Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming?

Abstract

As the demands on agricultural lands to produce food, fuel, and fiber continue to expand, effective strategies are urgently needed to balance biodiversity conservation and agricultural production. “Land sparing” and “wildlife‐friendly farming” have been proposed as seemingly opposing strategies to achieve this balance. In land sparing, homogeneous areas of farmland are managed to maximize yields, while separate reserves target biodiversity conservation. Wildlife‐friendly farming, in contrast, integrates conservation and production within more heterogeneous landscapes. Different scientific traditions underpin the two approaches. Land sparing is associated with an island model of modified landscapes, where islands of nature are seen as separate from human activities. This simple dichotomy makes land sparing easily compatible with optimization methods that attempt to allocate land uses in the most efficient way. In contrast, wildlife‐friendly farming emphasizes heterogeneity, resilience, and ecological interactions between farmed and unfarmed areas. Both social and biophysical factors influence which approach is feasible or appropriate in a given landscape. Drawing upon the strengths of each approach, we outline broad policy guidelines for conservation in agricultural landscapes.

Quantifying pest control services by birds and ants in Kenyan coffee farms

“…In land sparing systems, agricultural areas are managed intensively, creating the maximum agricultural yield from a minimal area, so that other areas can be "spared for nature" (Green et al 2005). Land sharing, on the other hand, encourages biodiversity within each farm (Fischer et al 2008). This might be achieved by including areas that are structurally similar to native vegetation or having high levels of heterogeneity within the farmed area or along the margins.…”

Bats in the Anthropogenic Matrix: Challenges and Opportunities for the Conservation of Chiroptera and Their Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes

“…Given the anticipated need to nearly double global food production in the twenty-first century, a vigorous debate has emerged with respect to the most viable path to increase production without degrading ecosystem services or reducing biodiversity: land sparing, which posits that increased intensification and yields will reduce pressure to convert non-agricultural lands, versus land sharing, in which agricultural areas are less intensively farmed in order to increase associated biodiversity and habitat permeability (Fischer et al 2008). Given the vagility and critical role of bats in agricultural production, land sharing approaches might be preferable with respect to the provision of batdependent ecosystem services.…”

Inconsistent outcomes of heterogeneity-based management underscore importance of matching evaluation to conservation objectives

“…Heterogeneity and patchiness are central themes in environmental management , Wiens, 1997 and have been suggested as specific goals of conservation policy (Benton et al, 2003, Fischer et al, 2008. Policy emphasis stems from growing evidence that heterogeneity enhances biodiversity, especially in human-impacted landscapes (Franklin and Lindenmayer, 2009, Ricketts et al, 2001, Tews et al, 2004.…”