Balancing public access with conservation – it’s a fine line...

By Henrietta Appleton, GWCT Policy Officer (England)

As we enter the political conference season there will be more calls for a “right to nature” and increased rights of public access potentially increasing access beyond the current commitment in the Environmental Improvement Plan. But I wonder how many of those advocating such an approach will go on to insist that with that right comes responsibilities?

Balancing Nature and Recreation

There is no doubt that if people visit privately or public-owned land and leave no trace of having been there, as advocated by the Open Spaces Society, then this is a positive experience for all concerned.  However, as litter in the car parks (and elsewhere) in our national parks, disposable BBQs causing wildfires or damage to crops adjacent to footpaths demonstrate, this is not always the case.

In addition, the growing number of outdoor recreationists generally, but specifically in designated landscapes (national parks and AONBs), combined with changes in our weather patterns has led me to wonder whether disturbance is having an increasingly significant impact on our wildlife.  A concern acknowledged by both the Defra Secretary of State[i] at the Future Countryside conference and by Minister Lord Benyon[ii] in a House of Lords debate. 

The Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 allowed greater freedom for people to explore open countryside including a new statutory right of access to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land – now known as Open Access land.  These are areas which harbour some of the remaining populations of many of our at-risk species such as waders, black grouse and mountain hare.

To ascertain the potential impacts of open access the GWCT undertook work on behalf of Natural England (then English Nature) between 2002 and 2004 to assess the impact of varying levels of disturbance on one of these species, black grouse. The work concluded that black grouse may be susceptible to increased recreational disturbance at winter feeding sites and suggested the ability for an exclusion zone around these sites between 1^st October and 31^st March. 

A broader review on the effects of CROW in 2006[iii] concluded that there was little evidence from the two years of data that upland bird species had been impacted by Open Access but, as they acknowledged, the effects may take several years to take effect particularly if breeding success is reduced and levels of access increase above the years monitored.

Since then, I am not aware of any further review of the evidence, although in 2015 Natural England uploaded an evidence review undertaken on the scientific research into the effects of access on foot on nature conservation up to 2001[iv].

This work was initially done to assist organisations in the implementation of CROW including the need for actions such as exclusions and restrictions to protect nature conservation interests. (Incidentally this review went further than looking at the effects of public access on wildlife, including the effects of trampling on vegetation, soils and water and the danger of wildfire. Perhaps the subject of another blog?)

Insights from Studies and Pandemic Observations

There have been individual studies on species such as Golden Plover[v], Stone Curlew[vi] and lowland heath specialists (nightjar, woodlark and Dartford warbler)[vii] which have identified that visitor pressure impacts are related to high levels of disturbance, particularly by dogs off leads, and are species specific, with some more prone than others.

Other research suggests that the impacts of human-induced disturbance vary from increased energy expenditure and loss of foraging time as a result of ‘flight responses’ to changes to the use of habitat space resulting in individuals focussing on undisturbed areas causing faster food depletion and increased competition[viii].

Behaviour responses to human presence may also result in increased predation, reduced growth and fitness and even increased susceptibility to disease[ix].  In addition, GWCT work on the New Forest looking at curlew conservation suggests that discarded food left by the public is being eaten by generalist predators such as foxes.  Whether this is artificially supporting their populations or providing diversionary feeding is unknown.

The movement restrictions during the Covid pandemic has given some insight into the effects that our recreation activities are having on our wildlife.  Analysis of wildlife behaviour during the pandemic suggests that bird avoidance behaviour changed in response to direct and indirect effects of human presence, with differences between urban and rural habitats[x].

Given that the pandemic saw an increased use of local parks and green spaces[xi] it is perhaps not surprising that the distance birds flew when approached by a human increased in urban habitats.  In addition the response of species differed and was influenced by the type of human activity and its timescale[xii] indicating that some species are able to respond to change more quickly. 

There is also the anecdotal evidence from the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2001 which suggested that ground nesting birds in particular benefitted from the countryside being ‘closed’ to visitors.  It can only be anecdotal as even our scientists were prevented from doing their data gathering!

The Need for Research and Understanding

Consequently if future Governments are going to encourage recreational access and extend the right to roam to other habitats, we need more research to understand what effects our use of the wider countryside is having on different species.

Whilst I am not suggesting that the declines in our wildlife can be blamed on increased public access since CROW, there are too many confounding factors for that to be possible, I am suggesting that we do need to know what the effects are so that we can mitigate them and tread the fine line between the benefits to our wellbeing of interacting with nature and the impacts of that activity on nature itself.