in Ecology

Global evidence synthesis on land-use change and zoonotic risks

187 Views


Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted the growing threat of zoonotic diseases, often exacerbated by land-use changes such as deforestation and habitat fragmentation. We conducted a systematic literature review (2000–2024) to assess how different types of land-use change affect zoonotic disease transmission, summarizing key findings and trends in geographic focus on the vectors/hosts/reservoirs and pathogens studied, in addition to identifying research gaps. We also evaluated the potential of restoration interventions to mitigate disease risks. Our analysis shows that land-use changes such as deforestation and urbanization often increase transmission risks, particularly for diseases transmitted by mosquitos and rodents, while some restoration strategies (for example, reforestation and wetland conservation) can reduce these risks. However, effects vary by disease group and region. The literature remains geographically biased, with most studies concentrated in wealthier regions despite higher disease burdens in low-income areas. We propose 50 high-priority locations, primarily in Western Africa and Southeast Asia, for future research. Our findings are available through an open-access online atlas, which includes supporting case studies and policy briefs to inform One Health-oriented restoration planning.

Access through your institution

Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Temporal and geographic distributions of published studies.
Fig. 2: Geographic distributions of study themes, vectors/hosts/reservoirs and pathogens.
Fig. 3: Effects of LUC and biodiversity–disease relationships.
Fig. 4: Priority sites with NFR.
Fig. 5: Online evidence atlas.

Similar content being viewed by others

Anthropogenic land consolidation intensifies zoonotic host diversity loss and disease transmission in human habitats

Article

18 November 2024

Adaptive ecosystem restoration to mitigate zoonotic risks

Article

07 October 2025

Population fluctuations and synanthropy explain transmission risk in rodent-borne zoonoses

Article
Open access
07 December 2022

Data availability

The data that support the findings in this study can be found in Supplementary Tables 6 and 8.

Code availability

The code used for the analysis in this study is available via GitHub at https://github.com/adamjohnfell/RestoreID_Project.

References

  1. Córdoba-Aguilar, A., Ibarra-Cerdeña, C. N., Castro-Arellano, I. & Suzan, G. Tackling zoonoses in a crowded world: lessons to be learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Trop. 214, 105780 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  2. Petrovan, S. O. et al. Post COVID-19: a solution scan of options for preventing future zoonotic epidemics. Biol. Rev. 96, 2694–2715 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  3. Redding, D. W., Moses, L. M., Cunningham, A. A., Wood, J. & Jones, K. E. Environmental-mechanistic modelling of the impact of global change on human zoonotic disease emergence: a case study of Lassa fever. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 646–655 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rahman, M. T. et al. Zoonotic diseases: etiology, impact, and control. Microorganisms 8, 1405 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  5. Richards, F. et al. Economic burden of COVID-19: a systematic review. Clin. Outcomes Res. 14, 293–307 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  6. Magouras, I. et al. Emerging zoonotic diseases: should we rethink the animal–human interface? Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 582743 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burton, A. C. et al. Mammal responses to global changes in human activity vary by trophic group and landscape. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 924–935 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  8. Plowright, R. K. et al. Land use-induced spillover: a call to action to safeguard environmental, animal, and human health. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e237–e245 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ellis, E. C. et al. People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2023483118 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ma, J., Li, J., Wu, W. & Liu, J. Global forest fragmentation change from 2000 to 2020. Nat. Commun. 14, 3752 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hassell, J. M., Begon, M., Ward, M. J. & Fèvre, E. M. Urbanization and disease emergence: dynamics at the wildlife–livestock–human interface. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 55–67 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  12. White, R. J. & Razgour, O. Emerging zoonotic diseases originating in mammals: a systematic review of effects of anthropogenic land-use change. Mammal Rev. 50, 336–352 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  13. Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (IPBES, 2020); https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4147317

  14. Glidden, C. K. et al. Human-mediated impacts on biodiversity and the consequences for zoonotic disease spillover. Curr. Biol. 31, R1342–R1361 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  15. Aguirre, A. A. & Tabor, G. M. Global factors driving emerging infectious diseases: impact on wildlife populations. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1149, 1–3 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  16. Keesing, F. & Ostfeld, R. S. Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2023540118 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  17. Schmidt, K. A. & Ostfeld, R. S. Biodiversity and the dilution effect in disease ecology. Ecology 82, 609–619 (2001).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  18. Halliday, F. W., Rohr, J. R. & Laine, A. Biodiversity loss underlies the dilution effect of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1611–1622 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  19. Benayas, J. M. R., Newton, A. C., Diaz, A. & Bullock, J. M. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325, 1121–1124 (2009).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gastauer, M. et al. Large-scale forest restoration generates comprehensive biodiversity gains in an Amazonian mining site. J. Clean. Prod. 443, 140959 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vourc’h, G., Plantard, O. & Morand, S. in New Frontiers of Molecular Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases (eds Morand, S. et al.) 291–309 (Springer, 2012); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2114-2_13

  22. Johnson, P. T. J., Calhoun, D. M., Riepe, T., McDevitt-Galles, T. & Koprivnikar, J. Community disassembly and disease: realistic—but not randomized—biodiversity losses enhance parasite transmission. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20190260 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wood, C. L. & Lafferty, K. D. Biodiversity and disease: a synthesis of ecological perspectives on Lyme disease transmission. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 239–247 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wood, C. L. et al. Does biodiversity protect humans against infectious disease?. Ecology 95, 817–832 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rosenstock, T. S. et al. A planetary health perspective on agroforestry in sub-Saharan Africa. One Earth 1, 330–344 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  26. Heylen, D. et al. Ticks and tick-borne diseases in the city: role of landscape connectivity and green space characteristics in a metropolitan area. Sci. Total Environ. 670, 941–949 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  27. De Cock, M. P. et al. Increased rat-borne zoonotic disease hazard in greener urban areas. Sci. Total Environ. 896, 165069 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  28. Isbell, F., Tilman, D., Reich, P. B. & Clark, A. T. Deficits of biodiversity and productivity linger a century after agricultural abandonment. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1533–1538 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bartels, S. F. & Macdonald, S. E. Dynamics and recovery of forest understory biodiversity over 17 years following varying levels of retention harvesting. J. Appl. Ecol. 60, 725–736 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mahon, M. B. et al. A meta-analysis on global change drivers and the risk of infectious disease. Nature 629, 830–836 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wilson, K. A. et al. Conservation research is not happening where it is most needed. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002413 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nuñez, M. A. & Amano, T. Monolingual searches can limit and bias results in global literature reviews. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 264–264 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  33. Aronson, J. et al. Are socioeconomic benefits of restoration adequately quantified? A meta-analysis of recent papers (2000–2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 other scientific journals. Restor. Ecol. 18, 143–154 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  34. Grace, D., Gilbert, J., Randolph, T. & Kang’ethe, E. The multiple burdens of zoonotic disease and an ecohealth approach to their assessment. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 44, 67–73 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  35. Magalhães, A. R. et al. Neglected tropical diseases risk correlates with poverty and early ecosystem destruction. Infect. Dis. Poverty 12, 32 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  36. Destoumieux-Garzón, D. et al. The One Health concept: 10 years old and a long road ahead. Front. Vet. Sci. 5, 14 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fryatt, R., Mills, A. & Nordstrom, A. Financing of health systems to achieve the health Millennium Development Goals in low-income countries. Lancet 375, 419–426 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jagadesh, S. et al. Biodiversity and Pandemics: Interdisciplinary Research and Action Priorities Eklipse Evidence Report (Eklipse, 2023); https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.10039876

  39. Seoraj-Pillai, N. & Pillay, N. A meta-analysis of human–wildlife conflict: South African and global perspectives. Sustainability 9, 34 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dzingirai, V. et al. Zoonotic diseases: who gets sick, and why? Explorations from Africa. Crit. Public Health 27, 97–110 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  41. Braczkowski, A. R. et al. The unequal burden of human–wildlife conflict. Commun. Biol. 6, 182 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  42. LeJeune, J. & Kersting, A. Zoonoses: an occupational hazard for livestock workers and a public health concern for rural communities. J. Agric. Saf. Health 16, 161–179 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kurpiers, L. A., Schulte-Herbrüggen, B., Ejotre, I. & Reeder, D. M. in Problematic Wildlife (ed. Angelici, F. M.) 507–551 (Springer, 2016); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22246-2_24

  44. Häsler, B. et al. in One Health: The Human–Animal–Environment Interfaces in Emerging Infectious Diseases (eds Mackenzie, J. S. et al.) Vol. 365, 127–151 (Springer, 2012).

  45. Grace, D. & Cook, E. in Zoonoses: Infections Affecting Humans and Animals (ed. Sing, A.) 1–13 (Springer, 2023); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85877-3_46-1

  46. Dzingirai, V. et al. Structural drivers of vulnerability to zoonotic disease in Africa. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160169 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  47. Franklinos, L. H. V., Jones, K. E., Redding, D. W. & Abubakar, I. The effect of global change on mosquito-borne disease. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19, e302–e312 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kilpatrick, A. M. & Randolph, S. E. Drivers, dynamics, and control of emerging vector-borne zoonotic diseases. Lancet 380, 1946–1955 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  49. Morand, S. et al. Changing landscapes of Southeast Asia and rodent-borne diseases: decreased diversity but increased transmission risks. Ecol. Appl. 29, e01886 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  50. Fischer, L., Gültekin, N., Kaelin, M. B., Fehr, J. & Schlagenhauf, P. Rising temperature and its impact on receptivity to malaria transmission in Europe: a systematic review. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 36, 101815 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  51. Millins, C. et al. Effects of conservation management of landscapes and vertebrate communities on Lyme borreliosis risk in the United Kingdom. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20160123 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kessy, S. T., Makundi, R. H., Sabuni, C., Massawe, A. W. & Rija, A. A. Rodent abundance, diversity and community structure in a bubonic plague endemic area, northern Tanzania. Mammalia 87, 488–498 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ramanantsalama, R. V., Goodman, S. M., Dietrich, M. & Lebarbenchon, C. Interaction between Old World fruit bats and humans: from large scale ecosystem services to zoonotic diseases. Acta Trop. 231, 106462 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  54. Aronson, J., Goodwin, N., Orlando, L., Eisenberg, C. & Cross, A. T. A world of possibilities: six restoration strategies to support the United Nation’s Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restor. Ecol. 28, 730–736 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mansourian, S. & Sgard, A. Diverse interpretations of governance and their relevance to forest landscape restoration. Land Use Policy 104, 104011 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  56. Reed, M. S. et al. A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restor. Ecol. 26, S7–S17 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  57. Chazdon, R. L. et al. Fostering natural forest regeneration on former agricultural land through economic and policy interventions. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 043002 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  58. Haddaway, N. R., Woodcock, P., Macura, B. & Collins, A. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1596–1605 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  59. Dicks, L. et al. Knowledge Synthesis for Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation of Existing Methods, and Guidance for Their Selection, Use and Development: A Report from the EKLIPSE Project (EKLIPSE, 2017); http://www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/apps/Eklipse_data/website/EKLIPSE_D3-1-Report_FINAL_WithCovers_V6.pdf

  60. James, K. L., Randall, N. P. & Haddaway, N. R. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ. Evid. 5, 7 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z. & Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 5, 210 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  62. Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br. Med. J. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 (2021).

  63. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).

  64. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2024).

  65. Gu, Z. Complex heatmap visualization. iMeta 1, e43 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  66. Vieilledent, G. et al. Hierarchical Bayesian species distribution models with the hSDM R package. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=hSDM (2015).

  67. Jagadesh, S., Zhao, C., Mulchandani, R. & Van Boeckel, T. P. Mapping global bushmeat activities to improve zoonotic spillover surveillance by using geospatial modeling. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 29, 742–750 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  68. Haddaway, N. R. et al. EviAtlas: a tool for visualising evidence synthesis databases. Environ. Evid. 8, 22 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  69. Chang, W. et al. Shiny: Web Application Framework for R. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=shiny (2024).

  70. Criscuolo, N. G., Pires, J., Zhao, C. & Van Boeckel, T. P. resistancebank.org, an open-access repository for surveys of antimicrobial resistance in animals. Sci. Data 8, 189 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  71. Cheng, J. et al. leaflet: Create Interactive Web Maps with the JavaScript ‘Leaflet’ Library (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the RestoreID project and the Alternet-Eklipse project. This paper was supported by funding from the EU Horizon Scheme HORIZON-CL6-2023-BIODIV-01-17 Grant No. 101134969 as part of the RestoreID (Restoring Ecosystems to Stop the Threat of Re-Emerging Infectious Disease) project led by L.K., and from UKRI Horizon Guarantee No. 1010707 to A.B.D. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

    Adam Fell, A. Bradley Duthie & Nils Bunnefeld

  2. Alternet-Eklipse, Brussels, Belgium

    Soushieta Jagadesh & Nils Bunnefeld

  3. International Society for Infectious Diseases, Boston, MA, USA

    Soushieta Jagadesh

  4. School of Environmental and Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

    Luci Kirkpatrick

Authors

  1. Adam Fell
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Soushieta Jagadesh
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Bradley Duthie
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luci Kirkpatrick
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nils Bunnefeld
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conceptualization of the research. A.F. and S.J. collected the data and conducted the analysis. A.F. and S.J. led the writing of the draft paper. All authors contributed critically to the revisions of the paper and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Adam Fell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Alexandre Caron, Michel de Garine-Wichatitsky, Paige Van de Vuurst, Yingying Wang and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–3 and Tables 1–7.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Table 8

Detailed information on each of the 173 studies used in this publication. This includes, but is not limited to, specific diseases, pathogens, vectors/hosts/reservoirs and UN Sustainable Development Goal regions.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fell, A., Jagadesh, S., Duthie, A.B. et al. Global evidence synthesis on land-use change and zoonotic risks.
Nat Sustain 9, 142–152 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01750-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01750-2

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Vectorized Agrivoltaics Dataset in China from 2010 to 2022

Genome wide data recover hierarchical genetic structure and help define conservation units for the threatened Asian Houbara