ars.els-cdn.com · Web viewEffects of Landscape Segregation on Livelihood Vulnerability: Moving...

Supplementary material for the article entitled:

Land sparing and land sharing policies in developing countries – drivers and linkages to scientific debates

Documentation for the selection and exclusion of studies found in the search

This document provides three tables with detailed information about the selection and exclusion of studies found in the search of the peer-reviewed literature and thus how the PRISMA guideline was implemented in practice. Table S1 provides information on articles that were not classified as systematic reviews or case studies and identifies those that were included and excluded in the analysis; Table S2 provides information on case studies that were included in the analysis and Table S3 provides information on case studies that were not included in the analysis because of no relevant policy elements.

Table S1. Articles not classified as systematic reviews or case studies of land sparing or land sharing. These include 1) position articles and short com-ments, 2) reviews that do not report on a systematic literature search approach, 3) global/continental studies with results that indirectly address land sparing and land sharing debates, and 4) general modeling studies (as of July 2016). References listed in chronological order first, then alphabetically by first author name. Column 2 (Incl.) mentions if the study was included for further analysis – the studies included are marked with red. Note that although many studies are excluded from the analysis because they do not refer to specific policies, they may have been used in the framing and dis -cussion sections of the present article.

No Incl. Reference Main findings of relevance to review Region(s) Policy elements Other com-ments

1 No (Balmford et al., 2005)

Expanding croplands in developing countries will require land sparing policies

Global Advice on land sparing policies to be implemented in areas where agricultural expansion is expected, but does not address specific policies

2 No (Green et al., 2005)

Argues that land sparing appears to be most beneficial, but asks for more documentation and outlines a research agenda on sparing/sharing

Global Policy recommendations and outline of science priorities, but does not address specific policies

3 No (Mattison & Norris, 2005)

Call for policy to consider land sparing as a strategy for nature management – not just wild-life friendly farming

Global, but main focus on Europe, US, New Zealand

Argues that policies have been too fo-cused on wild life friendly farming Eu-rope/US and that this also applies to future policy in developing countries. , Does not address specific policies

4 No (Makowski et al., 2007)

Western Europe

Few policy elements

5 No (Fischer et al., 2008)

Recommends policies on how to address and combine land sparing and land sharing in dif-ferent contexts

Global Policy guidelines, but no specific policies

6 No (Perfecto & Vandermeer, 2008)

Early review of the positions in the debate – concludes that agro-ecological approaches and working with the poor in managing biodi-versity is the only way forward

Global Recommends policies that avoid creating guarded islands of protected forests

7 No (Ewers et al., 2009)

Suggests that land sparing has occurred in developing countries as per capita cropland declined while yields increased (partly coun-

Global Does not address specific policies in cer-tain countries, but shows that land spar-ing is a process that occurs in developing


teracted by increase in cropland for other crops). In developed countries, higher yields were not associated with per capita cropland reduction. Quote: “Land sparing is a weak process that occurs under certain circum-stances”

countries (policy-driven or not). Suggest that subsidies distort the market that would otherwise favor land sparing

8 No (Grainger, 2009)

A review of Rudel et al. (2009) Limited information on specific policies

9 Yes (Rudel et al., 2009)

Quote: “By implication, increasing yields can-not be assumed to increase cropland aban-donment without policies that encourage abandonment.”

Global, with re-gional ex-amples

Quote: “Even when agricultural com-modities declined as much as 15% to 35% in price over a decade, intensifica-tion-associated declines in cultivated areas only occurred when market inte-gration drove smallholder farmers and inefficient forms of cultivation out of agriculture (e.g., Mexico) or when mer-chants increased their imports of food-stuffs and governments provided incen-tives for farmers to conserve land.”“new policies produced unintended re-ductions in cultivated areas (e.g., Mex-ico)” (refers to NAFTA free trade agree-ment)

10 No (Padoch & Pinedo-Vasquez, 2010)

Urge that conservation policies integrate swid-den actively considering its conservation value vis-à-vis alternative agricultural land uses

Global No specific policies mentioned but refers to SE-Asian prohibitive policies on swid-den that are driven by ideas similar to land sparing

11 No (Perfecto & Vandermeer, 2010)

Suggests the Matrix Quality model as a better solution for both increasing agricultural pro-duction and protecting biodiversity

Global, but focus on US and Latin America

Recommends policy to put more empha-sis on the agro-ecological matrix rather than intensified agriculture separated from nature


A critique of Phalan et al. 2011 Limited information on specific policies Short letter in Science


13 No (Godfray, 2011)

A review of Phalan et al. 2011 Limited information on specific policies Short per-spective in Science

14 No (Hayashi, 2011)

A comment to Phalan et al 2011 Limited information on specific policies Short letter in Science

15 No (Johnson et al., 2011)

Soft conclusion, recommending a mix of land sparing and wildlife friendly farming

Global, but focus on US and Latin America

Quite broad and general policy recom-mendations – recommends interdiscipli-nary and aligned policies. No specific policy analysis

16 No (Phalan, Balmford, et al., 2011)

Identifies a need for more data to say whether land sparing really works

Global Quote: “land sparing seems most likely to succeed where food and conservation policy are well coordinated.” “we cau-tiously advocate better integration of food policy and conservation policy to limit the amount of land used for food production, and to maintain or increase the area of natural habitats”

17 No (Phalan, Onial, et al., 2011a)

Limited information on specific policies Response to com-ment in Science

18 No (Butsic et al., 2012)

Species richness responds to land use inten-sity in a non-linear way

None Limited information on specific policies General model ap-proach

19 No (Pautasso et al., 2012)

Concludes that LS/S debates must integrate climate change impacts on plant pathology

Global, but mainly Europe

Limited information on specific policies Very spe-cific topic, hardly rele-vant

20 No (Phalan et al., 2012)

Policy recommendations Short re-sponse to Wright et al.

21 No (Ramankutty Suggests to change the land sharing synonym None Limited information on specific policies Short com-


& Rhemtulla, 2012)

from ‘wildlife friendly’ to ‘environmentally friendly’ agriculture

ment

22 No (Rey Benayas & Bullock, 2012)

Concludes that ecological restoration is an effective way to reconcile biodiversity conser-vation and agricultural production

Global, mainly developed countries

Mostly related to European agricultural policy

Land shar-ing propo-nent, but acknowl-edges both approaches

23 No (Sayer et al., 2012)

Mostly deals with how oil palm can play a role as sustainable agriculture in the future

Global, mainly Malaysia, Indonesia

Not related to land sparing/sharing

24 No (Tscharntke et al., 2012)

Outlines problems with the polarized land sparing/sharing debate

Global Policy recommendations, but no specific policies in developing countries men-tioned

25 No (Wright et al., 2012b)

Policy recommendations, but no specific policies in developing countries men-tioned

A commen-tary to Phalan’s critique

26 No (Ausubel et al., 2013)

Argues that land sparing has worked in the past but that there are many ‘wild cards’ (bio-fuels and other non-food crops, land grab) that may make it difficult in future

Global Limited information on specific policies

27 No (Grau et al., 2013)

Bundles of ecosystem services should be con-sidered, not just biodiversity; consider con-texts and connectivity of systems


28 Yes (Rai & Bawa, 2013)

Discusses the Indian “Forest Rights Act” which will devolve forest management to local users. The debate here is whether the act will be detrimental to biodiversity conservation

India Quote: “Land-use sparing arguments ignore social and ecological realities and assume that states can deny rights of people over their lands and relocate people. This was the basis of colonial and successive state policy in India, which expropriated forest land for state-

A response to a critical article


enforced protection, for timber extrac-tion in the past and biological diversity conservation today.”

29 Yes (Scariot, 2013)

Argues against the land sparing/sharing di-chotomy

Brazil Quote: “More than 17% of Brazil's terri-tory is dedicated for conservation within the federal conservation system: 6.1% (51.6 million ha) is designated as "inte-gral protection", where the commercial use or harvest of natural resources is prohibited, and 11.1% (94-4 million ha) is designated as "shared", or aimed for sustainable use. The latter category de-notes where traditional peoples can hunt, fish, harvest non-timber forest products, and cultivate crops, while con-serving biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices. In addition, the country's 5.2 mil-lion privately owned rural properties, covering 330.2 million ha, are each re-quired by law to set aside 20-80% of their area for sustainable use and con-servation, according to the ecosystem in which they are located”

Comment to Ra-mankutty and Rhem-tulla 2012

30 No (Ramankutty & Rhemtulla, 2013)

Global Limited, but refers to the mixed sharing/sparing policies in Brazil men-tioned by Scariot

Response to Scariot 2013

31 No (Van Asselen & Verburg, 2013)

A global modeling approach to analyzing sce-narios of intensification and land use change – refers to its relevance to land sharing/sparing debates


32 No (Weinzettel et al., 2013)

Assesses the drivers of global displacement of land use


33 No (Baudron & Suggests a balanced approach with both land Global Policy recommendations, but only sec-


Giller, 2014) sparing and sharing that includes safeguards to avoid negative consequences of both

ondary reference to other studies men-tioning national policy


Proposes new ways to use the LS/S framework in order to move away from a polarized scien-tific debate


35 No (Hertel et al., 2014)

Confirms the Borlaug hypothesis for the green revolution, but shows that a green revolution in Africa may not be initially land sparing

Global, Africa

Limited information on specific policies

36 Yes (Laurance et al., 2014)

Seems to indirectly favor land sparing, al-though refers to the wider debate on sharing/sparing

Global, with na-tional ex-amples

Refers to impact of road construction on deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon – access policies thus are going against land sparing policies as they generate forest conversion.General reference to policies on re-source extraction that come with in-creased access, more people and often deforestation beyond the actual re-source extraction sites (e.g. in Africa). Quote: “In Indonesia […] the emergence of democracy and decentralization of natural resource decisions has given local political expediency greater influ-ence than national conservation laws”

37 Yes (Minang et al., 2014)

Argues that agroforestry is a form of sustain-able intensification that may contribute to land sparing

Africa Suggests that there are not sufficient policies for promoting agroforestry and that policy innovation is needed. Policy challenges include unclear rights to land, trees and carbon, poor market infra-structure, long waiting periods for recov-ery of investments (sometimes up to three years) and labor shortages

38 No (Phalan et al., 2014)

Maps out where intensification may be more harmful to birds than land sharing and vice-

Global Limited information on specific policies, but provides policy recommendations


versa39 No (Vaast &

Somarriba, 2014)

Discusses the role of agroforestry in cocoa production (shade-systems) as alternative to monocropped sun-systems

Global Limited information on specific policies Introduc-tion to special issue

40 No (Balmford et al., 2015)

Reviewing trade-offs between sparing/sharing – conclusion essentially the same as Phalan et al. 2014, that sparing seems to work best, but more research is needed to account for differ-ent contexts and biota


41 No (Butsic & Kuemmerle, 2015)

Provides a framework for optimizing produc-tion and biodiversity

None Limited information on specific policies

42 No (Carter et al., 2015)

Provides a framework for analyzing mitigation potential under different sets of local condi-tions

Global, with cases

Provides information on governance and ‘enabling environments’, but limited information on specific land use policies

43 No (Griscom & Goodman, 2015)

Advocates a mixed approach called ‘triad-management’ in forestry

general Limited information on specific policies Short posi-tion paper

44 No (Hill et al., 2015)

Quote: “the forces that drive forest clearance for economic development, and those that drive protected area creation, are not neces-sarily opposing forces”. “Our scenarios illus-trate this counter-intuitive feedback loop between greater access to biodiversity and lowered perceptions of risk from biodiversity loss”

Global Interesting conclusion based on model-ing that might explain why increase in protected areas might not prevent biodi-versity loss.But limited specific information on poli-cies

45 No (Huang et al., 2015)

Comparative review of published research in multifunctional agriculture and ecosystem services to improve communication, integrate experimental approaches, and propose areas of consensus and dialog for the two communi-ties

Global Provides new framework for ES and mul-tifunctional agriculture integrated analy-sis, but no conclusions related to LS/S


46 No (Paul & Knoke, 2015)

Investigates how discussions of optimal agri-cultural and forest management that currently take place largely separately from one another could potentially be combined in order to develop sustainable land-use concepts.Concludes that neither land sharing in combi-nation with the “use it or lose it strategy”, nor land sparing based on agricultural intensifica-tion is the single best option

Global Provides a range of policy recommenda-tions for integrating forestry and agricul-tural policies and management. Calls for integration of policies

47 No (Perrings & Halkos, 2015)

Intensification offers long term biodiversity protection, but not short term

Africa Limited information on specific policies

48 (Shackelford et al., 2015)

Focus efforts on hotspots of conservation conflict to identify whether land sparing or sharing is most useful

Global

49 No (Warren-Thomas et al., 2015)

Identifies research needs for how rubber may fit in a land sparing or land sharing strategy

SE Asia Highlights the needs for more research and better policies on rubber cultivation

Limited focus on rubber

Table S2. Case studies included in the analysis in the present paper because they contain information on land sparing and/or land sharing policies in developing countries. References listed in chronological order first, then alphabetically by first author name. Records marked with * have been identi-fied through citations in the records found in the systematic search. References listed in chronological order first, then alphabetically by first author name.

No Refer-ence

Country System stud-ied

Land sparing policies Land sharing policies Mixed, contradicting, unclear, …

Outcomes of policies / comments

1 (Grau et al., 2008)

Argentina Chaco, dry forest;Pasture, soy bean

Agricultural intensification with soy bean and modern techniques. High yields

Colonization policy for poor areas promoting extensive cattle ranging

Yes, policies differ de-pending on the area. Land sparing in sparsely populated areas, land sharing in areas with indigenous population

Land sparing argued to work best as it has resulted in increased yields and less deforestation compared to the areas with land sharing. No in-migration has been observed in the land spar-ing area, instead out-mi-gration

2 (Keys, 2008)

Mexico Former swid-den, com-mercial chili cultivation

Indicates that GO and NGOs support intensive agriculture (chili), but development mainly driven by market and smallholder initiative

Capital and commercially oriented households take more land into cultivation and less is kept under old growth forest

3 (Koh et al., 2009)

Indonesia Oil palm and rubber

Implicit that Indonesia favors intensive agriculture with the large investments in oil palm

Quote: “… smallholder oil palm and rubber agro-forestry systems are al-ready supported by gov-ernment-sponsored schemes [in Indonesia]”

Indonesia appears to support both agricul-tural strategies, but link to conservation policies not clear.

The paper is more an opin-ion paper, but included as it discusses Indonesian policies

4 (Kamp et al., 2011)

Kaza-khstan

Steppe Quote: “Approaches to conserve grassland birds have traditionally focused on the reten-tion of near-natural habitat in protected areas and policy inter-ventions to preserve

Not so clear what the out-come of policies has been. But seems that grazing areas (land sharing?) favor certain bird populations.

No Refer-ence




populations remaining in the agricultural ma-trix after cultivation”

5 (Phalan, Onial, et al., 2011b)

Ghana, India

Tropical for-est

Quote: “…. in Ghana and India, where both land sharing and land sparing have been advo-cated for reconciling food production and biodiversity conserva-tion”

Little about actual policies, but backed by references.

6 (Schroth et al., 2011)

Brazil (Bahia)

Atlantic Forests, shade cocoa

Federal and provincial governments generally promote land sparing approaches, but the traditional cocoa agro-forests are also pro-tected, thus land shar-ing is also official policy

Even though southern Bahia only has 10% natural forest left, no species ex-tinctions have been re-ported as they are also conserved in the cocoa agroforests

7 (Sheldon & Styring, 2011)

Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak

Forest plan-tations

It can be inferred that land sparing strategies are the main objective of Sarawak and Sabah forest policy

The use of buffer vegeta-tion and corridors appears to be part of the environ-mental license of the forest plantations (although not explicitly stated)

Both strategies followed for forest plantations: plant in degraded areas, but still maintain forest buffers/corridors

Both strategies are sug-gested to favor biodiversity in their own way

8 (Eloy et al., 2012)

Brazil Amazonia, PES

PES programme studied is part of Brazilian land sparing pol-icy. Quote: “Led by the public extension system (EMBRAPA at federal level and SEAPROF at state level), alternative land use entails three types of fire-free farming systems: perma-

Quote: “The Brazilian For-est Code (1965) requires colonists in the Amazon to maintain 50–80% of their lands preserved, in the so-called ‘Legal Reserve’, and it also establishes the pro-tection of forest cover

Appears to be a some-what contradicting ap-proach between agricul-tural policy and the Forest Code, but forest code is mentioned to not being enforced

Does not mention why Brazil favors land sparing

No Refer-ence




nent crop cultivation using rotation with leguminous fer-tilisers […], agroforestry sys-tems and silvopastoral sys-tems”. “For many years, agri-cultural intensification via technology -adoption has been proposed as a solution to the deforestation in the Ama-zon basin. It is widely used in environmental policies in Amazonia in order to promote a land sparing strategy”

along all water courses and steep hill slopes (‘Areas of Permanent Preservation’)”

9 (Lusiana et al., 2012)

Indone-sia, Java

Quote: “The government pro-duced a Designated Land Use Map to provide guidelines in land use and spatial planning for the local government. It contains three main categories of land use: (1) Forest Re-serve; which is land allocated for forest/trees set aside for soil, land and biodiversity con-servation, (2) Production For-est; which is plantation forest area for production purposes (e.g. wood, resin), and (3) Other Land Uses; which in-cludes settlement and agricul-tural activities.” “… from the point of view of the govern-ment a 1:2 ratio between non-forest and forest lands (as was

Some ‘land sharing activi-ties’ such as NTFP collec-tion in forests are still al-lowed

No Refer-ence




the situation prior to the late 1980) is still the main target for the preferred landscape.”

10 (Macedo et al., 2012)

Brazil, Mato Grosso

Soybean, natural for-est

Implies that Brazil’s land spar-ing policies have worked. En-forcing a deforestation ban and directing agricultural in-tensification to degraded lands appear effective

11 (Wright et al., 2012a)

Develop-ing coun-tries

Non-forest landscapes

Quote: “Policy is dominated by efforts to stem the impacts of exploitation or land-use change in natural habitats”

Quote: “Agricultural land-scapes, when considered, are typically assessed for their suitability in maintain-ing or assisting the survival of forest species, such as studies of wildlife-friendly coffee plantations”. “Con-servation approaches di-rected primarily at frontier ecosystems or by country-side biogeography may overlook the importance of agricultural landscapes for open-habitat species”Suggests to transfer Euro-pean wildlife-friendly agri-culture policies to develop-ing countries

12 (Pirard & Belna, 2012)

Ar-gentina, Mexico, Kenya, Madagas-

Policy analy-sis of REDD+ R-PPs

Quotes from paper, present authors’ emphasis in bold:Madagascar: “extensive prac-tices identified as deforesta-tion in R-PP.” “’unsustainable

Argentina: “is the only R-PP identifying intensifica-tion as a cause of defor-estation.” “R-PP refers to “a paradigm shift in agricul-

Several unclarities noted in policies

No Refer-ence




car, Viet-nam

agriculture’ resulting from a combination of poor soil man-agement and population growth, and leading to migra-tion towards forests with richer soils.”Deforestation incentive poli-cies:Vietnam: “current and future policies and plans for the ex-pansion of agriculture point to a large-scale expansion of rubber and, to a lesser extent, cashew.”Argentina: “public programme for energy substitution to-gether with public support for production promote the ex-pansion of biofuels.”“Mexican public agricultural programmes are likely to sup-port forest conversion by pro-moting corn, beans and animal husbandry.”Kenya: “agricultural policies urge farmers to produce more cash crops for export, and subsidies, incentives and tax exemption [are provided] for fertilizers and farming trac-tors”“Madagascar stands out since there is no incentive policy,

ture” due to the legalisa-tion of Monsanto's geneti-cally modified Roundup Ready soybeans.”

No Refer-ence




but there are problems of free access to forested lands and regulatory exemptions for certain crops (sugarcane for production of a local spirit, unauthorised tobacco, and hemp)”. In general, support of the land sparing hypothesis:“… the consequences of these specific measures are not dis-cussed according to each spe-cific context, and faithfully obey the simplistic rule that higher productivity per hectare is desirable, whatever the means used to achieve it. For instance, Kenya fully en-dorses the land sparing hy-pothesis by considering “en-couraging livestock keepers to improve the quality of their livestock, reducing numbers, and implementing increased management of grazing lands, […] encouraging farmers to take up intensive farming practices and soil fertility man-agement that will enable them to produce more on existing farm land””

13 (Barretto et al.,

Brazil National coverage

Mentions that Brazil has com-bined policies for agricultural

No Refer-ence




2013) intensification with conserva-tion policies to reduce conver-sion of natural vegetation to agriculture by strict enforce-ment and penalties. This could have driven an observed suc-cessful land sparing strategy in certain parts of the country (mainly part for discussion in the paper as analysis ends 2006)

14 (Castella et al., 2013)

Laos Mosaic land-scape

Land use segregation: agricul-ture and forest in order to eliminate shifting cultivation, reduce poverty and enhance conservation

Leads to higher vulnerabil-ity as local people do not have other options than SC. Argue that it leads to lower biological diversity in the landscape

15 (Fagan et al., 2013)

Costa Rica National Deforestation ban worked as a land sparing policy. Forest clearing for export-oriented cropland was prevented; re-gional agricultural production rose while forest loss declined“switch by intensive agricul-ture between 'land-hungry' (forest-demanding) and 'land-sparing' (forest-avoiding) ex-pansion.”

16 (Gock-owski et al., 2013)

Ghana Cocoa Ambition to produce 1 million tons of sustainable cocoa through sun-grown high yield cocoa – a land sparing policy to replace extensive cocoa

Certified shade grown co-coa is inferior in yields, but could become more eco-nomic as demand increases

Assesses policy scenario effects on different types of cocoa prod.

Land sparing in the form of highly intensified cocoa production leads to high use of agro-chemicals

No Refer-ence




17 (Macchi et al., 2013)

Argentina Chaco – gra-dient from forest to pasture

Argentinian forest law im-plies a form of land shar-ing, but not very clear. Quote: “Silvopastures and the puestos fall into the yellow zone of the national forest law; which allows productive practices while keeping some forest cover”

18 (Phelps et al., 2013)

Congo REDD+, PES Quote: "... agricultural intensi-fication has become central to REDD+ policy formulation […] the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) seeks to “in-crease productivity and seden-tary lifestyle” of 50% of its subsistence farmers by 2030 to reduce pressures on forests

Quote: "Conservation poli-cies that overlook future agricultural rents may fail to promote long-term con-servation. Curiously, con-servation policies that pro-mote or impose an intensi-fication agenda on exten-sive farmers may actually spur future agricultural expansion."

19 (Cohn et al., 2014)

Brazil Cattle ranching

Brazil is developing policies to balance GHG mitigation, forest protection, and agricultural growth by promoting agricul-tural intensification. Land sparing policies (LSPs) as "complements or substitutes to policies to prevent defor-estation through payments to forest owners and/or com-mand and control of illegal deforestation." Two Brazilian potential policies: a tax on

Both policies encouraging land-sparing will help lower GHG emissions "in line with its national policy targets"

No Refer-ence




cattle from conventional pas-ture and a subsidy for cattle from semi-intensive pasture

20 (Crespin & Garcia-Villalta, 2014)

El Salvador

International protected area sys-tems, agri-culture

The conventional conservation efforts are based on land-spar-ing. Current mechanism in Central America working with protected area systems and international cooperation: Mesoamerican Biological Cor-ridor (MBC), established in 1997. The MBC "has been the official conservation and rural development land-use plan-ning system that spans Central America and southern Mex-ico"

Authors propose to adopt land-sharing strategies to complement the existing protected areas and con-servation effort

21 (Lee et al., 2014)

Sumatra, Indonesia

Oil palm, forest, peatlands

Plan to increase palm oil pro-duction indicates possible preference for high intensity farming. Currently 60% of oil palm plantations are industrial estates. "In Indonesia, other socio-political complexities of oil palm expansion also exist, such as high economic incen-tives for local authorities to allocate forested land for oil palm establishment”. “These institutional problems may continue to drive the expan-sion of high yielding oil palm plantations over forests ..."

Assumes that the currently approx. 40% of oil palm plantations that are small-holdings represent a land sharing strategy. "In In-donesia, oil palm compa-nies are required by law to allocate at least 20% of their concession area to affiliated scheme small-holders."

It is unclear whether the authors assumption that smallholder farm-ing reflects a land-shar-ing approach will still be valid, if smallholder productivity increases

A scenario dominated by industrial estates (land-sparing) resulted in lowest environmental costs, the highest tax revenues, but also least jobs created. A smallholder dominated scenario (land-sharing) resulted in highest environ-mental costs but more employment opportunities. A hybrid scenario ranked second best in both mini-mizing forest loss and job creation but included high fertilizer consumption,

No Refer-ence



Outcomes of policies / commentslower infrastructural devel-opment and lower tax rev-enues

22(Meyfroidt et al., 2014)

Brazil, Peru, Costa Rica, Viet-nam, Indonesia

Soy, oil palm, pineapple, banana, cof-fee

Areas with scarce suitable biophysical conditions or where well-enforced land use policies and other measures restricted agricultural expan-sion were more likely to expe-rience conversion of existing agriculture and smaller land use displacement. "Enforcing land use policies to control deforestation, combined with intensifying agriculture ... can channel commodity crop ex-pansion toward already-cleared lands and reduce local displacement."

Paper uses different cases with different policies. Notes in gen-eral that there is a trend away from land-sharing scenarios, as commod-ity crops are expanding into previous areas of forests but also small-holder lands, fallows, low-intensity grazing lands, marginal lands, etc.

Quote: "Extensive agricul-ture replaced by more in-tensive cropland is less likely to be displaced lo-cally when forest or poten-tially available cropland is scarce—due to land use policies, biophysical char-acteristics, or accessibil-ity.", "well-capitalized large-scale actors are more likely to expand into large areas of mature forests, especially where forests are extensive, owned by a single actor, unprotected, contain high quality soils and timber, and where transaction costs and social conflicts associated with consolidating non-forest land from smallholders are high.", and promoting "in-tensive commodity crops may fail to spare land when inducing displacement.“

23 (Speel-man et al., 2014)

Mexico Smallholder farming

Quotes: "Mexico signed the legally binding Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was followed by the

Efforts made to promote "sustainable agricultural systems", e.g. shade coffee certification, PES, carbon

"Farmers that focus mainly on cleared-land or forest-based land-use activities have conflicting interests

No Refer-ence




initiation of active national conservation policies." "As of 1995, land-use became strongly restricted and extrac-tion of timber and non-timber products became prohibited”. PES payments at ejido scale common

sequestration. Local munic-ipalities and NGOs promote alternative forest-based farming systems through organic palm cultivation

over the use of forest..." With help from an NGO they are attempting a com-munal landscape planning

24 (Ceddia et al., 2015)

Ar-gentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Hon-duras, Mexico, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela

General Strengthening environmental governance always promotes land-sparing

Concludes that formally recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities "has the potential to significantly slow down deforestation and forest degradation" as environmental governance and tenure regimes have a significant impact on the occurrence of Jevons para-dox or land-sparing

25 (Cialdella et al., 2015)

Brazil, Amazon

Livestock, family farm-ing

Federal government imple-mented a command and con-trol policy in 2008 to stop de-forestation. "All the stakehold-ers of the livestock sector, including cattle ranching and the beef supply chain, recog-nize the need to find alterna-tives to slash and burn." Clas-sical intensification as the

Under the national no-de-forestation policy, farmers are trying to increase farm productivity. Land-sharing (agroforestry systems, etc.) is suggested as an option but doesn't challenge the overall no-deforestation (land sparing) policy. Land-sharing (agricultural pro-

Under the national no-deforestation policy, farmers are trying to increase farm productiv-ity. Land-sharing (agro-forestry systems, etc.) is suggested as an option but is subordinate to the overall no-defor-estation (land sparing)

Given the decline in defor-estation, the political con-sortium for ‘‘zero defor-estation’’ can be said to have achieved its goal fol-lowing a traditional ap-proach to nature conserva-tion based on a ‘‘land spar-ing’’ strategy. However, the land sparing strategy ap-

No Refer-ence




dominant alternative amongst stakeholders to protect forest ecosystems. In "2008, 50% of the area of a farm – entirely covered by forest – had to be cleared to legitimize appropri-ation. The remaining 50%, called the legal reserve, had to be conserved as primary for-est and not exploited. In 2008, the federal government cre-ated an environmental land register (Brazilian acronym CAR) to regularize the situa-tion or at least to record cur-rent land use. Without this certification, livestock farmers could no longer sell animals to slaughterhouses or contract bank loans. In parallel, a con-sortium of federal agencies implemented a repressive command and control policy. A ‘‘blacklist’’ of the municipali-ties with the highest rates of deforestation is published annually; the process of creat-ing protected areas is acceler-ating and regularizing agricul-tural land is now the only way to obtain environmental certi-fication."

duction and environmental preservation on the same areas) is a less well known option to increase farm efficiency amongst the stakeholders. The authors argue that this approach, however, also entails some advantages for especially family farms

policy. The Brazilian government strongly supports a program aimed at reducing the carbon impact of the Brazilian food while also supporting the improve-ment of organic produc-tion, agroforestry sys-tems and land-sharing. "For many reasons linked to the history of Brazil and to economic issues, the Brazilian government strongly supports these two contrasted sets of poli-cies. The financial dis-crepancy between the two programs partly explains the Brazilian government’s position on development and conservation policy, and also why local actors know little about these models"

pears to be most efficient for conserving biodiversity in fragmented landscapes, where few natural ecosys-tems survive in landscapes the majority of which is cultivated. Land sparing strategies are thus appro-priate in highly deforested regions ..."

26 (Giam et Central Oil palm “In Indonesia and Malaysia Legal ambiguity: In In- “… a land-sharing strategy

No Refer-ence




al., 2015) Kalimantan, Indonesia

plantations, forest frag-ments, fresh-water fish

retention of riparian re-serves is required by law. Riparian reserves are also mandatory for producers who join the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification pro-gram”, but “non-compli-ance is common owing to poor enforcement”

donesia, small and large rivers must have 50 and 100 m buffers of natural vegetation, respectively, but definitions of small and large rivers and natural vegetation are lacking.

that involves retaining forests along streams is effective in conserving freshwater fish biodiversity in oil-palm plantations. Streams with forested ri-parian reserves do not just hold more fish species than those that lack riparian reserves, they also support higher fish biomass and functional diversity, which are important for sustain-ing human livelihoods and ecosystem function."

27 (Kamp et al., 2015)

Kazakhstan

Steppe, live-stock, crop-land

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, large areas of crop-lands were abandoned and livestock numbers collapsed with the withdrawal of state support for agriculture. Efforts have been made towards des-ignating protected areas. "...within the framework of the government-supported ‘Altyn Dala’ (Golden Steppe) Initiative, 3.1 million ha steppe and semi-desert were desig-nated as protected areas be-tween 2005 and 2013."...the Kazakhstan government has launched an ambitious initiative to reactivate the

Although some birds bene-fit from cropland, further increases in agricultural production, especially by conversion of abandoned cropland or grassland, will likely negatively affect bird populations

No Refer-ence




commercial livestock sector by increasing subsidies for cattle farming, including funding for more productive breeds from western Europe and North America to be fed on cereals [….] This could result in the conversion of currently aban-doned fields into cropland to feed stable-raised livestock."

28 (Law et al., 2015)

Kalimantan, Indonesia

Lowland forests, peat swamps, oil palm

The Presidential Instruction No. 2/2007 on Rehabilitation and Revitalisation of the Ex-Mega Rice Project Area in Central Kalimantan (INPRES 2/2007) specifies three land-use categories: agriculture, forestry, and conservation." "Under the current and alter-native zoning plans (scenarios 3 and 4 respectively) land allo-cation includes extensive con-servation areas and no un-managed land."

Limited land sharing poten-tial benefit in oil-palm sys-tems

Species and forest types sensitive to agricultural disturbance could benefit most if land in agricultural zones was spared and pri-oritized for conservation. Conversely, land sharing strategies favored the more widespread and com-mon species, particularly if the area of wildlife-friendly agriculture is increased." "Better land use allocation from the outset achieves more gains than agricul-tural-focused land manage-ment strategies. For now the provincial-level land-use plans for central Kali-mantan are yet to be final-ized

29 (Sharma & Vetaas,

Nepal Agroforestry Agroforestry practiced in populated agricultural

Community forestry laws in place, but not in

Farmlands are consistently richer in tree species than

No Refer-ence




2015) landscape. Tree protection/retention in private farmlands due to community forestry poli-cies

line with the national biodiversity lawsQuote: ”National level biodiversity policy in-struments, namely Na-tional Agrobiodiversity Policy (GoN 2007) and Nepal National Biodiver-sity Strategy (GoN 2014), currently empha-size mainly crop genetic resources and largely overlook trees on farm-lands as acomponent of agrobio-diversity.”

forest and in different com-position. "The increases in tree cover and diversity on farmlands today may be the positive result of a change in the forest man-agement regime, especially the community forestry program.” Agricultural landscapes can comple-ment, but not necessarily substitute, the biodiversity conservation goals of pro-tected areas. Agroforestry helps maintain trees and associated biodiversity and ecosystem services.

30 (Dotta et al., 2016)

Brazil, Uruguay

Campos grassland

Quote: “Increasing yields in some areas while reducing grazing to low levels else-where may be the best option for bird conservation in these grasslands". The Brazilian law specifies that "20% of every property must be maintained under natural vegetation" and "Aichi Target 11 of the Con-vention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which calls for 17% of all terrestrial biomes to be formally protected by 2020." These policies provide a for-mal basis for implementing

No direct assessment of policies, but discusses the importance of Brazilian laws and Aichi target 11.The paper concludes that any level of farming has a more negative impact on bird population compared to a land-sparing approach

No Refer-ence




land sparing in the region. Both policies state that pro-duction on spared lands has to be reduced to levels that are compatible with conservation - agriculture does not need to be abolished altogether

31 (Jadin et al., 2016)

Costa Rica Forest transi-tions, agri-cultural in-tensification, PES

Land use intensification can be associated with reforestation, which has been observed in some countries, depending on local political, technological and economic circumstances. In Costa Rica reforestation has occurred thanks to economic and political factors, which "... lead to the abandonment of pastures, on which forest have regenerated or been planted". Policies promoted forest pro-tection and restoration. The protected areas (PAs) system was created in the late 1970s. PES program was introduced in the late 1990s

Quotes: "At the national scale, environmental benefits are mixed as regions with a high agro-environmental suitability also tend to have the highest ecolog-ical value. Forest in-creased mainly where pastures and traditional crops were abandoned, and export-oriented crops have expanded in provinces where mature rainforests are the most abundant, with high carbon stocks and biodi-versity." “… Emerging oil palm expansion may further threaten the forest transition."

“The forest protection poli-cies are doubly under-mined by investments in agriculture: through com-petition for productive land and the demand for wood products for packaging of export-oriented crops." “… as Costa Rica has turned to an export-based agricul-ture, it has replaced tradi-tional crops by more inten-sive cultivation, displacing more land use through cereal imports than it has absorbed through fruits and palm oil exports.."

32 (Macchi et al., 2016)

Argentina Chaco Current conservation schemes in the area include: National ‘Forest Law’, REDD+, Pro-tected Areas policies. About 10% of the study area is occu-

Land-sharing is common in the area, but refers here to Grau et al. 2008 and others

Intensive systems do not result in the automatic 'sparing' of land, but need to be accompanied by ac-tive conservation-oriented

No Refer-ence




pied by intensive agricultural systems. The national zona-tion law may partially hinder a cropland expansion, as the current zonation (areas of non-use/forests, sustainable use/puestos and silvo-pas-tures, and intensive use/pas-tures and crops) would first require a redistribution of the land assigned to each policy. Argentina has a national com-mitment to habitat conserva-tion (17% according to Aichi target 11), but are currently not living up to the target

land-use planning. If the production levels were maintained at the present level, land-sharing was found to be equally benefi-cial as land-sparing. The current national zonation law is likely to constrain cropland expansion. The focus on forest for conser-vation essentially ignores grasslands as conservation targets

33 (Mon-toya-Molina et al., 2016)

Colombia Tropical dry forest, pas-tures, sil-vopastural systems

Intensive Silvopastoral sys-tems established since 2005. True land sparing not an op-tion anymore since most forests were lost to intensive agriculture during the last century

“Since 1991, the land was allocated for managing dual-purpose livestock in a semi-intensive rotational grazing scheme with low stocking rates and low pro-ductive and reproductive parameters. Since 2005, cattle farms are facing overstocking problems due to overgrazing with nega-tive impacts on grasslands and animals." Intensive Silvopastoral systems established since 2005.

Previously establish-ment of intensive agri-culture has led to in-tense deforestation. No indication that this was linked to a land-sparing strategy, as it is esti-mated that less than 1,5% of the original cover remains

Species richness and abun-dance values were highest in forests, followed by in-tensive silvopastoral sys-tems. Treeless pastures had the least species rich-ness and abundance."In-tensive silvopastoral sys-tems complement the role of forests as reservoirs of biodiversity and contribute to the landscape-scale con-servation of dung beetles. In this particular landscape and at the spatial scale that is relevant for dung bee-tles, intensive silvopastoral

No Refer-ence



Outcomes of policies / commentssystems provide the bene-fits of both land sparing and land sharing."

34 (Oliveira & Hecht, 2016)

Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay

Soybean The authors argue that since soy is not a food crop but used especially for fuel that has boundless demands, policies aimed at intensification of production will not limit ex-pansion, especially "given the difficulty of ‘good governance’ across the entire soy frontier of South America".

"The soy boom that began in South America during the 1970s accel-erated further in the 1990s into tropical ar-eas, with policy shifts to export-oriented produc-tion, elimination of ex-port tariffs and deregu-lation of banking sectors that facilitated foreign investments in process-ing and trade infrastruc-ture (e.g. warehouses, crushing facilities and ports)."

Intense lobbying from the agro-industry sector is claimed to have impacted state policies: "In Brazil […], the agro-industrial lobby encouraged politicians to roll back environmental restrictions in the Forest Code and provide amnesty and legitimation of previ-ous illegal clearing (Soares-Filho et al. 2014). In low-land Bolivia, agro-business-men tried to secede from the rest of Bolivia in reac-tion to the electoral victo-ries of the indigenous and leftist coalition for Evo Morales, and Paraguay’s agricultural elite success-fully organized to over-throw the country’s first leftist president, Fernando Lugo, when he sought to redistribute farmland dedi-cated to soy agribusiness. These examples illustrate how soy agribusiness has inflected and influenced state policy not only

No Refer-ence



Outcomes of policies / commentsthrough the territorializa-tion of the state in agro-in-dustrial frontiers, but through its capacity for putting political pressure on the state in favor of agribusiness interests." Expansion of soy agricul-ture driven in part by "the economic power of the crop that kept many of the new ‘pink tide’ govern-ments in good financial standing and floated many of their redistributive poli-cies, such as ‘Bolsa Familia’ and the expansion of the agricultural processing and service sector in new urban centers.”

35 (Vongvi-souk et al., 2016)

Laos Cash crops, REDD+, shift-ing cultiva-tion, con-tract farm-ing, maize

Government of Laos has strong commitment to eco-nomic growth, which in part has been done by a growing export oriented cash crop production. "The GoL also aims to increase nationwide forest cover as stipulated in the National Forestry Strategy and with the establishment of 18 National Protected Areas in 1993 that cover 2.8 million hectares or approximately

The aim of having a national forest cover of 70% in 2020 while at the same time increas-ing investments in land by reducing tax levels in order to attract invest-ment companies and by choosing not to monitor the contraction be-tween land develop-ment and forest conser-vation.

Examines to what extent the land-sparing intentions are fulfilled. Intensifying agriculture has not entailed land-sparing. Traditionally, people have had land-shar-ing landscapes, but these areas are becoming in-creasingly dominated by agriculture. The focus on economic development and agricultural growth seems to be counteracting

No Refer-ence




12% of the total country’s land area. Government policies aim to spare land for forest con-servation by intensifying agri-culture." "The national Land and Forest Allocation (LFA) program – implemented since the mid-1990s – epitomizes this with its focus on contain-ing traditional agricultural activities by local communities in limited areas in order to spare forests for regrowth."

the government foresta-tion targets, REDD+ policies and forest conservation policies. Policies seem to favor a land-sparing ap-proach, but end up with agricultural landscapes that neither spare nor share land with forest.

Table S3. Case studies excluded as they did not contain specific information on land sparing and/or land sharing policies in developing countries. Ref -erences listed in chronological order first, then alphabetically by first author name.

No.

Reference Country System studied Comments

1 (Edwards et al., 2010) Malaysia, Sabah Oil palm and forest Argues that forest fragments around oil palm plantations do not increase bird abundance and that sparing contiguous forest is more important

2 (Wade et al., 2010) Ghana Cocoa Abundance of tree species are best favored in land sparing in high cocoa yield landscapes, but in low yield cocoa landscapes, land sharing is better

3 (Clough et al., 2011) Indonesia Cocoa Find that there is little difference between cocoa yields and species rich-ness of trees, fungi, invertebrates, and vertebrates. Does not discuss spe-cific policies

4 (Mahood et al., 2012) Brazil Various Amazonian land-scapes

Land sparing works better for tree species richness.

5 (Blanco & Waltert, 2013) Uganda Primates in forest vs. agroforests

Recommends land sharing may work for primates and other large mam-mals

6 (Chandler et al., 2013) Costa Rica Integrated open canopy coffee

IOC coffee works better for birds than shaded coffee

7 (Habel et al., 2013) Kenya Mountain vs savannah Discusses land sharing options in East Africa8 (Hulme et al., 2013) Uganda Banana-coffee vs. intact

forestConfirms Phalan et al. results, but with more caution that land sharing might work as well

9 (Knoke et al., 2013) Ecuador Using abandoned land for intensification

Shows that using abandoned land increases production and reduces pay-ments needed to conserve forest

10 (Mendenhall et al., 2013) Costa Rica Premontane farming sys-tem and malaria

Land sharing prevents malaria more effectively than land sparing

11 (Ahmadi et al., 2014) Iran Wolves, hilly dry-lands Behavioral patterns of wolves in the different landscapes12 (Ceddia et al., 2014) Bolivia, Brazil,

Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela

Agricultural land, regional Emphasizes that the scientific and policy communities are putting empha-sis on sustainable agricultural intensification to reduce pressure on forests. But evidence supporting the land-sparing hypothesis is mixed. The authors do not specify which policies they are referring to

13 (Cerda et al., 2014) Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala

Cocoa agroforestry farm-ing, smallholders

Does not specify the current land policies but assume that the small-farmers themselves can decide management system and then concludes that a highly-diverse-dense system would be feasible under a land-spar-ing strategy

14 (Edwards et al., 2014) Malaysian Borneo Logging, lowland rainfor- Compares logging intensities and for biodiversity conservation recom-

est mends high intensity logging if that can completely spare other forest, but recognizes the need to look at other ecosystem services

15 (Frigeri et al., 2014) Brazil Cacao agroforests, native forests

Compares invasion of domestic dogs in agroforests (high incidence) and natural forest (low incidence).

16 (Gilroy, Edwards, et al., 2014) Colombia, Andes Contiguous forests, agri-cultural landscapes, cattle farming

Paper investigates how the trade-offs between land-sharing and land-sparing strategies depend on the proximity of farmed areas to large tracts of natural habitat

17 (Gilroy, Woodcock, et al., 2014) Colombia, Andes Contiguous forests vs forest fragments

Finds that land sparing is better as forest fragments do not support as high bird and dung beetle communities and store less carbon

18 (Hernández-Ruedas et al., 2014) Mexico Small forest patches, agriculture

Argues that small forest patches have high value for forest tree conserva-tion and that focus should not only be on large protected forests

19 (Klein et al., 2014) Tropics, with examples

Agroforestry systems A general overview of how agroforestry (land sharing) may contribute to biodiversity conservation

20 (Mendenhall et al., 2014) Costa Rica Coffee plantations, pas-ture

95% of habitat utilized by forest-dependent reptile and amphibian biodi-versity is outside the local forest reserve

21 (Railsback & Johnson, 2014) Jamaica Coffee Uses a simulation model to assess whether cropland and biodiversity habitat should be separated or integrated with regard to bird populations on coffee farms

22 (Shaw et al., 2014) Kenya Bird abundance, shrubs Examines the pattern of change in the global and local distribution of a Kenyan endemic bird, whose abundance is dependent on a passive form of land sharing (fallow or abandoned farmland)

23 (Strassburg et al., 2014) Brazil Agricultural intensification, pasture

Uses models to investigate improved use of existing agricultural lands and present insights into avoiding future competition for land

24 (Tisovec et al., 2014) Brazil Forest, Cacao agroforests Tests whether an increased management of cacao agroforests has led to predation risk and frequency of mixed-species groups of primates

25 (Walker, 2014) Brazil, Amazon Deforestation Addresses Amazonian deforestation by considering indirect land-use change (ILUC) and land-sparing (LS). Does not discuss existing policies

26 (Zhu & Sun, 2014) China Land systems General review of land use intensification27 (Edwards et al., 2015) Colombia Subtropical and submon-

tane cloud forest, pasturePaper investigates the impacts of land-sparing, land-sharing or intermedi-ate strategies on bird populations

28 (Habel et al., 2015) Kenya Not specified Argues that the LS/S debate is too abstract to be understood at local level29 (Mastrangelo & Laterra, 2015) Argentina Chaco Refers to other papers regarding policy measures in Argentina30 (Norgrove & Hauser, 2015) Cameroon Maize, plantain, swidden Assesses the impact on fire exclusion on yield, labor inputs, soil fertility,

ecosystem carbon stocks, and fallow recovery indicators in two common field types (plantain and maize) under both current and reduced fallow

scenarios31 (Tisdell, 2015) Book not accessed in time, but appears not to be focusing on specific

policies32 (Volante & Paruelo, 2015) Argentina Chaco Assesses whether forest/ecological transitions are taking place (1977-

2007) and whether they are driven by agricultural intensification (land-sparing) or rural-urban migration (abandonment)

33 (Yue et al., 2015) Malaysia Oil-palm plantations, forests

Analyzes the occurrence of mammals in oil-palm plantations and adja-cent forests. They found occurrence and overall species richness to de-cline abruptly with decreasing forest proximity

34 (Lamb et al., 2016) Ghana Tropical forest, cropland, plantations, fallow bush-land

Paper uses modelling of population sizes of birds to assess whether land-sparing or land-sharing is better for species' persistence when including edge effects

35 (Law et al., 2016) General Tropical forests, small-holder agriculture, oil palm plantation

Uses integer programming to analyze potential outcomes from 10 alter-native policy scenarios, including land-sharing, land-sparing and mixed strategies

36 (Milligan et al., 2016) Kenya Coffee Investigates the relationship between ecosystem services (Pest control services by birds and ants on coffee farm) and the surrounding habitat

37 (Prescott et al., 2016) Colombia Oil palm, forest, cattle pasture, semi-natural open savanna system

Investigates possible solutions to minimize loss of functional diversity under large scale conversion of natural habitats to agriculture

38 (Quandt, 2016) Tanzania Forest, agriculture, live-stock

Assesses whether a land-sparing approach is beneficial to both farmers and forest conservationists. Results show that farmers without trees on their farms are more likely to encroach on spared forest reserves, poten-tially impacting forest conservation

39 (Teichroew et al., 2016) China Bees, pollinators Assesses the risks to wild and managed pollinators in China40 (Van der Laan et al., 2016) Indonesia Palm oil, pulpwood, rub-

ber, riceAnalyzes to what extent palm oil, pulp wood, rice and rubber can be pro-duced without unwanted land-use and land-cover change under different growth scenarios. Whole-landscape and multi-sectors approach

References

Ahmadi, M., Vicente Lopez-Bao, J., & Kaboli, M. (2014). Spatial Heterogeneity in Human Activities Favors the Persistence of Wolves in Agroecosystems. PLoS ONE, 9(9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108080

Ausubel, J. H., Wernick, I. K., & Waggoner, P. E. (2013). Peak Farmland and the Prospect for Land Sparing. Population and Development Review, 38, 221-242. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00561.x

Balmford, A., Green, R., & Phalan, B. (2015). Land for Food & Land for Nature? Daedalus, 144(4), 57-75. doi:10.1162/DAED_a_00354

Balmford, A., Green, R. E., & Scharlemann, J. P. W. (2005). Sparing land for nature: exploring the potential impact of changes in agricultural yield on the area needed for crop production. Global Change Biol-ogy, 11(10), 1594-1605. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01035.x

Barretto, A. G. O. P., Berndes, G., Sparovek, G., & Wirsenius, S. (2013). Agricultural intensification in Brazil and its effects on land-use patterns: An analysis of the 1975-2006 period. Global Change Biology, 19(6), 1804-1815. doi:10.1111/gcb.12174

Baudron, F., & Giller, K. E. (2014). Agriculture and nature: Trouble and strife? Biological Conservation, 170, 232-245. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.009

Blanco, V., & Waltert, M. (2013). Does the tropical agricultural matrix bear potential for primate conserva-tion? A baseline study from Western Uganda. Journal for Nature Conservation, 21(6), 383-393. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2013.04.001

Butsic, V., & Kuemmerle, T. (2015). Using optimization methods to align food production and biodiversity conservation beyond land sharing and land sparing. Ecological Applications, 25(3), 589-595. doi:10.1890/14-1927.1

Butsic, V., Radeloff, V. C., Kuemmerle, T., & Pidgeon, A. M. (2012). Analytical Solutions to Trade-Offs be-tween Size of Protected Areas and Land-Use Intensity. Conservation Biology, 26(5), 883-893. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01887.x

Carter, S., Herold, M., Rufino, M. C., Neumann, K., Kooistra, L., & Verchot, L. (2015). Mitigation of agricul-tural emissions in the tropics: comparing forest land-sparing options at the national level. Biogeo-sciences, 12(15), 4809-4825. doi:10.5194/bg-12-4809-2015

Castella, J. C., Lestrelin, G., Hett, C., Bourgoin, J., Fitriana, Y. R., Heinimann, A., & Pfund, J. L. (2013). Effects of Landscape Segregation on Livelihood Vulnerability: Moving From Extensive Shifting Cultivation to Rotational Agriculture and Natural Forests in Northern Laos. Human Ecology, 41(1), 63-76.

Ceddia, M. G., Bardsley, N. O., Gomez-y-Paloma, S., & Sedlacek, S. (2014). Governance, agricultural intensi-fication, and land sparing in tropical South America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-ences of the United States of America, 111(20), 7242-7247. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317967111

Ceddia, M. G., Gunter, U., & Corriveau-Bourque, A. (2015). Land tenure and agricultural expansion in Latin America: The role of Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' forest rights. Global Environmen-tal Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 35, 316-322. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.010

Cerda, R., Deheuvels, O., Calvache, D., Niehaus, L., Saenz, Y., Kent, J., . . . Somarriba, E. (2014). Contribution of cocoa agroforestry systems to family income and domestic consumption: looking toward intensi-fication. Agroforestry Systems, 88(6), 957-981. doi:10.1007/s10457-014-9691-8

Chandler, R. B., King, D. I., Raudales, R., Trubey, R., Chandler, C., & Arce Chávez, V. J. (2013). A small-scale land-sparing approach to conserving biological diversity in tropical agricultural landscapes. Conser-vation Biology, 27(4), 785-795. doi:10.1111/cobi.12046

Cialdella, N., Carvalho, S., Vaz, V., Barbosa, T., Thâles, M., Mourão, M., . . . Tourrand, J. F. (2015). Do political changes aimed at reducing amazonian deforestation contribute to ecological intensification? Cahiers Agricultures, 24(4), 246-254. doi:10.1684/agr.2015.0761

Clough, Y., Barkmann, J., Juhrbandt, J., Kessler, M., Wanger, T. C., Anshary, A., . . . Tscharntke, T. (2011). Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(20), 8311-8316.

Cohn, A. S., Mosnier, A., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Herrero, M., Schmid, E., . . . Obersteiner, M. (2014). Cattle ranching intensification in Brazil can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by sparing land from deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(20), 7236-7241. doi:10.1073/pnas.1307163111

Crespin, S. J., & Garcia-Villalta, J. E. (2014). Integration of Land-Sharing and Land-Sparing Conservation Strategies Through Regional Networking: The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor as a Lifeline for Carnivores in El Salvador. Ambio, 43(6), 820-824. doi:10.1007/s13280-013-0470-y

Dotta, G., Phalan, B., Silva, T. W., Green, R., & Balmford, A. (2016). Assessing strategies to reconcile agricul-ture and bird conservation in the temperate grasslands of South America. Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 30(3), 618-627. doi:10.1111/cobi.12635

Edwards, D. P., Gilroy, J. J., Thomas, G. H., Uribe, C. A. M., & Haugaasen, T. (2015). Land-Sparing Agriculture Best Protects Avian Phylogenetic Diversity. Current Biology, 25(18), 2384-2391. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.07.063

Edwards, D. P., Gilroy, J. J., Woodcock, P., Edwards, F. A., Larsen, T. H., Andrews, D. J. R., . . . Wilcove, D. S. (2014). Land-sharing versus land-sparing logging: reconciling timber extraction with biodiversity conservation. Global Change Biology, 20(1), 183-191. doi:10.1111/gcb.12353

Edwards, D. P., Hodgson, J. A., Hamer, K. C., Mitchell, S. L., Ahmad, A. H., Cornell, S. J., & Wilcove, D. S. (2010). Wildlife-friendly oil palm plantations fail to protect biodiversity effectively. Conservation Letters, 3(4), 236-242. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00107.x

Eloy, L., Meral, P., Ludewigs, T., Pinheiro, G. T., & Singer, B. (2012). Payments for ecosystem services in Amazonia. The challenge of land use heterogeneity in agricultural frontiers near Cruzeiro do Sul (Acre, Brazil). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(6), 685-703. doi:10.1080/09640568.2011.621021

Ewers, R. M., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Balmford, A., & Green, R. E. (2009). Do increases in agricultural yield spare land for nature? Global Change Biology, 15(7), 1716-1726. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01849.x

Fagan, M. E., DeFries, R. S., Sesnie, S. E., Arroyo, J. P., Walker, W., Soto, C., . . . Sanchun, A. (2013). Land cover dynamics following a deforestation ban in northern Costa Rica. Environmental Research Let-ters, 8(3). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034017

Fischer, J., Abson, D. J., Butsic, V., Chappell, M. J., Ekroos, J., Hanspach, J., . . . von Wehrden, H. (2014). Land Sparing Versus Land Sharing: Moving Forward. Conservation Letters, 7(3), 149-157. doi:10.1111/conl.12084

Fischer, J., Batary, P., Bawa, K. S., Brussaard, L., Chappell, M. J., Clough, Y., . . . Von Wehrden, H. (2011). Conservation: Limits of Land Sparing. Science, 334(6056), 593-593.

Fischer, J., Brosi, B., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., Goldman, R., Goldstein, J., . . . Tallis, H. (2008). Should agricul-tural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Envi-ronment, 6(7), 382-387. doi:10.1890/070019

Frigeri, E., Cassano, C. R., & Pardini, R. (2014). Domestic dog invasion in an agroforestry mosaic in southern Bahia, Brazil. Tropical Conservation Science, 7(3), 508-528.

Giam, X., Hadiaty, R. K., Tan, H. H., Parenti, L. R., Wowor, D., Sauri, S., . . . Wilcove, D. S. (2015). Mitigating the impact of oil-palm monoculture on freshwater fishes in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology, 29(5), 1357-1367. doi:10.1111/cobi.12483

Gilroy, J. J., Edwards, F. A., Medina Uribe, C. A., Haugaasen, T., & Edwards, D. P. (2014). Surrounding habi-tats mediate the trade-off between land-sharing and land-sparing agriculture in the tropics. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(5), 1337-1346. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12284

Gilroy, J. J., Woodcock, P., Edwards, F. A., Wheeler, C., Medina Uribe, C. A., Haugaasen, T., & Edwards, D. P. (2014). Optimizing carbon storage and biodiversity protection in tropical agricultural landscapes. Global Change Biology, 20(7), 2162-2172. doi:10.1111/gcb.12482

Gockowski, J., Afari-Sefa, V., Sarpong, D. B., Osei-Asare, Y. B., & Agyeman, N. F. (2013). Improving the pro-ductivity and income of Ghanaian cocoa farmers while maintaining environmental services: what role for certification? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 11(4), 331-346. doi:10.1080/14735903.2013.772714

Godfray, H. C. J. (2011). Food and biodiversity. Science, 333(6047), 1231-1232. doi:10.1126/science.1211815

Grainger, A. (2009). Measuring the planet to fill terrestrial data gaps. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(49), 20557-20558. doi:10.1073/pnas.0912298107

Grau, H. R., Gasparri, N. I., & Aide, T. M. (2008). Balancing food production and nature conservation in the Neotropical dry forests of northern Argentina. Global Change Biology, 14(5), 985-997. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01554.x

Grau, H. R., Kuemmerle, T., & Macchi, L. (2013). Beyond 'land sparing versus land sharing': environmental heterogeneity, globalization and the balance between agricultural production and nature conserva-tion. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5), 477-483.

Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W., & Balmford, A. (2005). Farming and the Fate of Wild Na-ture. Science, 307(5709), 550-555. doi:10.1126/science.1106049

Griscom, B. W., & Goodman, R. C. (2015). Reframing the sharing vs sparing debate for tropical forestry land-scapes. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 27(2), 145-147.

Habel, J. C., Teucher, M., Hornetz, B., Jaetzold, R., Kimatu, J. N., Kasili, S., . . . Lens, L. (2015). Real-world complexity of food security and biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(6), 1531-1539. doi:10.1007/s10531-015-0866-z

Habel, J. C., Weisser, W. W., Eggermont, H., & Lens, L. (2013). Food security versus biodiversity protection: an example of land-sharing from East Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(6-7), 1553-1555. doi:10.1007/s10531-013-0479-3

Hayashi, K. (2011). Conservation: Model Management Intensity. Science, 334(6056), 593-594. Hernández-Ruedas, M. A., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Meave, J. A., Martínez-Ramos, M., Ibarra-Manríquez, G.,

Martínez, E., . . . Santos, B. A. (2014). Conserving tropical tree diversity and forest structure: The value of small rainforest patches in moderately-managed landscapes. PLoS ONE, 9(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098931

Hertel, T. W., Ramankutty, N., & Baldos, U. L. C. (2014). Global market integration increases likelihood that a future African Green Revolution could increase crop land use and CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(38), 13799-13804. doi:10.1073/pnas.1403543111

Hill, R., Miller, C., Newell, B., Dunlop, M., & Gordon, I. J. (2015). Why biodiversity declines as protected ar-eas increase: the effect of the power of governance regimes on sustainable landscapes. Sustainabil-ity Science, 10(2), 357-369. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0288-6

Huang, J., Tichit, M., Poulot, M., Darly, S., Li, S., Petit, C., & Aubry, C. (2015). Comparative review of multi-functionality and ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture. Journal of Environmental Manage-ment, 149, 138-147. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.020

Hulme, M. F., Vickery, J. A., Green, R. E., Phalan, B., Chamberlain, D. E., Pomeroy, D. E., . . . Atkinson, P. W. (2013). Conserving the Birds of Uganda's Banana-Coffee Arc: Land Sparing and Land Sharing Com-pared. PLoS ONE, 8(2). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054597

Jadin, I., Meyfroidt, P., & Lambin, E. F. (2016). International trade, and land use intensification and spatial reorganization explain Costa Rica's forest transition. Environmental Research Letters, 11(3). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035005

Johnson, R. J., Jedlicka, J. A., Quinn, J. E., & Brandle, J. R. (2011). Global Perspectives on Birds in Agricultural Landscapes. In W. B. Campbell & S. L. Ortiz (Eds.), Integrating Agriculture, Conservation and Eco-tourism: Examples from the Field (Vol. 1, pp. 55-140).

Kamp, J., Urazaliev, R., Balmford, A., Donald, P. F., Green, R. E., Lamb, A. J., & Phalan, B. (2015). Agricultural development and the conservation of avian biodiversity on the Eurasian steppes: a comparison of land-sparing and land-sharing approaches. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(6), 1578-1587. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12527

Kamp, J., Urazaliev, R., Donald, P. F., & Hoelzel, N. (2011). Post-Soviet agricultural change predicts future declines after recent recovery in Eurasian steppe bird populations. Biological Conservation, 144(11), 2607-2614. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.010

Keys, E. (2008). Market integration and market realities on the Mexican frontier: The case of Calakmul, campeche, Mexico.

Klein, A.-M., Boreux, V., Bauhus, J., Chappell, M. J., Fischer, J., & Philpott, S. M. (2014). Forest Islands in an Agricultural Sea.

Knoke, T., Calvas, B., Ochoa Moreno, S., Onyekwelu, J. C., & Griess, V. C. (2013). Food production and cli-mate protection - What abandoned lands can do to preserve natural forests. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 23(5), 1064-1072. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.004

Koh, L. P., Levang, P., & Ghazoul, J. (2009). Designer landscapes for sustainable biofuels. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(8), 431-438. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.012

Lamb, A., Balmford, A., Green, R. E., & Phalan, B. (2016). To what extent could edge effects and habitat fragmentation diminish the potential benefits of land sparing? Biological Conservation, 195, 264-271. doi:10.1016/j.biocon2016.01.006

Laurance, W. F., Sayer, J., & Cassman, K. G. (2014). Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical na-ture. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(2), 107-116. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2013.12.001

Law, E. A., Bryan, B. A., Meijaard, E., Mallawaarachchi, T., Struebig, M. J., Watts, M. E., & Wilson, K. A. (2016). Mixed policies give more options in multifunctional tropical forest landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12666

Law, E. A., Meijaard, E., Bryan, B. A., Mallawaarachchi, T., Koh, L. P., & Wilson, K. A. (2015). Better land-use allocation outperforms land sparing and land sharing approaches to conservation in Central Kali-mantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation, 186, 276-286. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.03.004

Lee, J. S. H., Garcia-Ulloa, J., Ghazoul, J., Obidzinski, K., & Koh, L. P. (2014). Modelling environmental and socio-economic trade-offs associated with land-sparing and land-sharing approaches to oil palm expansion. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(5), 1366-1377. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12286

Lusiana, B., van Noordwijk, M., & Cadisch, G. (2012). Land sparing or sharing? Exploring livestock fodder options in combination with land use zoning and consequences for livelihoods and net carbon stocks using the FALLOW model. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 159(0), 145-160.

Macchi, L., Grau, H. R., & Phalan, B. (2016). Agricultural production and bird conservation in complex land-scapes of the dry Chaco. Journal of Land Use Science, 11(2), 188-202. doi:10.1080/1747423X.2015.1057244

Macchi, L., Ricardo Grau, H., Zelaya, P. V., & Marinaro, S. (2013). Trade-offs between land use intensity and avian biodiversity in the dry Chaco of Argentina: A tale of two gradients. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 174, 11-20. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.011

Macedo, M. N., DeFries, R. S., Morton, D. C., Stickler, C. M., Galford, G. L., & Shimabukuro, Y. E. (2012). De-coupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(4), 1341-1346.

Mahood, S. P., Lees, A. C., & Peres, C. A. (2012). Amazonian countryside habitats provide limited avian con-servation value. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21(2), 385-405. doi:10.1007/s10531-011-0188-8

Makowski, D., Dore, T., Gasquez, J., & Munier-Jolain, N. (2007). Modelling land use strategies to optimise crop production and protection of ecologically important weed species. Weed Research, 47(3), 202-211. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.2007.00562.x

Mastrangelo, M. E., & Laterra, P. (2015). From biophysical to social-ecological trade-offs: integrating biodi-versity conservation and agricultural production in the Argentine Dry Chaco. Ecology and Society, 20(1). doi:10.5751/es-07186-200120

Mattison, E. H. A., & Norris, K. (2005). Bridging the gaps between agricultural policy, land-use and biodiver-sity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(11), 610-616. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.06.011

Mendenhall, C. D., Archer, H. M., Brenes, F. O., Sekercioglu, C. H., & Sehgal, R. N. M. (2013). Balancing bio-diversity with agriculture: Land sharing mitigates avian malaria prevalence. Conservation Letters, 6(2), 125-131. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00302.x

Mendenhall, C. D., Frishkoff, L. O., Santos-Barrera, G., Pacheco, J., Mesfun, E., Mendoza Quijano, F., . . . Pringle, R. M. (2014). Countryside biogeography of Neotropical reptiles and amphibians. Ecology, 95(4), 856-870. doi:10.1890/12-2017.1

Meyfroidt, P., Carlson, K. M., Fagan, M. E., Gutiérrez-Vélez, V. H., Macedo, M. N., Curran, L. M., . . . Robiglio, V. (2014). Multiple pathways of commodity crop expansion in tropical forest landscapes. Environ-mental Research Letters, 9(7). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/7/074012

Milligan, M. C., Johnson, M. D., Garfinkel, M., Smith, C. J., & Njoroge, P. (2016). Quantifying pest control services by birds and ants in Kenyan coffee farms. Biological Conservation, 194, 58-65. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.11.028

Minang, P. A., Duguma, L. A., Bernard, F., Mertz, O., & van Noordwijk, M. (2014). Prospects for agroforestry in REDD+ landscapes in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6(1), 78-82. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.015

Montoya-Molina, S., Giraldo-Echeverri, C., Montoya-Lerma, J., Chara, J., Escobar, F., & Calle, Z. (2016). Land sharing vs. land sparing in the dry Caribbean lowlands: A dung beetles' perspective. Applied Soil Ecology, 98, 204-212. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.10.017

Norgrove, L., & Hauser, S. (2015). Estimating the Consequences of Fire Exclusion for Food Crop Production, Soil Fertility, and Fallow Recovery in Shifting Cultivation Landscapes in the Humid Tropics. Environ-mental Management, 55(3), 536-549. doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0431-7

Oliveira, G., & Hecht, S. (2016). Sacred groves, sacrifice zones and soy production: globalization, intensifica-tion and neo-nature in South America. Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(2), 251-285. doi:10.1080/03066150.2016.1146705

Padoch, C., & Pinedo-Vasquez, M. (2010). Saving Slash-and-Burn to Save Biodiversity. Biotropica, 42(5), 550-552.

Paul, C., & Knoke, T. (2015). Between land sharing and land sparing - what role remains for forest manage-ment and conservation? International Forestry Review, 17(2), 210-230.

Pautasso, M., Doering, T. F., Garbelotto, M., Pellis, L., & Jeger, M. J. (2012). Impacts of climate change on plant diseases-opinions and trends. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 133(1), 295-313. doi:10.1007/s10658-012-9936-1

Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2008). Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems: A new conserva-tion paradigm. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1134, 173-200. doi:10.1196/annals.1439.011

Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2010). The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agricul-ture intensification model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(13), 5786-5791. doi:10.1073/pnas.0905455107

Perrings, C., & Halkos, G. (2015). Agriculture and the threat to biodiversity in sub-saharan Africa. Environ-mental Research Letters, 10(9). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/095015

Phalan, B., Balmford, A., & Green, R. E. (2012). Agriculture as a key element for conservation: reasons for caution. Conservation Letters, 5(4), 323-324. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00248.x

Phalan, B., Balmford, A., Green, R. E., & Scharlemann, J. P. W. (2011). Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally. Food Policy, 36, S62-S71. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.008

Phalan, B., Green, R., & Balmford, A. (2014). Closing yield gaps: perils and possibilities for biodiversity con-servation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 369(1639). doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0285

Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A., & Green, R. E. (2011a). Conservation - Response. Science, 334(6056), 594-595.

Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A., & Green, R. E. (2011b). Reconciling Food Production and Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing and Land Sparing Compared. Science, 333(6047), 1289-1291.

Phelps, J., Carrasco, L. R., Webb, E. L., Koh, L. P., & Pascual, U. (2013). Agricultural intensification escalates future conservation costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(19), 7601-7606. doi:10.1073/pnas.1220070110

Pirard, R., & Belna, K. (2012). Agriculture and Deforestation: Is REDD+ Rooted In Evidence? Forest Policy and Economics, 21, 62-70. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.01.012

Prescott, G. W., Gilroy, J. J., Haugaasen, T., Medina Uribe, C. A., Foster, W. A., & Edwards, D. P. (2016). Re-ducing the impacts of Neotropical oil palm development on functional diversity. Biological Conser-vation, 197, 139-145. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.02.013

Quandt, A. (2016). Farmers and Forest Conservation: How Might Land Sparing Work in Practice? Society & Natural Resources, 29(4), 418-431. doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1095381

Rai, N. D., & Bawa, K. S. (2013). Inserting Politics and History in Conservation. Conservation Biology, 27(2), 425-428. doi:10.1111/cobi.12026

Railsback, S. F., & Johnson, M. D. (2014). Effects of land use on bird populations and pest control services on coffee farms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(16), 6109-6114. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320957111

Ramankutty, N., & Rhemtulla, J. (2012). Can intensive farming save nature? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(9), 455-455.

Ramankutty, N., & Rhemtulla, J. (2013). Land sparing or land sharing: context dependent. Frontiers in Ecol-ogy and the Environment, 11(4), 178-178. doi:10.1890/13.wb.009

Rey Benayas, J. M., & Bullock, J. M. (2012). Restoration of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Agricul-tural Land. Ecosystems, 15(6), 883-899. doi:10.1007/s10021-012-9552-0

Rudel, T. K., Schneider, L., Uriarte, M., Turner, B. L., DeFries, R., Lawrence, D., . . . Grau, H. R. (2009). Agricul-tural intensification and changes in cultivated areas, 1970-2005. Proceedings of the National Acad-emy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(49), 20675-20680.

Sayer, J., Ghazoul, J., Nelson, P., & Boedhihartono, A. K. (2012). Oil palm expansion transforms tropical landscapes and livelihoods. Global Food Security-Agriculture Policy Economics and Environment, 1(2), 114-119. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2012.10.003

Scariot, A. (2013). Land sparing or land sharing: the missing link. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(4), 177-178. doi:10.1890/13.wb.008

Schroth, G., Faria, D., Araujo, M., Bede, L., Van Bael, S. A., Cassano, C. R., . . . Delabie, J. H. C. (2011). Conser-vation in tropical landscape mosaics: the case of the cacao landscape of southern Bahia, Brazil. Bio-diversity and Conservation, 20(8), 1635-1654. doi:10.1007/s10531-011-0052-x

Shackelford, G. E., Steward, P. R., German, R. N., Sait, S. M., & Benton, T. G. (2015). Conservation planning in agricultural landscapes: hotspots of conflict between agriculture and nature. Diversity and Distri-butions, 21(3), 357-367. doi:10.1111/ddi.12291

Sharma, L. N., & Vetaas, O. R. (2015). Does agroforestry conserve trees? A comparison of tree species diver-sity between farmland and forest in mid-hills of central Himalaya. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(8), 2047-2061. doi:10.1007/s10531-015-0927-3

Shaw, P., Njoroge, P., Otieno, V., & Mlamba, E. (2014). The range, abundance and habitat of Hinde's Bab-bler Turdoides hindei: fine-scale changes in abundance during 2000-2011 reflect temporal variation in scrub cover. Bird Conservation International, 24(4), 453-465. doi:10.1017/s0959270913000579

Sheldon, F., & Styring, A. (2011). Bird diversity differs between industrial tree plantations on Borneo: Impli-cations for conservation planning. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 59(2), 295-309.

Speelman, E. N., Garcia-Barrios, L. E., Groot, J. C. J., & Tittonell, P. (2014). Gaming for smallholder participa-tion in the design of more sustainable agricultural landscapes. Agricultural Systems, 126, 62-75. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2013.09.002

Strassburg, B. B. N., Latawiec, A. E., Barioni, L. G., Nobre, C. A., da Silva, V. P., Valentin, J. F., . . . Assad, E. D. (2014). When enough should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 28, 84-97. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.001

Teichroew, J. L., Xu, J., Ahrends, A., Huang, Z. Y., Tan, K., & Xie, Z. (2016). Is China's unparalleled and under-studied bee diversity at risk? Biological Conservation. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.023

Tisdell, C. A. (2015). Economics and spatial aspects of ecosystem use: land sharing versus land sparing - wildlife conservation and forestry. In C. A. Tisdell (Ed.), Sustaining Biodiversity and Ecosystem Func-tions: Economic Issues (pp. 386-408). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Tisovec, K. C., Cassano, C. R., Boubli, J. P., & Pardini, R. (2014). Mixed-species Groups of Marmosets and Tamarins Across a Gradient of Agroforestry Intensification. Biotropica, 46(2), 248-255. doi:10.1111/btp.12098

Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T. C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., . . . Whitbread, A. (2012). Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation, 151(1), 53-59. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068

Van Asselen, S., & Verburg, P. H. (2013). Land cover change or land-use intensification: simulating land sys-tem change with a global-scale land change model. Global Change Biology, 19(12), 3648-3667. doi:10.1111/gcb.12331

Van der Laan, C., Wicke, B., Verweij, P. A., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2016). Mitigation of unwanted direct and indi-rect land-use change - an integrated approach illustrated for palm oil, pulpwood, rubber and rice production in North and East Kalimantan, Indonesia. GCB Bioenergy. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12353

Volante, J. N., & Paruelo, J. M. (2015). Is forest or Ecological Transition taking place? Evidence for the Semi-arid Chaco in Argentina. Journal of Arid Environments, 123, 21-30. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.04.017

Vongvisouk, T., Broegaard, R. B., Mertz, O., & Thongmanivong, S. (2016). Rush for cash crops and forest protection: Neither land sparing nor land sharing. Land Use Policy, 55, 182–192.

Vaast, P., & Somarriba, E. (2014). Trade-offs between crop intensification and ecosystem services: the role of agroforestry in cocoa cultivation. Agroforestry Systems, 88(6), 947-956. doi:10.1007/s10457-014-9762-x

Wade, A. S. I., Asase, A., Hadley, P., Mason, J., Ofori-Frimpong, K., Preece, D., . . . Norris, K. (2010). Manage-ment strategies for maximizing carbon storage and tree species diversity in cocoa-growing land-scapes. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 138(3-4), 324-334. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.06.007

Walker, R. (2014). Sparing Land for Nature in the Brazilian Amazon: Implications from Location Rent Theory. Geographical Analysis, 46(1), 18-36. doi:10.1111/gean.12024

Warren-Thomas, E., Dolman, P. M., & Edwards, D. P. (2015). Increasing Demand for Natural Rubber Neces-sitates a Robust Sustainability Initiative to Mitigate Impacts on Tropical Biodiversity. Conservation Letters, 8(4), 230-241. doi:10.1111/conl.12170

Weinzettel, J., Hertwich, E. G., Peters, G. P., Steen-Olsen, K., & Galli, A. (2013). Affluence drives the global displacement of land use. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 433-438.

Wright, H. L., Lake, I. R., & Dolman, P. M. (2012a). Agriculture-a key element for conservation in the devel-oping world. Conservation Letters, 5(1), 11-19. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00208.x

Wright, H. L., Lake, I. R., & Dolman, P. M. (2012b). Low-impact agriculture requires urgent attention not greater caution: response to Phalan and colleagues. Conservation Letters, 5(4), 325-326. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00247.x

Yue, S., Brodie, J. F., Zipkin, E. F., & Bernard, H. (2015). Oil palm plantations fail to support mammal diver-sity. Ecological Applications, 25(8), 2285-2292.

Zhu, H., & Sun, M. (2014). Main progress in the research on land use intensification. Acta Geographica Sinica, 69(9), 1346-1357. doi:10.11821/dlxb201409008

ars.els-cdn.com · Web viewEffects of Landscape Segregation on Livelihood Vulnerability: Moving...

Documents

Transcript of ars.els-cdn.com · Web viewEffects of Landscape Segregation on Livelihood Vulnerability: Moving...