Sharing or sparing? How should we grow the world's cities?

Lin, Brenda B. and Fuller, Richard A. (2013) Sharing or sparing? How should we grow the world's cities?. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50 5: 1161-1168. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12118

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Author Lin, Brenda B.
Fuller, Richard A.
Title Sharing or sparing? How should we grow the world's cities?
Journal name Journal of Applied Ecology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0021-8901
Publication date 2013-10-01
Year available 2013
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/1365-2664.12118
Open Access Status DOI
Volume 50
Issue 5
Start page 1161
End page 1168
Total pages 8
Place of publication Oxford, United Kingdom
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Language eng
Formatted abstract
There has long been a debate amongst conservation biologists about how agricultural land use should be distributed spatially. Advocates of land sparing argue that high-intensity food production on small units of land will conserve more natural habitat than low-intensity farming spread across larger areas. Others argue that less intensive production over a greater area of land will reduce the overall load of human stressors upon ecosystems. Although agricultural and urban systems have traditionally been considered as different fields of research, there are strong parallels between the two landscapes in the patterns of their spatial configuration and the trade-offs associated with their development. Continued and rapid urbanization, with associated losses in vegetation, highlights the need for a uniting spatial framework to assess the ecological impacts of urbanization. Here, we apply some of the thinking emerging from the agricultural land-sparing debate to urbanization, review the similarities and differences between the two systems and set out a research agenda. Intensification of urban systems to increase housing density leads to buildings being interspersed with small tracts of natural or semi-natural habitat patches (e.g. forest patches, parks). Urban extensification, on the other hand, is characterized by sprawling suburbanization with less concentrated, more distributed green space, often predominantly in the form of backyard or streetscape vegetation. We argue that regional scale analyses are urgently needed to determine which of these patterns of urban growth has a lower overall impact on biodiversity and to explore the geographical and taxonomic variation in the most ecologically appropriate city layout. Synthesis and applications. The spatial pattern of urban development will affect biodiversity conservation within and beyond a city's borders. We chart the early progress of empirical work on the land-sparing debate in an urban context and suggest that to yield development patterns that minimize overall ecological impact, urban planners must work at the scale of at least the entire city rather than on a case-by-case basis
Keyword Biodiversity
Ecosystem services
Landscape configuration
Land use transformation
Spatial models
Urban densification
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Official 2014 Collection
School of Biological Sciences Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 33 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 35 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sun, 10 Nov 2013, 10:51:23 EST by System User on behalf of School of Biological Sciences