Why should we consider a networks approach?

If networks aren't a guaranteed solution, why should we use them?

Until relatively recently, most conservation decisions were focused on the preservation of specific areas of habitat.  These were often designated as nature reserves and had some form of legal protection. Within these isolated areas, management was focused on achieving conservation aims and on protecting particular species.

However, the areas of land which are now nature reserves weren't allocated for that purpose before development began around them - sometimes they are just the relic areas of land which haven't yet been exploited for human use.  So the rationale for deciding where nature reserves are and aren't located hasn't always been particularly scientific - it's often been the result of a combination of circumstances including the availability of the land as well as the presence of particular habitats and species.

Whilst the habitat networks approach has yet to be robustly tested in all settings, there is a clear and persuasive rationale behind it, with the potential to make positive contributions to landscapes and biodiversity.  This should be seen in the context of previous conservation decisions, which have often been made in an ad-hoc, reactive manner.  Networks aren't and shouldn't be promoted as a solution to all problems, but they may represent one of the most cost effective tools currently available for trying to enhance landscapes.

They also provide an opportunity to link a number of objectives together in one situation - particularly when habitat networks are expanded into green networks.  Green networks can provide economic, social and environmental benefits - for example, they can provide areas of green space and paths for recreation or create sustainable drainage systems as well as improving habitat connectivity.  See the pages on green networks for more information.