M Hulme
British Trust for Ornithology
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by M Hulme.
Science | 2013
Ian J. Bateman; Amii R. Harwood; Georgina M. Mace; Robert T. Watson; David James Abson; Barnaby Andrews; Amy Binner; Andrew Crowe; Brett Day; Steve Dugdale; Carlo Fezzi; Jo Foden; David Hadley; Roy Haines-Young; M Hulme; Andreas Kontoleon; Andrew Lovett; Paul Munday; Unai Pascual; James Paterson; Grischa Perino; Antara Sen; G. Siriwardena; D.P. van Soest; Mette Termansen
Monitoring Land Use Land-use decisions are based largely on agricultural market values. However, such decisions can lead to losses of ecosystem services, such as the provision of wildlife habitat or recreational space, the magnitude of which may overwhelm any market agricultural benefits. In a research project forming part of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Bateman et al. (p. 45) estimate the value of these net losses. Policies that recognize the diversity and complexity of the natural environment can target changes to different areas so as to radically improve land use in terms of agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions, recreation, and wild species habitat and diversity. The value of using land for recreation and wildlife, not just for agriculture, can usefully factor into planning decisions. Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land-use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the United Kingdom, we show the significance of land-use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space, and wild-species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, although decisions that focus solely on agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning by incorporating all potential services and their values and that this approach also conserves wild-species diversity.
Science | 2013
Ian J. Bateman; Amii R. Harwood; Georgina M. Mace; Robert T. Watson; David James Abson; Barnaby Andrews; Amy Binner; Andrew Crowe; Brett Day; Steve Dugdale; Carlo Fezzi; Jo Foden; David Hadley; Roy Haines-Young; M Hulme; Andreas Kontoleon; Andrew Lovett; Paul Munday; Unai Pascual; James Paterson; Grischa Perino; Antara Sen; G. Siriwardena; Daan P. van Soest; Mette Termansen
Monitoring Land Use Land-use decisions are based largely on agricultural market values. However, such decisions can lead to losses of ecosystem services, such as the provision of wildlife habitat or recreational space, the magnitude of which may overwhelm any market agricultural benefits. In a research project forming part of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Bateman et al. (p. 45) estimate the value of these net losses. Policies that recognize the diversity and complexity of the natural environment can target changes to different areas so as to radically improve land use in terms of agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions, recreation, and wild species habitat and diversity. The value of using land for recreation and wildlife, not just for agriculture, can usefully factor into planning decisions. Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land-use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the United Kingdom, we show the significance of land-use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space, and wild-species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, although decisions that focus solely on agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning by incorporating all potential services and their values and that this approach also conserves wild-species diversity.
PLOS ONE | 2013
M Hulme; Juliet A. Vickery; Rhys E. Green; Ben Phalan; Dan E. Chamberlain; Derek Pomeroy; Dianah Nalwanga; David Mushabe; Raymond Katebaka; Simon Bolwig; Philip W. Atkinson
Reconciling the aims of feeding an ever more demanding human population and conserving biodiversity is a difficult challenge. Here, we explore potential solutions by assessing whether land sparing (farming for high yield, potentially enabling the protection of non-farmland habitat), land sharing (lower yielding farming with more biodiversity within farmland) or a mixed strategy would result in better bird conservation outcomes for a specified level of agricultural production. We surveyed forest and farmland study areas in southern Uganda, measuring the population density of 256 bird species and agricultural yield: food energy and gross income. Parametric non-linear functions relating density to yield were fitted. Species were identified as “winners” (total population size always at least as great with agriculture present as without it) or “losers” (total population sometimes or always reduced with agriculture present) for a range of targets for total agricultural production. For each target we determined whether each species would be predicted to have a higher total population with land sparing, land sharing or with any intermediate level of sparing at an intermediate yield. We found that most species were expected to have their highest total populations with land sparing, particularly loser species and species with small global range sizes. Hence, more species would benefit from high-yield farming if used as part of a strategy to reduce forest loss than from low-yield farming and land sharing, as has been found in Ghana and India in a previous study. We caution against advocacy for high-yield farming alone as a means to deliver land sparing if it is done without strong protection for natural habitats, other ecosystem services and social welfare. Instead, we suggest that conservationists explore how conservation and agricultural policies can be better integrated to deliver land sparing by, for example, combining land-use planning and agronomic support for small farmers.
Bird Study | 2013
Daniel Edward Chamberlain; Graham E. Austin; Rhys E. Green; M Hulme; Niall H. K. Burton
Capsule A new method of estimating winter Great Cormorant population trends was developed to improve monitoring. Aims To develop methods of estimating Cormorant population trends with confidence intervals by combining data from different monitoring schemes. Methods Estimates of inland and coastal winter Cormorant populations were made for England and Wales from 1988 to 2010. Annual counts from the Wetland Bird Survey were used, supplemented with Dispersed Waterbird Survey data for inland populations, and Non-Estuarine Coastal Waterbird Survey data for coastal populations. Bootstrapping was undertaken to produce confidence intervals. Results The winter Cormorant population in England and Wales increased by about 59% between 1988 and 2010. The annual trend of the inland population became less positive from 2004 onwards, the year in which numbers controlled under licence greatly increased. Conclusions The improved precision of the new estimates provides a sound basis on which to assess potential population-level effects of licensed control of Cormorants. Although there was an indication that recent declines in the inland population were concurrent with increased control intensity, this can only be considered weak evidence, and such effects may be better considered through intensive research on Cormorant site use and dispersal in relation to control activities.
Environmental and Resource Economics | 2014
Ian J. Bateman; Amii R. Harwood; David James Abson; Barnaby Andrews; Andrew Crowe; Steve Dugdale; Carlo Fezzi; Jo Foden; David Hadley; Roy Haines-Young; M Hulme; Andreas Kontoleon; Paul Munday; Unai Pascual; James Paterson; Grischa Perino; Antara Sen; G. Siriwardena; Mette Termansen
The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report | 2011
Ian J. Bateman; David James Abson; Nicola Beaumont; Amii Darnell; Carlo Fezzi; Nick Hanleys; Andreas Kontoleon; David Maddison; Paul Morling; Joe Morris; Susana Mourato; Unai Pascual; Grischa Perino; Antara Sen; Dugald Tinch; Kerry Turner; Gregory Valatin; Barnaby Andrews; Viviana Asara; Tom Askew; Uzma Aslam; Giles Atkinson; Nesha Beharry-Borg; Katherine Bolt; Matt Cole; Murray Collins; Emma Comerford; Emma Coombes; Andrew Crowe; Steve Dugdale
Archive | 2011
Ian J. Bateman; David James Abson; Barnaby Andrews; Andrew Crowe; Amii Darnell; Steve Dugdale; Carlo Fezzi; Jo Foden; Roy Haines-Young; M Hulme; Paul Munday; Unai Pascual; James Paterson; Grischa Perino; Antara Sen; G. Siriwardena; Mette Termansen
Science | 2013
Ian J. Bateman; Amii R. Harwood; Georgina M. Mace; Robert T. Watson; David James Abson; Barnaby Andrews; Amy Binner; Andrew Crowe; Brett Day; Steve Dugdale; Carlo Fezzi; Jo Foden; David Hadley; Roy Haines-Young; M Hulme; Andreas Kontoleon; Andrew Lovett; Paul Munday; Unai Pascual; James Paterson; Grischa Perino; Antara Sen; G. Siriwardena; D.P. van Soest; Mette Termansen
Archive | 2014
Ian J. Bateman; Grischa Perino; David James Abson; Barnaby Andrews; Andrew Crowe; Stephen Dugdale; Carlo Fezzi; Jo Foden; David Hadley; Roy Haines-Young; Amii R. Harwood; M Hulme; Andreas Kontoleon; Paul Munday; Unai Pascual; James Paterson; Antara Sen; G. Siriwardena; Mette Termansen
SCIENCE , 342 (6157) pp. 421-422. (2013) | 2013
Ian J. Bateman; Amii R. Harwood; Georgina M. Mace; Robert T. Watson; David James Abson; Barnaby Andrews; Amy Binner; Andrew Crowe; Brett Day; Steve Dugdale; Carlo Fezzi; Jo Foden; David Hadley; Roy Haines-Young; M Hulme; Andreas Kontoleon; Andrew A. Lovett; Paul Munday; Unai Pascual; James Paterson; Grischa Perino; Antara Sen; G. Siriwardena; D.P. van Soest; Mette Termansen