Environment strategy: behaviour changes needed to achieve Scotland's goals for biodiversity

4 Impacts, synergies and trade-offs of pro-biodiversity behaviour changes

This section synthesises evidence on the biodiversity impacts relating to the eight behaviour categories set out in the framework in Chapter 3, drawing on evidence from the literature review. We also aim to draw out, where highlighted in the literature, any synergies or trade-offs between behaviour changes for biodiversity and wider policy goals.

It is important to note that the impacts of changing pro-biodiversity behaviours are highly contextually dependent and often difficult to model or measure, given the complexity of ecological systems and the potential for trade-offs between conservation outcomes. Where they can be measured, they are difficult to compare. When considering the contributions of energy-saving behaviours to climate change, the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to different behaviours can be compared using the common currency of kg CO2e, however there are no universal metrics for comparison of impacts on biodiversity, although life cycle analysis can be used to quantify impacts and allow some measure of comparison, at least at the within-study level. With these challenges in mind, this chapter seeks to outline the key ways in which the identified types of behaviour impact on biodiversity, providing information on the magnitude of these impacts where possible. This allows us to draw some conclusions about the relative impacts of the behaviours identified but falls short of being able to make direct comparisons between behaviours or to rank behaviours for prioritisation in policy.

4.1 Consumption behaviours

4.1.1 Impacts of production-consumption systems on biodiversity

Domestic consumption of food and goods impacts on biodiversity both in Scotland and internationally through creating market demand which drives production systems. The globalisation of trade in food and goods means that consumption behaviours are a domain of particular relevance to global biodiversity. Recent analysis of Scotland’s global environmental footprint reports that the household consumption categories that contribute the greatest amount to Scotland’s non-carbon environmental footprint overseas are food and goods (Lin et al., 2024).

The impacts of consumption behaviours on biodiversity can occur through a range of pathways, including contributing to land use change and deforestation, pollution, and direct exploitation of species. Globally, agricultural land covers 43% of the planet’s land not covered in either ice or desert, of which 87% is used for food production (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). Agriculture overall accounts for 80% of land use change globally (Benton et al., 2021). In addition to the land required to produce food (and associated pressures for deforestation), it is estimated that, globally, food production is responsible for around 32% of terrestrial acidification, and around 78% of eutrophication. In addition, around one third of freshwater use is for irrigation in agriculture. Together these environmental impacts have considerable implications for biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, through direct loss of plant diversity, removal of habitat supporting wildlife, and multiple impacts to ecosystem functioning as a result of environmental degradation (Poore and Nemecek, 2018).

Changes in consumption behaviours are necessary, both to shift consumption-production systems towards more sustainably produced foods and goods, and to reduce the overall amount that we consume. Globally, as much as one third of the edible parts of foods produced for humans becomes food waste (Benton et al., 2021) and significantly reducing global food waste has the potential to mitigate some of the environmental impact of agriculture in biodiversity hotspots (Guo et al., 2023). Whilst there is a significant body of evidence on food waste, we do not explore this further in the present report, as this is currently addressed through circular economy policy and therefore falls outside the project scope. Similarly, addressing overall material consumption (including overconsumption of consumer goods and single-use packaging) is central to living within planetary boundaries, yet is not considered in detail here, in line with the project scope excluding circular economy and net zero behaviours^[2]. Instead, the following sections focus on the potential benefits to biodiversity from shifting consumption towards more sustainable diets and biodiversity-friendly product choices.

4.1.2 Eating less meat

Dietary change is argued to play a central role in reducing the impact of food systems on biodiversity (Benton et al., 2021; Willett et al., 2019). The most substantial differences between the environmental impacts of different food types are between animal and plant-based foods; this is because meat is a less efficient source of energy, since energy is lost at every step of the food chain (Godfray et al., 2018). Meat, aquaculture, eggs and dairy production use 83% of farmland globally, yet they only make up 37% of the protein we eat and 18% of energy intake globally (Poore and Nemecek, 2018).

Global transitions in diets have resulted in a high and rising demand for animal products (Benton et al., 2021). This increasing consumption of meat globally is argued to be one of the greatest threats to terrestrial biodiversity, due to land use change, habitat loss, pollution and soil loss associated with producing livestock and growing their feed (Machovina et al., 2015). Of particular concern is the impact of agricultural expansion for meat production in the tropics. It is estimated that more than three-quarters of the deforested land in the Amazon region has been converted for livestock and feedstock production (Machovina et al., 2015). The EAT-Lancet Commission report (Willett et al., 2019), which sets out the changes required to shift globally towards healthy and sustainable diets by 2050, recommends a more than doubling of consumption of vegetables, fruits, nuts and legumes, and a reduction of red meat and sugar in our diets by more than 50%. Changes of this magnitude will require a radical transformation of the global food system, requiring fundamental changes in both consumer demand and production systems.

It is estimated that if, globally, everyone shifted to a plant-based diet, it would result in a 76% reduction in land use for food production and would reduce acidification and eutrophication by half (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). At the same time, reducing consumption of animal proteins rather than excluding them entirely may be a more achievable target for widespread behavioural change and, from a global perspective, in many areas of the world this is the only viable food production system. Modelling by Kozicka et al. (2023) has estimated that if 50% of the consumption of the main types of animal proteins (pork, chicken, beef and milk) were substituted for plant-based proteins, this could almost halt the loss of forest and natural land by 2050. The reduction in agricultural land needed could supply an area of land for restoration which would contribute to up to 25% of the area required for restoration under the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework by 2030 which commits to restoring 30% of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine areas by 2030 (Kozicka et al., 2023). Additionally, a global reduction in consumption of the main animal-based proteins by 50% could result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the 2020 level by 31% by 2050, which could be doubled if the land spared is restored to forest (Kozicka et al., 2023).

Scarborough et al. (2023) examined the diets of vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK, and linked their consumption of different foods with data on the life-cycle environmental impacts of those food types. Their analysis found that the impact of vegans’ diets was around 25% that of high meat eaters (>=100g meat/day) in terms of land use (so for every 100 m² required to feed a high meat eater, only 25 m² is required by a vegan). Vegans’ impacts were 46% that of high meat eaters in terms of water use, 27% for eutrophication, and 34% of biodiversity. The difference between low and high meat eaters was substantial – with the biodiversity impact of low meat eaters (under 50g meat per day) estimated to be around 69% of that high meat eaters, and with low meat eaters impact on land use and eutrophication also considerably lower (44% and 57% of that of high meat eaters respectively). This suggests that, for those for whom switching to a plant-based diet is not desirable and/or feasible, there are still considerable benefits to be achieved by reducing their meat intake.

The impacts associated with animal proteins in our diet also vary depending on the type of meat or animal product in question. Beef and lamb require a far greater area of land per kg of protein produced compared to meat from poultry or pigs, and other animal proteins such as cheese, eggs and milk (Machovina et al., 2015; Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Beef production also requires more nitrogen inputs and constitutes a major source of anthropogenic methane production, contributing to climate change (Machovina et al, 2015). It should be noted that the analyses assessing the relative inputs and impacts of different livestock species do not disaggregate to different production systems. Hence switching from soy or grain fed cattle to a plant-based diet offers the greatest positive impact, but the benefits of switching from cattle on pasture does not have such a high impact as the land they graze cannot be used for arable production of plant-based diets. The benefits of reducing the latter production would be only through reduced methane and potential biodiversity benefits. Whilst the negative impacts of chicken and pig production may be less than beef production, they still depend on arable land for their feed that could be used more efficiently for plant-based diets. Furthermore, extensive grazing systems can also support high biodiversity and deliver multiple ecosystem services (Bengtsson et al., 2019), so there is a risk that reduced meat consumption could see reductions in grazing on less profitable extensive systems, with cascading negative impacts on their biodiversity, whilst production carries on from more economically efficient intensive systems.

Whilst there are potentially significant benefits from switching red meat for other types of meat and animal protein, replacing red meat with plant-based proteins has the greatest potential impact. Production of plant-based proteins tend to have much lower impacts on biodiversity, particularly in terms of acidification and eutrophication, although it should be noted that some plant-based proteins like almond and cashew nuts may have higher environmental impacts on some metrics than some types of animal proteins due to the land area and water required to produce them (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Replacing meat with plant-based proteins also has the potential to deliver significant health benefits, as high meat consumption, and particularly red meat and processed meats, is associated with greater risks of heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes (Godfray et al., 2018; Machovina et al., 2015; Spiro et al., 2024; Willett et al., 2019)^[3]. If reductions in the overall quantities of meat consumed were also accompanied by a greater focus on buying higher quality meat, this could support greater animal welfare. However, there are also risks for animal welfare if red meat consumption is replaced by greater demand for intensively produced poultry and pork (Bonnet et al., 2020), as well as potentially increasing competition for arable land to produce feed for poultry and pigs rather than food for humans.

Table 3: Summary of potential impacts of eating less meat

Biodiversity related impacts of reducing meat consumption

• Reducing pressure for land use change and deforestation
• Reducing eutrophication and acidification
• Potential to free up agricultural land for restoration

Synergistic impacts of reducing meat consumption

• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and contribution of food system to climate change
• Improved human health
• Animal welfare improvements if meat purchasing focuses on buying less but higher quality
• For some households reducing meat consumption could help reduce food bills.

Trade-offs associated with reducing meat consumption

• Potential for reduction in animal welfare if reducing red meat consumption is replaced by increasing demand for poultry and pigs.

4.1.3 Choosing sustainable product options

Going beyond the choice of animal versus plant-based foods, this section assesses the potential impacts of consumer product choices, with a focus on sustainably produced food and commodities associated with deforestation.

Given the scale of food system impacts on biodiversity (section 4.1.1, halting global biodiversity loss requires transformative change in systems of food production. Shifting consumer demand alone will not be sufficient to trigger this change, however alongside improved governance, international cooperation and regulation of production, trade and supply chains, members of the public in high income, high consuming countries like Scotland can play a part through avoiding products that threaten biodiversity and shifting to more sustainable alternatives.

One way to do this is by choosing foods that are produced using less intensive and homogenized farming systems. Agro-ecological farming systems incorporate farming practices that can deliver a range of environmental benefits including providing habitat for wildlife, reducing pollution from use of inorganic nitrogen fertilisers, protecting soil health and sequestering carbon (Burgess et al., 2023). Reducing reliance on nitrogen fertilisers in agriculture is a particular concern given that nitrogen deposition is a major global threat to biodiversity after land use change and climate change (Benton et al., 2021). Nitrogen deposition occurs when nitrogen compounds in the atmosphere, partly released from use of fertilisers, animal waste and tilling the soil, are deposited into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, leading to biodiversity loss through acidification, eutrophication and nutrient enrichment (Benton et al., 2021). One way that consumers can support agroecological farming is through choosing certified organic produce. A meta-analysis of 66 studies comparing biodiversity outcomes of organic farming (which avoid inorganic fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides) and conventional farming, found that overall species richness was on average 30% higher in organic farming systems and abundance of organisms was 50% higher, but that outcomes varied substantially between studies and between species groups (Bengtsson et al., 2005). A recent review by Stein-Bachinger et al. (2021) reports that, of 91 studies reviewed, 58% found greater species richness and abundance of flora and fauna on organic (vs. conventional) farms, but 38% found no difference, and in 4% of studies conventional methods were associated with better outcomes. While organic farming methods can deliver significant biodiversity benefits, there is disagreement in the literature about the potential to deliver impacts at scale from organic agriculture, given that organic systems make up only a small proportion of the sector (Stein-Bachinger et al., 2021). In Scotland, 2.2% of farmland is organic certified (compared to 2.9% in the UK overall, and around 10% in the EU), with most of this land managed as pasture for grazing (DEFRA, 2024; EUROSTAT, 2024; Randall et al., 2019).

Beyond certified organic systems, widespread adoption of agro-ecological farming practices would deliver significant benefits for biodiversity, as well as delivering additional ecosystem services including carbon sequestration (Benton et al., 2021). At the same time, however, such ‘nature-friendly’ farming systems generate lower yields than intensive conventional farming and so require more land to produce the same amount of food, leading to debate over whether the best outcomes can be achieved through widespread multifunctional landscapes (‘land sharing’) or through intensification of production in some areas, allowing others to be set aside for conservation and restoration (‘land sparing’) (Benton et al., 2021; Dudley & and Alexander, 2017). From a behavioural perspective, the ability of consumers to make considered purchasing decisions based on the sustainability of production methods, beyond specific certification programmes (e.g. organic certification) is constrained given the absence of farm-level impact information (Spiro et al., 2024). Choosing food produced in regions with stronger environmental regulation (e.g. UK or EU) may offer some level of assurance, and buying more locally produced food in season can reduce the carbon emissions associated with transport of food as well as supporting local economies (Stein & Santini, 2022). However, local food is not necessarily more environmentally sustainable; the environmental impacts of food choices depend on many factors, including considerations of local land capabilities and the inputs required to grow different foods locally (Stein & Santini, 2022).

In Phase 1 of the literature review, choosing sustainably sourced fish and seafood was the most commonly mentioned pro-biodiversity behaviour in relation to marine environments. Overfishing can result in collapse of populations of wild fish stocks and cause declines in non-target species that are caught along with target species (known as bycatch), and physically disturbing marine habitats. These impacts affect the structure and function of marine ecosystems with knock-on effects for other species (Goñi, 1998; Sumaila et al., 2016). Pressure for over-harvesting has been driven by an increased global demand for seafood, although fish consumption in UK households is reported to have remained stable over a period of decades (Steenson & Creedon, 2022), or declined in the 21^st century (MSC, 2024). The FAO reports that the proportion of global fishery stocks that are being sustainably managed was 64.6% in 2019, down from 90% in 1974, although the proportion of fish landed that are from sustainable stocks is now high (at 82.5%) and continues to increase (FAO, 2022). Global demand for fish and seafood is likely to continue to rise, and much of this demand will likely be met by the rapidly expanding aquaculture sector, however fish farming carries its own impacts for marine biodiversity. These include risks of disease/parasite transfer, escape (including of exotic species) pollution (including release of chemicals and antibiotics), and indirect effects of using wild caught fish for feed. These environmental impacts vary substantially depending on the intensity of the aquaculture system and species farmed (Sumaila et al., 2016).

Sustainable sourcing of fish and seafood is supported by certification and labelling schemes, the most widely recognised being Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) labelling. MSC labelled products account for an estimated 58% of the wild caught fish and seafood bought in UK retailers by volume but this varies by species e.g. only 38% of the tuna bought in UK supermarkets (MSC, 2024). For whitefish, MSC certified products reportedly make up a high proportion of the UK retail sales – 87% of cod and 83% of haddock (MSC, 2024), which may suggest that sustainable seafood purchasing has fairly high behavioural plasticity, and there may be significant potential to drive up the coverage of the MSC ecolabel across other species. It is, however, difficult to quantify impacts of consumer switching to certified sustainable fish and seafood products. One reason for this is that both consumer demand and governance of fisheries impact on fish stocks, and it is difficult to disentangle the impacts of each. Furthermore, the complexity of marine ecosystems makes it challenging to isolate the effects of reducing overfishing from those of other environmental changes (such as climate change) on marine biodiversity (Jones et al., 2023).

Other consumption-related behaviours highlighted in the literature on pro-biodiversity behaviours relate to consumption of forest-risk commodities. In 2020, the Global Resource Initiative Taskforce identified seven key forest-risk commodities that drive deforestation. These are: cocoa; soy; palm oil; beef and leather; timber, pulp and paper; and rubber (Cheshire & Adams et al., 2020). The area required to supply the UK with these products is estimated at 21.3 million hectares, equating to 88% of the UK’s land footprint (WWF-UK and RSPB, 2020). The four commodities identified as contributing most to deforestation and biodiversity loss were palm oil, soy, cattle and wood products (WWF-UK and RSPB, 2020). Large volumes of imported forest-risk commodities are not consumed directly in households – for example, electricity generation by biomass plants consumes large volumes of wood pellets, and soy is the main protein source used to make animal feed. However, the report highlights a role for consumers in purchasing certified sustainable product options (such as Forest Stewardship Council certified wood and paper products and RSPO certified palm oil products, UTZ certified cocoa products), as well as other actions highlighted above (eating less meat, reducing food waste, choosing locally sourced products). While soy and rubber are also forest-risk commodities of concern, there may be less opportunity for consumers to selected sustainably produced soy and rubber product options. The vast majority (90%) of the soy consumed in the UK is embedded in processed foods or used as livestock feed, and in the case of rubber, there may not be clear alternatives to products that use rubber, such as car tyres (WWF-UK and RSPB, 2020), although reducing car use itself may be relevant.

Table 4: Summary of potential impacts of choosing more sustainable product options

Biodiversity related impacts of sustainable purchasing

• Supporting agro-ecological practices that reduce pollution, increase soil health and provide habitat.
• Reducing pressure for overfishing and related impacts on marine species populations and habitats
• Reducing pressure for deforestation associated with forest-risk commodities

Synergistic impact of sustainable purchasing

• Carbon sequestration and mitigating carbon emissions from soil through agro-ecological practices

Trade-offs associated with sustainable purchasing choices

• Lower yields associated with organic and agro-ecological farming.

4.2 Stewardship behaviours

The consumption-related behaviours discussed in the previous section focus on reducing our contribution to threats to biodiversity at the global level. In this section we move focus onto what private citizens in Scotland can do to protect and improve biodiversity, particularly at the more local level. Stewardship behaviours often impact on biodiversity directly, e.g. through improving habitats, but behaviours are also included here which have more of an indirect impact e.g. through contributing towards evidence on biodiversity or volunteering time and skills to support wider operations of conservation organisations. Phase 1 of the literature review highlighted three categories of stewardship behaviour: conservation volunteering, wildlife gardening and managing impacts of pets. These are explored in more detail below.

4.2.1 Environmental volunteering

Environmental volunteering and citizen science play a significant role in biodiversity conservation in the UK. Volunteers are central to the operations of third sector conservation organisations, contributing to a diverse set of activities such as habitat restoration, invasive species control, access and trail maintenance, environmental education, and community engagement (Cook & Inman, 2012; O’Brien & Marzano, 2011). The structure and delivery of these activities can be variable and often locally driven, with priorities shaped by the resources and interests of staff, volunteers, and partner organisations (O’Brien & Marzano, 2011). While this decentralised approach can lead to variability in approaches and outcomes, it also enables responsiveness to local environmental and social contexts.

Monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity outcomes linked to volunteer-led conservation is uneven. Informal and ad hoc volunteering models do not always lend themselves to standardised outcome reporting, and no single monitoring framework fits all contexts (O’Brien & Marzano, 2011). At the same time, evidence on the biodiversity impacts of environmental volunteering projects is not well represented in the academic literature. Rather, the academic literature on environmental volunteering tends to centre more on themes such as data quality, volunteer management, motivations and barriers to participation, and social and psychological outcomes of engaging in volunteering. As a result, evidence to quantify the biodiversity impacts resulting from volunteer work often comes from conservation organisations' own reports and evaluations.

For example, The Conservation Volunteers (TCV) reported that 13,662 volunteers participated in 115,331 workdays in 2023–24, contributing to improvements in 1,354 green spaces (TCV, 2024). TCV projects were estimated to have delivered, in 2023-24 alone, environmental outcomes including 1,602 biodiversity net gain units^[4] from creation of meadows, wildflower and tree planting, 4.2 km of water quality improvements, 55 ha benefiting from invasive species management, 269 tonnes air pollution absorbed by trees, and 233,396 tCO2e carbon sequestered (TCV, 2025). TCV’s ‘I Dig Trees’ programme has supported the planting of 3.7 million native trees by over 22,000 volunteers, with a target of 5 million in 2025 (TCV, 2024).

Volunteers also play an important role in biodiversity monitoring, through programmes supporting trained volunteers to conduct ecological surveys and via broader citizen science programmes designed to encourage mass engagement (Broughton & Pocock, 2022). Coordinated by organisations such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and partners, these efforts form the basis of UK-level data on changes in populations of taxa including birds, bats, butterflies, plants and pollinators. Evaluation of JNCC’s Terrestrial Evidence Programme, involving more than 18,000 volunteers, highlighted substantial contributions to science and evidence on UK biodiversity, including large scale time series datasets and hundreds of peer-reviewed papers. This evidence supports policy, including providing national-level biodiversity indicators and meeting legislative requirements for reporting as part of international commitments, and informs management decisions on priority conservation species, exotic species, protected sites, and risk-management of zoonotic diseases (Robinson et al., 2018). The programme also represents high value for money, with volunteer time contributions estimated to be worth 20 times the organisational investment (Robinson et al., 2018).

There is debate in the literature on the quality of volunteer-collected and citizen science project data (Lewandowski & Specht, 2015; Lithgow & Timbrell, 2014). However, volunteer data can take different forms (from informal and opportunistic to structured surveys using systematic study protocols) and is not necessarily of poorer quality than professionally collected data (Lewandowski & Specht, 2015).

Beyond biodiversity outcomes, environmental volunteering has been associated with a range of benefits for participants. These include enhanced social capital and sense of community, improved health and wellbeing, and skills development (Colley et al., 2023; Currie et al., 2016; Robinson et al., 2018; Rogerson et al., 2017). For example, an evaluation of the health and wellbeing impacts of volunteering with The Wildlife Trusts (Rogerson et al., 2017) found that the percentage of participants reporting low wellbeing scores fell from 39% at baseline to 19% after 12 weeks of volunteering, and the wellbeing improvements experienced were greatest for those that began the programme with low wellbeing. There is also evidence that engaging in environmental volunteering and citizen science can lead to increases in nature connectedness and pro-environmental behaviours, however findings vary between studies and across different types of pro-environmental behaviour (Hine et al., 2008; Seymour et al., 2018; Toomey & Domroese, 2013). Also, because people who choose to participate often begin with fairly high levels of nature connectedness and capabilities to engage with nature, there may not always be a great deal of potential to significantly increase these attributes through engagement with nature in volunteering activities (Colley et al., 2023; Toomey & Domroese, 2013). Nonetheless, the positive outcomes associated with environmental volunteering span a range of policy areas including health, communities, skills and employment, and there is potential for synergistic effects of volunteering on participants’ relationship with nature and engagement with other types of pro-environmental behaviour. This suggests that the benefits of promoting environmental volunteering are likely to extend far beyond the outcomes for biodiversity alone and may support other pro-biodiversity behaviours discussed in this report.

Table 5: Summary of potential impacts of environmental volunteering

Biodiversity related impacts of volunteering

• Habitat management and restoration
• Management of invasive species
• Local, regional and national level species and taxa data produced

Synergistic impacts environmental volunteering

• Health and wellbeing benefits to participants
• Social and community benefits
• Participant skills development and employability
• Volunteer work can improve accessibility of nature recreation sites and quality of the local environment more generally
• Supporting environmental education
• Enhancing nature connectedness, with potential for spillover to different pro-biodiversity behaviours

Trade-offs associated with environmental volunteering

• Potential for lower data quality for citizen science and volunteer-collected ecological data.

4.2.2 Wildlife gardening

Wildlife gardening comprises a variety of pro-biodiversity behaviours that aim to improve habitat for wildlife and mitigate pollution from gardening practices. These include planting native and pollinator friendly garden plants, planting species that provide food sources for wildlife at different times of the year (e.g. fruiting plants, selecting plants that flower at different times of the year), adopting lower intensity management practices (e.g. mowing lawn less often, leaving areas unmaintained, avoiding cutting or trimming hedges during bird nesting season), avoiding use of chemical weedkillers, pesticides and fertilisers, creating pond areas, and directly providing food and shelter for wildlife (see Appendix C table).

A recent review on the biodiversity value of residential gardens by Delahay et al. (2023) highlights that gardens are increasingly being recognised as important for biodiversity conservation. Private domestic gardens make up a significant proportion of urban land cover and are therefore central in supporting urban populations of plant and animal species and delivering ecosystem services in urban areas. Urban areas can be important landscapes for biodiversity as they offer a mosaic of heterogeneous habitats, yet at the same time they can also represent homogenised environments with substantial populations of non-native species (Delahay et al., 2023; Ives et al., 2016). Urban areas in the UK provide important habitat for particular bird species (Gregory & Baillie, 1998) and pollinators (Baldock et al., 2019) and garden ponds can be particularly valuable for the conservation of amphibians like frog and newt species given a decline in the number of pond habitats in the wider countryside (Delahay et al., 2023; Gaston et al., 2005). In 2009, it was estimated that in the UK around 87% of homes have access to a garden, with gardens covering a total area of 432,924 ha (Davies et al., 2009). Given the high percentage of homes with gardens, and the availability of easy ways for householders to support biodiversity in gardens (Gaston et al., 2005), there is significant potential to enhance biodiversity through widespread adoption of wildlife gardening practices. Some practices are already widespread, particular bird feeding – over 60% of UK households regularly feed birds in their garden (Reynolds et al., 2017). It is also important to consider multiple scales and connectivity of habitats, as the potential biodiversity benefits of improving small, isolated areas of land will be much lower than if improvements can contribute to the connectivity of greenspaces as part of a landscape-scale green infrastructure network (Goddard et al., 2010).

The systematic review by Delahay and colleagues (2023) on the ecological impacts of different types of wildlife gardening practices confirms that gardens with a greater diversity of plants and habitats present, flowers (particularly native flowering plants) present, and more extensive vegetation cover harbour a greater diversity and abundance of invertebrate and vertebrate animal species. At the same time, more intense management regimes such as frequent mowing and fertiliser and pesticide use tend to be associated with lower biodiversity, however the evidence is still somewhat mixed on the effects of different types of mowing regimes (Delahay et al., 2023). Considering pollinator species specifically, a meta-analysis of studies assessing relationships between garden attributes and pollinator abundance, diversity, presence or visitation found strongest evidence for positive effects in gardens with greater plant diversity and woody vegetation present, but evidence on the impacts of selecting native versus non-native plants, of flower abundance, and chemical use were more mixed, with no clear statistically significant effects emerging when analysing studies together (Majewska & Altizer, 2020).

There are few experimental studies assessing the impacts of different gardening practices on biodiversity outcomes (Delahay et al., 2023). One experimental field study in Sheffield engaged householders in trying out a range of wildlife-friendly gardening practices. The study found that the most effective practices included introducing nest sites for solitary bees and wasps and creating ponds, whereas there was less evidence (within the timescales of the study) of the effectiveness of providing nest sites for bumblebees, adding log piles, and leaving patches of nettles to grow (Gaston et al., 2005). Other studies have found limited impacts of commercially available bug hotels, suggesting that these may be designed more with aesthetics in mind than the requirements of target species (Delahay et al., 2023). The use of bird feeders in residential gardens has a substantial impact on bird communities, attracting species that were previously rarely observed in gardens and boosting populations of the bird species that use feeders whilst other bird species remain stable (Plummer et al., 2019).

Alongside the potential biodiversity benefits of increasing adoption of wildlife gardening behaviours, the literature also highlights multiple benefits associated with gardening. These include health benefits associated with the physical activity of gardening, the relaxation and psychological restoration experienced as a result of spending time engaging with nature, and potential to support human-nature connections more broadly (Cameron, 2023). Promoting nature in our own gardens, or within community gardens or allotments, could also support public engagement with biodiversity more specifically, and may encourage other pro-biodiversity behaviours like engaging with citizen science initiatives (Reynolds et al., 2017). At the same time, although most wildlife-friendly gardening practices are very safe, there are potential risks highlighted. These include public concerns about hazards to child safety posed by ponds and their potential to attract biting insects (Vasco et al., 2024), and risks of transfer of diseases or alien species from garden ponds to natural ponds (Gaston et al., 2005). In relation to bird feeding, concerns have also been raised about the role of bird feeders in creating dependencies on humans for food, potential to spread disease and attract vermin, and provision of inadequate nutrition (Reynolds et al., 2017).

Table 6: Summary of potential impacts of wildlife gardening

Biodiversity related benefits of wildlife gardening

• Increasing plant diversity in urban areas
• Providing habitat and food sources for urban vertebrate and invertebrate populations, including threatened pollinator species
• Reducing impacts of pesticides on invertebrate populations
• Reducing pollution and environmental damage through nutrient leaching, fertiliser production and peat extraction
• Co-ordinated efforts have potential to improve habitat connectivity across the urban landscape

Synergistic impacts of wildlife gardening

• Human health and wellbeing benefits from physical activity and restoration in gardens
• Potential to support public engagement in biodiversity and nature connections more broadly

Trade-offs associated with wildlife gardening

• Some wildlife-friendly gardening measures may carry (perceived or actual) risks e.g. safety hazards of ponds, attracting biting insects and vermin, increasing disease transmission in wild populations.

4.2.3 Managing impacts of pets

Domestic pets are a central part of human society and our relationship with the animal world; however, pets can also have adverse impacts on ecosystems (Crowley et al., 2020b; Sykes et al., 2020). The literature on these impacts is primarily concerned with dogs and cats and the behaviours of dog and cat owners. Some of these impacts relate to the environmental impacts associated with pet feed, many of which mirror those discussed in section 4.1 around human food consumption. One study estimated that was that pet food consumption by dogs and cats in the USA amounts to around 25-30% of the environmental impact associated with consumption of meat by humans (Okin, 2017). Also, insecticides used in flea treatments for cats and dogs are harmful to wildlife when released into the environment e.g. when dogs enter waterways, or when birds use discarded pet fur to line nests (Bateman & Gilson, 2025; Tassin de Montaigu et al., 2025).

Another area of focus is around the impacts of cats’ hunting behaviour on wildlife. An international systematic review of cats’ impacts on wildlife (Loss et al., 2022) found that most studies observe a negative impact on at least one ecological outcome variable. It also highlights that the majority of the literature in this area has focused on oceanic island ecosystems and Australia, rural areas, and on impacts of unowned rather than owned cats. The impact of cats on wildlife is highly dependent on context. For example, the impact of cats (pet cats and feral) in Australasia are increasingly recognised, where they have been implicated in the extinction of native species, however Australasian ecosystems are more vulnerable to impacts of cats (and dogs) as introduced predators, having evolved in isolation and without equivalent mammal predators (Crowley et al. 2020). Similarly, there is clear evidence on the substantial impacts of cats as an invasive predator in island ecosystems (Loss & Marra, 2017). In relation to mainland contexts (including larger islands like Great Britain) there is quantitative evidence on the volume of kills, and evidence on negative correlations between populations of some species (e.g. field mouse, several songbirds) and cat density in UK contexts. It is, however, very difficult to disentangle the causal impact of this predation on populations and on biodiversity indicators, and there is debate over whether a precautionary approach should be taken in absence of clear evidence on the magnitude of impacts (Loss & Marra, 2017).

Containing cats indoors is one method suggested to reduce hunting; cat confinement is, however, strongly opposed by cat owners in the UK, with particular concerns around the need for cats to have outdoor access and potential impacts on cat health and wellbeing if contained (Crowley et al., 2020a). Crowley et al. (2020a) in a study of UK cat owners, argue that while restrictive policies are unlikely to be successful due to this lack of acceptance by cat owners, many owners are concerned about potential impacts to wildlife and/or the welfare of prey animals and would be willing to engage in other ways to help reduce kills but are uncertain about the effectiveness and welfare implications of different options. At the same time, it is also important to note that pest control remains an important reason that people keep cats, particular in rural areas (Crowley et al., 2020a). For those that do wish to limit cats’ predation on wildlife, other options can include using collar mounted devices including bells, sonic devices and bibs, however the evidence on their effectiveness is underdeveloped (Cecchetti et al., 2021; Loss et al., 2022). Whilst some studies have found bells to reduce predation by up to 50%, others have found no effect. Evidence on the effectiveness of collar-mounted sonic devices and ‘pounce protector’ bibs is limited but shows indications that these may be promising options to reduce kills, though the impact of these different measures appears to vary according to type of prey (e.g. for birds versus mammals) and suggests they are not effective for all cats (Cecchetti et al., 2021; Loss et al., 2022). Cats may also adapt their hunting styles over time to compensate for these impediments so there is a need for research to assess the long-term impacts (Cecchetti et al., 2021). Given the concern of many cat owners about animal welfare or wildlife impacts of their cats’ hunting, there may be opportunities to engage cat owners in citizen science to develop effective strategies to manage their cat’s ‘ecological pawprint’ (Crowley et al., 2020a). At the same time, there are also potential risks to cats’ welfare from wearing collars (Arhant et al., 2022), which may deter cat owners from adopting or trialling collar-mounted devices.

Domesticated dogs (including feral dogs) have had a pronounced impact on biodiversity and threatened species internationally, particularly as an introduced predator in Australia and New Zealand, and other specialised island ecosystems (Bateman & Gilson, 2025; Sykes et al., 2020). In the UK context, the conservation and biodiversity impacts of predation and disturbance by dogs depend on context, with urban and peri-urban areas seeing higher levels of disturbance, and protected areas being vulnerable to impacts (Thomas et al., 2024). Impacts also depend on the receptor species in question, with populations of seabirds and ground-nesting birds particularly susceptible to attacks and disturbance (Bateman & Gilson, 2025; Beasley et al., 2023; Thomas et al., 2024).

With cats, predation and disturbance impacts occur when they are free-ranging, however for dogs these impacts occur most often when they are accompanied by owners on visits to natural environments. This means that owner behaviours are central to mediating impacts during these visits (Bateman & Gilson, 2025). Keeping dogs on a lead in natural environments, particularly the most sensitive areas, can mitigate impacts of predation and disturbance, yet rules to keep dogs on leads in particular spots are often disregarded despite other potential benefits (e.g. avoiding dog fights and attacks on people or livestock) (Papworth & Thomas, 2025). Even on-lead dog-walking can impact on wildlife through disturbance, leading to wildlife avoiding areas of high dog-walking or adjusting the timing of their use of these areas (Bateman & Gilson, 2025). Keeping dogs on-lead and preventing them from entering water in protected areas may also help to mitigate the pollution of waterways with insecticides from flea and tick treatments, with consequent impacts to aquatic invertebrates (Perkins et al., 2021). The presence of dog mess and urine can also impact ecosystems through disturbing wildlife (acting as a signal of the presence of a predator), contributing to nitrogen and phosphate loads in soils and waterways and through the spread of disease and parasites to wildlife (Bateman & Gilson, 2025). Going beyond the environmental impacts, leaving dog mess can carry disease risks for human health and livestock, and have social and economic impacts through deterring people from visiting places and costs incurred by local authorities in cleaning up dog waste and responding to complaints about dog mess (Lowe et al., 2014).

Table 7: Summary of potential impacts of pet ownership behaviours

Biodiversity benefits of managing impacts of pets

• Measures to impede cats from hunting could help reduce attacks on wildlife (e.g. songbirds), although overall impacts on populations and biodiversity are unclear.
• Keeping dogs on lead in sensitive natural areas can avoid attacks reduce disturbance to wildlife (particularly vulnerable coastal and ground-nesting bird populations).
• Keeping dogs out of water may help to limit transfer of insecticides from flea and tick treatments.
• Cleaning up dog mess can help mitigate risk of spreading disease.

Synergistic impacts of managing impacts of pets

• Measures to reduce cats’ predation has animal welfare implications – reducing suffering of prey animals.
• Keeping dogs on lead can reduce the risks of attacks to dogs, people and livestock.
• Cleaning up dog mess could reduce risks to human health, and negative economic and social impacts of high incidence of dog fouling.

Trade-offs associated with managing impacts of pets

• There are concerns about the implications of cat containment approaches for the health and wellbeing of free-ranging cats.
• There is uncertainty about the welfare implications for cats of collar-mounted devices to reduce predation.
• There may be implications for dogs’ health and wellbeing from limiting opportunities to run off-lead.

4.3 Outdoor recreation behaviours

4.3.1 Leaving natural places as you found them

Linked closely to responsible dog walking behaviours, this section outlines evidence on the biodiversity impacts of adopting responsible outdoor recreation behaviours more broadly, with a focus on direct and local level impacts centring on reducing disturbance, limiting the spread of invasive species, and mitigating pollution and litter in natural environments. As with dog walking, the impacts of outdoor recreation are highly contextually dependent and, whilst relevant across natural environments, pressure from recreational use is a particular concern in protected areas containing sensitive species and habitats. While different recreational activities carry different potential environmental impacts, we focus here on studies providing evidence on recreational impacts in general, and on those uses that are most widespread and accessible, such as hiking, walking, wildlife watching and picnicking (Gilchrist et al., 2024; Stewart & Eccleston, 2025).

A systematic review on pro-environmental behaviours in protected areas (Esfandiar et al., 2022a) highlights not only a range of relevant behaviours, but also a range of different types of visitors to protected areas, including local visitors, and domestic and international visitors/tourists. Whilst observing plants, animals, and landscapes offers valuable opportunities for visitors to experience and connect with nature, recreation and tourism can impact biodiversity negatively and cause environmental damage in protected areas (Esfandiar et al, 2022). There is strong evidence that disturbance from recreation is negatively associated with habitat quality and biodiversity, both in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Gilchrist et al., 2024; Meyer et al., 2021). Of the literature focusing on specific behaviours in protected areas, staying on trails is one of the most commonly studied (Esfandiar et al, 2022). Deviating from established routes can lead to damage to fragile vegetation from trampling, can reduce soil quality and increase erosion (Gilchrist et al., 2024; Martin & Butler, 2017). Impacts of trampling can be especially pronounced in mountain habitats (Martin & Butler, 2017). At the same time, however, some plant species respond well to trampling and there are examples of where trampling has increased plant diversity (Martin & Butler, 2017). Recreational activities like picnicking and barbequing can also have negative impacts on vegetation and soil, due to damaging plants, bushes and young trees in nearby areas (Zeidenitz et al., 2007). Disturbance from recreation, including walking off-trail can also impact on wildlife. UK studies have found evidence that areas of high recreational use have been associated with lower presence and/or breeding success of some bird species, although evidence is mixed as impacts are species- and context- dependent (Gilchrist et al, 2024). Fewer studies explore impacts to mammal species, but there is evidence of impacts of disturbance from hiking on the behaviour of red deer in the Cairngorms, and consequently the quality of their diet (Gilchrist et al., 2024; Sibbald et al., 2011). Other studies of recreation within the Cairngorms National Park document impacts on the distribution of Capercaillie, trampling effects on vegetation and soil quality, and faecal contamination of watercourses (Forrester & and Stott, 2016; Gilchrist et al., 2024; Summers et al., 2022)

Recreational use can also increase risks of spread of invasive species and of wildfire occurrence. Angling, canoeing and other boating activities can lead to spread of non-native species in freshwater ecosystems, but vigilance and action from recreational boat-users can help to improve biosecurity (Britton et al., 2023). These behaviours include those advised in the ‘Check Clean Dry’ campaign – targeting visual inspection of boats, cleaning and drying, to remove and/or kill invasive species (Britton et al., 2023). In terrestrial ecosystems, spread of invasive species to sensitive habitats is also a concern, leading to interventions to facilitate cleaning of footwear before beginning a walk/hike (Veríssimo et al., 2024). In relation to wildlife risks, lack of care by recreational users can lead to wildfire, ignited through campfires, barbecues and unextinguished cigarettes. Wildfire incidents can have significant negative impacts on wildlife and biodiversity, as well as posing a hazard to people and property and impacting on air quality. The risks of wildfire occurring are likely to increase due to climate change, meaning the role of recreational users’ behaviour in limiting sources of ignition is becoming increasingly important (Belcher et al., 2021; Gilchrist et al., 2024).

Finally, actions by recreational users to avoid littering and remove it from natural environments can help mitigate the hazards to wildlife posed particularly by discarded plastics. Wildlife can be injured through becoming trapped or entangled in litter or mistaking it for food, and toxic chemicals from plastic ingested by wildlife can persist in the food chain, leading to additional hazards for wildlife and humans (Chaudhary et al., 2021; Sigler, 2014). The impacts of litter as a source of pollution in aquatic and marine environments are particularly significant, involving transport of litter over large areas, meaning that littering can lead to both localised and widespread impacts (Nelms et al., 2020; Sigler, 2014).

Table 8: Summary of potential impacts of responsible outdoor recreation behaviours.

Biodiversity benefits of responsible outdoor recreation behaviours

• Staying on trails and avoiding damaging vegetation can help to reduce disturbance impacts on plant communities, wildlife and soil health.
• Recreational hygiene behaviours can help reduce the spread of invasive species.
• Avoiding introducing sources of ignition can mitigate risks of wildfire and associated impacts on habitats and wildlife.
• Putting rubbish in bins and picking up litter can avoid contributing to pollution and hazards to wildlife, particularly in marine environments.

Synergistic impacts of responsible outdoor recreation behaviours

• Wildfires pose risks to human health and safety as well as to property.
• Avoiding littering has potential impacts on human health and enjoyment of natural environments, and reduces costs associated with removing litter.

Trade-offs associated with responsible outdoor recreation behaviours

4.4 Social and advocacy behaviours

4.4.1 Being a champion for biodiversity

This is a wide set of behaviours, the impact pathways of which are much less direct than other behaviours and therefore are harder to assess to identify the magnitude of their potential impacts on biodiversity (Selinske et al., 2020). However, insights from across the social sciences indicate that such social and advocacy behaviours, which fall within public- and social-sphere environmentalism (contrasted with private-sphere activity) should not be overlooked as they have the potential to underpin significant societal shifts in favour of nature recovery (Borg et al., 2024; L. R. Larson et al., 2015; Selinske et al., 2020). These behaviours vary substantially in how easy they are to perform – environmental activism has been described as a set of difficult pro-environmental behaviours, often requiring a high level of commitment and energy (Fornara et al., 2020). This is particularly likely to be the case for behaviours relating to running for local government and campaigning. Engaging in local meetings, writing to elected officials, voting and signing petitions are less demanding acts, but this does not necessarily mean they are easier to change. While these behaviours should be considered as part of the wider discussion about what private individuals can do to support biodiversity, given the political nature of these behaviours we might question whether it is appropriate for government policy to seek to influence this type of civic engagement. For this reason, policy might usefully focus attention on the more social behaviours that involve talking to others about and sharing appreciation for nature and biodiversity, encouraging one another in our efforts to support biodiversity, and amplifying the messages of other actors seeking to effect change.

Literature from across the social sciences speaks to the importance of social influence on the pro-environmental behaviour (Farrow et al., 2017; Phu et al., 2021). Numerous theoretical perspectives are employed to explore such influences, some of the most influential being around social norms. Normative social influence can be characterised in terms of descriptive social norms (referring to behaviour that is commonly performed) and injunctive norms (relating to behaviour that is socially approved) (Cialdini et al., 1991). In the environmental sphere, research suggests that, internationally, the majority of people want to see stronger action on climate change and are willing to act, yet at the same time underestimate the extent to which others around them feel the same way (Andre et al., 2024). Additionally, descriptive norms are most often spread through observing what others do, however private-sphere behaviours are not highly visible to those outside of the household. Talking about nature and biodiversity and what we can do to support it therefore has a potentially powerful role in spreading positive social norms. Considering how information flows in social networks, these positive messages may be particularly impactful when they come through highly connected opinion leaders, and through learning from trusted peers (de Lange et al., 2019).

Table 9: Summary of potential impacts of being a biodiversity champion.

Biodiversity benefits of championing biodiversity

• Talking to others about biodiversity, encouraging and supporting others in pro-biodiversity behaviours can help to spread social norms
• Messages from trusted individuals and people connected to social networks can be more impactful than from external parties
• Activism and advocacy behaviours have the potential to influence powerful actors
• The magnitude of potential impacts of social and advocacy behaviours is uncertain, as the pathways of impact are highly indirect

Synergistic impacts of championing biodiversity

• Spreading positive social norms around pro-biodiversity behaviours may help to create supportive social conditions for other pro-environmental behaviour change

Trade-offs associated with championing biodiversity

• Nil

4.5 Financial behaviours

4.5.1 Investing in biodiversity

This final set of pro-biodiversity behaviours relates to financial decisions and investments that can support biodiversity.

Non-governmental and charitable conservation organisations may rely on membership subscriptions or donations from the public to fund their activities, whether centred on supporting nature internationally or on a national or local level. Fundraising can therefore be a key determinant of success of such organisations (Gallo‐Cajiao et al., 2018; Veríssimo et al., 2018). Donating to conservation organisations, or otherwise financially contributing (e.g. through purchasing or contributing to crowdfunding) can therefore have an indirect but potentially substantial cumulative contribution to biodiversity action (Selinske et al., 2020). Those who are members or make donations to charities will typically receive newsletters and further information that may further enhance their understanding and support for pro-biodiversity action. Across the UK, on average 1.1% of personal income is donated to charitable causes, resulting in £1.1 billion donated in Scotland just in 2024 (Charities Aid Foundation, 2025b). However, much of this will go to non-environmental causes such as health, with only about 5% going to environmental related causes (Charities Aid Foundation, 2025a). Thus, whilst NGOs are ‘key players’ in conservation action, resourcing their operations is a common challenge (Cook & Inman, 2012).

Recognition that a lack of capital is a key limitation on biodiversity conservation action globally underpins a growing interest, in recent years, in highlighting and creating new opportunities for private sector involvement in supporting pro-environmental actions. Potential models for engagement range from companies transacting differently to protect their supply chains and operations, through to identifying new nature-based products models or finding new opportunities for for-profit investments – all of which are sometimes labelled green finance. Individuals have some influence over this through the investment choices they make, e.g. opting for ethical or green portfolios in pension funds or stocks and shares ownership.

Most private citizens do not have an investment portfolio to manage. For example, those owning stocks and shares ISAs tend to be those with the highest incomes (HM Revenue & Customs, 2024). However, a larger proportion of the population contribute towards a pension. It is estimated that over £300 billion of UK pension funds are invested in businesses, sectors and financial institutions with high deforestation risk, equating to £2 of every £10 saved in a pension contributing to deforestation risk (Gorman, 2022; Make My Money Matter et al., 2022). The group Make My Money Matter also report that the impact of individuals greening their pension on their carbon footprint would be 21 times greater than the combined effect of giving up flying and meat and switching energy provider (Make My Money Matter et al., 2022), although the source for this estimation is not provided.

Individuals can help to make a difference by putting pressure on employers, pension providers and banks to find out what their pensions are invested in and demand that pension funds commit to pro-environmental strategies such as deforestation-free portfolios (Gorman, 2022; Make My Money Matter et al., 2022). However, individuals (as well as fund managers) need information to understand and make pro-environmental investments. Support for pro-environmental investing is likely to be supported by regulations on how funds can be described, and requirements to disclose Environmental Social and Governance information. For example, the forthcoming UK Green Taxonomy is intended to support market participants to make sustainable investment decisions (HM Treasury, 2025).

Table 10: Summary of potential impacts of investing in biodiversity

Biodiversity benefits of investing in biodiversity

• Avoided degradation of nature
• More resources and support for pro-environmental charities

Synergistic impacts of investing biodiversity

• Donating to pro-environmental charities can result in receiving information that may support further understanding and awareness.

Trade-offs associated with investing in biodiversity

• May lead to reduced returns on investment portfolios, at least in short term