Abstract
Summary Tropical forest landscapes face competing demands for conserving biodiversity, sustaining ecosystem services and accommodating production systems such as forestry and agriculture. Land‐sparing and land‐sharing have emerged as contrasting strategies to manage trade‐offs between production and biodiversity conservation. Both strategies are evident in land‐management policies at local‐to‐international scales. However, studies rarely report the impacts of these strategies, assessed for multiple stakeholders and multiple ecosystem services, particularly in real landscapes. Using a case study from a high‐priority region for forest protection, restoration and rural development in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, we analysed the potential outcomes under 10 alternative policy scenarios, including land‐sharing, land‐sparing and mixed strategies. We used a novel optimization process integrating integer programming with conservation‐planning software (Marxan with Zones) to identify production possibility frontiers (PPFs), highlighting the trade‐off between smallholder agriculture and oil palm, subject to achievement of a set of carbon, timber and biodiversity conservation targets. All policy scenarios modelled proved to be capable of achieving all targets simultaneously. Most strategies resulted in an expansion of the PPF from the baseline, increasing the flexibility of land allocation to achieve all targets. Mixed strategies gave the greatest flexibility to achieve targets, followed closely by land‐sparing. Land‐sharing only performed better than the baseline when no yield penalties were incurred, and resulted in PPF contraction otherwise. Strategies assessed required a minimum of 29–37% to be placed in conservation zones, notably protecting the majority of remaining forest, but requiring little reforestation. Policy implications. Production possibility frontiers (PPFs) can evaluate a broad spectrum of land‐use policy options. When using targets sought by multiple stakeholders within an ecosystem services framework, PPFs can characterize biophysical, socio‐economic and institutional dimensions of policy trade‐offs in heterogeneous landscapes. All 10 policy strategies assessed in our case study are biophysically capable of achieving all stakeholder objectives, provided at least 29–37% of the landscape is conserved for biodiversity. This novel methodological approach provides practical options for systematic analysis in complex, multifunctional landscapes, and could, when integrated within a larger planning and implementation process, inform the design of land‐use policies that maximize stakeholder satisfaction and minimize conflict.
Highlights
Agricultural development, including intensification and expansion of agricultural land use and management, is a primary driver of forest and biodiversity loss in tropical forests (Rudel et al 2009; DeFries et al 2010; Hosonuma et al 2012)
The production possibility frontiers (PPFs) analysis revealed that all 10 strategies had the potential to achieve all targets simultaneously (Fig. 3)
The best performing strategy was the strongest mixed strategy (MIXC), closely followed by the strongest landsparing strategy that had a large improvement in yield in agricultural areas (SPAREC)
Summary
Agricultural development, including intensification and expansion of agricultural land use and management, is a primary driver of forest and biodiversity loss in tropical forests (Rudel et al 2009; DeFries et al 2010; Hosonuma et al 2012). In many tropical countries where developing and sustaining agricultural economies are both economic and political priorities, the production–biodiversity conservation trade-off is becoming increasingly critical and complex to manage (Hamblin 2009; Laurance, Sayer & Cassman 2014; Newbold et al 2015) In such ‘multifunctional’ landscapes, where many stakeholders seek a variety of benefits, target achievement for multiple objectives is likely to entail competition and conflict between stakeholder groups (McShane et al 2011; Law et al 2015a,c). Landsparing involves specialization of land uses, setting aside land primarily for conservation, for example in protected forests, and implies intensification of agriculture elsewhere to compensate for a reduction in area available for production (Green et al 2005; Fischer et al 2008; Phalan et al 2011, 2016). Land-sharing strategies may, in some cases, result in lower agricultural yield or profit (relative to pursuing high-yield agriculture), and create pressure to increase the area under agricultural production to enable meeting the demand for food and fibre (Green et al 2005)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.