Recreational Use of the Countryside: No Evidence that High Nature Value Enhances a Key Ecosystem Service

Abstract

In Western Europe, recreational amenity is presented as an important cultural ecosystem service that, along with other values, helps justify policies to conserve biodiversity. However, whether recreational use by the public is enhanced at protected areas designated for nature conservation is unknown. This is the first study to model outdoor recreation at a national scale, examining habitat preferences with statutory designation (Site of Special Scientific Interest) as an indicator of nature conservation importance. Models were based on a massive, three year national household survey providing spatially-referenced recreational visits to the natural environment. Site characteristics including land cover were compared between these observed visit sites (n = 31,502) and randomly chosen control sites (n = 63,000). Recreationists preferred areas of coast, freshwater, broadleaved woodland and higher densities of footpaths and avoided arable, coniferous woodland and lowland heath. Although conservation designation offers similar or greater public access than undesignated areas of the same habitat, statutory designation decreased the probability of visitation to coastal and freshwater sites and gave no effect for broadleaved woodland. Thus general recreational use by the public did not represent an important ecosystem service of protected high-nature-value areas, so that intrinsic and existence values remain as the primary justifications for conservation of high nature value areas. Management of ‘green infrastructure’ sites of lower conservation value that offer desirable habitats and enhanced provision of footpaths, could mitigate recreational impacts on nearby valuable conservation areas.

Carbon Storage and Land-Use Strategies in Agricultural Landscapes across Three Continents

“…If on-farm ecosystem services to agriculture-such as pollination or pest control-increase yields, after allowing for any land taken out of production in order to maintain them, then conserving them can be part of a land-sparing strategy, so there need be no conflict between their retention and conserving carbon stocks or biodiversity. If, however, there is a trade-off between food production and service provision-as may be likely for water quality maintenance [41,42] or cultural services [43]-then the least damaging land-use strategy will be determined by the exact nature of this relationship, and there remains the possibility of trade-offs between services. Finally, how land-use strategies interact with and affect the livelihoods and welfare of local people-both farmers and those dependent on natural habitats-is likely to depend on local and national context.…”

A bird’s-eye view of recreation : improving the application of scientific knowledge and tools in collaborative decision-making processes

“…Shorter lengths were reported by Sharp et al (2008): 2.2 km for dog walkers and 2.4 km for walkers in the Dorset heaths (UK) and 2.5 km for dog walkers and 2.6 km for walkers in the Thames basin heaths (UK). In small nature areas the results might be less useful as the average trip length and maximum distance visitors penetrate into the area might be lower; Hornigold et al (2016) uses 400 m as a typical distance covered by visitors entering nature areas in the UK.…”

“…By visiting nature areas people develop an awareness of the importance of nature (Zylstra et al 2014), which may result in an increased willingness to support nature conservation policy (Zaradic et al 2009, Cooper et al 2015, Halpenny and Caissie 2003. Visitors appreciate areas with high natural values (Siikamäki et al 2015, Hornigold et al 2016 and being active in nature areas has a positive impact on their health (Maller et al 2006, Fuller et al 2007, White et al 2016, Bratman et al 2015. On the negative side, outdoor recreation has a widespread impact on the ecological values in nature areas (Newsome et al 2012, Larson et al 2016.…”

Europe: the paradox of landscape change : A case-study based contribution to the understanding of landscape transitions

“…Landscape services includes landscape quality and biodiversity, as indirect benefits of the landscape. They include provisioning services (crop-, feed-, livestock-and industrial production), regulating services (water retention, carbon storage), cultural services (tourism, outdoor sport, cultural heritage, hobby farming) (Hornigold et al 2016) and supporting services and habitat (wildlife habitat) (Brandt and Vejre 2003). Plieninger et al (2015) indicate that: '...the knowledge of how cultural ecosystem services influence land use practice remains incomplete and fragmented '.…”

“…they are defined from the viewpoint of the 'user' or beneficiary (Bürgi et al 2015;Opdam et al 2015;Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009). Main landscape services include provisioning services (crops, feeds, livestock and industrial production), regulatory services (water retention, pollination, carbon storage), cultural services (tourism, cultural heritage, housing, inspiration, hobby farming) (Hornigold et al 2016) and supporting services & biodiversity (wildlife habitat) (Brandt and Vejre 2003). Cultural services are commonly defined as the 'nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experience, including knowledge systems, social relations and aesthetic values' (MA 2005).…”