Search

Anthropogenic habitat loss is widely recognized as a primary environmental concern. By contrast, debates on the effects of habitat fragmentation persist. To facilitate overcoming these debates, here we: (i) review the state of the literature on habitat fragmentation, finding widespread confusion and stigma; (ii) identify consequences of this for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management; and (iii) suggest ways in which research can move forward to resolve these problems. Confusion is evident from the 25 most‐cited fragmentation articles published between 2017 and 2021. These articles use five distinct concepts of habitat fragmentation, only one of which clearly distinguishes habitat fragmentation from habitat area and other factors ('fragmentation per se'). Stigmatization is evident from our new findings that fragmentation papers are more charged with negative sentiments when compared to papers from other subfields in the environmental sciences, and that fragmentation papers with more negative sentiments are cited more. While most empirical studies of habitat fragmentation per se find neutral or positive effects on species and biodiversity outcomes, which implies that small habitat patches have a high cumulative value, confusion and stigma in reporting and discussing such results have led to suboptimal habitat protection policy. For example, government agencies, conservation organizations, and land trusts impose minimum habitat patch sizes on habitat protection. Given the high cumulative value of small patches, such policies mean that many opportunities for conservation are being missed. Our review highlights the importance of reducing confusion and stigma in habitat fragmentation research. To this end, we propose implementing study designs in which multiple sample landscapes are selected across independent gradients of habitat amount and fragmentation, measured as patch density. We show that such designs are possible for forest habitat across Earth's biomes. As such study designs are adopted, and as language becomes more precise, we expect that confusion and stigma in habitat fragmentation research will dissipate. We also expect important breakthroughs in understanding the situations where effects of habitat fragmentation per se are neutral, positive, or negative, and the reasons for these differences. Ultimately this will improve efficacy of area‐based conservation policies, to the benefit of biodiversity and people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biodiversity loss is a threat to human survival and more explicitly to populations that are closely dependent of various natural resources. Particular agricultural practices have irreversibly simplified ecosystems, affecting global biodiversity. Likewise, the compelling necessity to conciliate biodiversity and agriculture has led to the production of valuable scientific knowledge, such as the land sparing versus land sharing debate. The land sparing approach promotes the intensification of agriculture and the creation of biodiversity conservation areas, while the land sharing approach tends to value functional biodiversity into agricultural systems. The impact of this debate in the elaboration of policies needs to be considered with caution. For example, land sparing can lead to measures that either enable actors that practice substantial intensive agriculture or disadvantage smaller farmers with limited resources. The duality on which the land sparing vs. land sharing debate is articulated tends to limit the attention given to more nuanced arguments. Out of ethical consideration for the less affluent and represented populations in this specific research display, we suggest to overcome the state of debate in order to avoid imposing one approach over the other. For future research prospects, it seems to be preferable to study socio-economical contexts in which agriculture is practiced, as well as the specific relationships between farmers and biodiversity.

In the process of their formation, northern peatlands were accumulating vast amounts of carbon (C). When drained for agricultural use, a large proportion of that C is oxidized and emitted as carbon dioxide (CO2), turning those peatlands to strong CO2 emitters. As a mitigation option, setting-aside farmland on drained peat is being incentivized by policies, but recent evidence casts doubt on these policies' efficiency for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigation. To investigate the effects of setting-aside farmland on GHG fluxes from a Swedish peatland, we measured CO2, nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) fluxes on two adjacent sites under contrasting management. The cultivated (CL) site was used for cereal production (wheat or barley) and the set-aside (SA) site was under permanent grassland. Carbon dioxide fluxes were measured from 2013 to 2019 using the eddy covariance (EC) method. Additionally, CO2, N2O, and CH4 fluxes were measured during the growing seasons of 2018-2020, using transparent and opaque chambers on vegetated plots and on bare peat. The cumulative CO2 fluxes measured by EC over the measurement period were 0.97 (±0.05) and 2.09 (±0.17) kgm-2 with annual average losses of 0.16 and 0.41 kg CO2m-2 yr-1 for the CL and SA site, respectively. Thus, the SA site acted as a stronger CO2 source than the CL site. Both sites' contribution to global warming, calculated on basis of the chamber measurements, was dominated by CO2. The contribution of the SA site was higher than that of the CL site. Nitrous oxide emissions were low at both sites with higher emissions from the CL site for transparent measurements and measurements on bare peat. Whereas, CH4 uptake was highest on the SA grassland. Thus, on the basis of our study, we found no evidence that settingaside farmland on shallow drained peat soils will reduce GHG emissions or even turn the peatland into a C sink. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent international agreements have strengthened and expanded commitments to protect and restore native habitats for biodiversity protection ("area‐based biodiversity conservation"). Nevertheless, biodiversity conservation is hindered because how such commitments should be implemented has been strongly debated, which can lead to suboptimal habitat protection decisions. We argue that, despite the debates, there are three essential principles for area‐based biodiversity conservation. These principles are related to habitat geographic coverage, amount, and connectivity. They emerge from evidence that, while large areas of nature are important and must be protected, conservation or restoration of multiple small habitat patches is also critical for global conservation, particularly in regions with high land use. We contend that the many area‐based conservation initiatives expected in the coming decades should follow the principles we identify, regardless of ongoing debates. Considering the importance of biodiversity for maintenance of ecosystem services, we suggest that this would bring widespread societal benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Highlight: Birch, B. D. J., Mills, S. C., Socolar, J. B., Martínez‐Revelo, D. E., Haugaasen, T., & Edwards, D. P. (2024). Land sparing outperforms land sharing for Amazonian bird communities regardless of surrounding landscape context. Journal of Applied Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2664.14596. Tropical forests are globally threatened by agricultural activities, including cattle farming. The land sharing versus land sparing debate has often been used as a means of addressing the trade‐off between agricultural production and biodiversity conservation, without finding a consensus within the scientific community. Moving forward, recent studies suggest combining both land allocation strategies, where wildlife‐friendly habitats within farmlands could allow movements of species within the agricultural matrix and connect natural habitats such as forest blocks, though this has rarely been demonstrated with empirical studies. In their study, Birch et al. tested how wildlife‐friendly habitats within and around cattle pastures could rescue the negative effects of converting forest to farmland on Amazon bird communities. To do so, they modelled bird species occupancies and simulated different land sharing versus land sparing scenarios with varying amount of landscape‐scale wildlife‐friendly habitat and levels of production. They found that the land sparing strategy outperformed land sharing in all scenarios, with limited benefits of landscape‐scale wildlife‐friendly habitat. This result was mostly driven by forest‐dependent species that cannot persist in farmlands. As these species are highly sensitive, preserving large blocks of primary forest is critical for their conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Of the goals and targets specified by the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, Target 3, often referred to as "30 × 30," has garnered widespread attention globally. In this paper, we critique India's potential to meet this target. We find that with its vast network of ecosystems that are under some form of protection and through the recognition of other effective area‐based conservation measures sites, India has the potential to meet the quantitative target of conserving and managing at least 30% of its area by 2030. However, the qualitative attributes of the target might be more difficult to realize owing to several challenges, such as inadequate landscape connectivity, insufficient representation of habitats in the current protected area model, and the exacerbation of socioeconomic vulnerabilities of resource‐dependent communities. To achieve strategic, inclusive, and equitable conservation, we suggest a four‐pronged approach involving landscape‐level biodiversity conservation, socially just and collaborative safeguarding of biodiversity, and relevant policy (re)formulation, informed and underlain by long‐term research and impact monitoring. Although we focus on India, the issues we discuss are of broader relevance, especially for countries across the Global South that are also likely to be significantly impacted by the implementation of the target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Intensive land use and exploitation of natural resources are the main direct drivers of biodiversity loss. Transformative changes in land management are called for as conservation and management actions have not been sufficient to support the viability of species populations. It has been proposed that to solve the sufficiency problem one could segregate the landscape into an intensively managed part, and into so-called multiuse-conservation landscapes that aggregate set asides with managed areas for multiple uses. Objectives: We describe a scenario analysis where we evaluate the effects and cost-efficiency of transforming the boreal forest from intensively managed production landscapes progressively towards multiuse-conservation landscapes. Methods: We simulated Finnish boreal forests under various managements and optimized management to produce six scenarios to reveal the ecological, economic, climate and management regime implications of multiuse-conservation landscapes. Ecological effects explored included habitat availability and metacommunity capacity of dead wood dependent species. Results: Increasing the area of set aside and multiuse management increased the habitat availability and metacommunity capacity as well as climate benefits but caused economic losses in terms of timber revenues. Pooling the set asides and multiuse management areas together into the same landscapes reduced the economic losses, had negligible added climate benefits and produced mixed biodiversity effects: pooling decreased habitat availability but increased metacommunity capacity across all landscapes. Conclusions: Changing land management and aggregating conservation efforts can be a cost-efficient way to protect biodiversity. Our results suggest biodiversity benefits in landscapes where the set aside and multiuse is aggregated. Careful spatial planning can also alleviate the conflicts between ecological and economic values of land. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nature-based solutions to ecological challenges have continued to draw significant attention, and are connected to the increased establishment of protected areas as a means for climate and ecological crisis mitigation. This study presents an innovative approach that combines spatial and statistical analysis of land cover change and drivers to evaluate land use management and effectiveness of 22 designated protected areas (PAs) across the tropical coastal regions of sub-Saharan Africa. While the results provided insight into land use management and conservation priorities, it highlighted (1) the use of these protected areas for food production is prevalent, irrespective of its designation. Nevertheless, there is evidence of a decline in cropland in some of the protected areas, suggesting a shift in policy towards conservation land use. (2) The occurrence of forest loss suggests that conservation is weak in most of the protected areas, while wetland conservation efforts are stronger due to their land cover expansion. (3) Population density (human factor) is the most significant driver of land cover change in these protected areas, followed by elevation (natural environment), precipitation (climate), nighttime light (socio-economic), and slope (natural environment). (4) In terms of Ecosystem value, only 15 of the 22 protected areas exhibited an increase in their total ecosystem service value according to land cover change, indicating sustainable land use and measures effectiveness in these protected areas. However, based on an individual land cover assessment, most protected areas showed signs of loss, especially in forests. Given the projected population growth in Africa, a regular assessment of protected areas should be initiated to enable effective and timely management decisions. Additionally, policies to improve the management effectiveness of African protected areas through funding should be a top priority, while taking into consideration the livelihoods of the indigenous people in the area in order to find a sustainable balance.

In the process of their formation, northern peatlands were accumulating vast amounts of carbon (C). When drained for agricultural use, a large proportion of that C is oxidized and emitted as carbon dioxide (CO2), turning those peatlands to strong CO2 emitters. As a mitigation option, setting-aside farmland on drained peat is being incentivized by policies, but recent evidence casts doubt on these policies’ efficiency for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigation. To investigate the effects of setting-aside farmland on GHG fluxes from a Swedish peatland, we measured CO2, nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) fluxes on two adjacent sites under contrasting management. The cultivated (CL) site was used for cereal production (wheat or barley) and the set-aside (SA) site was under permanent grassland. Carbon dioxide fluxes were measured from 2013 to 2019 using the eddy covariance (EC) method. Additionally, CO2, N2O, and CH4 fluxes were measured during the growing seasons of 2018–2020, using transparent and opaque chambers on vegetated plots and on bare peat. The cumulative CO2 fluxes measured by EC over the measurement period were 0.97 (±0.05) and 2.09 (±0.17) kg m−2 with annual average losses of 0.16 and 0.41 kg CO2 m−2 yr−1 for the CL and SA site, respectively. Thus, the SA site acted as a stronger CO2 source than the CL site. Both sites’ contribution to global warming, calculated on basis of the chamber measurements, was dominated by CO2. The contribution of the SA site was higher than that of the CL site. Nitrous oxide emissions were low at both sites with higher emissions from the CL site for transparent measurements and measurements on bare peat. Whereas, CH4 uptake was highest on the SA grassland. Thus, on the basis of our study, we found no evidence that setting-aside farmland on shallow drained peat soils will reduce GHG emissions or even turn the peatland into a C sink.

Abstract The expansion of renewable energy generation sites in the landscape is controversial, as is repopulation by large predators, particularly wolves. Both range extensions are recent phenomena, and both lead to harsh incompatibilities that arise from exclusions. Regarding solar parks, the problems would be solvable by a paradigm shift, namely towards inclusions. The required changes sound trivial: First, it would be more multifunctional to make use of the valuable plant growth in solar parks. Second, it would be more sustainable to rely on grazing rather than mowing for solar park maintenance. Grazing livestock would need to be protected from wolves by strong fencing. If these changes become the reality, this could locally remove large predators like the wolf from the line of fire of social resistance. In addition, implementation would bring benefits across sectors by bringing together previously divergent and hardened utilization concepts, which would ultimately have positive impacts for renewable energy generation, biodiversity and society. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Abstract Of the goals and targets specified by the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, Target 3, often referred to as “30 × 30,” has garnered widespread attention globally. In this paper, we critique India's potential to meet this target. We find that with its vast network of ecosystems that are under some form of protection and through the recognition of other effective area‐based conservation measures sites, India has the potential to meet the quantitative target of conserving and managing at least 30% of its area by 2030. However, the qualitative attributes of the target might be more difficult to realize owing to several challenges, such as inadequate landscape connectivity, insufficient representation of habitats in the current protected area model, and the exacerbation of socioeconomic vulnerabilities of resource‐dependent communities. To achieve strategic, inclusive, and equitable conservation, we suggest a four‐pronged approach involving landscape‐level biodiversity conservation, socially just and collaborative safeguarding of biodiversity, and relevant policy (re)formulation, informed and underlain by long‐term research and impact monitoring. Although we focus on India, the issues we discuss are of broader relevance, especially for countries across the Global South that are also likely to be significantly impacted by the implementation of the target.

Peatlands are a globally important carbon store, but peatland ecosystems from high latitudes to the tropics are highly degraded due to increasingly intensive anthropogenic activity, making them significant greenhouse gas (GHG) sources. Peatland restoration and conservation have been proposed as a nature-based solution to climate change, by restoring the function of peatlands as a net carbon sink, but this may have implications for many local communities who rely on income from activities associated with transformed peatlands, particularly those drained for agriculture. However, without changing the way that humans interact with and exploit peatlands in most regions, peatlands will continue to degrade and be lost. We propose that there are ultimately three potential trajectories for peatland management: business as usual, whereby peatland carbon sink capacity continues to be eroded, responsible agricultural management (with the potential to mitigate emissions, but unlikely to restore peatlands as a net carbon sink), and restoration and conservation. We term this the three-peat challenge, and propose it as a means to view the benefits of restoring peatlands for the environment, as well as the implications of such transitions for communities who rely on ecosystem services (particularly provisioning) from degraded peatlands, and the consequences arising from a lack of action. Ultimately, decisions regarding which trajectories peatlands in given localities will follow torequire principles of equitable decision-making, and support to ensure just transitions, particularly for communities who rely on peatland ecosystems to support their livelihoods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Onshore wind power is increasingly expanding to meet global and national goals to increase renewable, clean, and fossilfree energy production. In many countries and regions, however, historical and current land use is extensive, and the expansion of wind power has to be well-tuned to avoid risking irreversible legacy losses of existing and traditional land uses, landscape values, and cultures. Hence, assessments of the siting premises of current and forecasted expansion of wind power are strongly needed as a basis for sustainable planning. We present a study from alpine to temperate biomes in Sweden, where an ambitious onshore wind power expansion strategy has been put in place and will result in Swedish landscapes that are typified by wind power. We explored the existing legal framework--i.e., the national interest for wind power according to the Swedish Environmental Code--concerning the spatial interaction with other national interests for nature conservation, landscape values, and other land uses, and the land cover, landowner, and formally protected areas distribution within wind power sites and in their proximity. We found that the national interest framework does not provide sufficient guidance for locating wind power to avoid spatial overlap with conflicting interests and values. Furthermore, our analysis revealed that wind power is located mainly in forest-dominated landscapes, and on lands where private forest companies are the dominant owners but where the proportion of public and non-industrial private ownership increases in the near surroundings. Finally, we found that large areas of formally protected areas are within the proximate areas influenced by wind power. As an extensive onshore wind power expansion is already going on, and an even more extensive expansion is projected, the ways forward toward a sustainable wind power expansion calls for integrated landscape planning approaches that are based on comprehensive assessments of existing interests and values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The expansion of renewable energy generation sites in the landscape is controversial, as is repopulation by large predators, particularly wolves. Both range extensions are recent phenomena, and both lead to harsh incompatibilities that arise from exclusions.Regarding solar parks, the problems would be solvable by a paradigm shift, namely towards inclusions. The required changes sound trivial: First, it would be more multifunctional to make use of the valuable plant growth in solar parks. Second, it would be more sustainable to rely on grazing rather than mowing for solar park maintenance. Grazing livestock would need to be protected from wolves by strong fencing.If these changes become the reality, this could locally remove large predators like the wolf from the line of fire of social resistance. In addition, implementation would bring benefits across sectors by bringing together previously divergent and hardened utilization concepts, which would ultimately have positive impacts for renewable energy generation, biodiversity and society. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractPeatlands are a globally important carbon store, but peatland ecosystems from high latitudes to the tropics are highly degraded due to increasingly intensive anthropogenic activity, making them significant greenhouse gas (GHG) sources. Peatland restoration and conservation have been proposed as a nature-based solution to climate change, by restoring the function of peatlands as a net carbon sink, but this may have implications for many local communities who rely on income from activities associated with transformed peatlands, particularly those drained for agriculture. However, without changing the way that humans interact with and exploit peatlands in most regions, peatlands will continue to degrade and be lost. We propose that there are ultimately three potential trajectories for peatland management: business as usual, whereby peatland carbon sink capacity continues to be eroded, responsible agricultural management (with the potential to mitigate emissions, but unlikely to restore peatlands as a net carbon sink), and restoration and conservation. We term this the three-peat challenge, and propose it as a means to view the benefits of restoring peatlands for the environment, as well as the implications of such transitions for communities who rely on ecosystem services (particularly provisioning) from degraded peatlands, and the consequences arising from a lack of action. Ultimately, decisions regarding which trajectories peatlands in given localities will follow torequire principles of equitable decision-making, and support to ensure just transitions, particularly for communities who rely on peatland ecosystems to support their livelihoods.

Vertical farming is a rapidly expanding type of indoor controlled environment agriculture whose promises have attracted widespread praise and considerable early-stage capital in recent years. Among vertical farming's many claimed benefits, per-area productivity is frequently mentioned, proposing crop yields at least two orders of magnitude higher than outdoor field agriculture. These extremely high yields form the basis for a theory of land use change whereby yield-increasing technologies reduce or reverse the expansionary demands of lower-yielding farms, retaining or returning those areas to "wild nature". In a sensational articulation of this kind of intensification, from 2007 to 2017 many vivid proposals portrayed centrally located skyscraper farms as a key strategy for building self-sufficient cities. This skyscraper articulation of vertical farming captured the public imagination and led to substantial investment into contemporary vertical farming facilities, the majority of which are in large suburban high-ceiling single-story warehouses. This paper traces the politics of vertical farming's land-sparing narratives beginning early in the twentieth century, with a closer analysis of two contrasting historical examples: Othmar Ruthner's 1960s tower greenhouses, which closely resemble the imaginary skyscraper farms of the 2010s; and Noel Davis' 1980s PhytoFarms, which more closely resembles the well-funded warehouse vertical farms of the 2020s. This analysis suggests that, despite their high yields, the extremely high capital investments needed to build the precise controlled environments of today's vertical farms preclude the profitable production of staple crops, rendering them unlikely to fulfil their land-sparing promises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Green spaces in urban areas—like remnant habitat, parks, constructed wetlands, and street trees—supply multiple benefits. Many studies show green spaces in and near urban areas play important roles harbouring biodiversity and promoting human well‐being. On the other hand, evidence suggests that greater human population density enables compact, low‐carbon cities that spare habitat conversion at the fringes of expanding urban areas, while also allowing more walkable and livable cities. How then can urban areas have abundant green spaces as well as density? In this paper, we review the empirical evidence for the relationships between urban density, nature, and sustainability. We also present a quantitative analysis of data on urban tree canopy cover and open space for United States large urbanized areas, as well as an analysis of non‐US Functional Urban Areas in OECD countries. We found that there is a negative correlation between population density and these green spaces. For Functional Urban Areas in the OECD, a 10% increase in density is associated with a 2.9% decline in tree cover. We argue that there are competing trade‐offs between the benefits of density for sustainability and the benefits of nature for human well‐being. Planners must decide an appropriate density by choosing where to be on this trade‐off curve, taking into account city‐specific urban planning goals and context. However, while the negative correlation between population density and tree cover is modest at the level of US urbanized areas (R2 = 0.22), it is weak at the US Census block level (R2 = 0.05), showing that there are significant brightspots, neighbourhoods that manage to have more tree canopy than would be expected based upon their level of density. We then describe techniques for how urban planners and designers can create more brightspots, identifying a typology of urban forms and listing green interventions appropriate for each form. We also analyse policies that enable these green interventions illustrating them with the case studies of Curitiba and Singapore. We conclude that while there are tensions between density and urban green spaces, an urban world that is both green and dense is possible, if society chooses to take advantage of the available green interventions and create it. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Copyright of Ecological Applications is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Although deforestation remains a continuing threat to both the natural world and its resident human populations, a countervailing land cover dynamic has been observed in many nations. This process of landscape turnaround, the so-called forest transition, holds the potential of regenerating ecosystem services by sparing land from agricultural activities and abandoning it to forest succession. Here, we present a case study of a long-term process of forest transition that is ongoing in the Patzcuaro watershed of the state of Michoacán, Mexico. The research to be discussed comprises a remote sensing analysis designed to (1) capture the land cover impacts of a multidecadal process of trade liberalization (1996–2018); (2) ascertain the role that land tenure plays in land use dynamics affecting forest cover, and (3) resolve forest cover types into native forest, secondary vegetation, and "commodity" covers of fruit trees, in this case, avocado. Mexico presents a useful case for addressing these three design elements. Our analysis, undertaken for both private property and collective modes of resource management in five communities, reveals a forest transition annualized at 20 ha-yr−1, or a gain of eight percent for the period. This translates into a relative rate of forest transition of 0.39%-yr−1 which is three times faster than what is occurring in the temperate biome on a national scale (0.07%-yr−1). Most of the forest transition is occurring on private holdings and stems from field abandonment as farming systems intensify production with avocado plantations and cow–calf operations. As this study demonstrates, forest transitions are not occurring ubiquitously across nations but instead are highly localized occurrences driven by a myriad of distal and proximate factors involving disparate sets of stakeholders. Consequently, policy makers who are keen to expand forest transitions to fulfill their national climate action commitments under the Paris Agreement must first promote research into the complexity of landscapes and drivers of land change at regional and local scales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evolution of agriculture and the attendant increase in food production has increased the world human population from 2 to 20 Million (M) about 8000 BCE to 8 Billion (B) in 2022. The rise in population, along with increase in its demands and growing affluence with as strong impact on planetary processes as any geologic force, has led to the naming of this era as “Anthropocene”. Global land area under agriculture, 1.5 ​B ​ha under cropland and 3.77 ​B ​ha under grazing land and covering ∼40% of Earth's surface under managed ecosystems, has drastically transformed the planet Earth with strong perturbations of the biogeochemical cycling of water, carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and other elements and the attendant global warming, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, decreased renewability and increased eutrophication of water. Thus, returning some land to nature by eco-intensification of agro-ecosystems, would be a prudent strategy to strengthen planetary processes, adapt and mitigate anthropogenic climate change, improve water quality and renewability, strengthen biodiversity, and advance Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations albeit beyond 2030. In addition to reducing food waste and consuming more plant-based diet, adopting appropriate and site-specific farming systems can play an important role in saving land for nature. However, as is the case with other scientific issues, eco-intensification for sparing land is also a debatable issue. Nonetheless, the overall strategy is to “produce more from less” by using nature-positive agriculture which can protect ecologically-sensitive natural vegetation, reverse degradation trends, restore degraded soils and deserted ecosystems, and return ∼50% (2.5 ​B ​ha) of land area used for agriculture in 2020s (∼5 ​B ​ha) to nature by 2100 through adoption of innovative farming systems designed for restoration of soil health and re-carbonization of the terrestrial biosphere.

Land Sparing predicts that agricultural intensification is the best way to meet productive, humanitarian and conservation goals, and the recent prominence of this strategy on conservation and agricultural agendas is notable. The basic idea is that, by producing more, agriculture intensification can spare natural habitats from further agriculture expansion. Nevertheless, some authors have suggested that intensifying and increasing productivity may actually lead to increasing expansion of agricultural lands (Jevons Paradox). We test the association between agricultural yield on farmland expansion and on deforestation between 2000 and 2015 in 122 nations along the tropics, and in the main tropical regions. To this end we used Generalized Linear Models, as well as Panel Data to verify the effects of agricultural yield and socioeconomic variables on farmland expansion and deforestation. Greater yield increases lead to higher deforestation rates in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and Caribbean and increasing yield average induces agriculture expansion in East Asia and Pacific, giving support to the Jevons Paradox hypothesis. On the other hand, we found a positive association between yield average and forest area change in the tropics, nevertheless, regression coefficients were very small, compared to other significant models. Therefore, Jevons Paradox seems to be more common than Land Sparing and increasing yields inducing deforestation rather than curbing it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Land sparing and land sharing should be considered complementary strategies to favor pasture areas' restoration in the Ecuadorian Amazon Region (EAR). Their implementation will depend on factors such as the livelihoods, natural resources' valuation and income from livestock activity (dual-purpose cattle farms). A sample of 167 farms of the EAR distributed in the three altitudinal gradients (high, medium, and low) was used. The different livelihood capitals and the opportunity cost of the grazing area was calculated. Therefore, to promote pasture restoration areas, policy strategy should aim to maximize net benefits by unit area (ha). Starting from the results obtained, different strategies of restoration are proposed by altitudinal gradient and productive specialization: (a) Land-sparing restoration actions; in middle hill and low zones, land could be destined to produce ecosystem services, i.e., a strategy that promotes ecosystem restoration through environmental payments and considers at least the opportunity and transaction costs. (b) Land-sharing pasture restoration, which would focus on high mountain farms with a strategy of sustainable intensification and food security. Land use change in pastures is considered one of the leading drivers of tropical deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon Region (EAR). To halt and reverse this process, it is necessary to understand, among other factors, the local livelihoods, income from grazing area and the appropriate options to foster sustainable production, incorporating the land-sparing and land-sharing approach. This work was conducted using 167 household surveys along an altitudinal gradient within the buffer and transition zone of the Sumaco Biosphere Reserve (SBR) in the EAR. The results of a comparative analysis of the main capital variables (human, social, natural, financial, and physical), and the opportunity cost of grazing area assessment provides the following key findings: (a) the concepts of land sparing and land sharing should be considered as complementary local strategies, including household livelihoods and the opportunity cost of the grazing area; (b) we should encourage markets with differentiated restoration rights, based on households engaged in low grazing areas' opportunity costs, and making less impact on capitals' livelihood a key element of economic and conservation initiatives; and (c) sectoral policy implications, including moderate intensification and technological improvements to strengthen the pastureland-sparing and -sharing approach, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Green spaces in urban areas—like remnant habitat, parks, constructed wetlands, and street trees—supply multiple benefits.Many studies show green spaces in and near urban areas play important roles harbouring biodiversity and promoting human well‐being. On the other hand, evidence suggests that greater human population density enables compact, low‐carbon cities that spare habitat conversion at the fringes of expanding urban areas, while also allowing more walkable and livable cities. How then can urban areas have abundant green spaces as well as density?In this paper, we review the empirical evidence for the relationships between urban density, nature, and sustainability. We also present a quantitative analysis of data on urban tree canopy cover and open space for United States large urbanized areas, as well as an analysis of non‐US Functional Urban Areas in OECD countries.We found that there is a negative correlation between population density and these green spaces. For Functional Urban Areas in the OECD, a 10% increase in density is associated with a 2.9% decline in tree cover. We argue that there are competing trade‐offs between the benefits of density for sustainability and the benefits of nature for human well‐being. Planners must decide an appropriate density by choosing where to be on this trade‐off curve, taking into account city‐specific urban planning goals and context.However, while the negative correlation between population density and tree cover is modest at the level of US urbanized areas (R2 = 0.22), it is weak at the US Census block level (R2 = 0.05), showing that there are significant brightspots, neighbourhoods that manage to have more tree canopy than would be expected based upon their level of density. We then describe techniques for how urban planners and designers can create more brightspots, identifying a typology of urban forms and listing green interventions appropriate for each form. We also analyse policies that enable these green interventions illustrating them with the case studies of Curitiba and Singapore.We conclude that while there are tensions between density and urban green spaces, an urban world that is both green and dense is possible, if society chooses to take advantage of the available green interventions and create it. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The biodiversity and climate crises demand ambitious policies lowering the environmental impacts of farming. Most current interventions incentivise so‐called land‐sharing approaches to address the widespread trade‐off between farm yields and on‐farm environmental outcomes by compensating farmers who adopt yield‐reducing interventions that encourage wildlife or reduce net emissions within farmed land.Here, we present the first quantification of the likely costs to taxpayers of land sharing compared with land sparing, in which large areas are removed from production altogether because of high‐yielding practices elsewhere in the landscape. Focusing on arable production in the United Kingdom, we used a choice experiment to explore farmer preferences and estimated the overall costs of contrasting agri‐environment schemes that delivered increased populations of three well‐studied farmland birds and reduced net carbon emissions in England. We included capital, administration and monitoring costs, and lost food production.Sparing delivered our target biodiversity and carbon emission outcomes at 79% of the food production cost and 48% of the taxpayer cost of sharing. The difference in subsidy payments required by farmers roughly tracked lost food production but other costs favoured sparing even more strongly.The cost‐related merits of sparing would probably increase further in studies incorporating (1) the many species and ecosystem services not deliverable on farmland, (2) the costs of food imports to compensate domestic lost production and (3) countries without as long and extensive a history of agriculture as the United Kingdom.Our results suggest that, for at least some conservation outcomes, continuing a land‐sharing approach in countries such as the United Kingdom is not only an inefficient use of government funds but also undermines conservation and food security in food‐exporting countries which bear the burden of compensating domestic production forgone in the name of conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Onshore wind power is increasingly expanding to meet global and national goals to increase renewable, clean, and fossil-free energy production. In many countries and regions, however, historical and current land use is extensive, and the expansion of wind power has to be well-tuned to avoid risking irreversible legacy losses of existing and traditional land uses, landscape values, and cultures. Hence, assessments of the siting premises of current and forecasted expansion of wind power are strongly needed as a basis for sustainable planning. We present a study from alpine to temperate biomes in Sweden, where an ambitious onshore wind power expansion strategy has been put in place and will result in Swedish landscapes that are typified by wind power. We explored the existing legal framework—i.e., the national interest for wind power according to the Swedish Environmental Code—concerning the spatial interaction with other national interests for nature conservation, landscape values, and other land uses, and the land cover, landowner, and formally protected areas distribution within wind power sites and in their proximity. We found that the national interest framework does not provide sufficient guidance for locating wind power to avoid spatial overlap with conflicting interests and values. Furthermore, our analysis revealed that wind power is located mainly in forest-dominated landscapes, and on lands where private forest companies are the dominant owners but where the proportion of public and non-industrial private ownership increases in the near surroundings. Finally, we found that large areas of formally protected areas are within the proximate areas influenced by wind power. As an extensive onshore wind power expansion is already going on, and an even more extensive expansion is projected, the ways forward toward a sustainable wind power expansion calls for integrated landscape planning approaches that are based on comprehensive assessments of existing interests and values.

Edges between adjacent biotopes may hinder or promote spillover of arthropods, influencing their distribution across landscapes. An understanding of spillover between natural and production areas enables management of edge effects for optimal biodiversity conservation. We assessed arthropod assemblages across vineyard-fynbos edges in the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, where biodiversity-rich fynbos often borders vineyards. Species richness, assemblage composition, and compartmentalised beta-diversity (species turnover and nestedness) were assessed for three vegetation layers (ground level, lower vegetation, and upper vegetation) to determine bidirectional spillover. Species were also categorised according to biotope affiliation (crop-associated, fynbos-associated, or ubiquitous), based on habitat fidelity. We assessed how species richness of each biotope affiliation was influenced by environmental and management variables. Our main interest was biotope-specific variables which may enhance or impede spillover by influencing arthropods affiliated with the opposite biotope. Arthropod species richness did not differ along vineyard-fynbos transects for ground and lower vegetation layers but was lower in the upper vineyard vegetation compared to fynbos. Arthropod assemblages were distinct between biotopes for upper and lower vegetation but were similar on the soil surface and showed lower nestedness differences, indicating greater spillover by ground-level arthropods. In vineyards, no variables influenced fynbos-associated species, although herbaceous vegetation cover promoted ubiquitous arthropod species richness. Spillover between the biotopes was limited, and no drivers could be identified that promote spillover into vineyards, yet both biotopes supported diverse and distinct arthropod assemblages. Therefore, conservation of natural fynbos patches alongside sensitively managed vineyards is feasible for harmonising biodiversity conservation and viticulture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intensification, extensification and abandonment of agricultural land will each play a major role in the future development of European landscapes. However, their impacts on various dimensions of sustainability vary spatially. This creates challenges but also opportunities for landscape managers and policymakers to optimize biodiversity and ecosystem services. In this study, we conduct a spatial assessment of the impacts of these three major agricultural development trajectories on ten ecosystem service and biodiversity indicators across the European Union (EU) and the UK. Using a spatial resolution of 1 km2, we exposed high spatial variation in impacts and strong differences in the spatial patterns depending on the indicator. Aggregating all positive and negative impacts of a trajectory, hot- and cold spots of total positive and negative impacts could be distinguished. An assessment of trade-offs and synergies between impacts of each trajectory was used to map areas dominated by beneficial impacts, detrimental impacts, or high trade-offs between impacts. The results indicate very diverse spatial trade-off and synergy patterns, with generally high sub-regional variation, emphasizing (i) the need for reflecting trade-offs and context-specificity in landscape planning and management and (ii) the potential advantages of spatial targeting of agricultural development and conservation strategies. Biodiversity and ecosystem service impact mapping exercises can, thus, be a major tool to effectively navigate trade-offs and synergies and explore effective sustainable landscape solutions. • Environmental impacts of agricultural change are strongly variable across the EU. • We mapped trade-off and synergy analyses to assess the desirability of trajectories. • Spatial planning is a key tool to target agronomic and conservation policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Grassland corridors are set aside for biodiversity conservation within the commercial timber plantation landscape of South Africa, potentially connecting high value conservation areas together. However, the impact of the production landscape on functional connectivity within these corridors has not been investigated. Objectives: We combine stacked species distribution modelling, functional connectivity analysis, species turnover calculations, and community analysis, to improve our understanding of how grassland corridors contribute to functional connectivity and biodiversity conservation within plantation landscapes. Methods: Grasshoppers, which are reliable indicators of grassland quality, were used as model organisms and sampled within grassland corridors. Remote sensing and machine learning was used to predict functional connectivity and its influence on grasshoppers. Results: Wide corridors along an elevation gradient with different aspects support different grasshopper assemblages and promote species turnover. Sensitive species occur at high elevations with a north-west facing slope in wide corridors that are functionally connected to large high-quality remnant patches. Maintenance of functional connectivity is dependent on the availability of high-quality habitat, which is shaped by prescribed burning, and has a significant effect on range restricted species. Not all high-quality habitat is functionally connected, attributed to exclusion of fire and/or invasive plants, requiring conservation intervention. Conclusions: Prescribed burning should be used to maintain functional connectivity. We recommend less frequent fires, burning every 2–3 years, guided by NDVI. Large corridors at high elevation are priority. In estates with narrow corridors and low functional connectivity, stepping-stone habitats and grassland buffers next to roads should be considered for improved functional connectivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The benefits of green infrastructure on human well‐being in urban areas are already well‐established, with strong evidence of the positive effects of the amount and proximity to green areas. However, the understanding of how the spatial distribution and type of green areas affect health is still an open question.Here, through a land sharing and sparing framework, we explore how different spatial configurations of green and built‐up areas and how different types of green areas can affect cardiovascular and respiratory hospitalizations in São Paulo city, Brazil.Sharing/sparing indicators were selected as the main explanatory factors in the control of all groups of diseases. Land sharing appeared as a favourable spatial condition to prevent cardiovascular hospitalization, while land sparing and arboreal vegetation were relevant to reduce hospitalization by lower respiratory diseases.For upper respiratory diseases, forests seem to provide a disservice, once they were associated with increased rates of hospitalization by respiratory allergies causes.Considering that hospitalization rates and severity of cardiovascular diseases are substantially higher than those of upper respiratory ones, dense vegetation tends to provide more services than disservices. The land sharing configuration, which is characterized by green areas spread throughout the urban network (in streets, gardens, small squares or parks), should lead to higher exposure and use of the benefits of green areas, which may then explain the greater prevention of cardiovascular diseases.These novel results indicate that a more balanced distribution of green areas across built‐up areas creates healthier urban spaces, and thus can be used as an urban planning strategy to leverage the health benefits provided by green infrastructure.Policy implications. Aiming to reduce hospitalizations by cardiovascular and pulmonary causes, urban planning should promote the spreading of green areas across the cities, in order to increase daily contact with natural attributes, giving preference to distribution over total quantity of green in urban landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although deforestation remains a continuing threat to both the natural world and its resident human populations, a countervailing land cover dynamic has been observed in many nations. This process of landscape turnaround, the so-called forest transition, holds the potential of regenerating ecosystem services by sparing land from agricultural activities and abandoning it to forest succession. Here, we present a case study of a long-term process of forest transition that is ongoing in the Patzcuaro watershed of the state of Michoacán, Mexico. The research to be discussed comprises a remote sensing analysis designed to (1) capture the land cover impacts of a multidecadal process of trade liberalization (1996–2018); (2) ascertain the role that land tenure plays in land use dynamics affecting forest cover, and (3) resolve forest cover types into native forest, secondary vegetation, and “commodity” covers of fruit trees, in this case, avocado. Mexico presents a useful case for addressing these three design elements. Our analysis, undertaken for both private property and collective modes of resource management in five communities, reveals a forest transition annualized at 20 ha-yr−1, or a gain of eight percent for the period. This translates into a relative rate of forest transition of 0.39%-yr−1 which is three times faster than what is occurring in the temperate biome on a national scale (0.07%-yr−1). Most of the forest transition is occurring on private holdings and stems from field abandonment as farming systems intensify production with avocado plantations and cow–calf operations. As this study demonstrates, forest transitions are not occurring ubiquitously across nations but instead are highly localized occurrences driven by a myriad of distal and proximate factors involving disparate sets of stakeholders. Consequently, policy makers who are keen to expand forest transitions to fulfill their national climate action commitments under the Paris Agreement must first promote research into the complexity of landscapes and drivers of land change at regional and local scales.

Shifting cultivation (SC) is a system of agriculture widespread in the tropical and subtropical regions of the world. In India, it is rampant in the East and North East states. SC has been overwhelmingly portrayed as a threat to ecosystems and climate, ignoring the ecological value of the fallow phase and secondary forests. Finding ways to manage the practice of SC without affecting agricultural productivity is essential for climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation and the welfare of indigenous communities. This study analyses recent research on the impacts of SC with regard to ecosystem effects at different stages of the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While agricultural intensification and expansion are major factors driving loss and degradation of natural habitat and species decline, some wildlife species also benefit from agriculturally managed habitats. This may lead to high population densities with impacts on both human livelihoods and wildlife conservation. Cranes are a group of 15 species worldwide, affected both negatively and positively by agricultural practices. While eleven species face critical population declines, numbers of common cranes (Grus grus) and sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) have increased drastically in the last 40 years. Their increase is associated with higher incidences of crane foraging on agricultural crops, causing financial losses to farmers. Our aim was to synthesize scientific knowledge on the bilateral effects of land use change and crane populations. We conducted a systematic literature review of peer‐reviewed publications on agriculture‐crane interactions (n = 135) and on the importance of agricultural crops in the diet of cranes (n = 81). Agricultural crops constitute a considerable part of the diet of all crane species (average of 37%, most frequently maize (Zea mays L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)). Crop damage was identified in only 10% of all agriculture‐crane interactions, although one‐third of interactions included cranes foraging on cropland. Using a conceptual framework analysis, we identified two major pathways in agriculture‐crane interactions: (1) habitat loss with negative effects on crane species dependent on specific habitats, and (2) expanding agricultural habitats with superabundant food availability beneficial for opportunistic crane species. The degree to which crane species can adapt to agricultural land use changes may be an important factor explaining their population response. We conclude that multi‐objective management needs to combine land sparing and land sharing strategies at landscape scale. To support viable crane populations while guaranteeing sustainable agricultural production, it is necessary to include the perspectives of diverse stakeholders and streamline conservation initiatives and agricultural policy accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two vital policy aims—biodiversity conservation and food production—are increasingly in conflict. Efforts to evaluate trade‐offs between agriculture and conservation have shaped scholarly discourse around two broad strategies to agricultural production that seek to either "share" land with biodiversity or "spare" land from agriculture. However, efforts to negotiate these trade‐offs are challenged by rising concern for the welfare of individual animals, both wild and domestic. We use recent efforts to "coexist" with large carnivores to illustrate how sharing and sparing strategies both create tragic, and often unacknowledged trade‐offs between livestock production and carnivore conservation. We conclude the best means of conserving carnivores while feeding the world's growing population requires explicitly confronting and adjudicating ethical trade‐offs associated with sharing and sparing approaches. To accomplish this, we recommend engaging scholars trained in ethics and social justice and use of deliberative processes to synthesize disparate facts and competing values when evaluating trade‐offs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Land-use intensification in agroecosystems has led to population declines in many taxonomic groups, especially farmland birds. Two contrasting conservation strategies have therefore been proposed: land sharing (the integration of biodiversity conservation in low-intensity agriculture) and land sparing (the spatial separation of high-yielding agriculture and areas for conservation). Despite the large academic interest in this field, only few studies have taken into account stakeholders’ perspectives of these strategies when assessing conservation implications. We modeled the effects of three land-use scenarios (a business-as-usual, a land-sharing, and a land-sparing scenario), developed together with regional stakeholders, on the habitat area of 13 regionally endangered bird species in the Middle Mulde River Basin (Saxony, Germany). We used random forest models based on environmental variables relating to land-use/cover, climate and soil characteristics, occurrence of linear landscape elements (hedges and tree rows), and distance to water and major roads. Responses to the three land-use scenarios were species-specific, but extensively managed permanent grassland and the density of forest edges were positively associated with the occurrence of most bird species. Overall, the land-sharing scenario provided the largest breeding habitat area: 76% of the species had a significant (p < 0.05) increase in breeding habitat, and none showed a significant decrease. Our findings confirm that balancing the different, often contrasting habitat requirements of multiple species is a key challenge in conservation and landscape management. Land sharing, which local stakeholders identified as the most desirable scenario, is a promising strategy for the conservation of endangered birds in agricultural landscapes like our study region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We found no support for differences in diversity of forest specialists and omnivores between agricultural systems and forest, although forest specialists were unstudied in low shade cocoa and monoculture (Figure 3c & Appendix S8). Because the diversity relationship between cocoa and forest did not vary with landscape for the full bird community, these findings suggest that agriculture avoiders were lost from the forest patches in low forest landscapes and replaced by agriculture associates. Keywords: avian; biodiversity; cacao; chocolate; farm; land sparing; meta-analysis; sustainable; Aves; biodiversidad; conservación de tierras; metaanálisis; sustentable EN avian biodiversity cacao chocolate farm land sparing meta-analysis sustainable Aves biodiversidad conservación de tierras metaanálisis sustentable 1 10 10 03/02/22 20220201 NES 220201 INTRODUCTION Global biodiversity peaks in tropical regions and is threatened by increasing demand for agricultural commodities (Laurance et al., 2014). In the supported model, biodiversity indicator metrics in rustic and mixed cocoa agroforestry systems were similar to nearby forest baselines, whereas low shade cocoa and monoculture had significantly lower biodiversity indicator metrics than forest (Figure 2 & Appendix S5). [Extracted from the article]

Abstract Two vital policy aims—biodiversity conservation and food production—are increasingly in conflict. Efforts to evaluate trade‐offs between agriculture and conservation have shaped scholarly discourse around two broad strategies to agricultural production that seek to either “share” land with biodiversity or “spare” land from agriculture. However, efforts to negotiate these trade‐offs are challenged by rising concern for the welfare of individual animals, both wild and domestic. We use recent efforts to “coexist” with large carnivores to illustrate how sharing and sparing strategies both create tragic, and often unacknowledged trade‐offs between livestock production and carnivore conservation. We conclude the best means of conserving carnivores while feeding the world's growing population requires explicitly confronting and adjudicating ethical trade‐offs associated with sharing and sparing approaches. To accomplish this, we recommend engaging scholars trained in ethics and social justice and use of deliberative processes to synthesize disparate facts and competing values when evaluating trade‐offs.

Land use change in pastures is considered one of the leading drivers of tropical deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon Region (EAR). To halt and reverse this process, it is necessary to understand, among other factors, the local livelihoods, income from grazing area and the appropriate options to foster sustainable production, incorporating the land-sparing and land-sharing approach. This work was conducted using 167 household surveys along an altitudinal gradient within the buffer and transition zone of the Sumaco Biosphere Reserve (SBR) in the EAR. The results of a comparative analysis of the main capital variables (human, social, natural, financial, and physical), and the opportunity cost of grazing area assessment provides the following key findings: (a) the concepts of land sparing and land sharing should be considered as complementary local strategies, including household livelihoods and the opportunity cost of the grazing area; (b) we should encourage markets with differentiated restoration rights, based on households engaged in low grazing areas’ opportunity costs, and making less impact on capitals’ livelihood a key element of economic and conservation initiatives; and (c) sectoral policy implications, including moderate intensification and technological improvements to strengthen the pastureland-sparing and -sharing approach, are discussed.

We studied food security and biodiversity conservation from a social-ecological perspective in southwestern Ethiopia. Specialist tree, bird, and mammal species required large, undisturbed forest, supporting the notion of 'land sparing' for conservation. However, our findings also suggest that forest areas should be embedded within a multifunctional landscape matrix (i.e. 'land sharing'), because farmland also supported many species and ecosystem services and was the basis of diversified livelihoods. Diversified livelihoods improved smallholder food security, while lack of access to capital assets and crop raiding by wild forest animals negatively influenced food security. Food and biodiversity governance lacked coordination and was strongly hierarchical, with relatively few stakeholders being highly powerful. Our study shows that issues of livelihoods, access to resources, governance and equity are central when resolving challenges around food security and biodiversity. A multi-facetted, social-ecological approach is better able to capture such complexity than the conventional, two-dimensional land sparing versus sharing framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across the European Union, the receipt of agricultural subsidisation is increasingly being predicated on the delivery of public goods. In the English context, in particular, these changes can be seen in the redirection of money to the new Environmental Land Management scheme. Such shifts reflect the changed expectations that society is placing on agriculture—from something that provides one good (food) to something that supplies many (food, access to green spaces, healthy rural environment, flood resilience, reduced greenhouse gas emissions). Whilst the reasons behind the changes are well documented, understanding how these shifts are being experienced by the managers expected to deliver on these new expectations is less well understood. Bourdieu's social theory and the good farmer concept are used to attend to this blind spot, and to provide timely insight as the country progresses along its public goods subsidy transition. Evidence from 65 interviews with 40 different interviewees (25 of whom gave a repeat interview) show a general willingness towards the transition to a public goods model of subsidisation. The optimisation and efficiency that has historically characterised the productivist identity is colouring the way managers are approaching the delivery of public goods. Ideas of land sparing and land sharing (and the farming preference for the former over the latter) are used to help understand these new social and attitudinal realities. The policy implications of these findings are discussed, with reference to the new scheme's 'priority themes'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Land sharing versus land sparing describes contrasting strategies to conserve biodiversity while maintaining agricultural production. We comprehensively reviewed empirical studies comparing land‐sharing and land‐sparing strategies to assess how these were conceptualized and how consequences for biodiversity, commodity production, and additional ecosystem services have been quantified. Out of 52 studies, a majority conceptualized land sharing as environmental‐friendly agriculture or low‐yielding agriculture, and land sparing as high‐yielding agriculture combined with preserved natural habitats. However, the latter also represented land sharing in several studies, resulting in an overlap in how land sharing and land sparing were conceptualized. Studies focuses on a limited number of taxonomic groups, primarily birds, whereas ecosystem services (mainly carbon storage) and economic outcomes were rarely considered. To facilitate comparisons and on‐the‐ground implementation, we suggest to recognize the multitude of land‐use combinations along a continuum from extreme land sharing to extreme land sparing. This includes being explicit about both the spatial scales of preserved habitats and the features in land sharing or intermediate strategies that are assumed to benefit biodiversity and hamper commodity production. We also suggest that taxonomic groups, ecosystem services, and welfare consequences should be analyzed based on conservation needs and impacts on social–ecological systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Land-use change has led to substantial range contractions for many species. Such contractions are particularly acute for wide-ranging large carnivores in Asia's high altitude areas, which are marked by high spatiotemporal variability in resources. Current conservation planning for human-dominated landscapes often takes one of two main approaches: a "coexistence" (land sharing) approach or a "separation" (land sparing) approach. In this study, we evaluated the effects of land-use management on a guild of large carnivores in a montane ecosystem located in northeastern Iran. We used interview surveys to collect data on Persian leopard Panthera pardus saxicolor and grey wolf Canis lupus and modeled the areas occupied by these species in a Bayesian framework. After accounting for imperfect detection, we found that wolves had a higher probability of occupying the study area than leopards (82%; 95% CI 73–90% vs. 63%; 95% CI 53–73%). Importantly, each predator showed contrasting response to land-use management. National Parks (i.e. human-free areas) had a positive association with leopard occupancy (αNational Park = 2.56, 95% CI 0.22–5.77), in contrast to wolves, which displayed a negative association with National Parks (αNational Park = − 1.62, 95% CI − 2.29 to 0.31). An opposite pattern was observed for human-dominated areas (i.e. Protected Areas and Communal Lands), where occupancy was higher for wolves but lower for leopards. Our study suggests that to protect these large carnivores, a combination of land sharing and land sparing approaches is desirable within Iran montane landscapes. Any recovery program for big cats in Iranian mountains, and likely similar mountainous landscapes in west Asia, should take into account other sympatric carnivores and how they can affect adjacent human communities. For example, conflict mitigation and compensation efforts are required to include the guild of large carnivores, instead of solely targeting the charismatic big cats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How to feed, house, clothe and power 11 billion of us without eliminating very many species and wrecking Earth's climate is perhaps this century's greatest challenge. We must obviously strive to curb growth in resource‐intensive demand, but we also need to identify production systems that meet people's needs at least overall cost to nature. The land‐sharing/sparing concept provides a quantitative framework for doing this, centred around the principle that generating meaningful insights requires comparing alternatives that are matched in terms of overall production. Applications of this framework to >2500 individually assessed species of vertebrates, plants and insects across five continents show that most species decline under farming, and that most would fare least badly under a land‐sparing approach – with high‐yield production meeting demand in a relatively small, farmed area, freeing‐up space for conservation of intact habitats elsewhere in the landscape. However, important questions remain around how to deliver high yields sustainably, and how to ensure high‐yield farming does indeed spare natural habitat. The framework is increasingly being applied in other domains too – including urban planning, recreation, forestry and fisheries – where it has the potential to shed light on long‐running debates about whether nature would prefer us to concentrate our impact or spread it more lightly but widely. The realization that conservation cannot be delivered without simultaneously considering how humanity meets its needs in these and other sectors is of particular significance as policymakers meet to establish global environmental targets through to 2030 and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Land sharing versus land sparing describes contrasting strategies to conserve biodiversity while maintaining agricultural production. We comprehensively reviewed empirical studies comparing land‐sharing and land‐sparing strategies to assess how these were conceptualized and how consequences for biodiversity, commodity production, and additional ecosystem services have been quantified. Out of 52 studies, a majority conceptualized land sharing as environmental‐friendly agriculture or low‐yielding agriculture, and land sparing as high‐yielding agriculture combined with preserved natural habitats. However, the latter also represented land sharing in several studies, resulting in an overlap in how land sharing and land sparing were conceptualized. Studies focuses on a limited number of taxonomic groups, primarily birds, whereas ecosystem services (mainly carbon storage) and economic outcomes were rarely considered. To facilitate comparisons and on‐the‐ground implementation, we suggest to recognize the multitude of land‐use combinations along a continuum from extreme land sharing to extreme land sparing. This includes being explicit about both the spatial scales of preserved habitats and the features in land sharing or intermediate strategies that are assumed to benefit biodiversity and hamper commodity production. We also suggest that taxonomic groups, ecosystem services, and welfare consequences should be analyzed based on conservation needs and impacts on social–ecological systems.

Tropical forest ecosystems are the most species-rich in the world and face intense pressures from land conversion. If done well, selective logging can be an important way of supporting local economies while minimally impacting wildlife. However, most studies on how selective logging affects wildlife come from sites that have been logged some time ago, often a decade or more. Here we assess how logging affects species assemblages in the very short term, immediately after the cessation of timber operations. We estimated overall mammal species richness in unlogged forest, previously logged forest, and an active logging concession in Indonesian Borneo using rarefaction-extrapolation-based diversity estimators. We found that estimated species richness did not differ significantly between unlogged forest (15.5 ± 2.82 species), previously logged forest (14.5 ± 2.10), or recently logged sites (14.2 ± 1.45) sites. Our findings suggest that the short-term impacts of properly managed selective logging are on par with the longer-term impacts that have been assessed in many prior studies.

• Power and politics are largely neglected in forest transition research. • We develop a framework to identify power relations in forest politics. • We analyze the contested forest transition in Lao PDR. • Tree plantations and REDD+ gain importance to modernize extractivist activities. • Livelihoods-based approaches should figure more prominently in forest politics. Increasing forest cover through reforestation and forest regrowth constitutes an essential contribution to mitigating the climate crisis, especially in the tropics. The Southeast Asian country of Lao PDR is on the brink of a forest transition, that is, a shift from net deforestation to net increases in forest area. This process is, however, contested and this article sheds light to power and politics in forest transitions and the implications for forests and people in Lao PDR and beyond. We develop a conceptual framework rooted in political ecology and critical state theory to identify visions and strategies by institutional actors that aim to transform the forests in particular ways, reflect on their power resources and synthesize three development projects from these strategies. We identify an antecedent dominant extractivist development project, focused on state-led timber extraction and large-scale land acquisitions. We argue that green development strategies that commodify forests through offsetting schemes, results-based payments from REDD+ and industrial tree plantations are increasingly mobilized to complement and modernize this extractivist development trajectory. Whereas these strategies align in their focus on land sparing to intensify agricultural and forest production, on the margins, we carve out an alternative livelihoods-based development project that supports extensive agroecological practices (including shifting cultivation) and integrates forests into multifunctional landscapes, re-centering local interests in reforestation approaches. The research therefore contributes to a more complex understanding of power and politics in forest transition research as well as a nuanced understanding of forest politics in political ecology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The conversion of natural, or seminatural, habitats to agricultural land and changes in agricultural land use are significant drivers of biodiversity loss. Within the context of land‐sharing versus land‐sparing debates, large‐scale commercial agriculture is known to be detrimental to biodiversity, but the effects of small‐scale subsistence farming on biodiversity are disputed. This poses a problem for sustainable land‐use management in the Global South, where approximately 30% of farmland is small‐scale. Following a rapid land redistribution program in Zimbabwe, we evaluated changes in avian biodiversity by examining richness, abundance, and functional diversity. Rapid land redistribution has, in the near term, resulted in increased avian abundance in newly farmed areas containing miombo woodland and open habitat. Conversion of seminatural ranched land to small‐scale farms had a negative impact on larger‐bodied birds, but species richness increased, and birds in some feeding guilds maintained or increased abundance. We found evidence that land‐use change caused a shift in the functional traits of the communities present. However, functional analyses may not have adequately reflected the trait filtering effect of land redistribution on large species. Whether newly farmed landscapes in Zimbabwe can deliver multiple benefits in terms of food production and habitat for biodiversity in the longer term is an open question. When managing agricultural land transitions, relying on taxonomic measures of diversity, or abundance‐weighted measures of function diversity, may obscure important information. If the value of smallholder‐farmed land for birds is to be maintained or improved, it will be essential to ensure that a wide array of habitat types is retained alongside efforts to reduce hunting and persecution of large bird species.

Growing competition for land, water and energy call for global strategies ensuring affordable food production at minimum environmental impacts. Economic modelling studies suggest trade-off relationships between environmental sustainability and food prices. However, evidence based on empirical cost-functions supporting such trade-offs remains scarce at the global level. Here, based on cost engineering modelling, we show that optimised spatial allocation of 10 major crops, would reduce current costs of agricultural production by approximately 40% while improving environmental performance. Although production inputs per unit of output increase at local scales, a reduction of cultivated land of 50% overcompensates the slightly higher field-scale costs enabling improved overall cost-effectiveness. Our results suggest that long-run food prices are bound to continue to decrease under strong environmental policies. Policies supporting sustainability transitions in the land sector should focus on managing local barriers to the implementation of high-yield regenerative agricultural practices delivering multiple regional and global public goods.

Policies aiming at improving biodiversity often consist of costly agri-environmental schemes, i.e. subsidized grazing or mowing of semi-natural areas. However, these practices have widely been found to be insufficient to mitigate biodiversity loss. Rewilding, i.e. restoring natural processes in self-sustaining biodiverse ecosystems, has been proposed as an alternative and is hypothesized to be a more cost-efficient approach to promote biodiversity conservation. Rewilding requires the availability of large natural areas which are not allocated for farming, forestry, and infrastructure to avoid potential conflicts over the use of the area. We perform an ex-ante private cost–benefit analysis of the establishment of four large nature reserves for rewilding in Denmark. We analyse the economic effects of changing from summer grazing in nature areas in combination with cultivated fields and forestry to the establishment of nature reserves in four case areas. We consider two scenarios involving conversion of agriculture and forestry areas into natural areas in combination with either extensive year-round cattle grazing or rewilding with wild large herbivores. In two case areas, it appears possible to establish large nature areas without incurring extra costs. Additionally, rewilding further reduces costs compared to year-round cattle grazing. Two opposing effects were dominant: increased economic rent occurred from the shift from summer grazing to year-round grazing or rewilding, while cessation of agriculture and forestry caused opportunity costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding how to allocate land for the sustainable delivery of multiple, competing objectives is a major societal challenge. The land sharing‐sparing framework presents a heuristic for understanding the trade‐off between food production and biodiversity conservation by comparing region‐wide land‐use scenarios which are equivalent in terms of overall food production.Here, for two contrasting regions of lowland England (The Fens and Salisbury Plain), we use empirical data and predictive models to compare a suite of spatially explicit scenarios reflecting the full range of the sharing‐sparing continuum, including mixed scenarios which combine elements of both sharing and sparing. We evaluate a range of outcomes (bird populations, global warming potential (GWP), nitrogen and phosphorus pollution and outdoor recreation), to identify approaches to regional land‐use planning with the potential to deliver multiple societal benefits.Land‐sharing scenarios (which reduce the dominance of productive agricultural land in farmed areas and the area of larger unfarmed areas) result in negative outcomes, particularly for birds and GWP. In contrast, many land‐sparing scenarios (including mixed scenarios which increase the area of lower‐yield farmland alongside larger unfarmed areas) resulted in improvements in all or most outcomes, although for recreation and nutrient export differences between scenarios were modest.Importantly, environmental outcomes also depended on the spatial arrangement of spared land, the types of natural or semi‐natural habitat promoted on spared land, whether some lower‐yield farmland is delivered alongside larger unfarmed areas, and the overall region‐wide food production target.Policy implications. Our study suggests that land‐sparing strategies which increase the area of natural and semi‐natural areas can improve environmental outcomes, despite the costs associated with high‐yield agriculture. However, high‐yield agriculture should not compromise future production or the conservation value of spared land, and explicit policies such as certification or payments for ecosystem services are required to link sustainable high‐yield production to habitat conservation. Our study also highlights the importance of mitigating projected increases in food demand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]