What is the way to assess the effects of land-sparing strategies on biodiversity?

In conjunction with other data on species traits, multispecies, multiseason occupancy modeling81 can be used to assess the interaction between species-specific properties and extinction and colonization dynamics, permitting greater inference about how land-use strategies influence biodiversity.

What is the role of public sector investment in promoting adoption of agroecological?

To promote adoption, public sector investment is also needed for providing education and extension services, as well as financing programs to assist farmers with initial costs of transitioning to agroecological farming systems.

How many people would be fed by the diverting half of the grain crops currently used to feed?

diverting half of the grain crops currently used to feed livestock back to human consumption would provide enough food to feed 2 billion people.

What is the meaning of land sparing in the sparing–sharing framework?

54 However, land sparing in the sparing–sharing framework is intended to refer to protection of contiguous, large blocks of habitat.

Why is it hypothesized that highyielding agriculture will expand into primary forests?

In general, it is hypothesized that highyielding agriculture will expand into primary forests rather than already cleared lands when large areas of unprotected forests suitable for agriculture remain, due to the reduction in transaction costs and social conflicts from negotiating with government alone rather than multiple landholders.

How much of the world’s food is produced by smallholder farmers?

123,124 Smallholder farmers also contribute substantially to global food production, producing an estimated 50–70% of world food.

What is the role of land sparing in the conservation of biodiversity?

governments, nongovernmental organizations, and multinationals are already invoking land sparing for biodiversity conservation as a rationale for policies on agricultural intensification, even though such policies may ultimately further harm biodiversity102 without leading to poverty alleviation.

What is the need for a new framework?

A new framework that orients research and policy toward the most productive science and policy questions and outcomes is urgently needed.

Does the study suggest that land sparing is better for wildlife?

their results suggest that sparing at the scale of small farms would be better for wildlife, assuming profits from IOC versus shade coffee are similar, which was not addressed.

What is the way to define the sparing–sharing continuum?

It is likely that both yields and wildlife friendliness are determined by the specific combination of agricultural practices utilized, and thus defining the sparing–sharing continuum with reference to agricultural practices, rather than yields, would reduce this inherent confusion (Box 1).

(Open Access) Reframing the land‐sparing/land‐sharing debate for biodiversity conservation (2015) | Claire Kremen

Q: What are the contributions in "Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity conservation" ?

In this paper, the authors evaluate the land-sharing/land-sharing framework in terms of its utility for directing research and policy that can contribute to reconciling agricultural land use with biodiversity conservation.

Q: Do more species do better under a land-sparing scenario?

Two seasons Yes Food energy yield and income yieldYes More species, especially range-restricted species and species whose total populations are predicted to decline with increased agriculture, do better under a land-sparing scenario.

UC Berkeley

UC Berkeley Previously Published Works

Title

Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity

conservation.

Permalink

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/954020b1

Journal

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1355(1)

ISSN

0077-8923

Author

Kremen, Claire

Publication Date

2015-10-01

DOI

10.1111/nyas.12845

Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library

University of California

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. ISSN 0077-8923

ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Issue: The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology

Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate

for biodiversity conservation

Claire Kremen

Department of Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, California

Address for correspondence: Claire Kremen, Department of Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management, University of

California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3114. ckremen@berkeley.edu

Conservation biologists are devoting an increasing amount of energy to debating whether land sparing (high-

yielding agriculture on a small land footprint) or land sharing (low-yielding, wildlife-friendly ag riculture on a larger

land footprint) will promote better outcomes for local and global bio diversity. In t urn, concerns are mounting

about how to feed the world, given increasing demands for food. In this review, I evaluate the land-sparing/land-

sharing framework—does the framework stimulate research and policy that can reconcile agricultural land use with

biodiversity conservation, or is a revised framing needed? I review (1) the ecological evidence i n favor of sparing

versus sharing; (2) the evidence from land-use change studies that assesses whether a relationship exists between

agricultural intensiﬁcation and land sparing; and (3) how that relationship may be affected by socioeconomic and

political factors. To address the trade-off between biodiversity conservation and food production, I then ask which

forms of agricultural intensiﬁcation can best feed the world now and in the future. On the basis of my review, I

suggest that the dichotomy of the land-sparing/land-sharing framework limits the realm of future possibilities to

two, largely undesirable, options for conservation. Both large, protected regions and favorable surrounding matrices

are needed to promote biodiversity conservation; they work synergistically and are not mutually exclusive. A “both-

and” framing of large protected areas surrounded by a wildlife-fr iendly matrix suggests different research priorities

from the “either-or” framing of sparing versus sharing. Furthermore, wildlife-friendly farming methods such as

agroecology may be best adapted to provide food for the world’s hungry people.

Keywords: trade-off; agroecology; food sovereignty; population persistence; agr icultural intensiﬁcation

Introduction

Conservation biologists are devoting an increas-

ing amount of energy and attention to debating

whether land sparing (high-yielding agriculture on a

small land footprint) or land sharing (low-yielding,

wildlife-friendly agriculture on a larger land foot-

print) will promote better outcomes for local and

global biodiversity.

Competing demands for land to

produce food, fuel, ﬁber, and other resources place

a critical constraint on nature conservation,

and

these demands are increasing as the human popula-

tion increases in size and afﬂuence, leading to greater

resource consumption

3,4

and greater urgency for

biodiversity conservation. Therefore, determining

how to reconcile agriculture and other extrac tive

land uses with conservation is crucial.

However, some authors have argued that the

land-sharing/land-sparing debate is a “partial trade-

off analysis” that is limited in the variables (goods

and services) and societal values and preferences

considered, and is thus not well suited to inform-

ing real-world land-use decisions.

This review

evaluates the land-sparing/land-sharing (hereafter

sparing–sharing) framework in terms of its utility

for directing research and policy that can contribute

to reconciling agricultural land use with biodiver-

sity conservation. I evaluate the framework on ﬁve

fronts. First, I discuss the terminology of the land-

sharing/land-sparing debate. Second, I ask whether

at the spatial and temporal scale of e cological ﬁeld

studies that have contrasted sparing and sharing it

is possible to assess which approach best promotes

doi: 10.1111/nyas.12845

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. xxxx (2015) 1–25

C

2015 New York Academy of Sciences.

Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate Kremen

species persistence (the key variable). Third, I ask

whether agricultural intensiﬁcation has led to land

and/or nature sparing, and how environmental

policy, socioeconomic context, and globalization

inﬂuence these relationships. Fourth, since the

sharing–sparing debate is often framed as a trade-off

between global ability to protect biodiversity from

extinction or feed the world’s people, I examine what

types of agricultural intensiﬁcation can not only

produce, but also deliver, food to the world’s hungry.

Fifth, I reﬂect on whether the sharing–sparing

debate, as an “either-or” dichotomy, may overly

limit the realm of future possibilities for recon-

ciling human food needs with biodiversity con-

servation. In the extreme, the land-sparing vision

would lead to large nature reserves separated by a

matrix entirely inhospitable to wildlife. Yet decades

of research have pointed to the dangers of creat-

ing isolated nature reserves,

6–10

and conservation

biologists have long recognized the potential pos-

itive role of the matrix for promoting connectiv-

ity, providing partial resources, and inﬂuencing the

fate of species inside reserves.

10–15

In contrast, the

extreme version of land sharing predicts a terrestrial

land surface in which only tiny remnants of natu-

ral habitats remain, encompassed within wildlife-

friendly agriculture. Again, decades of research have

established that many rare, endemic, specialized, or

area-demanding species require large expanses of

wild habitats to survive and could not persist in

such a fragmented landscape, and that trophic cas-

cades and other ecosystem-wide effects can lead to

rapid species loss.

8,16–22

Thus, the sharing–spar ing

dichotomy may force conservation biologists into a

choice between two undesirable alternatives. Instead

of an either-or framework, a “both-and” framework

could lead toward a scenario that most if not all

conservationists could get behind—large protected

areas surrounded by a relatively wildlife-friendly

matrix promoting connectivity through a combina-

tion of favorable land uses and corridors.

23–29

How

to get there is a question worth asking, and getting

there is a goal worth striving for. However, achiev-

ing this goal will require a shift in research priorities,

away from evaluating wh ether land-sharing versus

land-sparing landscapes achieve greater biodiver-

sity conservation, and toward research that exam-

ines which matrix types favor species persistence

in reserves and promote dispersal among reserves;

how policies and governance mechanisms can be

linked to reconcile agricultural production a nd bio-

diversity conservation; and which agricultural man-

agement techniques can simultaneously promote

biodiversity and livelihoods.

The evolution of the land-sparing/

land-sharing debate

The land-sparing argument goes back to Norman

Borlaug, the architect of the Green Revolution.

Borlaug claimed that since 1960, several hundred

million hectares of lands were conserved from agri-

cultural conversion due to broad adoption of Green

Revolution hybrid varieties and chemically inten-

sive farming methods that increased yields.

The

land-sparing argument was combatted by Rudel

et al.,

who found no empirical evidence for

Borlaug’s hypothesis that decreasing prices from ris-

ing yields led to contraction of the agr icultural foot-

print. After accounting for land-market feedbacks

and other complexities, Stevenson et al.

found

that yield increases from the Green Revolution more

likely resulted instead in 18–27 Mha of agricultural

contraction, and only 2 Mha of avoided deforesta-

tion, two orders of magnitude less than the original

Borlaug prediction.

More recently, the sparing–sharing framework

was developed by Green et al.

and Balmford

et al.

in application to species conservation.

Taking both farmed and conserved lands into

consideration, which form of agriculture would

achieve a set agricultural output while sustaining

the largest population sizes of the most species? The

land-sparing strategy advocates segregating nature

conservation from agriculture, using intensive,

high-yielding agricultural production in one

portion of the landscape to meet food demands,

thereby freeing up lands for nature conservation

elsewhere. The land-sharing strategy advocates

accomplishing both biodiversity conservation and

agriculture in the same landscape. Wildlife-friendly

forms of agriculture would use organic and/or

agroecological farming methods that promote

on-farm biodiversity, and/or incorporate more

small patches of natural habitat within the farming

landscape. Wildlife-friendly modes of agriculture

were assumed to suffer a yield penalty;

5,33

course if they did not, then it was recognized

that the combination of nature conservation with

wildlife-friendly agriculture would be optimal.

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. xxxx (2015) 1–25

C

2015 New York Academy of Sciences.

Kremen Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate

Table 1. Ecological studies of land sparing versus land sharing

Biodiversity Length of Intensiﬁcation Reference Results/ Conclusions

Study Where Taxon metric study Extrapolate metric condition studied conclusion justiﬁed?

Land sparing is supported

64 Choco-

Andes,

Colombia

Birds, dung

beetles

Occurrence,

species

richness

(␣ and ␤)

? Yes Proportion of

forest

fragments

within cattle

pastures

Forests Using the same data as

Ref. 43, the authors

analyze how

distance from forest

inﬂuences the

occurrence

probabilities of

species under

sharing and sparing

scenarios. They ﬁnd

that land-sharing

strategies can

support similar

numbers of species

as land-sparing

strategies close to

large forest blocks,

but land-sparing

strategies are

superior across all

distances.

Yes . A g a p in t h e

study is

knowledge of the

dung beetle and

bird communities

within the

woodland

fragments

themselves, which

were not factored

into the

simulations.

a,b

Borneo Birds, dung

beetles,

ants

Abundance,

species

richness

Four seasons Yes Amount of

timber

removed

Yes A larger percentage of

studied species

would have higher

abundances under a

land-sparing

strategy.

Yes , b ut o v e r a l o ng e r

time frame, the

sparing strategy

might lead to

greater isolation

of populations

and extinction

owing to loss of

gene ﬂow and

rescue effects

(henceforth listed

as the “short-term

perspective”).

Costa Rica;

mixed

forest

coffee

land-

scapes

Birds Species

richness,

diversity,

and

similarity

One season No Shade coffee

versus

integrated

open

canopy

(IOC)

coffee

Yes Land sparing at the

scale of small IOC

farms (farms with

sun coffee and a

block of forest or

equivalent area)

works.

Yes, their results

suggest that

sparing at the

scaleofsmall

farms would be

better for wildlife,

assuming proﬁts

from IOC versus

shade coffee are

similar, which was

not addressed.

Whether the same

conclusions

would extrapolate

to much larger

scales with large

blocks of forest

and sun coffee

was not addressed

by this study.

Borneo Birds Abundance,

species

richness,

species

composi-

tion

One season Yes Proportion of

forest

fragments

within oil

palm

Yes Fragments within oil

palm and oil palm

itself has far lower

abundance and

richness of birds

then contiguous

forest.

Yes , b u t s ho r t-t e r m

perspective.

However, in this

case, even small

regions of non-

forest (>80 m)

may arrest

dispersal of forest

birds, suggesting

that land-sharing

approaches might

not help.

a,b

Uganda Birds Population

density

Two seasons Yes Food energy

yield and

income

yield

Yes More species,

especially

range-restricted

species and species

whose total

populations are

predicted to decline

with increased

agriculture, do

better under a

land-sparing

scenario.

Yes , b u t s ho r t-t e r m

perspective.

Continued

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. xxxx (2015) 1–25

C

2015 New York Academy of Sciences.

Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate Kremen

Table 1. Continued

Biodiversity Length of Intensiﬁcation Reference Results/ Conclusions

Study Where Taxon metric study Extrapolate metric condition studied conclusion justiﬁed?

a,b

India,

Ghana

Birds, trees Population

density,

species

richness

1–2 years Yes Yield Yes More species,

especially

range-restricted

species and species

whose total

populations are

predicted to decline

with increased

agriculture, do

better under a

land-sparing

scenario.

Yes , b u t s ho r t -te r m

perspective.

172

Ghana Trees Species

richness

Three seasons No Management

intensiﬁca-

tion index;

yield

Forests Cacao agroforests

contained only 23%

of the species

richness of natural

forests. Therefore

land-sparing

strategies are

needed to conserve

tree biodiversity.

Yes , b u t s ho r t -te r m

perspective.

43 Choco-

Andes,

Colombia

Birds, dung

beetles

Occurrence,

species

richness

(␣ and ␤)

? Yes Proportion of

forest

fragments

within cattle

pastures

Forests Changes in

occurrence under

land-sharing

scenarios were

much larger and

negative for more

species than under

land-sparing

scenarios,

considering up to

80% of the

landscape utilized

for cattle

production.

Yes , b u t s ho r t -te r m

perspective.

Studies of bird

and dung beetles

were not

conducted within

the forest

fragments

themselves, and

these may be

serving as

stepping stones or

providing habitat

resources.

Land sharing is supported

Indonesia Plants,

insects

Species

richness

One year No Percent

canopy

cover and

relationship

to cacao

proﬁtability

Yes Transformation of

forests to

agroforests leads to

alargebiodiversity

loss, but

maintaining

intermediate shade

conditions greatly

promotes

biodiversity relative

to full-sun cacao.

Price differentials

could be made up

through

wildlife-friendly

cacao certiﬁcation

schemes.

Yes . C o l le c t e d

relevant

socioeconomic

data showing the

feasibility of

maintaining shade

conditions within

agroforests.

25 Argentina

Chaco

Birds Species

richness

One season No Gradient of

manage-

ment

intensiﬁca-

tion for

cattle

production,

cattle

live-weight

per hectare

year

Forest fragments

>1000 ha

Intermediate intensity

silvopastoral

systems have only

slightly lower

species richness

then large forest

fragments and

similar yields to

high-intensity

pastures; therefore,

these

wildlife-friendly

measures should be

adopted. However,

forest fragments

also need to be

protected since not

all forest-dependent

species occur in

silvopastures.

Yes .

Indonesia,

cacao

agro-

forestry

Plants,

fungi,

verte-

brates,

inverte-

brates

Species

richness

Two seasons No Yield No Biodiversity of nine

target taxonomic

groups was not

correlated with

yield, except for

herbs, showing that

Yes . S h o w s t ha t

certain

management

practices could

promote high

biodiversity

Continued

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. xxxx (2015) 1–25

C

2015 New York Academy of Sciences.

Reframing the land‐sparing/land‐sharing debate for biodiversity conservation

Figures

Citations

Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people

Trends in Global Agricultural Land Use: Implications for Environmental Health and Food Security

From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems

Land sparing versus land sharing: Moving forward

Benefits of increasing plant diversity in sustainable agroecosystems

References

Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices

Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture

Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems

The Struggle to Govern the Commons

The state of food insecurity in the world 2011: how does international price volatility affect domestic economies and food security?

Related Papers (5)

Reconciling Food Production and Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing and Land Sparing Compared

Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature

Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification

Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management

Solutions for a cultivated planet

Frequently Asked Questions (14)

Q1. What are the contributions in "Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity conservation" ?

Q2. What is the way to assess the effects of land-sparing strategies on biodiversity?

Q3. What is the role of public sector investment in promoting adoption of agroecological?

Q4. How many people would be fed by the diverting half of the grain crops currently used to feed?

Q5. What is the meaning of land sparing in the sparing–sharing framework?

Q6. Why is it hypothesized that highyielding agriculture will expand into primary forests?

Q7. How much of the world’s food is produced by smallholder farmers?

Q8. Do more species do better under a land-sparing scenario?

Q9. What is the role of land sparing in the conservation of biodiversity?

Q10. What is the need for a new framework?

Q11. What is the main argument that the land-sharing debate is a tradeoff analysis?

Q12. Does the study suggest that land sparing is better for wildlife?

Q13. Are there any studies of birds and dung beetles within the forest?

Q14. What is the way to define the sparing–sharing continuum?