Overwhelming evidence shows that overconsumption of meat is bad for human and environmental health and that moving towards a more plant-based diet is more sustainable. For instance, replacing beef with beans in the US could free up 42% of US cropland and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 334 mmt, accomplishing 75% of the 2020 carbon reduction target. We summarise the evidence on how overconsumption of meat affects social, environmental and economic sustainability. We highlight the social, environmental and economic effectiveness of a range of dietary interventions that have been tested to date. Because meat eating is embedded within complex cultural, economic, and political systems, dietary shifts to reduce overconsumption are unlikely to happen quickly and a suite of sustained, context-specific interventions is likely to work better than brief, one-dimensional approaches. We conclude with key actions needed by global leaders in politics, industry and the health sector that could help aide this dietary transformation to benefit people and the planet.

Creation of protected areas to conserve biodiversity can have both positive and negative impacts, with impacts unequally distributed within local communities. A global shift towards local community involvement in protected area governance and co-management has aimed to reduce costs of protected area establishment and their uneven distribution. Yet, there is mixed evidence to support whether such initiatives are succeeding. Here, a protected area in Madagascar is used as a case study to explore how co-management governance processes impact upon livelihood strategies and outcomes, and how these impacts are distributed within and between villages. Focus groups, interviews and questionnaires were conducted in 2015/16 with households surrounding a protected area, co-managed by local community associations and a national NGO. Data analysis was framed around the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. The majority of respondents perceived negative livelihood outcomes, and impacts were unevenly distributed between social groups. Respondents were more likely to report negative livelihood outcomes if they were from remote villages, poorer households and reliant on provisioning ecosystem services before protected area establishment. Qualitative data showed that the main drivers of this were protected area-related rules and regulations restricting forest activities. Drivers of improved livelihood outcomes were training and materials improving agricultural yields and increased community cohesion. Although co-managed protected areas may be overall more effective in meeting biological and socio-economic goals than protected areas of other governance types, the evidence here suggests that governance processes can lead to local perceptions of inequity.

The Indonesian government committed to restoring over 2 million ha of degraded peatland by the end of 2020, mainly to reduce peat fires and greenhouse gas emissions. Although it is unlikely the government will meet this target, restoration projects are still underway. One restoration strategy involves blocking peatland drainage canals, but the consequences of this for smallholder farmers whose livelihoods are dependent on agriculture are unclear. This paper investigates perceived impacts of canal blocks on smallholder farmers and identifies factors that affect their willingness to accept canal blocks on their land. We use data from 181 household questionnaires collected in 2018 across three villages in Jambi province, Sumatra. We found that the majority of respondents would accept canal blocks on their farms, perceiving that the blocks would have no impact on yields or farm access, and would decrease fire risk. Respondents who would not accept blocks on their farms were more likely to use canals to access their farms and perceive that canal blocks would decrease yields. The majority of farmers unwilling to accept canal blocks did not change their mind when provided with an option of a block that would allow boat travel. Our results improve understanding of why some smallholders may be unwilling to engage with peatland restoration. Further research is needed to understand the impact of canal blocks on smallholders’ yields. Engaging with stakeholders from the outset to understand farmers’ concerns, and perceptions is key if the government is to succeed in meeting its peatland restoration target and to ensure that the costs and benefits of restoration are evenly shared between local stakeholders and other actors.

Protected areas (PAs) are a frequently used conservation strategy, yet their socioeconomic impacts on local communities remain contentious. A shift toward increased participation by local communities in PA governance seeks to deliver benefits for human well‐being and biodiversity. Although participation is considered critical to the success of PAs, few researchers have investigated individuals’ decisions to participate and what this means for how local people experience the costs and benefits of conservation. We explored who participates in PA governance associations and why; the perceived benefits and costs to participation; and how costs and benefits are distributed within and between communities. Methods included 3 focus groups, 37 interviews, and 217 questionnaire surveys conducted in 3 communities and other stakeholders (e.g., employees of a nongovernmental organization and government officials) in PA governance in Madagascar. Our study design was grounded in the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the most commonly applied behavior model in social psychology. Participation in PA governance was limited by miscommunication and lack of knowledge about who could get involved and how. Respondents perceived limited benefits and high costs and uneven distribution of these within and between communities. Men, poorer households, and people in remote villages reported the highest costs. Our findings illustrate challenges related to comanagement of PAs: understanding the heterogeneous nature of communities; ensuring all households are represented in governance participation; understanding differences in the meaning of forest protection; and targeting interventions to reach households most in need to avoid elite capture.

Greenspaces facilitate well‐being benefits for humans in several ways including through cognitive restoration, physical exercise and social interaction. However, some groups are under‐represented in greenspaces, including women, older people, those with health conditions, people with lower socioeconomic status and people from ethnic minority backgrounds, and so are less likely to accrue these benefits. Using thematic analysis and semi‐structured interviews with 40 individuals from under‐represented groups in Leeds, UK, we explore (1) a range of perceived barriers to greenspace access, (2) how spending time in greenspace contributes to well‐being for these groups, (3) the perceived positive and negative aspects of greenspace, (4) what impact COVID‐19 had on access to greenspace and (5) how greenspaces could be improved. We also highlight inter‐group differences and how some barriers disproportionately affect some of the groups in this study. Safety concerns were particularly important for women and people with low incomes, which included problems with anti‐social behaviour (e.g. incivilities and disorder). Cultural barriers were also evident with ethnic minority participants often citing concerns about dogs and issues with visibility and prejudice. Participants desired physical improvements to the quality of greenspaces, along with easier access and transport options, changes in policy regarding dogs and increased security and park wardens to limit anti‐social behaviour. We argue that to increase visitation for under‐represented groups, upgrades in the physical environment must be coupled with harnessing community involvement and co‐design. Some group differences and tensions in greenspaces, and problems with anti‐social behaviours and safety concerns might be limited by more considerate planning and incorporating research findings that address these tensions through intergroup contact. Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog.