Table 4.1 provides details of the P/NPBVC categories used for the land use modelling. The BVC categories used for the bioclimatic envelope model (see: Section 3.3) are based around a classification of broad habitat types developed by the JNCC and used within the Centre for E olog a d H d olog s La d Co e ap . This classification was necessary to capture large-scale, sufficiently broad, climatic envelopes for the BVCs. However, the thematic coarseness of the classification limits its usefulness as a basis for modelling community distributions (Botkin et al., 2007), particularly in terms of the selected biophysical and management variables deemed important in determining the spatial patterns of future land use change at the landscape scale.
For instance, the FMS BVC (Table 3.1) comprises fens, marshes and swamps. Despite the similar, t pi all etla d , ha a te isti s of these o u it t pes, there are ecologically significant differences between them, for instance in terms of their tolerances for different water regimes (JNCC, 2007; Furniss & Lane, 1999; Tansley, 1949). Modelling of distributions using the coarse
57
thematic resolution of the original BVC classification would not account for these differences;
potentially limiting the accuracy and usefulness of the predictions.
The classification was therefore somewhat disaggregated, so that the P/NPBVC categories used in the land use modelling corresponded more closely to the finer thematic resolution offered by the P1HS classification scheme. It was important to retain cohesion with this scheme, as P1HS data are used as a basis for current mapped distributions within the park. The disaggregation also allowed some of the amended atego ies to o e losel o espo d to pa ti ula p io it habitat types highlighted as being the most threatened within the UK by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) (JNCC, 2013; 2011). Because of the conservation significance of these habitats, the amended categories that corresponded most closely with them were identified and selected for closer investigation in later stages of the research as PBVC types.
Table 4.1 also provides information on the relationship between the P/NPBVC categories and the original BVC and P1HS categories. The notes provide additional information on the rationale behind the disaggregation a d the UKBAP p io it habitat types typically associated with particular PBVCs. The PBVCs are highlighted in green in Table 4.1.
58
Table 4.1: P/NPBVCcategories used as a basis for the land use modelling and their relationship to the original BVC categories and relevant P1HS categories. NC = no change from original BVC. PBVCs are highlighted green. Sources:
JNCC, 2011; JNCC, 2007, Jackson, 2000; NNPA, no datec.
BVC P/NPBVC P1HS categories (code) Notes
Bracken Bracken (Br) (NC) Bracken: Continuous (C11) The P1HS category comprising this NPBVC is not covered by any UKBAPs (Jackson, 2000).
Heath Heath Dry dwarf shrub heath (D1) Separate UKBAPs are included fo Lo la d Heathland and Upla d Heathland (JNCC, 2011). Both pla s i lude oth et a d d t pes. Heaths ith less than 25% dwarf shrub coverage (i.e. Heath/Acid Grassland Mosaic) are excluded from both of the UKBAPs. This plan includes the P1HS atego Improved grassland (B4) (Jackson, 2000).
Improved Grassland: Non-Priority (IGNP)
Cultivated/disturbed land – amenity grassland (J12)
Although Jackson (2000) suggests that the P1HS category comprising this NPBVC is included under the UKBAP fo Coastal a d Floodplai G azi g Ma sh , J is Grassland within the study area and problems in determining conservationally significant types using the P1HS nomenclature.
Calcareous Grassland (CG) Calcareous grassland: Unimproved (B31) The only instances of calcareous grassland occurring within NNP are very minor extents of P1HS atego B i lo la d a eas. The UKBAP fo Lo la d Cal a eous G assla d (JNCC, 2011) suggests that these extents are unlikely to be covered by the plan. No mention of extents of B32 is made by NNPA (no datec).
Ta le o ti ued….
59
BVC P/NPBVC P1HS categories (code) Notes
FMS Fen Fen: Valley mire (E31) Disaggregation of the FMS BVC was necessary to better highlight fundamental differences between constituent communities. Disaggregation was therefore partially made on this basis. For instance, an association with deep peat (>0.5m) is one of the main characteristics used by JNCC (2007) to distinguish between the P1HS atego Fe a d the othe P1HS categories associated with the FMS BVC. UKBAP s provided further justification for the disaggregation. JNCC (2011) and Jackson (2000) suggest that the UKBAP habitats relevant to the FMS BVC a e: Pu ple Moo G ass a d ‘ush Pastu es , Lo la d Fe s a d Upland Flushes, Fe s a d S a ps . The UKBAP fo Upla d Flushes, Fe s a d S a ps suggests it includes P1HS categories E2 (Flush and Spring), E3 (Fen), F1 (Swamp) and B5 (Marsh). The description for Purple Moor Grass and Rush Pastures UKBAP (JNCC, 2011) sto gl o espo ds ith that of Ma sh/ a sh g assla d B f o JNCC (2007). Ma sh is the efo e t eated as a sepa ate PBVC. Lo la d Fe s st o gl o espo d ith Fe E JNCC, ; . Fe is the efo e also treated as a separate PBVC. Swamp is treated as a separate PBVC, due to its distinctive soil water characteristics (JNCC, 2007). For the purposes of this research, Flush & Spring is regarded as a NPBVC, due to its very limited coverage within NNP. Also, Flush & Spring is not mentioned by NNPA (no datec).
Fen: Basin Mire (E32) Fen: Flood plain mire (E33)
Flush & Spring (F&S) Flush and Spring: Acid neutral flush (E21) Flush and Spring: Basic flush (E22) categories E17 and E18 are treated separately u de the Modified Bog NPBVC.
Raised Bog (RB) Bog: Raised bog (E162) Modified Bog (MB) Bog: Wet modified bog (E17)
Bog: Dry modified bog (E18) Wet Woodla d (Jackson, 2000). Information from JNCC (2011; 2007) and NNPA (no datec suggests that the UKBAP fo Wet Woodla d is ot ele a t fo NNP, For the remaining UKBAPs, descriptions from JNCC (2011; 2007) suggest that the P HS atego Woodland: Broadleaved: semi-natural A is the ost relevant. The thematic resolution of P1HS nomenclature does not facilitate differentiation of the different UKBAP types. They are therefore matched by the Broadleaved Woodland: Priority PBVC.
Ta le o ti ued…
60
BVC P/NPBVC P1HS categories (code) Notes
Broadleaved -90% coverage of either broadleaved or coniferous tree species. Woodland Mixed: semi-natural with a dominance of broadleaved species is therefore covered by UKBAPs. However, it is included under this NPBVC, due to the
The recently felled broadleaved woodland types from P1HS nomenclature are matched the Broadleaved: Recently Felled Woodla d NPBVC.
Woodland: Recently felled woodland: are relict indigenous pine woodlands dominated by Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) and are not likely to be associated with extents of coniferous woodland within NNP (JNCC, 2011). Also, Native Pine Woodlands are not referred to by NNPA (no datec). P1HS categories A121 and A122 are therefore listed under the Coniferous Woodland NPBVC. ep ese ted the Coniferous: Recently Felled Woodla d NPBVC.
Arable Arable (NC) Cultivated/disturbed land: arable (J11) A UKBAP is i luded fo A a le field a gi s . Ho e e , they are not identifiable from P1HSnomenclature.
61 4.4 Land Use Scenarios
4.4.1 Introduction
[A s e a io is] an internally consistent view of what the future might turn out to be...not a fo e ast, ut o e possi le futu e st u tu e
(Porter, 1998, pp. 446-48)
The defining characteristic of many social-ecological systems is the variety, complexity and interconnectedness of the factors and processes that govern them. The ways in which these factors and processes will interact and manifest themselves in the future to create changes in the system is therefore often highly uncertain. The methods and approaches typically employed in scenario development require that the various factors, processes and interactions affecting a system be identified, defined and better understood. In this way, the key drivers and challenges likely to influence and affect the system in the future can be gauged. Scenarios allow for a limited selection of concise future narratives concerning the system to be constructed which are meaningful, reasonable and contextually relevant (Porter, 1998). Scenarios are therefore increasingly employed within conservation and natural resources management as a strategic tool to deal more effectively with the future uncertainty inherent within complex social-ecological systems (Preston et al., 2011; Rounsevell et al., 2006).
4.4.2 Scenario Storylines and Drivers of Land use Change
In developing and defining the land use scenario storylines used within the research, a number of sources were utilised. Summary information on these sources (e.g. time horizon, number of scenarios employed) is provided in Table 4.2.
A detailed discussion of each of these sources and the associated scenarios is beyond the scope of this thesis (for more comprehensive discussion and summary see Busch (2006) and the other relevant documents referred to below). Despite differences between the various sources (e.g. in the spatial and temporal scale of assessments as well as their particular remit and focus) a number of commonalities are apparent. This is perhaps unsurprising as all of the sources, with the exception of FLUFP (2010) and NE (2009); derive their scenario storylines directly from two global scenario exercises: Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) and Global Scenarios Group Futures (GSG) (Busch, 2006). Selection of these sources is therefore considered an advantage, as the scenario sets efle t the ajo u e tai ties ega di g la d use ha ge a d depict a broad range of future pathways whilst also retaining a good level of internal consistency (Busch, 2006,
62
pp. 137; Holman et al., 2005b). Another advantage of selecting scenarios from these sources is that consideration is often made of the potential influence of climate change on future socio-economic trends.
Table 4.2: Summary information on scenario analysis sources. Adapted from Busch (2006).
Base year Time
Advanced Terrestrial Ecosystem Analysis and Modelling (ATEAM) (Schroter et al., 2004)
2000 2080 4 Environment, climate
An important similarity between all of the sources is that they highlight the same key interrelated factors acting to drive land use change. Although the specific labelling of these factors differs between the sources, they may be generally defined as: population and demography; culture and society; economic development; technology; policy and regulation; and environment (Busch, 2006).
In basic terms, demographic trends within the various storylines are discussed in relation to projections of population growth. However, the way in which this growth is managed and allowed to develop influences specific levels of growth as well as its spatial distribution and impacts (FLUFP, 2010; Creedy et al., 2009). The culture and society driver is defined in a number of ways within the various sources; however, in general, it typically relates to the levels of cohesion or solidarity, within society, versus levels of self-interest. This is important, as levels of social
63
cohesion tend to be related to the degree to which societies are able to adapt to, and cope with, current and future challenges (FLUFP, 2010; Busch, 2006). Economic development within the scenarios typically relates to levels of economic growth. Specific rates of growth differ, depending on the particular socio-economic context. Technology essentially refers to the degree of technological development and innovation. Policy and regulation is related to the strength and influence of policy and regulatory control from governance systems at various scales. Levels of policy and regulatory control may be high for purposes of environmental sustainability or as part of a move towards more economically focused regional or local protectionism (FLUFP, 2010;
Busch, 2006). The environment driver, in simple terms, relates to the future quality or state of the environment. However, it may also be considered as indicative of the degree of environmental focus within the storylines, as this is often positively related to the extent to which environmental issues and pressures are effectively managed by society (FLUFP, 2010).
The major trends from each of the scenarios in terms of the six main drivers of land use change are visualised qualitatively in Table 4.3. Based on the analysis from the various sources the extent to which the scenarios depict a globally orientated world is also included.
Table 4.3: Qualitative summary of the relative direction of each of the key drivers under each scenario from the sources in Table 4.2.
Sharply-tilted arrows indicate a relatively sharp increase or decrease. Moderately-tilted arrows represent more moderate change.
Curved arrows indicate a change in the rate of growth or decline. Adapted from (Busch, 2006; Kankaanpaa & Carter, 2004). SRES and ATEAM results are presented together as the ATEAM scenarios are based directly on those of SRES (Schroter et al., 2004). As indicated by Busch (2006), the direction of the drivers from these two sources for their scenarios are exactly the same.
Scenario Population
Technology Economy Environment Regulation Globalisation
SRES, ATEAM