Search

In the Anthropocene, when our environment is changing rapidly and the windows of opportunity for action to prevent further biodiversity loss are narrow, conservation researchers are increasingly encouraged to think and operate beyond the traditional approaches of producing peer-reviewed papers and presenting results to other members of the research community. Indeed, the perception that researchers belong in their ivory tower, from which they deliver evidence for others to interpret, disseminate and use in decision-making, is thankfully now widely recognised as outdated. The rise of fake news, a deliberate lack of consideration for scientific evidence, and changes to the ways of assessing the value of researchers’ work probably all play a role in supporting this shift in perception. Moreover, for many researchers, the prospect of their work ‘making a difference’ and having an impact on wider society is at least as great a motivation for doing research as generating new knowledge, however interesting that may be.

amie Gundry’s dramatic image of a white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) on the cover of this book reflects the twisting changes in fortune experienced by this species, with a revival that can be attributed to a successful interplay of science, policy and practice. White-tailed eagles were historically much more widely distributed than they are today (Yalden, 2007), once breeding across much of Europe, but by the early twentieth century the species was extinct across much of western and southern Europe. The main cause of its decline was persecution by farmers and shepherds, who considered the eagles a threat to their livestock, but, along with other raptors, white-tailed eagles were also seriously affected by DDT in the 1960s and 1970s, which had disastrous effects on the breeding success of remaining populations.

1. Planning for nature conservation has increasingly emphasised the concepts of resilience and spatial networks. Although the importance of habitat networks for individual species is clear, their significance for long‐term ecological resilience and multi‐species conservation strategies is less established. 2. Referencing spatial network theory, we describe the conceptual basis for defining and assessing a network of wildlife areas that supports species’ resilience to multiple forms of perturbations and pressures. We explore actions that could enhance network resilience at a range of scales, based on ecological principles, with reference to four well‐established strategies for intervention in a spatial network (“Better, Bigger, More and Joined”) from the influential Making Space for Nature report by Lawton et al. (2010). 3. Building existing theory into useable and scalable approaches applicable to large numbers of species is challenging but tractable. We illustrate the policy context, describe the elements of a long‐term adaptive management plan and provide example actions, metrics and targets for early implementation using England as a case study, where there is an opportunity to include large‐scale ecological planning in a newly launched 25‐year environment plan. 4. Policy implications. The concept of resilient ecological networks has attracted scientific and political support, but there is no consensus on what a resilient network would look like, or how to assess it. Therefore, it is unclear whether existing targets for action will be sufficient to achieve network resilience. We show that the scientific principles to place resilience and network theory at the heart of large‐scale and long‐term environmental planning are established and ready to implement in practice. Delivering a resilient network to support nature recovery is achievable and can be integrated with ongoing conservation actions and targets, by assessing their effectiveness on properties of the enti