Abstract
Abstract In this exploratory study, we employ an interdisciplinary approach to explore potential synergies and trade‐offs between the needs of people and nature in the context of agroecological farming and nature conservation. Ecological field studies and management surveys from six sites were combined with a participatory‐deliberative appraisal exercise using the Multi‐Criteria Mapping (MCM) method. All six study sites and all four land use options in the appraisal were characterised by the use of large herbivores for agricultural and/or conservation purposes, to varying degrees, and were located in South‐East England. MCM participants identified habitat and species diversity, soil health, food production, provision of education and recreational access, as the principal benefits associated with successful management of such sites. Taken overall, their appraisals indicated that a combination of land uses may be best suited to delivering these diverse benefits, but with agroecological (While organic and biodynamic agriculture are subject to legal definition, agroecology offers a more flexible approach and can be viewed as ‘a development pathway from input‐intensive industrial systems through to highly sustainable, ecological systems’—see Laughton, R. (2017) ‘A Matter of Scale’, Land Workers Alliance and Centre for Agroecology, Coventry University) farming being perceived as a particularly effective multi‐purpose option. Five of the six sites were used for recreational purposes, and in total we recorded five times more humans than wild mammals. Ecological data from the sites indicated that the most conservation‐oriented sites performed best in terms of species richness and activity (birds, mammals, bats and invertebrates) and number of species of conservation concern. However, beta diversity metrics indicated important variation in the species assemblages recorded within and between sites. Whereas both agroecological farms in our study produced the greatest weight of saleable meat per unit area, the site that produced the most meat also demonstrated consistently strong performance across many biodiversity metrics. Overall, expert perspectives and the performance of our study sites suggests that combinations of diverse approaches to the management of large herbivores, within a ‘wildlife‐friendly’ envelope, are consistent with providing for the diverse needs of people and nature within shared landscapes. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.
Highlights
Food production and biodiversity conservation are two important land uses for supporting people and nature, but often come into conflict
We focus our analysis in the South-East of England for four reasons: (i) the region is highly ecologically degraded and has high human population density; (ii) a variety of agroecological farming and conservation/restoration land uses are already being employed and so can be examined; (iii) land management support policies and schemes are being redeveloped in the UK as a result of Brexit, so the country is in a moment of change and potential opportunity; and, (iv) it is the authors’ local landscape which allowed us to engage more deeply with local issues. 1.2 What do sustainable landscapes look like? How land is used will have a key bearing on whether and how sustainability challenges are met in the UK
3.1 Exploring the needs of people and nature in South-East England Of the 67 appraisal criteria volunteered by Multi-Criteria Mapping (MCM) interviewees, just over 70% of these (49) are conceptually aligned to the various categories of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services used in the analysis: Biodiversity (n=14), Supporting and Regulating ES’ (SRES) (n=7), Provisioning ES’ (PES) (n=13), Cultural ES’ (CES) (n=13) and Crosscutting ecosystem services (ES) (n=2), see Supporting Information (SI4 - MCM Ranks and Sub-rank Charts)
Summary
Food production and biodiversity conservation are two important land uses for supporting people and nature, but often come into conflict. Our purpose is to identify management strategies, and in particular how they relate to large herbivores, that reconcile the potential synergies and trade-offs between the needs of people and nature to help inform how ecosystems should be restored in areas of high ecological degradation and human density. Not all participant responses will necessarily fit these categories and we discuss these separately, as those cut across the Ecosystem Service categories (referred to hereafter as 'Cross-cutting ES'), or those that are beyond the biodiversity and Ecosystem Service framework (referred to hereafter as 'Residual'; Table 1)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
