Biofuels on the landscape: Is land sharing preferable to land sparing?

Background/Question/Methods

Widespread land use changes—and ensuing effects on ecosystem services—are expected as a result of expanding bioenergy production. Although almost all US production of ethanol today is from corn, it is envisaged that further expansion will be from cellulosic biofuels produced from perennial feedstocks.  However, there is debate as to whether it is preferable to produce bioenergy from crops with high ecosystem services (a “land sharing” strategy) or to grow crops with lower ecosystem services but higher yield, thereby requiring less land to meet bioenergy demand (a “land sparing” strategy). Here, we develop a simple model to address this question. Assuming that bioenergy crops are competing with uncultivated land, our model calculates land requirements to meet a given bioenergy demand intensity based upon the yields of bioenergy crops and combines fractional land cover of each ecosystem type with its associated ecosystem services to determine whether land sharing or land sparing strategies maximize ecosystem services at the landscape level. We apply this model to a case in which climate protection through GHG regulation—an ecosystem’s greenhouse gas value (GHGV)—is the ecosystems service of interest. We consider five bioenergy crops competing for land area with five unfarmed ecosystem types in the central and eastern US.

Results/Conclusions

Our results show that the relative advantages of land sparing and land sharing depend upon the type of ecosystem with which the bioenergy crop is competing for land; as the GHGV value of the unfarmed land increases, the preferable strategy shifts from land sharing to land sparing. This implies that, while it may be preferable to replace ecologically degraded land with high-GHGV, lower yielding bioenergy crops, average landscape GHGV will most often be maximized through high yielding bioenergy crops that leave more land for uncultivated, high-GHGV ecosystems. While our case study focuses on GHGV, the same principles will be generally applicable to any ecosystem service whose value does not depend upon the spatial configuration of the landscape. Whenever bioenergy crops have substantially lower ecosystem services than the ecosystems with which they are competing for land, the most effective strategy for meeting bioenergy demand while maximizing ecosystem services on a landscape level is one of land sparing—that is, focusing simultaneously on maximizing the yield of bioenergy crops while preserving or restoring natural ecosystems.