans, 2005). We must question such assumptions, which can be considered incoherent and even dangerous.

Evidence of overpopulation as an important determinant for economic growth is usually highlighted in the media as well as by reputed scientists with high social influence using pictures of overcrowded towns in remote parts of India with serious development problems. Scientific literature is also full of warnings from academia, which are often backed by governmental financial support, as mentioned above. However, new schools of thought in science suggest the claims that overpopulation is creating a scarcity of some resources are simplistic (Hendrixson & Hartmann, 2019).

The planet will have to face environmental challenges in the future, but a more economically developed society will have a better chance of solving them. The extinction of well-established societies in the past was partly related to inappropriate use of natural resources, but, more importantly, it was related to the inability of technology to confront the changes (e.g. abandonment of the Mesa Verde by their native habitants in the thirteenth century; Diamond, 1994).

We can better face problems in the future by reminding ourselves that it was only after the beginning of the industrial revolution that GDP rose dramatically together with a significant increase in the population.⁵ This GDP growth has been accompanied by technological development and improvement in the Environmental Performance Index.⁶ As this growth is often linked to climate change, it will be necessary to distinguish strictly between climate scientists and climate activists, a difference that has repeatedly not been made in scientific journals, with the resulting potential for a negative impact on public opinion (Büntgen, 2024).

Based on previous comments, I consider that the most dangerous threat is to take ill-considered decisions without evaluating their impact on the economy. Countries such as Spain that rely significantly on renewable energies are paying a high price. This not only affects citizens' wallets but also has a substantial negative impact on employment levels (Calzada et al., 2010), with an insignificant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

As another example, the energy issue was debated extensively during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 28) held in Dubai in November–December 2023, with surprising but sensible statements from the conference president. He stated that it is impossible to abandon the use of fossil fuels without returning to primitive living conditions. Despite media and political pressure, he attempted to clarify his stance the next day (Carrington & Stockton, 2023).

Nevertheless, the underlying message persists, though fearmongering about apocalyptic global warming is beginning to dissipate. Significantly, in 2023 the European Community classified nuclear energy sources and gas as green energies. Indeed, the data support the COP 28 president's statement. Sixty per cent of electricity is still produced from fossil fuels, while renewable energy sources account for less than 5 per cent excluding hydropower. The International Energy Agency confirms this pattern about energy supply, and what is even more noteworthy is that predictions for the next 30 years suggest that fossil fuels will continue to dominate, although renewables will double, along with nuclear power.⁷

Humans possess remarkable potential to shape a positive future for themselves and the planet. Advances in technology, science, and communications allow us to collaborate globally, fostering a sense of interconnectedness that transcends geographical boundaries. As mentioned earlier, the planet will continuously face significant environmental and social challenges in the future, such as the poverty index, child mortality due to famine or poor water quality, and female mortality during childbirth, which are at unacceptable levels (although a significant decline has continuously occurred since the 1960s correlated with economic development). The proposal made at the COP 28 to allocate thousands of billions of dollars to fight against global warming is not just futile but also immoral (while numerous positive aspects may emerge from such funding, it is imperative to shift the focus from exclusively climate change or overpopulation to other pressing issues). We need to optimise our limited resources (despite the great advances that technological development will offer), and there are many ways to improve the quality of life for planetary citizens and improve environmental conditions (Lomborg, 2023), far better than quixotic attempts to restrain climate change.