Agroforestry has been promoted as a key forest landscape restoration (FLR) option to restore ecosystem services in degraded tropical landscapes. We investigated the share and type of agroforestry selected in an optimized landscape, accounting for a mosaic of alternative forest landscape restoration options (reforestation and natural succession) and forest and common agricultural land-uses. We extend previous studies on multi-objective robust optimization and the analytic hierarchy process by a systematic sensitivity analysis to assess the influence of incorporating agroforestry into a landscape. This approach accounts for multiple objectives concurrently, yet data and computational requirements are relatively low. Our results show that experts from different backgrounds perceive agroforestry (i.e., alley cropping and silvopasture) very positively. Inclusion of large shares of agroforestry (41% share of landscape) in the FLR mix enhanced simulated ecosystem service provision. Our results demonstrate that landscapes with high shares of agroforestry may also comprise of high shares of natural forest. However, landscapes dominated by single agroforestry systems showed lower landscape multifunctionality than heterogeneous landscapes. In the ongoing effort to create sustainable landscapes, our approach contributes to an understanding of interrelations between land-covers and uncertain provisions of ecosystem services in circumstances with scarce data.

Sustainable intensification of agricultural lands might reconcile the conservation of tropical forest with food production, but in-depth assessments considering uncertainty and extreme values are missing. Uncertainty prohibits mapping probabilities to potential future states or ranking these states in terms of their likelihood. This in turn hampers the assessment of possible decision outcomes. Here, we use simulations to investigate how uncertainty may influence the social acceptability of alternative land-use strategies to halt tropical deforestation (including sustainable intensification), based on indicators representing farmer satisfaction. The results show how extreme values (worst values) for indicators of farmer satisfaction may undermine the adoption of sustainable intensification. We demonstrate that a pure forest conservation strategy leads to lower food production, but outperforms a sustainable intensification strategy that maintains food security. Pure forest conservation performed better, i.e., could secure higher farmer satisfaction, than sustainable intensification across a range of indicator groups. This suggests strong barriers to achieving sustainable intensification. Using agricultural subsidies breaks the dominance of pure forest conservation by enhancing the economic returns of sustainable intensification. We discuss the importance of access to labor and farmers’ preferences for the use of already cleared lands, which achieved the worst values under sustainable intensification and conclude that any assessment of land-use strategies requires careful consideration of uncertainty and extreme values.