Land sharing vs. land sparing for biodiversity: How agricultural markets make the difference
AbstractWe show that between intensive and extensive farming, the production method most beneficial to biodiversity depends on the equilibrium of agricultural markets. All other things equal, as long as demand reacts to prices and extensive farming has higher production costs, extensive farming tends to be more beneficial to biodiversity than intensive farming, except when there is a very high degree of convexity between biodiversity and yield. Extensive farming is detrimental to consumers when their surplus is evaluated restrictively, as increasing in quantities consumed, while its effect on agricultural producers is indeterminate. Extensive farming has no straightforward effect on food security, but could decrease the pressure on protected areas. Any increase in demand, notably for animal feed or biofuels, decreases biodiversity, regardless of the production method employed. However, additional demand reinforces the preference for extensive farming, especially in the case of animal feed, for which price elasticity is higher.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Toulouse School of Economics (TSE) in its series TSE Working Papers with number 13-435.
Date of creation: Oct 2013
Date of revision:
conservation; farming; biodiversity; land use; markets; welfare;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-AGR-2013-10-25 (Agricultural Economics)
- NEP-ALL-2013-10-25 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENV-2013-10-25 (Environmental Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2008. "Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural 'lock-in' case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 436-446, June.
- Phalan, Ben & Balmford, Andrew & Green, Rhys E. & Scharlemann, Jörn P.W., 2011. "Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages S62-S71.
- Karagiannis, Giannis & Furtan, William Hartley, 2002. "The Effects of Supply Shifts on Producers' Surplus: the Case of Inelastic Linear Supply Curves," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 3(1), January.
- Phalan, Ben & Balmford, Andrew & Green, Rhys E. & Scharlemann, Jörn P.W., 2011. "Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(Supplemen), pages S62-S71, January.
- Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.