A global synthesis of 148 land-consolidation cases across 28 countries shows that consolidating farmland into larger operations can deliver consistent economic gains while deepening biodiversity loss and social inequality. The review categorizes the outcomes as benefits, negative impacts, trade-offs, or synergies across economic, environmental, and social dimensions, and aligns them with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It finds that most assessments remain single-dimensional, obscuring cross-dimensional trade-offs. Biodiversity declined in 81% of the assessed cases, and 57% reported increased social inequality. Importantly, projects that embed ecological conservation in their design report cross-dimensional synergies far more often than intensification-only projects, showing that land consolidation is not automatically a pathway to sustainable intensification.
Agriculture faces a triple challenge: producing enough food, staying within planetary boundaries and sustaining rural livelihoods. Sustainable intensification is widely proposed as a response, and land consolidation—reorganizing parcel and tenure structures—is increasingly promoted as a structural tool for achieving it. Yet evidence has remained fragmented. Most studies assess a single dimension, usually economic, while environmental and social consequences are overlooked or poorly quantified. Because the same reorganization can generate gains in one dimension and losses in another, single-outcome assessments cannot reveal the trade-offs and synergies that shape real-world sustainability. Based on these challenges, a deeper investigation of how land consolidation can be redesigned to deliver economic, environmental and social gains together is urgently needed.
Researchers from Nanjing University, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou University and The University of Queensland report the findings, published (DOI: 10.1016/j.ese.2026.100778) online 15 October 2026 in Environmental Science and Ecotechnology . The team systematically screened 972 records and analyzed 137 peer-reviewed studies covering 148 cases in 28 countries. They systematically coded economic, environmental and social outcomes across dimensions, mapped them to the SDGs and examined how project type, governance and rural population change relate to benefits, negative impacts, trade-offs and synergies.
Across the 148 cases, 65% assessed only one sustainability dimension; just 23% documented synergies and 15% trade-offs across dimensions. Economic benefits were the most consistent: agricultural capacity, land-use efficiency, income and farm infrastructure frequently improved. Environmental and social results were more mixed and often negative. Biodiversity fell in 81% of assessed cases, and 57% reported greater social inequality, with smallholders and rural communities often bearing the costs. SDG mapping showed positive outcomes most often linked to No Poverty (SDG 1), Zero Hunger (SDG 2), Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8) and Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (SDG 9), while negative outcomes clustered around Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10) and Life on Land (SDG 15). Project design mattered. Intensification-only projects produced benefits and negative impacts at similar rates (35% each), but projects combining intensification with ecological conservation reported synergies in 42% of cases and negative impacts in only 12%. Combining intensification with village renewal generated both synergies and trade-offs (30% each), reflecting gains in rural services alongside social and environmental disruption. Higher-income countries reported a broader SDG range, including Planet goals; lower-income countries focused on People and Prosperity goals.
The authors said the results challenge the assumption that parcel enlargement is inherently sustainable. They said land consolidation can be a powerful economic tool, but its environmental and social costs are too consistent to treat as side effects. They said projects that build ecological conservation and tenure security into design from the outset create more synergies and fewer trade-offs, whereas intensification-only or poorly integrated village-renewal schemes can lock in deficits. They said the evidence base remains geographically concentrated and needs more multidimensional, mechanism-focused studies, especially in lower-income settings where Planet-related outcomes are rarely assessed.
The findings imply that land consolidation should shift from yield-maximizing parcel enlargement toward integrated landscape stewardship. Governments and development agencies should embed ecological restoration, habitat connectivity, soil and water conservation, tenure security and social safeguards in project design from the outset, rather than add them after economic targets are set. Multidimensional monitoring—covering biodiversity, inequality, livelihoods and SDGs—should be mandatory, with particular attention to smallholders and lower-income settings. The authors argue that future programs should be evaluated prospectively and across comparable units so that trade-offs can be managed, not merely documented. For policy, the message is that economic gains alone are an incomplete test of success; sustainability requires designing land consolidation for landscape-scale outcomes and equitable rural development.
###
References
DOI
Original Source URL
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2026.100778
Funding i nformation
This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (NO.2024YFD1600700), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42271259, 42371284, and 42401329), the National Foundation for Australia-China Relations (NFACR230210).
About Environmental Science and Ecotechnology
Environmental Science and Ecotechnology (ISSN 2666-4984) is an international, peer-reviewed, and open-access journal published by Elsevier. The journal publishes significant views and research across the full spectrum of ecology and environmental sciences, such as climate change, sustainability, biodiversity conservation, environment & health, green catalysis/processing for pollution control, and AI-driven environmental engineering. The latest impact factor of ESE is 14.3, according to the Journal Citation ReportsTM 2024.
Environmental Science and Ecotechnology
Not applicable
Global land consolidation deepens biodiversity and social deficits despite economic gains
15-Oct-2026
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.