By definition, surely a nature reserve is there for nature, right? But they also rely on people managing them, and they often hold huge significance for local (human) communities… there are many nature reserves that cater for human enjoyment just as much as they do for the wildlife. So we asked our community: what is a nature reserve and what should our role as humans be with them?

"Call me weird but half earth, the science fiction idea that humans must vacate half of the planet for other species is what I think we should be doing, or at least aiming for.

A nature reserve - that’s in my mind a pocket, where habitat is preserved but humans come to watch what is going on. I mean not a lot different from a zoo. Nearly all the places where I have been are really gardens in which animals are tolerated.

The struggle for existence for other species (not humans) is defined by three constraints. Lack of habitat; lack of food; AND lack of continuity. If you look at many UK butterfly distributions they show up as patches, blobs, pockets. Isolated places where species are still found. But are also likely functionally extinct.

Why did the animal cross the road. To get to the other side.

So what is a nature reserve - it’s socially acceptable zoo.

The birds at least can move around. As they are because of the rush of climate change. The efforts of everyone to keep species alive is admirable, but we need an umbrella solution, and even that may not work now we have passed 1.5º of warming."

- Stuart R

"(Nature Reserves are) a place for nature to thrive. But also open to the public no matter what your income. Without seeing and experiencing nature you will not feel the need to value and protect it.

Education and information is also important."

- Neenah B

"I am really worried about the impact of people on nature. 

I feel there needs to be reinvestment in the public green spaces where some animals and birds can thrive alongside human traffic. This is important for everyone. Existing footpaths need to be kept open with stronger penalties for landowners who block them and managed spaces where human impacts are mitigated with litter clearance and the fencing off of breeding areas need to increase.

However, it is also necessary to protect significant areas of the countryside from human activity altogether. 

The support given to 'right to roam' threatens habitats that enjoy protection today including the important network of habitats protected by small landowners with just a few acres.  Conservationists need to wake up to the impotence of voluntary countryside codes and accept that access by humans to the countryside comes with the risk of wiping out nature. Where human activity is not managed or controlled, litter with glass fragments can cause injury and fire, dogs attack wildlife, humans and dogs trample nests, barbecues cause fires, pollutants are introduced into waterways and general disturbance disrupts feeding and breeding.

I have personal experience of allowing a small area of pasture and woodland to revert to nature. Undisturbed, I have watched nature flourish. This has taken a lot of quiet work. If 'right to roam' was introduced this land would become a dog walking area trampled and littered. The ground nesting birds would be lost and I would lose any pleasure that I take in currently managing the land for nature. To avoid conflict with people over dropping litter or walking dogs unleashed I would sell up and move or just stop going near this area of land. All of the work to allow nature to flourish would be undone. Scale this up all over the country and the nature crisis will become a 'conservationist led' disaster.

I strongly feel that well-intentioned conservationists need to 'get real' about what human activity consists of and the harm it does to nature. Controlled and managed spaces, where oversight and litter clearance prevent trampling, fire, and pollution are necessary for humans and should be expanded with more public parks and the protection of existing footpaths. However, a great deal of space also needs to be set aside for nature and this must not be threatened by 'right to roam' pressure groups and 'PC' policies to 'open access' to the public being adopted by charities which have been established to protect nature. Protecting nature means protecting it from humans as human activity is what has caused the depletion of our wildlife and the destruction of habitats.

I think that a nature reserve should be a place where nature is prioritised and protected from human activity. It can combine large areas where humans are excluded with small managed areas where the public can safely access and view some of the results of that protection. These areas need oversight and maintenance with staff to clear up litter and to intervene to prevent destructive human-related behaviours. Signage, fencing and a staffing presence can keep these small areas safe for nature while allowing humans to benefit. However, the bulk of any nature reserve should be protected from human disturbance of any kind at all."

- Helen S

"A nature reserve by definition should be an area that is protected indefinitely for the benefit of natural habitats. 

Without natural habitats the food chain breaks down which affects everything.

They need to be managed to enable endangered species recovery and to allow ‘people’ to learn and foster responsibility especially in our future generations. 

However, nature has a wonderful way of balancing itself if it is allowed to so the management should also keep this in mind.

We need more diversity of nature reserves  and they shouldn’t be used as a nod towards biodiversity net gain in order to allow local developments. I’ve never met wildlife yet that has been able to pack its suitcase and move to its new designated area just because a developer says so."

- Christine M