The comparative performance of land sharing, land sparing type interventions on place‐based human well‐being

Abstract

1. Environment-facing interventions impact the distribution, use of and access of natural resources and have important implications for all dimensions (material, relational, quality of life) of human well-being (HWB). Yet conventional impact metrics routinely surpass the non-material impacts which may be particularly salient in rural contexts where small-scale farmers depend directly on the land and biodiversity. Furthermore, little is known about the comparative performance of distinct interventions along a land-sharing, versus land sparing gradient, on local definitions of HWB.2. We address this knowledge gap, adopting a perception-based impact evaluation within communities across four intervention types representing the land sparing, sharing gradient: intensified industrial soy production (n = 60 HHs), a protected area (n = 70), an extractive reserve (n = 70) and a national forest (n = 70) in Pará in the Brazilian Amazon. We collected data using the Global Person Generated Index (GPGI) with household heads (n = 270) in eight communities (two per intervention type). Focus group discussions (n = 8) solicited residents' perceptions of impact pathways.3. Our findings highlight the important contribution of relational and subjective dimensions to HWB and call in to question the dominance of material measures in standard impact appraisals.4. Furthermore, we show that single sector and integrated approaches generate 'polarized impact footprints' in which integrated approaches achieve (a) more impact, which is (b) more often positive and (c) locally salient, the inverse is true for single-sector sparing style approaches.5. Areas of well-being that matter locally (culture, health and social relations), but are not impacted by interventions are relational, and point towards the potential of rights-based conservation to empower rural smallholders to remain in their communities while flourishing.

Complex agricultural landscapes host more biodiversity than simple ones: A global meta-analysis

“…Hence, we consider that at least two paradigm shifts are necessary to achieve the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) vision of living in harmony with nature by 2050. First, it is necessary to enhance and value farms and landscapes’ multifunctionality and actively manage these for production, biodiversity, human well-being, and overall ecosystem resilience ( 9 , 20 , 92 ). Second, national and international efforts must be better aligned to repurpose perversive incentives or policies supporting unsustainable agriculture ( 93 , 94 ) and trade currently driving biodiversity loss and land-use change in the tropics ( 95 , 96 ).…”

“…Likewise, a multidisciplinary, collaborative, well-designed, and long-term research agenda for multifunctional agricultural landscapes is urgently needed (e.g., Table 1 ). A fit-to-purpose agenda will enable understanding of the effects of landscape complexity on production ( 12 , 60 , 98 ), the landscape’s overall performance (e.g., resilience through phylogenetic diversity and ecosystem services and functions) ( 50 , 99 ), and the landscape inhabitants’ multiple dimensions of human well-being (quality of life, material and relational) ( 20 , 100 ). More than one decade ago, the need for systemic biodiversity assessments, landscape agronomy, and orchestrated work by agriculture and conservation sectors was already raised ( 11 , 47 , 60 , 101 – 104 ).…”

“…Hence, agriculture is underplaying a pivotal role in actively contributing to biodiversity conservation for the ecosystem services it provides, as well as its intrinsic or bequest values ( 6 , 10 – 16 ). Many researchers are calling for better consideration of the multifunctional role of agricultural landscapes, including supporting biodiversity ( 17 – 19 ) and improving ecosystem resilience ( 16 ) and human well-being ( 20 ). The largest managed terrestrial land cover can, as such, be actively managed to offer a high-quality matrix connecting remanent patches of habitat to benefit biodiversity and people ( 21 , 22 ).…”

Accelerating global mountain forest loss threatens biodiversity hotspots

“…In these places, there is ample opportunity for improved PA management, and more adequate resourcing, and stricter enforcement of laws and regulations designed to protect forests. As alluded to above, any new measures to protect mountain forests should be adapted to local conditions and contexts 60 , and they should reconcile the need for enhanced forest protection with ensuring food production and human wellbeing 61 . More integrated socio-ecological research is needed to improve our understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in complex and sensitive mountain ecosystems, especially at the interface between social and natural systems.…”

Biosphere functional integrity for people and Planet

“…Most attention in biodiversity conservation is given to halting the conversion of remaining natural ecosystems, the unique species they hold 1,2 and the important contributions they make to Earth System functioning (Post 2020 CBD Targets 1 and 3). However, (semi-)natural habitats in human-modified lands and waters are often overlooked in conservation policies and global target setting despite the critical roles they play in supporting human well-being 3 and conserving biodiversity 4 . Human-modified lands cover approximately 50% of the ice-free terrestrial land area ranging from urban areas to agriculture in mixed mosaic landscapes 5 .…”