The findings presented above clearly highlight the importance of agricultural intensification in closing yield gaps. However, historical examples also reveal the long-term consequences of this strategy for land integrity and ecological functions. If intensification processes repeat the historical unsustainable pathways, accumulation of degradation debt will eventually catch up with land users and negatively affect yields, or may even result in land abandonment. Given that most of the global cost of land degradation is borne by the broader society (in terms of lost ecosystem services and environmental pollution), efforts to close yield gaps for food security will need to balance private benefits (from degrading practices) and public costs.
Global agricultural production can increase in two main ways: by expanding the production frontier or by closing existing yield gaps. While policies that promote innovation and push the production frontier are essential – especially to reverse the recent slowdown of total factor productivity growth in agriculture – they may offer diminishing returns in regions already operating close to their biophysical yield potential. Therefore, closing existing yield gaps, especially in areas still far from their productivity potential, is vital for sustaining long-term growth in global food production.69
Failure to do so has significant implications for environmental sustainability. When yield improvements fall short, food demand has often been met by expanding farmland into previously uncultivated areas – a process known as agricultural extensification. While this approach can increase food supply, it also reduces land available for conservation and wildlife habitats.70 Such increases in land degradation through LUCC further add to the costs of degradation borne by the consumers of ecosystem services off the farm.
There is ongoing debate about which agricultural practices best manage the land and ecological footprint of food production. Researchers have long examined the environmental trade-offs between two main strategies: high-yield agriculture with a small footprint (land sparing) versus wildlife-friendly, lower-yield farming over larger areas (land sharing).70, 71
The land-sparing approach is based on the idea that increasing yields through innovations – such as high-yielding seeds – can reduce the need to convert natural ecosystems into farmland.72, 73 If the land saved is restored or protected in large habitat blocks (e.g. woodlands, grasslands, wetlands), this can support conservation objectives.74 However, land sparing does not automatically result in nature conservation. For spared land to contribute meaningfully to biodiversity, formal protection through targeted environmental policies is required.70, 75–77
In contrast, land sharing integrates biodiversity-supporting practices within agricultural landscapes. These include crop rotation, intercropping, agroforestry, conservation agriculture and mixed crop–livestock systems, which would also decrease land degradation.73 Although often perceived as lower yielding, many of these systems bring both private benefits (i.e. yields) and public benefits (i.e. ecosystem services).78, 79 A synthesis of over 5 000 experiments found that crop diversification enhances yields, biodiversity, and key ecosystem services such as water quality, pest control and soil health. Agroforestry, which prevents soil erosion and fixes nitrogen, demonstrated particularly high benefits – including a 35 percent increase in crop production.80
As in most initially polarized debates, research has evolved towards a more nuanced understanding. Both land sparing and land sharing have roles to play; trade-offs are bound to exist in land-use decisions and need to be carefully managed.81, 82 Box 9 provides a brief overview of the debate on land sparing vs land sharing.
Box 9From trade-offs to synergies: rethinking land sparing vs land sharing
Proponents of land sparing emphasize that yield increases should be achieved through sustainable intensification, which aims to boost food production on existing farmland without causing additional environmental harm.83 Critics, however, raise the Jevons paradox, which suggests that efficiency gains lead to higher production and consumption, potentially encouraging cropland expansion, given that enhanced productivity can make cultivation more economically attractive in these areas.84, 85
However, a global study by Baldos et al. (2025)86 found that improved crop technologies actually led to a reduction of 16.03 million ha of cropland between 1961 and 2015. This reduction resulted in gains in terrestrial carbon stock and prevented the extinction of around 1 043 threatened animal and plant species (see figure). While some regions did experience cropland expansion due to higher crop profitability, supporting the Jevons paradox, other regions saw slower expansion due to market-mediated spillover effects, leading to overall environmental benefits. These context-specific outcomes suggest that the impacts of improved crop technologies are complex and context-dependent.
Some experts argue that the sparing vs sharing debate misses the mark. Baudron et al. (2021),87 for instance, criticize its reliance on yield–density trade-offs, arguing that the debate underplays synergies between agriculture and biodiversity and that producers may also prioritize aspects other than yields, including income generation, labour productivity, risk mitigation, and cultural and traditional values. Finally, they suggest that farm profitability may be a more comprehensive indicator, because increases in yield do not always result in increased revenue.
Similarly, Kremen (2015) challenges the binary framing and proposes alternatives that combine aspects of sharing and sparing.70 Examples include large habitat blocks surrounded by diversified farming systems designed to support biodiversity and sustainable food production.71 These intermediate approaches aim to create multifunctional landscapes that balance high agricultural productivity with biodiversity conservation.
In summary, the debate on land sparing and land sharing underscores the need for a nuanced approach to agricultural practices. While high-yield farming can potentially free up land for conservation, it requires effective policies to ensure environmental benefits. Conversely, integrating biodiversity-friendly practices within agricultural landscapes can enhance ecosystem services, but private incentives need to be aligned with public benefits for successful implementation. The most promising solutions likely include a combination of strategies across space that reconcile agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability at the systems level.
FIGURE EFFECTS OF IMPROVED CROP VARIETIES ON CROPLAND EXPANSION, BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND TERRESTRIAL CARBON EMISSIONS
In practice, trade-offs vary significantly across different environmental and socioeconomic contexts. The impact of yield improvements on land use also differs by scale. For example, the green revolution was found to be much more land sparing at the global level than at the local level, underscoring the importance of incorporating international trade into such assessments.88
For policymakers, the challenge lies in identifying where these trade-offs can be minimized. Some areas may be more suitable for intensification to close yield gaps, while others may benefit more from strategies focused on sustainability and biodiversity conservation. This calls for an integrated approach to decision-making, one that combines insights from natural sciences and economics to align ecological needs with economic incentives.89, 90
