Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 17 (2019) 201–205

Supported by Boticário Group Foundation for Nature Protection

www.perspectecolconserv.com

Policy Forums

Balancing land sharing and sparing approaches to promote forest and

landscape restoration in agricultural landscapes:
Land approaches for forest landscape restoration
Paula Meli a,b,∗ , José María Rey-Benayas c , Pedro H.S. Brancalion a
a
Department of Forest Sciences, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Av. Pádua Dias 11, Piracicaba-SP, 13418-260, Brazil
b
Departamento de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile
c
Departamento de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Forest and landscape restoration (FLR) could benefit from the land sharing/sparing approaches to support
Received 17 January 2019 decisions. We discuss four questions potentially shaping FLR outcomes in agricultural landscapes in the
Accepted 27 September 2019 context of land sharing/sparing decisions: (1) Which are the main focuses of restorative interventions?;
Available online 13 November 2019
(2) Which kind of restored forests should these interventions target?; (3) Which restorative interven-
tions should be implemented and where?; and (4) What are the major factors influencing restoration
Keywords: outcomes? Some restorative interventions embraced by FLR may compete with specific land uses and
Biodiversity
thus require careful planning to minimize trade-offs and maximize synergies. Decision making on the
Ecosystem services
Governance
restorative intervention combination needs considering the spatial distribution and configuration of the
Policy final land uses in the landscape together with its social context and a multi-stakeholder process. Ulti-
Social mately, finding the right balance between land sharing/sparing approaches will also require navigating
Sustainability governance issues that regulate FLR implementation.
© 2019 Associação Brasileira de Ciência Ecológica e Conservação. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).

The promise of forest and landscape restoration resent different ‘restorative interventions’ (Aronson et al., 2017;
Laestadius et al., 2015). Nevertheless, most FLR projects ultimately
Forest and landscape restoration (FLR) has emerged as a involve a tree/forest cover increase as the basis of the landscape
landscape management framework to recover large extents of transformation process (Brancalion and Chazdon, 2017). A criti-
deforested and degraded lands and to contribute to human wellbe- cal factor for enabling its implementation is land availability, since
ing (Lamb, 2014; Chazdon et al., 2017). FLR responds to the Bonn most of the >2 billion hectares of landscapes potentially available
Challenge, a global initiative to bring 150 million hectares of defor- for FLR is currently occupied by agricultural land use (Stanturf et al.,
ested and degraded land into restoration by 2020, and 350 million 2015) and this area will still increase in the near future (Song et al.,
hectares by 2030; pledged by 49 countries, nine private sectors, and 2018). Thus careful land planning and management − including
some subnational jurisdictions (Bonn Challenge, 2019). FLR offers financial expectations of landowners − is needed to accommodate
benefits in terms of biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, additional tree/forest cover without bringing serious setbacks for
and agricultural production, which can be potentially reconciled in people (e.g., land grabbing), and for the environment across differ-
the same landscape (Sayer et al., 2013; Rey Benayas and Bullock, ent scales (e.g., leakage) (Grau et al., 2013; Latawiec et al., 2015;
2015). Multi-functional landscapes may include several coexisting Brancalion and Chazdon, 2017).
land use types such as protected native forest remnants, natu- Expanding tree cover in the landscape has been showed to
rally regenerated forests, agroforests, mixed species plantations, increase productivity and improve livelihoods and biodiversity, but
and commercial monoculture plantations, which collectively rep- it may prevent intensive agriculture due to restrictions to mecha-
nization; however, little is known about how existing land uses
have to be modified to accommodate these more trees (Fairhead
∗ Corresponding author. et al., 2012; Latawiec et al., 2015). In this context, important ques-
E-mail addresses: pmeli@usp.br, pedrob@usp.br tions can potentially shape FLR outcomes in the context of land
(P. Meli), jmrey@uah.es (J.M. Rey-Benayas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.09.002
2530-0644/© 2019 Associação Brasileira de Ciência Ecológica e Conservação. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
202 P. Meli et al. / Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 17 (2019) 201–205

sharing/sparing management approaches proposed for reconciling large spatial scales to support ecosystems services (Fisher et al.,
biodiversity conservation and agricultural production (Green et al., 2014; Goulart et al., 2016), such as water provision, which could be
2005). Land sharing aims to integrate both objectives on the same affected by locating short-rotation monoculture tree plantations in
land, while land sparing aims to combine high-yield farming in one particular location of the basin (Little et al., 2015). Sparing would
place and natural protected areas in other place to prevent con- be more useful to restore landscapes that aim to including areas of
version of natural habitat to agriculture (Fisher et al., 2008; Phalan high conservation value while sharing may be a better choice when
et al., 2011). Impacts of land sharing/sparing approaches on biodi- the productive landscape already supports a relatively high pro-
versity conservation (Kremen, 2015; Goulart et al., 2016; Seppelt portion of the native biodiversity in the region (Montoya-Molina
et al., 2016) and on more general environmental issues (Grau et al., et al., 2016), and offers opportunities when FLR is focused on sen-
2013; Sayer et al., 2013) have been discussed, but implications with sitive species (Phalan et al., 2016). Sharing may also help to restore
respect to large-scale restoration have been poorly explored (but biodiversity values linked to cultural landscapes (Rey Benayas and
see Latawiec et al., 2015). These two approaches may be discussed Bullock, 2012) and offers opportunities when FLR is focuseddi on
in the FLR context and help understanding their implications for ecosystem services or functional connectivity that depends on rem-
ecosystem services and benefits for local livelihoods (Rey Benayas nant forests configuration in the landscape (see 3). The different
and Bullock, 2012). Here, we first explore challenges and opportu- focuses of selected restorative interventions will determine speci-
nities arisen from the land sparing/sharing approaches in relation to ficities on the structure and functions of the tree cover type to be
which and where restorative interventions should be implemented restored in the landscape.
in FLR in agricultural landscapes. Next, we discuss policy guidelines 2. Which kind of tree cover should restorative interventions target?
to minimize undesirable trade-offs and maximize synergies among Ultimately, FLR is about restoring the essential ecosystem func-
these interventions and land management options in a large-scale tions that sustain landscape functionality and productivity from
restoration context to attain sustainable, multi-functional land- which people rely and contribute to solving global challenges (Bonn
scapes. Challenge, 2019). But different restorative interventions would pro-
duce different tree cover types. In this context, the adoption of
sharing/sparing approaches may favor tree cover types holding
Land management approaches and forest and landscape distinct diversity, composition, and structure. For instance, under
restoration specific landscape conditions or locations, we may want bringing
native forest back to a pre-disturbance stage (i.e. ecological restora-
Considering land sharing/sparing as binary endpoints rather tion). In a sharing context, interventions may target integrating
than two opposite ends of a continuum (Grau et al., 2013; Fisher a managed forest and agricultural land uses in the same space
et al., 2014; Goulart et al., 2016) has made this debate irresolv- and time (e.g., silvopastoral systems, shaded coffee, living fences).
able and problematic because they are the extremes of what is Thus, dissimilarities of structure and biodiversity between restored
biophysically possible in a landscape, and realistic options are usu- and reference ecosystems may be tolerated to sustain a reasonable
ally between those extremes. FLR is not just restricted to either functioning and to provide ecosystem services (Chazdon, 2008), so
biodiversity conservation or agricultural production objectives. FLR success should not be measured based solely on the similarity
Inclusion of ecosystem services other than agricultural production to reference ecosystems, as for ecological restoration. Meanwhile, a
and specific benefits to local livelihoods incorporate new dimen- sparing context would imply laborious and, sometimes, expensive,
sions to the comparison of land management approaches. efforts to restore the attributes of the reference forest (McDonald
Some restorative interventions in the FLR approach may com- et al., 2016), and restoration areas may have to be set aside from
pete against previous agro-pastoral land uses and thus require agro-pastoral land uses to support a full recovery. Both targeted
careful planning to minimize undesirable trade-offs and maxi- forests and land management approaches will be useful for FLR,
mize synergies, as social particularities incorporate trade-offs in depending on the ecological and socio-economic context that will
decision-making (Metzger et al., 2017). Opportunities for imple- determine the spatial scale and which and where the restorative
menting FLR arise from the widespread distribution of low interventions should be implemented (see 3). The social context,
productivity pasturelands in steep slopes, which could be recon- associated to land tenure and access to natural resources, would
verted to native forests through natural regeneration at lower determine or at least constraint how, when and where financial
costs and reduced impacts on production (see Box 1), and the pro- resources will be used and which kind of restorative interventions
duction gains resulting from the establishment of woodlots and would be attractive to local people.
inclusion of trees in a agro-pastoral systems. But some constrains 3. Which and where restorative interventions should be
emerge from the loss of agricultural production resulting from the implemented? Any choice that social actors make regarding
reconversion of agro-pastoral lands to native forests, and the imple- sharing/sparing will affect the resulting map of restorative inter-
mentation costs of restorative interventions. In the agricultural ventions and their related scenarios. Opportunities for FLR from
landscapes where FLR focuses, the challenge remains practical, and land sharing/sparing would arise depending on the focus and con-
there are some questions that are mutually related and cannot be figuration of the restorative interventions. Sparing schemes are
fully answered independently in order to support decisions on FLR usually employed in the contexts of biodiversity-offsetting policies,
(Fig. 1): compliance with legal instruments, and set-aside areas estab-
1. Which are the main focuses of the selected restorative interven- lished by environmental NGOs to recover the habitat of targeted
tions? FLR restorative interventions may bring up different focus species or private landowners through natural private reserves or
(e.g., biodiversity, ecosystem functions, specific goods and services, conservation easements, whereas sharing approaches are mainly
and livelihoods). For instance, if the intervention is focused on used in the context of agroforestry, agroecology, and forestry.
recovering biodiversity (e.g., ecological restoration to create habi- As commented above, interventions under sparing schemes are
tat for some species), both sharing and sparing may result in no expected to preferentially target the full recovery of ecosystem
net gain and even loss of particular species as sharing may favor attributes, but this depends on where (e.g., close to remnant forests
tolerant and open field species while sparing may favor forest- to favor recolonization) and which interventions are implemented
specialist species (Phalan et al., 2011). At the same time, choosing (e.g., natural regeneration or using high-diversity tree plantings of
between sharing/sparing to accommodate gains in tree/forest cover native species). Outcomes for ecosystem services following the full
in the landscape may alter ecosystem functions that depend on range of restorative interventions can be diverse and difficult to
 P. Meli et al. / Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 17 (2019) 201–205 203

Fig. 1. Four critical questions to support decisions on forest and landscape restoration. The questions are illustrated with examples of responses that hint forces pulling FLR
implementation under the two endpoints of the land sharing/sparing gradient.

predict (Fig. 1). In addition, the appropriateness of sharing/sparing and García-Villalta, 2014; Box 1) and considering also individual
is influenced by the biophysical characteristics of landscapes. For isolated trees or small forest patches. In addition to transform-
instance, mountainous regions may offer more opportunities for ing ‘simple’ crops and pastures to agroforestry systems through
sparing, since marginal agricultural lands in steep slopes can be increasing diversity, which is a pillar of FLR, wildlife-friendly
easily set aside to recover native ecosystems through natural agriculture may involve biodiversity-based agricultural practices,
regeneration (see Box 1). In regions dominated by intensive agricul- learning from traditional farming, changing from conventional to
ture, policy instrument mandating or encouraging the recovery of organic agriculture, and restoring or creating specific elements such
native ecosystems in environmental fragile areas may foster spar- as hedgerows to benefit wildlife and particular ecosystem services
ing as well in small portions of the landscape (Rodrigues et al., (Rey Benayas and Bullock, 2012; Rey Benayas et al., 2019; Box 1). All
2011), while substantial increases in tree cover will rely in shar- this could help a small scale but also are needed for intensive agri-
ing approaches. Social actor’s selection of restorative interventions culture are needed. Both approaches may overlap. The surrounding
and where in the agricultural landscape they are implemented will matrix will determine land availability and the opportunity costs
drive the outcomes of the future restored forest landscape. for restoration.
4. What are the main factors influencing restorative intervention At the same time, social information is also critical and should
outcomes? Finally, the selection among sharing/sparing approaches be combined to understand how species respond to different
and their activities will be also related to factors that influ- land-use configurations. In a FLR context, supporting sharing or
ence restoration outcomes. Configuration of the landscape to be sparing can be socially controversial. Thus, even improving liveli-
restored, namely the proportion and spatial distribution of the hoods for people, opportunities should be also evaluated in the
remaining natural forests in the surrounding matrix, would deter- context of market, institutional and political factors, to be appro-
mine these outcomes. For instance, ecological restoration should priately selected for different environmental and socioeconomic
focus (at least on its first stages) on establishing new forested contexts and sustainable in time and (Brancalion et al., 2016). For
areas that provide a vegetation structure able to support water-, instance, sparing policies may convey governments to solve ini-
soil-, and climate-related ecosystem services while providing habi- tial financing and educational and cultural barriers for producers
tat for wildlife (see 1), especially if total remaining native forest (mostly the local ones) to adopt more technologically advanced
cover in the landscape is low (<30%; Banks-Leite et al., 2014). These agricultural systems (Brancalion et al., 2012; Latawiec et al., 2014).
areas may be better restored under sparing schemes while sharing Finally, land sharing/sparing decisions in FLR should also consider
schemes may be used in fragmented landscapes that still main- stakeholder preferences and livelihoods, while navigating conflicts
tain some proportion of forest cover. These fragmented landscapes among stakeholder interests and power asymmetries among them.
are very common in the tropics, where restorative interventions
usually work at local scales and focus on particular landscape Recommendations for forest and landscape restoration in
components (e.g., riparian or headwater areas) or functions (e.g. the tropics
landscape connectivity for biodiversity), but allowing production
(Meli et al., 2017). If there is very little remaining natural forest, FLR approaches will depend not only on degradation levels but
FLR goals could increase forest extent and quality in the landscape also on the desired outcomes (Chazdon, 2008), working scales,
(Hodgson et al., 2011), but also enhancing the landscape matrix and stakeholders’ interests. Typically, FLR will need both land
through wildlife-friendly agriculture (Melo et al., 2013; Crespin sharing and land sparing to fulfill its specific goals and achieve
204 P. Meli et al. / Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 17 (2019) 201–205

opportunities, perform cost-benefit analyses, navigate policy, and

Box 1: Example of a Forest and Landscape Restora- evaluate social acceptance (Chazdon et al., 2017). We nevertheless
tion program using different land sharing/sparing emphasize the following guidelines for FLR planning:
approaches to accommodate new tree cover extent in
a previously deforested landscape in the Colombian
Andes. • Consider the spatial distribution and configuration of restora-
tive interventions: Overarching FLR objectives are highly
influenced by the spatial distribution and configuration of
tree/forest cover gain, so planning should go beyond estimations
of tree/forest cover extents and consider of all land uses in the
landscape.
• Consider social particularities of landscapes: Selecting one or
a bunch of restorative interventions to be implemented is not
only about configuration and biophysical conditions. Social con-
text results critical to decide which and where each restorative
intervention should be placed. For instance, population is becom-
ing urban in many tropical regions (Seto et al., 2012), and the
abandonment of rural areas may be an opportunity for FLR only if
they potentially bring some livelihood benefits for people staying
The farm in the left represent a typical farm in the region, in the countryside. The socioeconomic dynamics of landscapes
where most of the native forests were converted to exten-
should be considered for selecting land management approaches
sive pasturelands. The farm in the right side had a similar
to decide where and how to promote FLR.
land use configuration to its neighbor, but have been submit-
• Minimize leakage: Land is becoming scarce due to popula-
ted to different types of restorative interventions in the last
20 years: Conservation: the native forest fragments remain- tion growth and higher per capita consumption, and there is an
ing in the very steep slopes of the farm have been protected increasing global demand for agricultural products (Godfray et al.,
against further disturbances (1); Restoration through land spar- 2010). Large-scale restoration initiatives, as other land uses, may
ing: the areas with low productive potential (e.g. steep slopes) displace agricultural activities and potentially lead to clearance
have been abandoned for natural regeneration (2) and areas of native vegetation elsewhere For instance, cropland intensifi-
of high environmental importance (e.g. riparian buffers) have cation during the 2000s displaced cattle ranching to the frontier
been restored through mixed-species plantations (5); Restora- region causing deforestation in Brazil (Barona et al., 2010). Thus,
tion through land sharing: pasturelands in areas with higher
the real risks of leakage have to be incorporated and minimized
productive potential (e.g. flatter areas with better soils) have
been converted to silvopastoral systems (4) − submitted to an into FLR planning (Latawiec et al., 2015).
• Incorporate trade-offs in decision-making: although FLR aims
ecological intensification process to increase productivity and
compensate for the loss of pasture area −, and eucalypt wood- to achieve more balanced, win-win solutions, trade-offs will
lots (3). The remarkable increase in tree cover observed in the be always present (Charpentier, 2015; Brancalion and Chazdon,
last 20 years was only possible due to the use of appropriate 2017). Sparing could be a better option for regional biodiversity
land sharing/sparing restorative approaches, integrating both if the amount of land devoted to conservation represent a suit-
socioeconomic and biophysical features of the farm, and have able area of the landscape. However, at least in tropical countries,
resulted in a heterogeneous tree cover composed of reforests sparing could be a worse option for delivering some ecosystem
with different capacities to promote biodiversity conservation,
services and improve livelihoods at local scales due to pollution
ecosystem services provisioning, and local livelihoods. These
caused by the frequent uncontrolled use of pesticides and fertil-
kinds of restorative interventions were adopted by local stake-
holders in 104 cattle farms spanning 2,950 hectares in the izers (Laurance et al., 2014), soil erosion, loss of agro-biodiversity
La Vieja River watershed (Colombia), as part of the project and traditional landscapes (Fisher et al., 2012), and land grabbing
‘Regional Integrated Silvopastoral Approaches to Ecosystem for the expansion of industrial monocultures (Grau et al., 2013).
Management’ (Pagiola and Rios, 2013; Rivera et al., 2013). Trade-offs and synergies have to be taken into account according
to specific program goals, and the view of different stakeholder
groups have to be incorporated into decision making in order to
build restoration governance.
global restoration targets (Box 1). Land sharing strategies may • Consider particularities of restorative interventions: these
allow the maintenance of farmland production and conservation
interventions result in differential outcomes for biodiversity,
of values linked to cultural landscapes at the field and landscape
ecosystem services and local livelihoods (Chazdon et al., 2016),
scales; in contrast, sparing would provide all these benefits only
and consequently have different value to spare (e.g., pasture
at the landscape or regional scales as this restoration approach
intensification to restore riparian forests) or share (e.g., silvopas-
may occur at the expense of field-level agricultural production
toral systems) land in the context of current land uses. Land
(Rey Benayas and Bullock, 2012). Considering both the ecologi-
sharing and sparing may be combined, as for example planning
cal and social context warrants explicit inclusion in assessments
a buffer strips and hedgerow networks that subtract a minimum
of agricultural and environmental policy (Law and Wilson, 2015).
percentage of farmland to increase forest connectivity and water
Analysis of the sharing/sparing framework can inform (even not
and nutrient retention (Rey Benayas et al. (2019).
easy) real-world decisions on why, when, where and how imple-
menting which types of FLR interventions. This is essentially an
economic framework because it is grounded on the efficient allo- Conclusions
cation of a competing and usually scarce resource, namely land
(“land scarcity”; Fisher et al., 2014). The most critical issue is deal- Recognizing that landscapes are dynamic and restoration actu-
ing with land demand where there is no option for deforestation. ally involves permanent and dynamic changes in land use is crucial
Countries, organizations, and individuals interested in restoration (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2012). The simple establishing big num-
have been, and continue to be, guided by a suite of tools from bers related to restoration goals will not convince farmers to set
which to choose to assess and map restoration potential, identify aside land for restoration nor to change their agricultural practices,
 P. Meli et al. / Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 17 (2019) 201–205 205

even more in the absence of the right policies supporting and giv- Godfray, H.C.J., et al., 2010. Food Security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people.
ing value for restoration. Land sharing and sparing approaches offer Science 327, 812–818.
Goulart, F.F., et al., 2016. Farming-biodiversity segregation or integration?
interdependent and complementary opportunities to FLR, but the Revisiting land sparing versus land sharing debate. J. Environ. Prot. (Irvine,
balance between them would depend on the landscape configura- Calif) 7, 1016–1032.
tion and governance issues to be considered by decision-makers. Grau, R., et al., 2013. Beyond ‘land sparing versus land sharing’: environmental
heterogeneity, globalization and the balance between agricultural production
There is no easy answer regarding the best approach to use, but it and nature conservation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 5, 477–483.
is essential to recognize the challenges and opportunities emerg- Green, R.E., et al., 2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307, 550–555.
ing from both land sparing/sharing approaches to promote FLR, Hodgson, J.A., et al., 2011. Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the
balance for efficient conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 148–152.
involve stakeholders and consider both socioeconomic and bio-
Kremen, C., 2015. Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity
physical characteristics of a landscape to reduce trade-offs and conservation. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1355, 52–76.
maximize benefits. Laestadius, L., et al., 2015. Before Bonn and beyond: a history of forest landscape
restoration and an outlook for the future. Unasylva 245, 11.
Lamb, D., 2014. Large-scale Forest Restoration. Routledge, London, UK.
Conflicts of interest Latawiec, A.E., et al., 2014. Intensification of cattle ranching production systems:
socioeconomic and environmental synergies and risks in Brazil. Animal 8,
1255–1263.
There is no conflict of interest for any author.
Latawiec, A., et al., 2015. Creating space for large-scale restoration in tropical
agricultural landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 211–218.
Acknowledgements Laurance, W.F., Sayer, J., Cassman, K.G., 2014. Agricultural expansion and its
impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol Evol 29, 107–116.
Law, E.A., Wilson, K.A., 2015. Providing context for the land-sharing and
We are indebted to E. Bennett and B. Phalan for their great land-sparing debate. Conserv. Lett. 8, 404–413.
contributions to early versions of this manuscript. This work was Little, C., Cuevas, J.G., Lara, A., Pino, M., Schoenholtz, S., 2015. Buffer effects of
supported by a São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) postdoc- streamside native forest on water provision in watersheds dominated by
exotic plantations. Ecohydrol. 8, 1205–1217.
toral grant to PM (2016/00052-9) and a productivity grant from McDonald, T., et al., 2016. International standards for the practice of ecological
the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development restoration – including principles and key concepts. In: Society for Ecological
of Brazil (CNPq) to PHBS (304817/2015-5). JMRB is supported by Restoration. Washington, D.C.
Meli, P., et al., 2017. Four approaches to guide ecological restoration in Latin
projects CGL2014- 53308- P from the Spanish Ministry of Sci- America. Restor. Ecol. 25, 156–163.
ence and Innovation, S2013/MAE- 2719 “REMEDINAL- 3” from Melo, F., et al., 2013. On the hope for biodiversity-friendly tropical landscapes.
the Government of Madrid, and “Campos de Vida” from the FIRE Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 462–468.
Metzger, J.P., et al., 2017. Best practice for the use of scenarios for restoration
(www.fundacionfire.org). planning. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29, 14–25.
Montoya-Molina, S., et al., 2016. Land sharing vs. Land sparing in the dry Caribbean
References lowlands: a dung beetles’ perspective. Appl. Soil Ecol. 98, 204–212.
Pagiola, S., Rios, A.R., Retrieved from Washington DC 2013. Evaluation of the
Impact of Payments for Environmental Services on Land Use Change in
Aronson, J., et al., 2017. Conceptual frameworks and references for landscape-scale
Quindío, Colombia.
restoration: reflecting back and looking forward. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 102,
Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., 2012. Separación o integración para la conservación de
188–200.
biodiversidad: la ideología detrás del debate ‘land sharing’ frente a ‘land
Banks-Leite, C., et al., 2014. Using ecological thresholds to evaluate the costs and
sparing’. Ecosistemas 2, 180–191.
benefits of set-asides in a biodiversity hotspot. Science 345, 1041–1045.
Phalan, B., et al., 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation:
Barona, E., et al., 2010. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the
land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333, 1289–1291.
Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 1–9.
Phalan, B., et al., 2016. How can higher-yield farming help to spare nature?
Bonn Challenge, Available at: 2019. The Bonn Challenge. A Global Effort.
Mechanisms to link yield increases with conservation. Science 351, 450–451.
http://www.bonnchallenge.org/content/challenge.
Rey Benayas, J.M., Bullock, J.E., 2012. Restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem
Brancalion, P.H.S., et al., 2012. Finding the money for tropical forest restoration.
services on agricultural land. Ecosystems 15, 883–899.
Unasylva 63, 41–50.
Rey Benayas, J.M., Bullock, J.E., 2015. Vegetation restoration and other actions to
Brancalion, P.H.S., et al., 2016. Balancing economic costs and ecological outcomes
enhance wildlife in European agricultural landscapes. In: Pereira, H.M.,
of passive and active restoration in agricultural landscapes: the case of Brazil.
Navarro, L.M. (Eds.), Rewilding European Landscapes. Springer, Cham, pp.
Biotropica 48, 856–867.
127–142.
Brancalion, P.H.S., Chazdon, R.L., 2017. Beyond hectares: four principles to guide
Rey Benayas, J.M., et al., 2019. Landscape restoration in a mixed agricultural-forest
reforestation in the context of tropical forest and landscape restoration. Restor.
catchment: planning a buffer strip and hedgerow network in a Chilean
Ecol. 25, 491–496.
biodiversity hotspot. Ambio, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01149-2.
Charpentier, A., 2015. Insights from life history theory for an explicit treatment of
Rivera, L.F., et al., 2013. Silvopastoral systems and ant diversity conservation in a
trade-offs in conservation biology. Biol. Conserv. 29, 738–747.
cattle-dominated landscape of the Colombian Andes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
Chazdon, R.L., 2008. Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem
181, 188–194.
services on degraded lands. Science 320, 1458–1460.
Rodrigues, R.R., et al., 2011. Large-scale ecological restoration of high-diversity
Chazdon, R.L., et al., 2016. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and
tropical forests in SE Brazil. For. Ecol. Manage. 261, 1605–1613.
definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio 45, 538–550.
Sayer, J., et al., 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling
Chazdon, R.L., et al., 2017. A policy-driven knowledge agenda for global forest and
agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
landscape restoration. Conserv. Lett. 10, 125–132.
110, 8349–8356.
Crespin, S.J., García-Villalta, J.E., 2014. Integration of land-sharing and land-sparing
Seppelt, R., et al., 2016. Harmonizing biodiversity conservation and Productivity in
conservation strategies through regional networking: the Mesoamerican
the context of increasing demands on landscapes. BioSci 66, 890–896.
Biological Corridor as a lifeline for carnivores in El Salvador. Ambio 43,
Seto, K.C., et al., 2012. Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proc. Natl.
820–824.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 7687–7692.
Fairhead, J., et al., 2012. Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? J. Peasant
Song, X.P., et al., 2018. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature 560, 639–643.
Stud. 39, 237–261.
Stanturf, J.A., et al., 2015. Forest landscape restoration as a key component of
Fisher, J., et al., 2008. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or
climate change mitigation and adaptation. International Union of Forest
wildlife-friendly farming? Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 380–385.
Research Organizations (IUFRO), IUFRO World Series, 34. Vienna, Austria,
Fisher, J., et al., 2012. Conservation policy in traditional farming landscapes.
Available at:
Conserv. Lett. 5, 167–175.
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/161428268/Stanturff et al 2015 IUFRO World
Fisher, J., et al., 2014. Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward. Conserv.
Series vol 34 FLR adaptation mitigation.pdf.
Lett. 7, 149–157.