Next Article in Journal
Design Solutions for Sustainable Construction of Pre Engineered Steel Buildings
Next Article in Special Issue
The Sustainability of Agricultural Development in China: The Agriculture–Environment Nexus
Previous Article in Journal
Land Suitability and Insurance Premiums: A GIS-based Multicriteria Analysis Approach for Sustainable Rice Production
Previous Article in Special Issue
Jevons’ Paradox and Efficient Irrigation Technology
Article Menu
Issue 6 (June) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sustainability 2018, 10(6), 1760;

What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model?

Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Biomonitoramento, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Bahia 40170-115, Brazil
Received: 1 April 2018 / Revised: 24 May 2018 / Accepted: 25 May 2018 / Published: 28 May 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Agriculture: The State of the Great Debates)
Full-Text   |   PDF [11480 KB, uploaded 28 May 2018]   |  


The land sparing-sharing model provides a powerful heuristic and analytical framework for understanding the potential of agricultural landscapes to support wild species. However, its conceptual and analytical strengths and limitations remain widely contested or misunderstood. Here, I review what inferences can and cannot be derived from the framework, and discuss eight specific points of contention and confusion. The land sparing-sharing framework is underpinned by an ethic that seeks to minimise harm to non-human species. It is used to quantify how good farmland is for different species, in relation to appropriate reference land uses, and at what opportunity cost. The results of empirical studies that have used the model indicate that most species will have larger populations if food is produced on as small an area as possible, while sparing as large an area of native vegetation as possible. The potential benefits of land sharing or intermediate strategies for wild species are more limited. I review disagreements about the scope of analysis (food production cf. food security), the value of high-yield farmland for wildlife, the (ir)relevance of the Borlaug hypothesis, scale and heterogeneity, fostering human connections to nature, the prospects for land sparing in heavily-modified landscapes, the role of land sparing in improving connectivity, and the political implications of the model. Interpreted alongside insights from social, political and economic studies, the model can help us to understand how decisions about land-use will affect the persistence of wild species populations into the future. View Full-Text
Keywords: biodiversity conservation; agricultural intensification; farmland expansion; wildlife-friendly farming; habitat restoration; trade-offs biodiversity conservation; agricultural intensification; farmland expansion; wildlife-friendly farming; habitat restoration; trade-offs

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Phalan, B.T. What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model? Sustainability 2018, 10, 1760.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top