ABSTRACT
Manchester University School of Landscape (Kendle and Forbes 1997). The bold stepping forwards from more limited ideas of conservation, taken by these pioneers, saw green deserts and derelict gap sites transformed using a multifunctional approach to deliver ecological, educational, recreational, aesthetic, health and economic benefits. This new thinking encompassed the core principle that creative conservation must never be a substitute for preserving existing habitats. It developed ideas about disturbance and opportunity in nature, and a wider definition of habitat as a place that supports or has the potential for supporting biodiversity. Landlife, the first urban wildlife group, set out on this journey of discovery in 1975, driven by the energy, enthusiasm and optimism of local communities. This groundbreaking voluntary organisation (Baines 2007) and progenitor of the Groundwork Trusts (Nicholson-Lord 1987), focused on simple starting points rather than the complex end points that drive traditional nature preservation and conservation. It recognises the role of man in shaping the world, and nature’s dynamic response. It is an approach that draws on ecological knowledge to initiate natural processes responsive to change, by incorporating stress and chaos rather than stability and routine. It considers the rural/urban divide to be an artificial construct in relation to biodiversity, creates new opportunities for wildlife to flourish, and engages with people to give nature a helping hand. The concept of “people as a part of nature rather than apart from nature” was written into the first urban nature conservation strategy prepared by Landlife for the Nature Conservancy Council (Urban Wildlife Unit 1983). Throughout the 1980s similar policies were adopted in Birmingham, London, Bristol, Leicester and Sheffield. Early organisations replicating this approach included the Birmingham Urban Wildlife Group in 1979, and Operation Groundwork established in St Helens in 1981. A set of guiding principles (Landlife and Urban Wildlife Partnership 2000), designed to encourage good practice on sites of little value to wildlife, emphasised the importance of survey work, as the ecological value of a site may not be immediately apparent. For example, it is possible that areas of little botanical interest or derelict appearance may be very important for local insect populations. As the new millennium approached, ecological losses and the threat of climate change highlighted the importance of both conserving historic biodiversity, and reversing these trends through action-based programmes of habitat creation. In doing so, it raised the potential for new habitats to evolve, which may change established ecological maps. This approach still is one that many find difficult to accept. It is yet to find a proper place within UK biodiversity policy, where it can be integrated in such a way that its potential gains can be realised without cutting off the cultural engine of concern that drives conservation forward (Adams 1996a).
