Conjunctive Implementation of Land Sparing and Land Sharing for Environmental Preservation

Legras, Sophie; Martin, Elsa; Piguet, Virginie

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.006

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, these insights address the new paradigm of a shift from conserving nature to using it sustainably (Loft et al, 2015;Legras et al, 2018). This change in perception involves considering both societal needs (i.e., demand for soil ES) and conservation of natural assets (i.e., supply of soil ES).…”

Section: Perspectives and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is growing demand to assess ES from agricultural systems for the purpose of territorial planning (Birgé et al, 2016;Ruhl, 2016). Planning strategies can involve spatial distribution of different land uses (e.g., definition of urban, agricultural or natural protection areas) and, for agricultural areas, be based on a variety of land management options, such as "land sparing" (separate areas of high-intensity agriculture and wilderness) or "land sharing" [low-intensity agriculture interspersed with natural features (e.g., hedgerows, ponds, wetlands)] (Legras et al, 2018). Consequently, the assessment framework proposed provides a basis for integrating the soil ES concept into the land management decision making process, mainly for the following points.…”

Section: Perspectives and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a process-based assessment, the workflow of the operational model (Figure 3), can help define a monitoring dataset that decision makers can use to assess the effectiveness of land management strategies on soil ES provision and thus the success or failure of policy instruments (Loft et al, 2015;Rabot et al, 2017). Feedback from this monitoring could help inform policy design and encourage decision makers to implement a particular land management option (Primmer et al, 2015;Baveye, 2017;Legras et al, 2018).…”

Section: Perspectives and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Framework to Consider Soil Ecosystem Services in Territorial Planning

Fossey

Angers

Bustany

et al. 2020

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Perspectives and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perspectives and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perspectives and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Framework to Consider Soil Ecosystem Services in Territorial Planning

Fossey

Angers

Bustany

et al. 2020

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In order to apply the best strategy across spatial scales and taxa, there is a need for more general approaches (Bennett, 2017). Empirical and theoretical analyses show that mixed strategies perform better than implementing sparing or sharing alone (Butsic & Kuemmerle, 2015;Legras et al, 2018;Troupin & Carmel, 2014). Mixed allocation of sparing and sharing might be more easily applied by planners and policymakers than choosing one strategy, even if it is not the optimal solution of the biodiversity-production trade-off (Grau et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic and not ecological variables shape the sparing–sharing trade‐off in a mixed cropping landscape

Segre

Carmel

Shwartz

2021

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. The framework of land sparing versus land sharing provides a useful analytical tool to address the crop-production/biodiversity trade-off. Despite multiple case studies testing the sparing-sharing trade-off, this framework still lacks the ability to identify the conditions in which sparing, or sharing, would be the preferred strategy for pareto-optimizing both food production and biodiversity.Under some conditions, ecosystem services may create a positive feedback between biodiversity and crop production, affecting the optimization.2. This study aims to identify the conditions and the relevant variables that determine the preferred land use strategy in terms of maximizing both biodiversity and food production, while accounting for positive feedback of ecosystem services in this analysis. We used a simulation model with data from a mixed cropping landscape (100 km 2 ) covering seven crop types, five taxonomic groups, three biodiversity metrics and 23 bioindicators to explore the variables shaping the biodiversity-production trade-off and ecosystem services underlying it. We explored a continuum of sparing large semi-natural patches to sharing by maintaining uncultivated field margins of varying size.3. Land sparing outperformed land sharing in 62% of the scenarios and it was economically more predictable. The optimization was shaped by costs, associated with crop type, rather than by landscape composition and configuration, biodiversity metric, taxonomic group or bioindicator. 4. Landscape configuration and taxonomic group results corroborate the notion that land sharing benefits mainly small organisms, and that the common width of field margins in many agri-environmental policies (10 m) is not cost-effective compared to land sparing. 5. Land sharing was the optimal strategy whenever it resulted in minimal costs, despite contributing little to biodiversity. Yet, when field margins were >20 m wide (small-scale sparing), land sharing maintained higher biodiversity and was at least as cost-effective as sparing.6. Synthesis and applications. Our model highlights the importance of socio-economic variables compared to ecological variables in selecting land-management strategy to pareto-optimize both food production and biodiversity. Considering opportunity costs alongside economic benefits from ecosystem services in various

show abstract