Rewilding for biodiversity offsets: A case study of passive ecological restoration on lowland agricultural land for Biodiversity Net Gain in England

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Global Ecology and Conservation
Published
2025-04-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2025.e03603
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Environmental Conservation and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.42

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Rewilding for biodiversity offsets: A case study of passive ecological restoration on lowland agricultural land for Biodiversity Net Gain in England

Timo Vuorisalo, Pegah Hamedani Raja, Joseph W. Bull, Hanna Kalliolevo et al.
1 citations
Global Ecology and Conservation
Environmental Conservation and Management
2.42
article

Rewilding for biodiversity offsets: A case study of passive ecological restoration on lowland agricultural land for Biodiversity Net Gain in England

Timo Vuorisalo, Pegah Hamedani Raja, Joseph W. Bull, Hanna Kalliolevo, Pablo Pérez Chaves
article en
1 citations

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.

Global Ecology and ConservationVol. 60
University of Turku (FI), University of Oxford (GB), Finnish National Agency for Education (FI), University of Jyväskylä (FI)
Turun Yliopisto, Koneen Säätiö
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Environmental Conservation and Management
2.42
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.