Webbläsaren som du använder stöds inte av denna webbplats. Alla versioner av Internet Explorer stöds inte längre, av oss eller Microsoft (läs mer här: * https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Var god och använd en modern webbläsare för att ta del av denna webbplats, som t.ex. nyaste versioner av Edge, Chrome, Firefox eller Safari osv.

William Sidemo Holm. Foto.

William Sidemo Holm

Postdoktor

William Sidemo Holm. Foto.

Land sharing versus land sparing—What outcomes are compared between which land uses?

Författare

  • William Sidemo Holm
  • Johan Ekroos
  • Henrik G. Smith

Summary, in English

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 biodiver- sity, 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 spar- ing 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. Stud- ies 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 implementa- tion, 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.

Avdelning/ar

  • AgriFood Economics Centre, Ekonomihögskolan vid Lunds universitet
  • Biodiversitet och bevarandevetenskap
  • BECC: Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in a Changing Climate
  • Centrum för miljö- och klimatvetenskap (CEC)
  • Lunds universitets hållbarhetsforum
  • Biodiversitet

Publiceringsår

2021-06-16

Språk

Engelska

Publikation/Tidskrift/Serie

Conservation Science and Practice

Volym

3

Issue

11

Dokumenttyp

Artikel i tidskrift

Förlag

Wiley

Ämne

  • Environmental Sciences related to Agriculture and Land-use
  • Ecology

Status

Published

Forskningsgrupp

  • Biodiversity and Conservation Science

ISBN/ISSN/Övrigt

  • ISSN: 2578-4854