Land sharing vs. land sparing: does the compact city reconcile urban development and biodiversity conservation?
Land sharing vs. land sparing: does the compact city reconcile urban development and biodiversity conservation?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1365-2664.12280
复制
发表时间：
2014-10
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
M. Soga;Y. Yamaura;S. Koike;K. Gaston
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Soga;Y. Yamaura;S. Koike;K. Gaston
摘要 随着世界各地城市的迅速扩张，迫切需要实施最佳的发展形式，以尽量减少城市化对本土生物多样性的负面影响。城市扩张的两种不同形式是土地共享和土地节约开发。迄今为止，人们对它们对生物多样性保护的相对益处知之甚少。我们量化了日本东京土地共享和土地节约开发对蝴蝶和地面甲虫的相对保护效益。对于每种昆虫物种，我们确定哪种方法会导致更大的总种群规模。在城市化水平较高的情况下（景观中建筑物数量较多），土地节约而不是土地共享导致这两个类群的大多数物种的总人口规模更大。然而，在城市化水平较低的情况下，蝴蝶和地甲虫对城市发展形式表现出不同的反应。地面甲虫在土地节约的情况下拥有最高的总种群规模，而对于蝴蝶，尤其是开放土地和基质栖息的物种，在土地共享的情况下实现了更大的种群数量。城市化对生物多样性的负面影响在土地共享和节约土地的发展形式之间存在很大差异。我们还发现，土地共享和土地节约的相对保护效益取决于城市化水平。合成与应用。在未来将高度城市化的地区，城市规划者和政策制定者应采取遵循土地节约战略的方法，并使大片绿地免遭开发。另一方面，在城市化水平较低的情况下，由于土地共享被认为对许多蝴蝶物种来说是更好的策略，因此可以采用一种混合发展形式，将土地共享和土地节约结合起来，这可能会带来额外的好处，即通过在某些地区拉近自然和人类的距离来加强某些生态系统服务的提供。
Summary As cities around the world rapidly expand, there is an urgent need to implement the best development form to minimize the negative impacts of urbanization on native biodiversity. Two divergent forms for the expansion of cities are land-sharing and land-sparing developments. To date, their relative benefits for biodiversity conservation are poorly understood. We quantified the relative conservation benefits of land-sharing and land-sparing developments for butterflies and ground beetles in Tokyo, Japan. For each insect species, we determined which approach resulted in a larger total population size. At a higher level of urbanization (higher number of buildings in a landscape), land sparing rather than land sharing resulted in a higher total population size for the majority species of both taxa. However, at a lower level of urbanization, butterflies and ground beetles showed different responses to city development forms. Ground beetles had their highest total population sizes under land sparing, whereas for butterflies, especially open-land and matrix-dwelling species, larger populations were achieved under land sharing. The negative impacts of urbanization on biodiversity differ greatly between land-sharing and land-sparing development forms. We also revealed that the relative conservation benefits of land sharing and land sparing depend on the level of urbanization. Synthesis and applications. In areas that will be heavily urbanized in the future, city planners and policymakers should adopt approaches that follow a land-sparing strategy and that keep large blocks of greenspace free from development. At lower levels of urbanization, on the other hand, as land sharing was suggested to be the better strategy for many butterfly species, a hybrid development form could be adopted that integrates areas of land sharing and land sparing, which might have the additional benefit of enhancing the delivery of some ecosystem services by bringing nature and people closer together in some areas.