A few weeks ago the prestigious scientific journal Nature published an editorial in favour of landscape-scale conservation.
I was pleased to see that the UK example they gave was the RSPB's Futurescapes programme.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
Excellent, I am sure the removal of certain forest plantations originally planted on prime habitat, would help such Future Scapes as the Wiltshire Chalk Country and the North Wales Moors.
redkite
This is interesting but does raise a question. There's a number of these landscape scale target areas. Besides this one, there's the Living Landscapes and meanwhile in the south east Biodiversity Opportunity Areas aka Conservation Target Areas have been produced, initially through the local Nature Conservation Forums and then the South-East Forum/Natural England. Certainly in my area these included the Living Landscape area and there is a close correlation with the Futurescapes, though I detect a few differences. Meanwhile Natural England had this idea of IBDAs (Intergrated Biodiversity Delivery Areas) which was a typical national idea that seemed to fail to take into account the much better local ideas already developed.
Anyway my point is too many schemes, too many names. We have an Upper Ray Living Landscape, a Futurescape covering same area (it's a joint scheme) and the area is also a Conservation Target Area. While organisations are working together to common aims it seems that the people dreaming up the buzzword names are working in isolation. One name, more focus and the ability to publicise and talk about the same thing.