ABSTRACT
Both land sharing and land sparing strategies have advantages and shortcomings for forest landscape restoration (FLR), with clear trade-offs for biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services, as illustrated by recent studies in Brazil and elsewhere. The best strategy to minimize trade-offs and improve the quality of agroecosystems may be to consider land sparing and land sharing as complementary in FLR, according to the context. The decision as to whether land sparing or land sharing is better for nature and human wellbeing will depend on a multitude of direct, indirect, and often cumulative and uncertain consequences in the landscape. Consequently, the FLR approach should involve adaptive management to ensure successful outcomes in a wide range of environmental and social contexts. FLR that embraces the broader and inclusive approach of Nature’s Contribution to People at the heart of the solution is seen as a promising way forward.
