Abstract The expansion of agriculture to meet global food demands presents a major challenge for biodiversity conservation. Two strategies—land sparing and land sharing (LSLS)—have been proposed to balance agricultural growth with biodiversity conservation. Land sparing separates intensive agriculture from large natural areas, while land sharing integrates biodiversity within less intensively farmed landscapes. However, conclusions about their effectiveness vary widely depending on definitions, study types, spatial scales, habitat types, and taxa. This review examines how these factors shape conclusions about optimal land use configurations. Across 96 papers, we identified 7 definitions for land sharing and 5 for land sparing, many of which were qualitative, subjective, and likely to have different impacts on biodiversity. Study type significantly influenced conclusions (χ 2 = 12.75, p = .04), with empirical, modeling, and review studies often disagreeing. Studies using a single spatial scale more often recommended sparing (42%), whereas multi‐scale studies favored combining sparing and sharing (67%). Most LSLS research has focused on forest ecosystems and birds, leaving many taxa and habitats understudied. Early LSLS studies often reached different conclusions than those of non‐pioneer researchers. Overall, our findings reveal persistent uncertainty in LSLS outcomes due to variation in definitions, methods, and ecological focus.
Padda et al. (Tue,) studied this question.