Hanna Kalliolevo , Pablo Pérez Chaves , Pegah Hamedani Raja , Timo Vuorisalo , Joseph W. Bull
{"title":"Rewilding for biodiversity offsets: A case study of passive ecological restoration on lowland agricultural land for Biodiversity Net Gain in England","authors":"Hanna Kalliolevo , Pablo Pérez Chaves , Pegah Hamedani Raja , Timo Vuorisalo , Joseph W. Bull","doi":"10.1016/j.gecco.2025.e03603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>England is a country with ambitious targets for habitat restoration and increased woodland cover, along with new Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) regulations requiring most new development projects to increase overall biodiversity by 10 % (measured via the statutory Defra Biodiversity Metric). Typically this involves intensively managed conservation or restoration – but could habitat rewilding based on passive restoration be used to increase biodiversity at lower cost? We analysed the potential of passive lowland agricultural rewilding in England to fulfil the requirements of BNG policy. We considered arable land cover, deer browsing pressure and broadleaved woodland cover as our variables affecting ‘rewilding potential’ and quantified the resulting potential habitat gains using the Biodiversity Metric. We found the likely outcome is mainly habitat restored to poor or moderate condition, and that the southeast part of England has the best rewilding potential, with the eastern side having more potential than the western part of the country. The maximum possible biodiversity units that could hypothetically be generated for different woodland habitat type options varied between 6.0 million and 22.3 million units, in the (albeit highly improbable, and undesirable) case that all arable lowland in England were rewilded. The estimated annual need is currently around 39,000 biodiversity units, which means rewilding a cumulative 0.27–0.90 % of agricultural land back to woodlands starting one year in advance of development could compensate for annual development impacts. A key challenge to this approach is that planners would have to embrace long timescales and uncertainty about the ecological trajectories of habitat offsets.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54264,"journal":{"name":"Global Ecology and Conservation","volume":"60 ","pages":"Article e03603"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Ecology and Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989425002045","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
England is a country with ambitious targets for habitat restoration and increased woodland cover, along with new Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) regulations requiring most new development projects to increase overall biodiversity by 10 % (measured via the statutory Defra Biodiversity Metric). Typically this involves intensively managed conservation or restoration – but could habitat rewilding based on passive restoration be used to increase biodiversity at lower cost? We analysed the potential of passive lowland agricultural rewilding in England to fulfil the requirements of BNG policy. We considered arable land cover, deer browsing pressure and broadleaved woodland cover as our variables affecting ‘rewilding potential’ and quantified the resulting potential habitat gains using the Biodiversity Metric. We found the likely outcome is mainly habitat restored to poor or moderate condition, and that the southeast part of England has the best rewilding potential, with the eastern side having more potential than the western part of the country. The maximum possible biodiversity units that could hypothetically be generated for different woodland habitat type options varied between 6.0 million and 22.3 million units, in the (albeit highly improbable, and undesirable) case that all arable lowland in England were rewilded. The estimated annual need is currently around 39,000 biodiversity units, which means rewilding a cumulative 0.27–0.90 % of agricultural land back to woodlands starting one year in advance of development could compensate for annual development impacts. A key challenge to this approach is that planners would have to embrace long timescales and uncertainty about the ecological trajectories of habitat offsets.
期刊介绍:
Global Ecology and Conservation is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal covering all sub-disciplines of ecological and conservation science: from theory to practice, from molecules to ecosystems, from regional to global. The fields covered include: organismal, population, community, and ecosystem ecology; physiological, evolutionary, and behavioral ecology; and conservation science.