Land sharing versus land sparing—What outcomes are compared between which land uses?

Sidemo Holm, William; Ekroos, Johan; Smith, Henrik G. (2021-06-16). Land sharing versus land sparing—What outcomes are compared between which land uses?. Conservation Science and Practice, 3, (11)
Download:
DOI:
| Published | English
Authors:
Sidemo Holm, William ; Ekroos, Johan ; Smith, Henrik G.
Department:
AgriFood Economics Centre, Lund University School of Economics and Management
Biodiversity and Conservation Science
BECC: Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in a Changing Climate
Centre for Environmental and Climate Science (CEC)
Lund university sustainability forum
Biodiversity
Research Group:
Biodiversity and Conservation Science
Abstract:
Land sharing versus land sparing describes contrasting strategies to conserve biodiversity while maintaining agricultural production. We comprehensively reviewed empirical studies comparing land-sharing and land-sparing strategies to assess how these were conceptualized and how consequences for biodiver- sity, commodity production, and additional ecosystem services have been quantified. Out of 52 studies, a majority conceptualized land sharing as environmental-friendly agriculture or low-yielding agriculture, and land spar- ing as high-yielding agriculture combined with preserved natural habitats. However, the latter also represented land sharing in several studies, resulting in an overlap in how land sharing and land sparing were conceptualized. Stud- ies focuses on a limited number of taxonomic groups, primarily birds, whereas ecosystem services (mainly carbon storage) and economic outcomes were rarely considered. To facilitate comparisons and on-the-ground implementa- tion, we suggest to recognize the multitude of land-use combinations along a continuum from extreme land sharing to extreme land sparing. This includes being explicit about both the spatial scales of preserved habitats and the features in land sharing or intermediate strategies that are assumed to benefit biodiversity and hamper commodity production. We also suggest that taxonomic groups, ecosystem services, and welfare consequences should be analyzed based on conservation needs and impacts on social–ecological systems.
Keywords:
Environmental Sciences related to Agriculture and Land-use ; Ecology
ISSN:
2578-4854
LUP-ID:
182ddcbf-6611-4b2c-9c0d-15efe96ab924 | Link: https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/182ddcbf-6611-4b2c-9c0d-15efe96ab924 | Statistics

Cite this