Extensive land use, the best strategy for reversing depopulation and protecting nature

In the 1920s, Spain was a place where its population was spread out in a mosaic of farmlands, land used for livestock and meadows. Today, this image has changed radically and the rural areas of Spain, according to data from the Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública, have already lost 5.3 million inhabitants between 1960 and 2021. In views of this scenario, one of the most important goals of policy-makers has been to reverse this situation. Nevertheless, at a moment in which there is a crisis in biodiversity, having people return to the rural areas can also be seen as a threat to nature conservation. Is there a way in which both issues can be resolved? For the first time, science has analysed this conundrum from an ecological perspective and concluded that the most favourable scenario would be an extensive use of the land. This is the main conclusion of a review article recently published in People and Nature of the British Ecological Society which, under the leadership of CREAF and the UAB, also included experts from other institutions.

“We see that fostering extensive land use makes it possible for people to stay in smaller towns, because there are job opportunities and local commerce. And, at the same time, there is a positive impact on the surrounding natural environment or, at least, it lowers the risk of negative effects, by favouring silvopastoral systems and the capacity to reduce the risk of fires, or in agroecology, which provides food for the population, but also reduces land and water contamination”, explains Paco Lloret, researcher at CREAF and at the Area of Ecology of the Department of Animal Biology, Plant Biology and Ecology, UAB, and first author of the study. Extensive land use includes a wide range of activities with positive effects on the natural and social environment while fostering a local and sustainable economy, through agrotourism, e.g., birdwatching tours; extensive livestock raising and silvopastoral systems, which are benificial for pastures, birds and butterflies; ecological or regenerative agriculture, which reduces the need for chemical fertilisers and lowers the amount of contaminants, revives the soil and stores more CO₂, or the diversification of renewable solar and wind energy throughout the region. At the same time it includes initiatives to restore natural processes such as enhancing the use of vegetation covers.

To reach this conclusion, the authors created a new methodology with which they analysed five scenarios in different areas of inland Spain: (1) continuing as before and not carrying out any strategy, which means maintaining policies that lead to abandonment and generate different environmental impacts; (2) implementing exclusively conservationist policies to increase natural areas; (3) promoting intensive activities, such as large extensions of monocultures, intensive livestock farming, energy facilities or coal-based industries; (4) maintaining the landscape as it is currently distributed, so as to preserve natural habitats, crops and pastures as we find them today, or, finally, (5) promoting an extensive use of the land. Under these scenarios they have evaluated, reviewing the scientific literature that exists in this regard in Spain, whether five ecological indicators improve or worsen: biodiversity, CO₂ storage, pollution, water reserves and soil conservation, as well as the demographic trend in rural areas, i.e., whether the population grows, decreases or is maintained. “The analysis has not focused on specific localities,” Lloret states.

No universal solution

“Our results indicate that there is no solution that 'gets an A' in all indicators, but the extensive use of the land is the option that shows the most positive trend, both in the population and ecological indicators,” says MNCN-CSIC researcher Fernando Valladares. In addition, this scenario can be combined with others, it all depends on the objective and the reality of each area. “This methodology precisely helps us to analyse what happens if we take one route or another,” explains Lloret. For example, if the main objective is to preserve certain species in a natural park, the priority there is to implement conservation policies, and that may involve restricting human activity. As a result of this action, indicators of biodiversity, water reserves and soil conservation will increase greatly, “but we must bear in mind that in this scenario the population trend is negative,” Lloret says.

The intensification option is the one to score worst in all environmental indicators, since, among other things, it increases pollution and raises the amount of nitrates in the soil, reduces biodiversity, simplifies ecosystems and causes the loss of insects and pollinators, and decreases water reserves without generating an increase in population. “It is true that intensification can increase the population, but not as much as in the case of extensive activities, and, moreover, this improvement is often transitory.” Regarding the option to continue as before and do nothing, the authors point out that this does not solve the problem of depopulation, which continues at an accelerated rate.

As for the scenario of keeping habitats static, the authors explain that, despite a positive trend in several indicators, it is not the best strategy. The reason? Ecosystems are dynamic and not a fixed postcard. For example, the current climatic and pollution context is very different from the 1920s, when there was a lot of pressure on the land due to overexploitation of livestock, agricultural activity, irrigation or timber extraction, which caused deforestation and soil erosion. However, there are elements of our biodiversity, such as certain species of birds, like the Montagu's harrier, and butterflies that need more open spaces, and which are a legacy of the interaction of people with the territory. “Therefore, to look to the future it is key to know how our ancestors modified the landscape and the species linked to cultural history; understanding their origin can also help us to preserve them. But also to know in what context we find ourselves today,” explains Adrián Escudero, researcher at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos.

“We hope that the land administrators will use the methodology we have developed when making decisions aimed at reducing rural abandonment,” concludes Lloret.

The research was signed by Paco Lloret, as first author, from CREAF and the UAB; Adrián Escudero, researcher from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos; Joan Lloret from the Instituto de Geociencias-CSIC and the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and Fernando Valladares from the Museo Nacional de Ciencias CSIC.

Original article: Lloret, F., Escudero, A., Lloret, J., & Valladares, F. (2024). An ecological perspective for analysing rural depopulation and abandonment. People and Nature, 6, 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10606