Relative Wildness Map

Discussion
In terms of the relative wildness maps ability to help identify suitable areas of rewilding, its benefits are limited. It helps identify the perceived wildest areas but the idea of rewilding is to improve areas that are not already ‘wild’ to benefit biodiversity. The idea of rewilding also has so much more factors than just the current wildness of the landscape as shown in the second part of the study. It can, however, be useful when used alongside these factors.
When creating the wildness map there were some differences found between individuals’ perception and scientific knowledge. For example, the burning of gorse and bracken (swaling), deemed as necessary by the National Park to limit scrub growth, is unnatural according to scientists as well as NGOs including the
RSPB and leaves dark scares across the landscape easily visible for miles. However, individuals’ perception of it effecting the areas naturalness is very low, lower than that of being able to receive a phone signal. This is surprising as it was factored in on the study by Steve Carver study (2011). When asked about this after completing the questionnaire individuals deemed it as essential in keeping the moor how it is, preserving it how they remember it. These actions go against the most important reason for National Parks existence, which is to conserve and enhancing the environment above all else and, when conflict does arise, then conservation interest should take priority (Sandford, 1974).
The wildness map shows that the areas of greatest wildness on Dartmoor are on the north and south plateaus with the steep river valleys in the east of the park also having a high relative wildness.
However, these locations are not suitable for a rewilding project for various reasons. The limiting factors in terms of land ownership, especially common land and the MTZ reduce potential sites in high wildness areas. Also, the steep river valleys on the east side of the moor are often NNRs or SSSIs in favourable condition. They are also surrounded by more productive farms. However, examples of rewilding elsewhere in the UK and Europe also show that projects can take place surrounded by highly populated areas and intensive farming (e.g. Knepp and Oostvaardersplassen). The initial starting point of relative wildness doesn’t have to be high as it will eventually revert to a wilder state within time. The naturalness of the land will increase, vegetation heights will increase on average, meaning less visual man mad artefacts, and the potential for increased biodiversity and wildlife will also increase individual’s perception of wildness within Whiteworks (as shown in the questionnaire
results).
Dartmoor has suitable areas for rewilding to take place and the most suitable sites are all within land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall. However, Natural England will have to grant permission for fencing to be established to limit the influx or outflux of livestock. Access will still be maintained through styles and cattle grids so the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is abided by. The most suitable rewilding technique will allow the continuation of farming as written in the Dartmoor 2030 vision but allowing for more natural processes to take place in a rapidly changing ecosystem. This is a less extreme version of rewilding but still prioritises biodiversity and the environment above all else as National Parks are expected to do. The grazing will limit the amount of shrub and tree growth decreasing the impacts on historically important sites and, due to whiteworks having only 5 protected monuments, protection of these sites will be manageable.
Rewilding creates a resentment and fear among farmers and land owners in that they worry their landscape and way of life is on the line. Some forms of promoting rewilding are extremely controversial and do suggest this like George Monbiot’s sheep wrecked landscape vision, however, the vision of rewilding that I have put across allows for farming to continue. Its aim is to create a more positive image for farmers as they are the few that can make a success of it. To enable this, I believe an alternative word should be used that puts farmers at the forefront, not as the enemy, with the aim of creating highly biodiverse habitats that is economically and culturally sound. This could be ‘wild farming’ with a label on all produce of the mark giving it a much higher value and a show of quality to increase profits and sales.