Cited by 197Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesUrban Green Space and HealthUrban Planning and Landscape Design

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

Open access
Lin, Brenda B., Fuller, Richard A.·2013·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1365-2664.12118

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Rural landscapes represent a place creating tensions between different users (inhabitants, farmers, industries, naturalists, etc.).

    “They also represent a place creating tensions between the di erent users (inhabitants, farmers, industries, naturalists, etc.) [23].”

    From How Are Landscapes under Agroecological Transition Perceived and Appreciated? A Belgian Case Study (2020) · cites this paper as [23]

    The ‘History of the land-use debate in agricultural development’ section describes trade-offs between agricultural production, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods. It does not describe tensions among the specific groups listed in the claim, particularly industries and naturalists. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, B. B., & Fuller, R. A.
Affiliations
  • CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere (AU)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
Corresponding author
Lin, Brenda B.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-06-17
Volume
50
Issue
5
Pages
1161-1168
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W2048539254
Cited by
197
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Applied Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
  • Australian Research Council (DP120102857)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Urban Planning and Landscape Design
Keywords
urbanization, land sparing, land sharing, urban sprawl, urban intensification, biodiversity conservation, habitat fragmentation, urban green space, suburbanization, housing density, regional-scale analysis, urban planning, agricultural land use

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review