Content uploaded by William J Sutherland
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by William J Sutherland on May 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Making Space for Nature: A Review of England's Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network
Abstract and Figures
Lawton, J.H., Brotherton, P.N.M., Brown, V.K., Elphick, C., Fitter, A.H., Forshaw, J., Haddow, R.W., Hilborner, S., Leafe, R.N., Mace, G.M., Southgate, M.P., Sutherland, W.J., Tew, T.E., Varley, J. & Wynne, G.R. (2010) Making Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological networks. Report to Defra.
Figures - uploaded by William J Sutherland
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by William J Sutherland
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Biodiversity loss continues despite efforts to reverse the negative trend (IPBES 2019). Developing and strengthening resilient ecological networks has been promoted as an efficient solution for long-term conservation of species and ecosystems, particularly in the context of ongoing climate change (Lawton et al. 2010;European Commission 2011Oliver et al. 2015;Albert et al. 2017;Isaac et al. 2018). Well-functioning ecological networks can enhance population persistence and recolonisation or recovery after local extinctions driven by, e.g. ...
... The creation of resilient ecological networks to protect biodiversity has been suggested in various contexts, such as spatial planning (Benedict and McMahon 2006), practical conservation management (Lawton et al. 2010), and in recent EU policy (European Commission 2013), including the EU Nature Restoration Law ((EU) 2024/1991). In the EU, the European Strategy on green infrastructure (hereafter GI; European Commission 2013) draws in part on the logic of resilient ecological networks to enhance biodiversity conservation through the promotion of ecological networks to benefit people and nature (von Post et al. 2023). ...
... www.kva.se/en in numbers, and facilitation of dispersal for genetic diversity and (re)colonisation of surrounding habitats (Lawton et al. 2010). Designing resilient ecological networks should therefore take its starting point in how ecological processes respond to changes in habitats' spatial attributes, based on context-dependent considerations of ecological mechanisms (Fig. 1). ...
To reverse biodiversity loss, creating resilient ecological networks has been promoted in policy and practice. However, we argue that emphasising networks within policy without clear conservation prioritisations may direct focus away from ecological processes important for population persistence. We studied the rationale for resilient ecological networks represented in a policy context, by reviewing research related to biodiversity within the concept of green infrastructure in European policy. We compared this outcome with underlying empirical evidence for effects of landscape properties on ecological processes relevant to population persistence. We show that interventions within green infrastructure research partly diverge from evidence of efficient conservation derived from empirical studies, likely linked to an insufficient acknowledgement of ecological processes determining long-term conservation of populations in GI policy and research. We discuss possible implications for biodiversity conservation and argue for upcoming policies to better integrate scientific evidence and underlying ecological processes to improve biodiversity outcomes.
... However, evidence gathered from studies carried out across Europe demonstrates that more than a third of amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species, and many invertebrate species, forage in the breeding season over ranges that are larger than the size of a typical English farm (146 ha; Carvell et al., 2017;McKenzie et al., 2013) indicating a need for larger scale coordination of actions across landscapes. To reduce extinction risks associated with populations occupying small, fragmented habitat patches, habitat management must be targeted better using landscape conservation planning principles that manipulate the total amount, spatial arrangement and quality of habitat in agricultural landscapes (Lawton et al., 2010). ...
Nature recovery requires the provisioning of resources in the right place and in sufficient quantities to support wildlife populations and improve ecological processes. Agri‐environment schemes (AES) have been a major mechanism for delivering environmental management across EU‐farmed landscapes, but measured benefits to nature are often negligible in large part due to a lack of strategic spatial targeting of management actions.
As an example, AES in England are often delivered using a participatory strategy, typically at individual farm scale, with types of management agreements and uptake reflecting the business model and interests of each farm. However, this implementation model can result in poorly distributed conservation resources and, consequently, a failure to recover nature across larger scales, even if individual agreements are delivered well.
Achieving effective, large‐scale nature recovery through AES requires aligning its implementation with spatially targeted approaches that prioritise specific conservation goals. We discuss the rationale for, and major barriers to, aligning AES design and implementation to these approaches. We then highlight how, through the framework of systematic conservation planning, both the strategic and participatory components of AES could be aligned better to enhance nature recovery outcomes.
To ensure AES help achieve nature recovery goals, clear and measurable targets must be set with the type and spatial configuration of actions designed to enable meeting targets. Strategic spatial targeting must also be carried out with the implementation phase in mind, accounting for socio‐economic opportunities and barriers to engagement and acknowledging that uncertainties around farm‐scale implementation mean plans must be adaptable. Participatory approaches for AES design and implementation that support the delivery of spatially targeted management actions are required, most notably by facilitating collaboration or cooperation across farm holdings.
For AES to contribute effectively to nature recovery goals, aligning strategic and participatory approaches in its design and implementation is crucial. This requires uniting knowledge across disciplines and cultures and ensuring that information is shared to support progressive refinement of scheme design and guidance towards achieving overall nature recovery goals.
Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
... Clusters are already taking shape in the CSA where farms share best practice. Another participant refers to the Lawson review ('Making space for nature' -an independent review studying England's wildlife sites and their capability of responding and adapting to climate change and other demands on the land (Lawton et al., 2010)), emphasising how small, isolated pockets will not be sufficient for nature conservation to succeed -bigger landscape scale clusters of farms are necessary and this is supported through the upcoming government policy change. ...
This deliverable investigates the socio-economic effects of ecological approaches to farming through implementing two participatory approaches, namely Delphi exercise and Q-method, at the level of a case study area (CSA). The focus is on how people and other productive assets are employed and remunerated by ecological approaches to agriculture, particularly those aspects that can influence employment, and drive the prosperity and vitality of local communities and some rural businesses. It is based on the collaborative research on Task 4.2 ‘Socio-economic impact of ecological agriculture at the territorial level’ of the LIFT project between UNIKENT (United Kingdom-UK) (Task Leader), BOKU (Austria), INRAE (France), VetAgro Sup (France), DEMETER (Greece), MTA KRTK (Hungary), UNIBO (Italy), IRWiR PAN (Poland), IAE-AR (Romania), SLU (Sweden), SRUC (UK).
Beginning with the Delphi exercise, this deliverable presents qualitative information extracted from stakeholders in the following four steps. First, the researchers build a presentation of differences between ecological and conventional farming approaches in each CSA. Second, stakeholders elaborate on how they understand ecological farming approaches to exist in each CSA. Third, stakeholders develop a scenario of adoption of ecological approaches to farming depending on two factors: pattern (ecological farms forming clusters or randomly spread within the territory) and rate of adoption 10 years in the future. After establishing this scenario across two rounds, the stakeholders explore the socio-economic effects of their adoption scenario.
The Q-methodology then presents a Q-set of statements that the Delphi has developed and, through factor analysis, studies the key stakeholder perspectives of the socio-economic effects of the perceived adoption of ecological practices in 10 years in the future.
Four key results can be derived from the Delphi exercise and the Q-methodology.
First, a higher adoption of ecological farming approaches, especially so at a 50% adoption rate, is mostly thought by stakeholders in the Delphi Exercise to lead to an increase in skill level and quality of life in on-farm employment. This is as a result of an increased diversity of farming enterprises on farms using ecological farming approaches, the interest generated from this, the knowledge of natural processes and biology required, engagement with nature and change in machinery that is coming into the industry. Strongly related to this need for skills is a predicted increase in the number of advisers and civil servants to deal with more complicated farms and incentives as well as monitoring of ecological effects on farm. An increase in required skill level is repeated across all Q-studies.
Second, especially where farms are clustered together, Delphi Exercise respondents predict an increase in the trade of inputs such as manure and compost replacing synthetic fertiliser, as well as more sharing of capital and labour. Q-methodology highlights that these clusters may support a stronger social movement, more consumers buying local food and increase collaboration between farmers. Supply chains are expected to become shorter as farmers sell more directly and there are fewer intermediaries upstream of the farming sector. As farmers collaborate more with each other on environmental objectives, trading inputs and sharing best practices, farmer relationships should improve in rural communities.
Third, Delphi exercise finds that contracting, machinery purchasers, and machinery traders and dealers could increase, decrease or display no change – the anticipated effects are mixed. Stakeholders are in no doubt that machinery use will change and therefore new skills will need to be learnt, but the wider effect on machinery purchase is uncertain. However, stakeholders conclude that a greater specialisation in machinery will occur leading to changes in farm management as well as the suppliers of this machinery. Q-methodology highlights that ecological practices will not mean the end of machinery and a lot more labour – often machinery will be useful in weeding and reducing physical labour as technology has significantly improved and skills are improving too in order to use these technologies.
Fourth, Delphi respondents argued that although rural populations might be little affected by ecological farming, a shift in people moving from urban to rural settlements, and thereby a higher rural population density, seeking a more attractive rural environment, might contribute to higher local consumer demand. The Q-methodology highlights that where there is high adoption, rural areas are expected to become more attractive, as landscapes will have a much greater variety of crops instead of fields of monocrops. This variety of crops may include agroforestry (farmers interested in ecological approaches to farming may also be interested in agroforestry as a way of boosting their yields and protecting crops and livestock from the elements) as well as intercropping.
... Such places constitute a minute fraction of the British landscape and the vast majority of the fly population must find suitable habitat and resources in locations with little or no apparent conservation value. The Lawton report (Lawton et al. 2010) shifted the emphasis in nature conservation from the focus on maintaining isolated jewels of biodiversity within a barren green desert to a landscape approach, where nature, cultivation and the human-built infrastructure can co-exist in a mutually beneficial manner. Numerous ecological studies have been carried out on the value for invertebrate diversity of semi-natural habitats and other incidental features within an agricultural landscape, but they generally cover only a few fly families (e.g. ...
An intensive sweep-net survey was carried out in an area of willow scrub surrounding a seasonal pool, formed by the draining of a 10.5 hectares water body over the past decade. Six locations at separate six-figure OS grid references were surveyed once a week from mid-March to the end of September 2020. The range of dipteran families collected is represented by about 3,300 species on the British list, mostly species greater than 2-3mm in body length. The numbers of records of presence or absence for each week/location combination were analysed. 381 species were identified from the 3113 records gathered. The most frequent species was the hybotid Bicellaria vana Collin, 1926, with 116 records compared to the possible maximum of 168. There were 24 records of the anthomyiid Botanophila biciliaris (Pandellé, 1900), which in Britain has been recorded at only 6 other sites. There were 124 singleton species and 51 doubletons. The distribution of ranked species frequencies followed the log-series of Fisher et al. (1943) with α = 114. Replicability of the results is demonstrated by comparing the data from the odd-numbered and even-numbered weeks. There is a high degree of divergence between the species frequency distributions for the site and for the Lancashire and Cheshire region in Brighton (2020a). It is concluded by a comparison of the log series with the Hill number estimation methods of Chao et al. (2014) that in this context there are large uncertainties in estimates of species richness, and that the Hill number with q = 2 is a better measure of overall site Diptera diversity, being essentially equivalent to α.
... Consequently, many conservation plans focus on the twin goals of protecting habitat and ensuring connectivity between these patches. These goals are summarized as "more, bigger, better and joined" in the UK government's Lawton Report (Lawton et al. 2010). However, there remains substantial uncertainty about how best to design protected area networks and how to prioritize habitat area and habitat connectivity. ...
CONTEXT: The efficient and effective design of protected areas is a fundamental challenge in landscape ecology, focusing on how spatial patterns of habitat influence conservation outcomes. This has sparked debate about the relative importance of habitat area versus connectivity in maintaining populations across fragmented landscapes. OBJECTIVES: We evaluate the relative importance of habitat area and connectivity by comparing counterfactual scenarios for landscape configuration on Borneo. We examine how habitat area and connectivity influence Sunda clouded leopard population size and genetic diversity across scenarios and dispersal abilities. METHODS: We compared 28 landscape scenarios on Borneo, incorporating all plausible combinations of core areas and movement corridors. Using spatially explicit genetic simulations, we modelled clouded leopard population size and genetic diversity metrics across five dispersal thresholds to compare how area and connectivity influence conservation outcomes. RESULTS: Our analysis reveals a strong, disproportionate relationship between landscape area and population size and genetic diversity. Even when accounting for landscape area, larger areas consistently provide superior conservation outcomes. Corridors showed minimal impact, becoming effective only at the highest dispersal thresholds. Habitat area emerged as the primary driver of conservation success, challenging assumptions about the importance of connectivity and highlighting the complex interactions between landscape configuration and species mobility. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings challenge paradigms in landscape ecology by demonstrating habitat area is more critical for biodiversity conservation than connectivity, especially where corridor lengths exceed species' dispersal abilities. Conservation strategies should therefore prioritise expanding core habitat areas, with corridor investments strategically targeted to highly mobile species.
Biodiversity markets are proliferating globally, aiming to increase private investment to address conservation financing gaps. Markets commodify biodiversity to facilitate trade of biodiversity ‘units’ even across heterogeneous ecologies. However, the metric used to commodify biodiversity can strongly influence which habitats become valuable in biodiversity markets, and there has been little research on whether the biodiversity incentivised through markets maximises conservation value or is aligned with higher-level conservation goals. Here, we address this gap by using an ambitious national biodiversity market as a case study. We simulated habitat transitions in England’s Biodiversity Net Gain metric to investigate which habitats deliver biodiversity gains from common habitat baselines, and explored how well these habitats aligned with those outlined in national conservation targets. Our results suggest that the biodiversity metric works well to incentivise avoidance of biodiversity impacts, but without policy coordination, the investment generated by biodiversity markets risks being allocated towards activities that do not maximise conservation potential.
The interrelationship of the communities and their ecosystem is recognized by their conservation efforts and sustainability strategies. Marginal and indigenous communities who are dependent on the goods and services of their natural habitat had understood the conservation priorities much earlier, and thus in very many aspects, the traditional practices have better resilience to climate impacts and added advantages in conserving the ecosystem. However, socio-political decision making in agro-ecology and farming practices have always gone global and tried to take leverages of the same by modifying and selectively adopting the systems. This chapter documents several case studies of indigenous practices in farming from Southeast and South Asian countries and interprets these in the current context, whereas widely practices systems of social forestry, community-based conservations and agroforestry interventions are also evaluated in this chapter through the climate sustainability lenses.
This guidance is aimed at those who plan and deliver conservation of terrestrial biodiversity.
The six guiding principles described in this document summarise current thinking on how to
reduce the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and how to adapt existing plans and projects
in the light of climate change. Although this guidance is intended to inform implementation of the
UK Biodiversity Action Plan, taking account of climate change is also relevant to the fulfilment of
many international agreements and obligations affecting the UK, including the EU target to halt
biodiversity loss by 2010.2 Proposals for policy change are beyond the scope of this document but
because actions are ultimately linked to policy frameworks, there is also much to be done to
review and strengthen policy at a country, UK and international level.
Two types of action need to be taken to address the challenge of climate change and biodiversity
conservation. The first is adaptation, which means increasing the ability of natural systems to
absorb and respond to change, given that the world is irrevocably committed to some degree of
climate change. This guidance suggests what conservationists can do to contribute to this aim
through the conservation plans and activities within their control.
The second type of action is mitigation, that is controlling and reducing emissions of greenhouse
gases, the root cause of climate change. Although this is not the subject of this guide, it is
recognised that hugely important decisions made about land management may exacerbate or
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and some actions suggested here may contribute to mitigation.
The objective of this study was to complile lists of UK BAP species relevant to priority habitats in England; collate and analyse the habitat niche and resource requirements for each species; and to produce guidance to stakeholders on how species requirements can be best integrated into habitat management. Our findings suggest that for BAP species conservation to be properly integrated into habitat-based approaches we need to place much greater emphasis on creating the component niches and resources required by these species, rather than managing habitats in a generic way. publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/61078
Over the past 20 years dramatic declines have taken place in UK insect populations. Eventually, such declines must have knock-on effects for other animals, especially high profile groups such as birds and mammals. This authoritative, yet accessible account details the current state of the wildlife in Britain and Ireland and offers an insight into the outlook for the future. Written by a team of the country's leading experts, it appraises the changes that have occurred in a wide range of wildlife species and their habitats and outlines urgent priorities for conservation. It includes chapters on each of the vertebrate and major invertebrate groups, with the insects covered in particular depth. Also considered are the factors that drive environmental change and the contribution at local and government level to national and international wildlife conservation. Essential reading for anyone who is interested in, and concerned about, UK wildlife.
Summary The bird fauna of Britain and Ireland has been studied for over 500 years and changes in numbers over the last 40 years are well documented by a range of surveys, mostly undertaken by volunteers. Britain and Ireland are home to internationally important numbers of seabirds in the breeding season and many species of wildfowl and waders in the winter. Although there has been little overall change in total bird numbers, about half of bird species in Britain and Ireland are of conservation concern because of small or declining populations. In the last 30 years, declines in farmland birds have been well documented, but declines in many woodland and migratory birds are just beginning to be recognised. Conversely, there have been increases in numbers of many raptors, seabirds and waterbirds. In general, habitat specialists have tended to decline most, while more adaptable, generalist species are increasing in number. Climate change threatens bird populations in all habitats, but loss of habitat and deterioration in habitat quality are more pressing threats. Conservationists have been successful at increasing populations of rarer species, but the greater challenge will be conserving birds in the wider countryside, which will require the integration of conservation goals with wider social and landscape policies. Introduction More is known about the birds of Britain than the vertebrate fauna of virtually any other country.