Strategies for biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes involve either natural reserves along with small scale intensive production areas (land-sparing), or more wildlife-friendly farming over larger agricultural areas (land-sharing). Green et al. (2005) proposed a model to determine which strategy to choose, depending on the relationship between the relative density of wildlife and the agricultural yield. Much work has followed to relate Green et al. (2005)’s model to empirical data. There has been considerably less emphasis on relaxing some key assumptions of the model. One
strong assumption was that of centralized decision making, i.e., agricultural yield at the regional level can be fixed. No link was made to economic instruments such as taxes and subsidies, that influence private land owners decision making. In this paper we introduce such economic elements with a land-use share model including farmers as rational actors, and important agronomic variables such as soil quality and inputs. Green et al. (2005)’s results are related to two key parameters in our model, the relative density of wildlife in wildlife-friendly agriculture, and effectivess of inputs in modifying agricultural yields. These new elements in the model generated new results:
land heterogeneity and efficiency of inputs in modifying the yield are shown to favor the land-sparing solution. When land-sharing is an efficient option, we show that it may be part of an optimal temporal sequence of policies, following the Pareto frontier of the food and wildlife production  possibility set.