Land Sparing vs Sharing for Wildlife Welfare

How different approaches to agricultural land use — intensive farming with land sparing versus wildlife-friendly farming — affect wildlife welfare and biodiversity outcomes.

Key Facts

Land sparing concentrates intensive production on smaller areas while protecting larger areas as habitat reserves
Wildlife-friendly farming integrates lower-intensity production with habitat features across the whole farmed landscape
Evidence favors land sparing for biodiversity conservation when comparing equivalent total food production
Wildlife-friendly farming supports more species within the farmed landscape even if total species density is lower
Both approaches can be welfare-positive when implemented well — the best outcomes combine elements of both

Welfare Considerations

The land sparing versus sharing debate has significant welfare implications for wild animals living in and around agricultural landscapes. Wildlife-friendly farming supports higher densities of farmland species within the production area but may support fewer species overall. Land sparing with protected reserves supports biodiversity at landscape scale but creates agricultural intensification zones where wildlife welfare is deprioritised. The welfare-optimal outcome may depend on which species are prioritised and what landscape context is considered. There is growing interest in combining elements of both approaches — intensification on the most productive land paired with rewilding of marginal agricultural land.

What You Can Do

Support conservation organisations working on evidence-based land use policies that benefit wildlife welfare
Advocate for agri-environment schemes that reward farmers for incorporating wildlife features into productive landscapes
Learn about the land sparing versus sharing debate and engage with agricultural land use policy discussions
Choose food products from farming systems that demonstrate commitment to wildlife welfare in the production landscape
Donate to research comparing welfare outcomes for wildlife under different land use approaches