Land Sparing Research Articles

Designing the biodiversity-friendly city of the future: An avian community perspective on land sharing and land sparing

Agricultural land-use change is a key driver of biodiversity loss. Two alternative strategies have been discussed to align biodiversity conservation with agricultural production in landscapes containing agriculture: (i) land sparing, with intensive agriculture strictly separated from natural land, and (ii) land sharing, a mosaic of low-intensity agriculture and natural elements. Sparing builds on high-yielding intensive production to provide more area for natural habitats; sharing aims to support biodiversity within agricultural landscapes by employing wildlife-friendly farming practices. A considerable body of literature addresses conceptual aspects of these strategies, but empirical evidence on how they support biodiversity is scarce. We assessed the empirical evidence by analyzing 57 peer-reviewed articles identified in a systematic literature review, of which only 17 allowed a comparison of the strategies. These 17 articles contained 27 cases of comparisons, of which 52% reported that context-specific solutions combining sharing and sparing performed best, and exclusively focusing on one strategy cannot balance the competing demands of food production and biodiversity. In 41% cases, land sparing performed best and in 7% land sharing. However, these 17 studies almost exclusively focus on specific contexts and metrics (e.g. species population density of tropical forest birds) and the other 40 studies lack important elements for a comparison, such as the assessment of agricultural production performance. The empirical basis is thus sparse and does not support statements claiming that, in general, either land sharing or land sparing strategies are unequivocally better. It rather highlights the importance of context-specific solutions for aligning agricultural production and biodiversity conservation.

The ‘land sparing and land sharing’ framework clarifies how land use can either concentrate intensive activities in specific areas (‘sparing’) or integrate multiple uses across a wider landscape (‘sharing’). Originally developed in agricultural research, it is increasingly relevant to land-use dilemmas across sectors and scales, including urban growth, forestry, and energy. This perspective article explores its potential to support spatial planning. I show that the framework’s key concerns—land-use intensity, multifunctionality, and spatial arrangement—have deep roots in applied geography, planning, and conservation. Coupled with insights from land system science, the framework offers a structure for clarifying trade-offs, anticipate unintended consequences, and guide blended strategies along a sparing–sharing continuum. As its empirical foundations continue to develop, the framework can offer planners a useful lens for exploring land-use trade-offs and comparing alternative development strategies.

Outdoor recreation is one of the most relevant cultural ecosystem services provided by the Romanian forests. The Via Transilvanica (VT) is Romania’s longest marked hiking trail, stretching over 1,400 km from the Danube coast to the Carpathian peaks. Similar to famous routes like the El Camino, it offers diverse landscapes and can be completed in 14 stages, each lasting 3-4 days, on foot, by bicycle, or horseback. The trail has important natural and social impacts, emphasizing the need for environmental preservation. A pilot study was conducted along a trail in 137 km across Bucovina region that accounted for 3699 hectares of forests. The analysis explores three policy scenarios based on land sparing and land sharing frameworks: the first scenario involves complete segregation of forests with high social value (set-aside); the second integrates forest regeneration through active harvesting while protecting forests for social purposes (soft land sparing); and the third focuses on creating buffer zones around the VT trail (strong land sharing approach). Each scenario presents a distinct approach to balancing conservation and social needs. The opportunity cost is calculated from the forest owners’ perspective, considering the planned works and timber extraction volumes obtained from the FMPs for each parcel. The opportunity cost calculation showed that the set-aside scenario incurs the highest opportunity cost of an annual value of €1.2 million for the entire assessed area while soft land sparing translates to €0.8 million per year. The cost of establishing buffer zones ranges from €14,000 to €59,000 per year, depending on the zone’s width. The study identifies the advantages and shortcomings of each scenario, highlighting the need for a flexible and adaptable management strategy. The study emphasizes the main criteria for a sound, data-driven decision-support system to manage forests with high socio-cultural values taking into account both environmental and economic aspects, as well as the needs of forest owners, local communities, and tourists. Further research is needed as to identify the overall opportunity costs of the three scenarios considering the potential economic benefits of the VT trail at the community level.

Finding ways to improve the sustainability of modern agriculture by recovering nature in agricultural landscapes is critical for conserving biodiversity and enhancing human well‐being. Rewilding principles could be applied to any type of landscape, which raises the possibility of employing rewilding approaches in agricultural areas while maintaining some degree of food production therein. Moving beyond the simple dichotomy of land sparing versus land sharing, here we propose a multi‐scale approach that integrates rewilding principles into agricultural landscapes by combining the creation of wilder ecosystems in separate set‐aside recovered areas with the implementation of farming approaches that are more sustainable, such as precision farming, ecologically intensified farming, and extensive farming, in adjacent areas. Adoption of such approaches would allow for more biodiversity elements to persist within the agricultural matrix. We explain how this approach could support the three critical components of rewilded land—dispersal, trophic complexity, and stochastic disturbances—and create agroecological landscapes that are biodiverse, resilient, and functionally connected at multiple scales.

The sole function of cultivated land of agricultural production is insufficient to meet the diverse demands of modern agriculture. To address land-use conflicts and achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of zero hunger and reduced carbon emissions by 2030, this study introduces the theory of land sparing and sharing, uses landscape indices to identify spatially fragmented areas, employs a four-quadrant model to assess the matching status of functional supply and demand, and applies correlation analysis to determine the trade-off/synergy relationships between functions. The results indicate the following: (1) Zhengzhou’s farmland landscape exhibits characteristics of low density, low continuity, and high aggregation, with separation zones and sharing zones accounting for 77% and 23% of the total farmland area, respectively. (2) The multifunctional supply (high in the northeast, low in the southwest) and demand (high in the west, low in the east) of farmland show significant mismatches, with PF and EF exhibiting the most pronounced supply–demand mismatches. The “LS-LD and HS-LD” types of farmland account for the largest proportions, at 39% and 35%, respectively. (3) The study area is divided into four primary types: “PCZ, RLZ, BDZ, and MAZ” to optimize supply–demand relationships and utilization patterns. This study enriches the application of land sparing and sharing in related fields, providing important references for policymakers in optimizing land-use allocation and balancing food and ecological security.

Abstract Population growth, changing consumption preferences, technological advances, globalised trade and environmental influences have all shaped global agriculture. An increasing demand for agricultural commodities has led to greater production through land area expansion and/or intensification (represented here as increasing yields). Yet, the interlinkages between global agricultural expansion and intensification, remain unclear. Here we (1) analyse the spatiotemporal patterns of global cropland changes and crop yield changes at a spatial resolution of 1 km during six decades (1960–2020) and (2) explore the relationship between yield increases and cropland expansion across agroecological country zones by applying a temporal cross-correlation and a Granger causality test. We find that high-income countries have followed a trajectory of yield increase and land contraction on croplands, in accordance with the concept of land sparing and mediated by policy. Conversely, low-income countries have increased yields less but substantially expanded cropland area over time. However, emerging countries in tropical regions (e.g. Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, Colombia, and Malaysia), had both the highest crop yield increases and cropland expansion rates. By analysing the relationship of annual crop yield and cropland area changes, we see potential rebound effects of yield increases in tropical lowlands of low- to middle-income countries. Our results suggest that high-profit crops such as soybean, oil palm and sugar cane have triggered further agricultural expansion into natural ecosystems. Increasing tree crops is the underlying cause of more than half of the global deforestation for cropland expansion. Overall, the relationship between yield increases and expansion on cropland differs by region and is likely affected to varying degrees by political intervention, global trade, technology transfer and climate change.

Metal contaminant risk at active floating photovoltaic sites and future research roadmap.

Reforestation is widely promoted as a nature-based solution for climate change, yet its unintended consequences, such as deforestation leakage, remain under-investigated. This study provides empirical evidence of reforestation-induced leakage in the Brazilian Amazon, using municipality-level panel data from 2000 to 2023 and spatial Durbin panel models to estimate both the magnitude and spatial reach of agricultural displacement. Despite the positive local effects of reforestation projects, we found a significant displacement of deforestation to the vicinity of municipalities. We estimated a statistically significant deforestation leakage effect of approximately 12% from the reforested area, due to the agricultural displacement of cattle ranching activities. Spatial spillovers are strongest within a 150 km radius and within two years after reforestation onset. Sensitivity tests using alternative spatial weight matrices, including distance decay and land rent-weighted specifications, confirm the robustness of these findings. Livestock intensification, proxied by cattle stocking rates, does not significantly mitigate displacement effects, challenging assumptions about land sparing benefits. These results suggest that current carbon market protocols (e.g., Verra, ART-TREES) may improve their leakage analysis to avoid under- or over-estimating net carbon benefits. Incorporating spatial econometric evidence into offset methodologies and reforestation planning can improve climate policy integrity and reduce unintended environmental trade-offs.

ABSTRACTThe transition to agroecosystems promoting biodiversity is currently a major challenge. Agricultural hedgerows are structurally complex field margins with multiple vegetation layers. These semi‐natural linear habitats have significant potential for farmland biodiversity conservation by mitigating the negative impacts of natural and semi‐natural habitat loss and landscape fragmentation. Squamate reptiles are particularly sensitive to habitat structure; however, to date, there is limited information on the importance of hedgerow attributes (microhabitats) and landscape features (hedgerow density) on this group in farming landscapes. Filling this gap is essential to promote agroecosystems favoring biodiversity. To address this, we studied reptile occurrence in an area in western France (Deux‐Sèvres department) that encompasses a diversity of agricultural practices from extensive mixed crop‐livestock to intensive crop production. We monitored species occurrence in 141 transects placed at the base of linear hedgerows, and the structure of each hedgerow as well as the surrounding landscape were described. We found that species occurrence and richness were positively influenced by various hedgerow structure variables including the herbaceous strip margin, the presence of an embankment (talus) and natural ground shelters. Landscape features (high hedgerow density) also positively influence species occurrence by affecting habitat connectivity. Wide hedgerows with enlarged herbaceous strip at their base are at the interface between land sharing (habitats quality) and land sparing (connectivity) strategies within the agricultural matrix and should therefore be maintained or restored whenever possible.

Land use change and agricultural management have a considerable impact on land use patterns and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in dynamic urbanised landscapes. This study evaluated sustainable land allocation strategies in line with the European Green Deal. A constrained cellular automata land use model was employed to assess the impacts of Business-as-Usual (BAU), Land Sharing (LSH), and Land Sparing (LSP) scenarios, using open-access data from Flanders (Belgium). Under BAU, urban expansion reduced unregistered agricultural land by 495 km2, leading to higher GHG emissions despite an 11% increase in green space. LSH increased green space by 36% and enhanced landscape diversity, while LSP improved habitat coherence by 24%. Livestock-related methane (3.09 Mt CO2e) dominated GHG emissions, comprising more than 75% of the total, with cattle responsible for 73% of methane emissions. Nitrous oxide emissions reduced from 1.60 Mt CO2e to 1.44 (BAU), 1.43 (LSP), and 1.42 (LSH) Mt CO2e. Forest sequestration offset up to 34% of total emissions, removing −1.35 Mt CO2e. Green Deal measures mitigated emissions in all scenarios, with LSH achieving the highest gains. The results highlight the need for spatial strategies that integrate sustainable agricultural practices and balance productivity, nature conservation, and climate action under the European Green Deal.

SummaryLand sharing and land sparing are the methods by which farmers can contribute to the protection of the environment and conserve biodiversity, as well as alleviating the impact of climate change and extreme weather events. However, these can reduce production, which have often been achieved through intensive monoculture farming causing long‐term damage to the fertility and structure of the soil. Preservation of biodiversity and the improvement of soil quality increases crop security and the long‐term profitability of farming, while improving the social perception of farmers. Many countries provide subsidies and impose regulations that encourage sustainable agricultural practices, including land fallowing. In this respect, we discuss the concepts of land sharing and land sparing. We outline the potential environmental and social benefits of fallowing agricultural land and restoring natural ecosystems, using concrete examples in European and other countries. We think that it is possible to farm land differently but that would require strong regulations. Tax incentives, research and development subsidies, and programmes for the use of renewable energy sources could also provide positive incentives. Context is crucial and more research is needed to establish whether land sharing or land sparing are the best practices to contribute to sustainable agriculture and ensure a healthy environment for future generations.

Recovery of large yet ecologically important carnivores poses a formidable global challenge. Tiger (Panthera tigris) recovery in India, the world's most populated region, offers a distinct opportunity to evaluate the socio-ecological drivers of megafauna recovery. Tiger occupancy increased by 30% (at 2929 square kilometers per year) over the past two decades, leading to the largest global population occupying ~138,200 square kilometers. Tigers persistently occupied human-free, prey-rich protected areas (35,255 square kilometers) but also colonized proximal connected habitats that were shared with ~60 million people. Tiger absence and extinction were characterized by armed conflict, poverty, and extensive land-use changes. Sparing land for tigers enabled land sharing, provided that socioeconomic prosperity and political stability prevailed. India's tiger recovery offers cautious optimism for megafauna recovery, particularly in the Global South.

ContextForests are vital renewable resources for timber, while also serving as carbon reservoirs and habitats for many terrestrial species. However, there are tradeoffs between timber production and other ecosystem services, such as carbon storage and biodiversity, highlighting the need for new management strategies that more effectively balance these tradeoffs. This case study models the effectiveness of four such strategies, based on a newly proposed management plan for a state forest in coastal Oregon.ObjectivesWe tested the effectiveness of four landscape-scale forest management strategies designed to minimize tradeoffs between timber production, carbon storage, and biodiversity. These strategies include land sparing (spatially separating timber production from conservation), land sharing (integrating timber production with conservation), and two variants of Triad management (dividing forests into intensive, extensive, and reserve areas). This study assesses the long-term impacts of these strategies on timber production, tree and shrub diversity, and carbon storage, while also evaluating how natural disturbances (i.e. wind and fire) and climate change could affect their relative benefits.MethodsWe used the spatially interactive, raster-based forest landscape model, LANDIS-II, to simulate forest succession, management, windthrow, and wildfire under a range of potential climate futures from 2016 until 2100.ResultsOur results demonstrate that while all management strategies ensured sustainable timber production, land sharing promoted the highest occupancy, Shannon diversity index, and biomass of key early and mid-successional tree and shrub species identified by managers for their conservation value. In contrast, Triad management and land sparing tended to maximize carbon storage. Under extreme climate projections, carbon storage was equally compromised across all management strategies and there was a further shift towards Douglas-fir dominance.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this study represents the first modelled comparison of land sharing, land sparing, and Triad management under climate change and natural disturbance regimes. Management strategies differed in their provisioning of carbon, diversity, and plant biomass, and while the relative differences between these benefits remained consistent, all outcomes were negatively affected by climate change. We demonstrate the use of LANDIS-II in strategic forest planning and highlight the necessity of using spatial models for informed decision-making to simultaneously achieve multiple forest management objectives under climate change and disturbances.

One of Georgina Mace's many transformational research contributions was to provide a universally applicable framework for incorporating any or all elements and connections of the natural environment within conventional economic decision-making. We apply this natural capital framework to consider the overall effects of a suite of land-use policy options intended to promote the conservation and renewal of biodiversity. Options considered include sharing, sparing, three-compartment sparing, rewilding and organic farming regimes. Each is assessed in terms of its impact on both domestic and global biodiversity. Reinforced by an empirical application considering land use in Great Britain, we show that while policy has prioritized sharing options, evidence supports land sparing and three-compartment approaches as more efficient, sustainable and equitable alternatives.This article is part of the discussion meeting issue 'Bending the curve towards nature recovery: building on Georgina Mace's legacy for a biodiverse future'.

Abstract The transformation of natural habitats for farming is a major driver of tropical biodiversity loss. To mitigate impacts, two alternatives are promoted: intensifying agriculture to offset protected areas (land sparing) or integrating wildlife‐friendly habitats within farmland (land sharing). In the montane and dry tropics, phylogenetic and functional diversity, which underpin evolutionary values and the provision of ecosystem functioning and services, are best protected by land sparing. A key question is how these components of biodiversity are best conserved in the more stable environments of lowland moist tropical forests. Focusing on cattle farming within the Colombian Amazon, we investigated how the occupancy of 280 bird species varies between forest and pasture spanning gradients of wildlife‐friendly features. We then simulated scenarios of land‐sparing and land‐sharing farming to predict impacts on phylogenetic and functional diversity metrics. Predicted metrics differed marginally between forest and pasture. However, community assembly varied significantly. Wildlife‐friendly pastures were inadequate for most forest‐dependent species, while phylogenetic and functional diversity indices showed minimal variation across gradients of wildlife‐friendly features. Land sparing consistently retained higher levels of Faith's phylogenetic diversity (~30%), functional richness (~20%) and evolutionarily distinct lineages (~40%) than land sharing, and did so across a range of landscape sizes. Securing forest protection through land‐sparing practices remains superior for conserving overall community phylogenetic and functional diversity than land sharing. Synthesis and applications: To minimise the loss of avian phylogenetic diversity and functional traits from farming in the Amazon, it is imperative to protect large blocks of undisturbed and regenerating forests. The intensification required within existing farmlands to make space for spared lands while meeting agricultural demand needs to be sustainable, avoiding long‐term negative impacts on soil quality and other ecosystem services. Policies need to secure the delivery of both actions simultaneously.

Abstract Land degradation due to mismanagement is widespread globally and may threaten the achievement of several UN Sustainable Development Goals. Yet the differences in land productivity degradation under various land management patterns (land sparing vs. land sharing) are poorly known. In this research, we used remote sensing data to develop a machine learning model for assessing the risk of land productivity degradation and interpreted the model using state‐of‐the‐art interpretable artificial intelligence techniques. In 2018, the risk level of land productivity degradation in the agricultural production space of the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration (YRD) was 0.230. More than half of the area was at low risk (68.19% of the area), mainly in mountainous and hilly areas. The degradation risk of the land sharing management pattern is lower than that of the land sparing pattern, but there are significant differences among provinces/municipalities. The four most influential factors for land productivity degradation in YRD were Normalized Vegetation Difference Index, nighttime light, elevation, and nitrogen deposition, which together explained 72.75% of the degradation risk. This study provides a methodological framework for land degradation governance in emerging urban agglomerations. It strongly recommends that policymakers explore locally appropriate land management patterns based on regional contexts.

Enhancing bird conservation in tropical urban parks through land sparing and sharing strategies: Evidence from occupancy data

Integrating biodiversity conservation and food production is vital, particularly in the tropics where many landscapes are highly biodiverse, and where people directly depend on local ecosystems services that are linked to woody vegetation. Thus, it is important to understand how woody vegetation and the benefits associated with it could change under different land-use scenarios. Using a comprehensive, interdisciplinary study in southwestern Ethiopia, we modeled current and future availability of woody plant-based ecosystem services under four scenarios of landscape change. Land-use scenarios with intensified food or cash crop cultivation would lead to the contraction of woody-plant based ecosystem services from farmland to forest patches, increasing pressure on remaining forest patches. This raises questions about the viability of conventional intensification combined with land sparing—where conservation and production are separated—as a viable strategy for conservation in tropical landscapes where woody-plant based ecosystem services are vital to the lives of local communities.

This study investigates the “land sharing” versus “land sparing” dilemma in the context of extensive cattle ranching in Chiapas, Mexico. Employing a comprehensive methodology that synthesizes various systems and uses a normalized matrix for relative priority assessment, we identified several geographic variables as zoning criteria. These criteria encompass the hemerobic index, proximity to structurally intact forests, fire frequency, and terrain slope, aiming to identify areas optimal for conservation. Our results highlight properties with high conservation potential and propose two distinct connectivity scenarios, both excluding currently preserved areas. The analysis focuses on the interplay between connectivity and hemeroby, identifying human-influenced regions within the landscape and emphasizing the importance of tree conservation in agricultural contexts for biodiversity preservation. By tackling the “land sharing” vs. “land sparing” debate, the study underscores the necessity of sustainable livestock practices and the critical role of connectivity in ranching landscapes for ecosystem preservation.