The costs of delivering environmental outcomes with land sharing and land sparing

Abstract

1. The biodiversity and climate crises demand ambitious policies lowering the environmental impacts of farming. Most current interventions incentivise so-called landsharing 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.2. 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 wellstudied 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.4. 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. 5. 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.

Spillovers and legacies of land management on temperate woodland biodiversity

“…Given that agriculture is the dominant land use in many temperate regions of the world, conservationists must address the current biodiversity crisis by working within agricultural landscapes, balancing interventions against food production and other land-use demands [51,57]. National and international policy commitments relating to biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation are expected to drive large-scale land-use change in coming decades [58].…”

The Cornwall Beaver Project: navigating the social-ecological complexity of rewilding as a nature-based solution

“…The creation of corridors along water courses represents a "land-sparing" approach to reconciling biodiversity conservation and agriculture. Collas et al (2022) found strong evidence for a land sparing approach in England and Grass et al (2019) argue that land-spared corridors in agricultural landscapes allows species to move, saving them from extinction in hostile areas to maintain the resilience of ecosystem services. Land-sparing agri-environment schemes in Europe were found to increase the abundance and diversity of arthropods in agricultural landscapes (Marja et al, 2022).…”

Optimizing Biochar Application Rates to Improve Soil Properties and Crop Growth in Saline–Alkali Soil

“…These methods can be broadly classified into four categories: physical measures, chemical measures, biological measures, and combined measures [4]. Nevertheless, traditional measures associated with these efforts are plagued by drawbacks such as elevated costs, diminished efficiency, and a substantial carbon footprint, particularly within the context of climate change [6].…”