The legend of land sparing

Abstract As institutions mobilize ambitious land-use transition agendas, dominant policy narratives risk constraining their transformative potential. The land sparing–land sharing (SpSh) framework, introduced in the early 2000s, offered a compelling heuristic by positing two mutually exclusive strategies: intensifying production to “spare” land for nature, or integrating biodiversity within agricultural landscapes. While SpSh stimulated valuable empirical and theoretical work, its simplifying assumptions proved ill-suited to the complexity of land systems, leading many scholars to move beyond the debate. In this discussion, we ponder if a reductionist land sparing revival has gained traction among policy platforms, think tanks, and agribusiness actors. This rhetoric reframes sustainability as contingent on agricultural intensification, presenting yield maximization as a proxy for ecological and social progress. To understand this potential resurgence, we first trace the genealogy of SpSh, unpacking the discursive strategies that construct its legitimacy. Then, we showcase how strident contemporary land sparing rhetoric is expressed across prominent think tank publications, environmental policy positions, agribusiness communications, and academic literature. Drawing on science and technology studies, we ask if land sparing has become a “policy legend”: a socio-technical imaginary that mobilizes actors around a technocratic vision of land use, despite empirical critiques and viable alternatives. Our discussion explores how a folktale version of land sparing would narrow the parameters of food system transformation, legitimizing land concentration and reinforcing industrial paradigms under the guise of sustainability. We conclude with a warning: if indeed a simplified land sparing is resurging in its discursive power, more plural and just pathways for land governance will become foreclosed.