Balancing access and nature conservation

This post is greater than 6 months old - links may be broken or out of date. Proceed with caution!

By the Footprint Ecology Team

Access and nature conservation overlap across much of England, with some of the best countryside sites for recreation also comprising those most important for nature conservation. Areas of semi-natural habitat are often subject to open access, and many sites managed for nature conservation incorporate car-parks, trails and a range of opportunities for recreation. By contrast, farmland and much of the wider countryside frequently have limited access, are less welcoming, and are much less pleasant to visit. This is not the case elsewhere in Europe, where recreation on the most important wildlife sites is often highly controlled, and activities such as water sports and dog walking are restricted. Conversely, in countries such as Scotland and across Scandinavia responsible access is allowed across most areas, spreading it more evenly across the landscape.

Access in nature-rich areas can bring conservation benefits. It is now recognised that “nature connectedness” is linked to pro-conservation behaviour, particularly in children(1), and conservation organisations are therefore keen both to engage with people and for people to be more aware of their local wildlife. This is very different to the not-too-distant past, when flagship nature reserves were ‘sanctuaries’, open at limited times and/or requiring a permit to be obtained in advance and with visitor numbers tightly controlled.

The pandemic emphasised the health importance of spending time in the countryside and local greenspaces. There is now an extensive body of literature highlighting the benefits for our health and well-being of being outside in nature. There are also economic benefits, relating to the visitor economy and the money people pay to visit sites and enjoy their time outside.

Around two-thirds of adults in England spend time outside, in green or natural spaces, at least once a week(2). However, for many, the wildlife present is incidental to their visit - the majority of visits to the countryside are for dog walking, walking, running and cycling. Few people are drawn specifically by the wildlife – even at our most biodiverse sites. Analysis of national data from across the UK suggests that people preferentially select coastal, freshwater, and deciduous woodland locations but do not positively select those that are protected sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest)(3).

Recreation use can damage a site’s nature conservation interest and hinder potential for nature recovery. There is strong evidence to show how increasing levels of access can have negative impacts on wildlife. Issues are varied and a wide range of impacts, such as trampling (e.g. Figure 1), disturbance, increased fire risk, and contamination have been documented extensively. Many visitors to the countryside are accompanied by a dog, and this adds to the challenge. There are thought to be around 13.5 million pet dogs in the UK and over a third of households now own a do(4). A dog’s presence poses a greater disturbance risk than people walking without dogs, while dogs also impact sites via nutrient enrichment (from faeces and urine), contamination of water bodies (e.g. from flea and tick treatments), and livestock attacks(5).

There is clearly a difficult balancing act and no easy solutions. Carefully thought-out visitor management strategies, with planned access provision, can however result in the best of both worlds; allowing people to spend time in nature, be inspired, learn, experience and enjoy their time outside without necessarily causing harm. Directing people, containing access, raising awareness, influencing behaviour, protecting vulnerable species and changing where people go in space and time can all make a difference. Some places already do this well (e.g. Figure 2) and many readers will be able to think of relevant examples.

Looking to the future, site managers may need to take different approaches to access management in a changing world. Climate change may affect where people go (for example when seeking shade or avoiding flooding), and social media plays an ever-greater role in influencing behaviour and the experiences people want. Certain types of access are increasing – for example paddleboarding and wild swimming are surging in popularity and there has also been an upsurge in dog ownership since the pandemic. Rewilding and the introduction of more naturalistic grazing over extensive areas potentially means that many sites are more changeable and dynamic, perhaps creating a need for visitors to shift expectations or behave differently. In the long term opening up more land for access (see Figure 3), so that there is space for recreation while ensuring that sensitive areas and locations are not harmed, would be ideal.

There is a key role for data gathering, and potential for a greater overlap between social science (visitor data) and ecological data, in helping us to better understand changes in recreation patterns and nature conservation. Such data collection is perhaps particularly relevant at a landscape scale, as partnerships across landownership boundaries increasingly seek to unlock funding and deliver multi-functional greenspace.

Footprint Ecology have been at the forefront of research in this often emotive and complex area for the last two decades, working on projects that seek to balance the desire for recreation and greenspace access with nature conservation aims. As the call for greater countryside access continues, against the backdrop of the global climate and biodiversity crises, further research and cross-working in this dynamic field is essential to ensure that our important nature conservation sites are protected for future generations to enjoy.

Find out more about Footprint Ecology on www.footprint-ecology.co.uk or email info@footprint-ecology.co.uk 

Footnotes

1. Richardson, M. et al. (2016) ‘30 Days Wild: Development and Evaluation of a Large-Scale Nature Engagement Campaign to Improve Well-Being’, PLOS ONE, 11(2), p. e0149777. Available here.
2. Figures from Natural England’s people and nature survey, extracted from the online data explorer here.
3. Hornigold, K., Lake, I. and Dolman, P. (2016) ‘Recreational Use of the Countryside: No Evidence that High Nature Value Enhances a Key Ecosystem Service’, PLOS ONE, 11(11), p. e0165043. Available here.
4. See information centre statistics.
5. Ecological and environmental impacts of dogs are reviewed in: Harris, S. (2023) ‘Beware the dog: the ecological and environmental impacts of pet dogs’, British Wildlife, 34(7), pp.
   487–496.

More from Footprint Ecology