Land sharing versus land sparing—What outcomes are compared between which land uses?
(2021) In Conservation Science and Practice 3(11).- 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... (More)
- 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. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/182ddcbf-6611-4b2c-9c0d-15efe96ab924
- author
- Sidemo Holm, William LU ; Ekroos, Johan LU and Smith, Henrik G. LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2021-06-16
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Conservation Science and Practice
- volume
- 3
- issue
- 11
- article number
- e530
- pages
- 11 pages
- publisher
- Wiley
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85121201875
- ISSN
- 2578-4854
- DOI
- 10.1111/csp2.530
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 182ddcbf-6611-4b2c-9c0d-15efe96ab924
- date added to LUP
- 2022-08-28 19:29:35
- date last changed
- 2024-01-03 16:15:36
@article{182ddcbf-6611-4b2c-9c0d-15efe96ab924,
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.}},
author = {{Sidemo Holm, William and Ekroos, Johan and Smith, Henrik G.}},
issn = {{2578-4854}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{06}},
number = {{11}},
publisher = {{Wiley}},
series = {{Conservation Science and Practice}},
title = {{Land sharing versus land sparing—What outcomes are compared between which land uses?}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/csp2.530}},
doi = {{10.1111/csp2.530}},
volume = {{3}},
year = {{2021}},
}