The ‘Goldilocks Hypothesis’: Misspecification, omissions and errors in ‘sparing land for nature

Rebecca Neville DelaRosa, James Moore, Jahi Chappell, Jessica Zemaitis

Research output: Contribution to conferencePoster

Abstract

The "Goldilocks hypothesis" refers to the idea of “sparing land for nature” as a version of the story of Goldilocks: that there’s an amount of food production that is “just right” such that all the rest of the world’s land-base can be saved for nature while everyone will still be fed. Unfortunately, land-use policy has nothing to do with number of people who are fed, and empirically conservation policy is neither typically nor strongly connected to either agricultural yield or food policy. Here we attempt to address some of the failings of the land-sparing argument and propose alternatives attempting to address those failings, namely, in the areas of production, waste, equality and biodiversity.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2015
EventClimate, land use, and agricultural and natural resources: Activities in interdisciplinary research, education and outreach - Pullman, WA
Duration: 26 Jun 201226 Jun 2012

Conference

ConferenceClimate, land use, and agricultural and natural resources: Activities in interdisciplinary research, education and outreach
Period26/06/1226/06/12

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Land sparing
  • Land sharing
  • agroecology
  • food security
  • gender

Cite this

Neville DelaRosa, R., Moore, J., Chappell, J., & Zemaitis, J. (2015). The ‘Goldilocks Hypothesis’: Misspecification, omissions and errors in ‘sparing land for nature. Poster session presented at Climate, land use, and agricultural and natural resources: Activities in interdisciplinary research, education and outreach, .