A baseline ecosystem services assessment of the Lakeland landscape

Author: Dr Alison Holt

Reviewed by: Dr Jim Rouquette Natural Capital Solutions Ltd

Contact details: www.naturalcapitalsolutions.co.uk [email protected] Tel: 07973 332758

Report prepared for: Sheffield & Wildlife Trust

January 2018

Executive summary The Sheffield Lakeland area lies between the western edge of the , and the moorland slopes of the National Park. It encompasses the watersheds of Sheffield’s main rivers, including eight reservoirs that provide drinking water to surrounding areas and beyond. It is also an area important for the conservation of biodiversity with nationally and internationally important habitats and species. The area has a rich cultural heritage and many visitors are drawn to the recreational opportunities and aesthetic experiences that the area offers.

The Sheffield Lakeland is also a place where people live and supports livelihoods associated with the land, for example farming and grouse moor management. These activities sit alongside the other values placed on the landscape outlined above, and create challenges for the sustainable management of the area. Declining biodiversity, habitat degradation, diffuse pollution, rising recreational numbers and flooding are increasing pressures.

This project uses a natural capital approach to assess the ecosystem services provided by the Sheffield Lakeland area. This will serve as a baseline by which to compare the success of the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership projects. The first step was to understand the extent of the natural capital assets (habitats) in the area. A qualitative assessment was made of the level of provision of the full range of ecosystem services provided by the Lakeland area. Five ecosystem services have been spatially mapped (reduction of air pollution, reduction of storm water runoff, carbon storage, opportunities for cultural ecosystem services and provision for flora and fauna. Three further services have been non-spatially quantified (carbon sequestration, air pollution reduction and timber production).

A natural capital asset register has been created. It shows that improved grassland covers the largest percentage (26%) of the Sheffield Lakeland area, with significant areas of bog habitats (17%), woodland (15%), heather (9%) and heather grassland (9%). Acid grassland, rough grassland and arable assets feature at smaller extents (~5-6%). These assets support a wide range of provisioning, regulating and cultural services. The most significant delivery is of drinking water provision, with agricultural production and cultural services, such as recreation and aesthetic experiences also being supported to a high level of provision. Regulating services tend to be at a lower level due to the predominance of agricultural activity and grazed grassland.

The spatially and non-spatially quantified ecosystem services show the importance of the woodland and bog habitats for storing carbon, reducing storm water runoff, providing areas for recreation and habitat for biodiversity. Woodland is also important for timber production and the reduction of air pollution, particularly on the urban fringes where airborne pollution is higher. Other habitats play a role in some of these services, but to a much smaller degree.

The breadth of Sheffield Lakeland Partnership projects can potentially increase the capacity of the area to provide ecosystem services across all categories of services. The projects focused on habitat creation, the promotion of natural flood management and woodlands for water planting, are likely to increase the delivery of important regulating services such as water quality regulation, flood alleviation, air

2 quality regulation, carbon sequestration, and increase recreational opportunities as well as improving habitat for wildlife. Other projects that are focused on improving access to the natural environments, creating locally inspired art and music, will also increase the cultural services.

In order to achieve the aspirations of the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership project, there is a need to promote the sustainable management of multiple ecosystem service benefits. There are trade-offs between the provisioning service of agricultural production promoting a dominance of improved grassland, and the delivery of other regulating ecosystem services such as water quality regulation, flood alleviation, carbon sequestration and erosion control. It is key to understand which habitats can be extended or created, as well as restored to better quality, and where these should be targeted to maximise the provision of multiple services. Given the predominance of agriculture, it would be worth considering the feasibility of Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes to incentivise management towards creating more diverse habitats, or reducing specific impacts. Opportunity mapping and existing hydrological modelling should be used to target the planting of woodlands for water, to ensure that benefits can be gained across a wide range of services. Collaboration with partnerships for improving moorland habitat would also be beneficial for water and carbon storage benefits. Exploring the sites where recreational opportunities, both physical and experiential, can be created alongside the benefits discussed above should be a priority. Careful expansion of the ‘Outdoor Economy’ is required so as not cause a decline in the natural capital that supports the cultural services. Promoting the natural capital approach to sustainable management among the members of the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership may be very useful. Land owners and moorland managers particularly are becoming more familiar with the natural capital concept. Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes that offer additional income to change management practises may be a real incentive for management change, certainly if societal pressure to change management practices continues to rise.

It has not been possible to complete a comprehensive quantitative baseline assessment of the ecosystem services in the Sheffield Lakeland area. Important gaps are recreation, health and well-being and agricultural production. These could be included with access to further data and resource. A proposal for reviewing the ecosystem service provision of the Sheffield Lakeland area after the projects have finished is being written. It would be useful to express any increases (or losses) in ecosystem services in monetary terms at this stage. This shows the value of the enhanced public benefits, and will be a convincing way to present the impact of the SLLP project to key decision-makers and land managers.

3 Contents Executive summary ...... 2

Contents ...... 4

1. Background ...... 5 1.1 The natural capital approach ...... 6 1.2 Methodological approach ...... 8

2. Natural capital baseline assessment for the Sheffield Lakeland area ...... 9

3. Ecosystem service provision baseline assessment ...... 21 3.1 Qualitative ecosystem services assessment ...... 21 3.2 Quantitative ecosystem services assessment: spatial mapping ...... 21 3.3 Quantitative ecosystem services assessment: non-spatial estimation ...... 31 3.4 Summary ...... 31

4. Impact of on-going initiatives ...... 32

5. Impact of the SLLP projects on ecosystem service provision ...... 33

6. Summary and recommendations ...... 33

7. Future work ...... 34

Technical Appendix ...... 36

References ...... 42

4 1. Background The Sheffield Lakeland (SL) area lies between the western edge of the city of Sheffield and the moorland slopes of the Peak District National Park, and the Little Don Valley in the north and and the Rivelin Valley in the south. The area is characterised by moorland slopes and cloughs, enclosed gritstone upland, slopes and valleys with woodland, reservoirs and scattered settlement, and urban fringe. It is an important area for the conservation of biodiversity, with the western margins designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protected Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and encompassing other nationally important habitats for wildlife. It is also important for freshwater, with water flowing from the high moorlands, through valleys and streams into the rivers of Sheffield. The reservoirs that capture drinking water are a distinctive part of the landscape. The landscape holds evidence of its pre-industrial and industrial heritage, with weirs, ancient monuments and Cruck barns. This characteristic landscape provides homes, livelihoods, mainly through farming and land management, and recreational opportunities for many visitors, particularly around its reservoir sites.

Whilst this is a highly valued landscape there are challenges of declining biodiversity, habitat degradation, diffuse pollution, with increasing recreation and risk of flooding. The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership (SLLP) have created a series of projects that aim to address some of these challenges, but also to create a wilder and more natural and resilient landscape, that supports wildlife, helps to reduce flooding, provides clean air, improves health and well-being and offers recreational opportunities for all.

Aim The SLLP has commissioned Natural Capital Solutions to:

• provide a baseline ecosystem service assessment of the SL area and recommendations for positive interventions that can be implemented by the SLLP projects.

The baseline assessment of ecosystem services brings together existing spatial ecosystem service assessments that have included the SL area, rather than providing a new spatial assessment of ecosystem services. Three additional ecosystem services have been non-spatially estimated. This assessment also includes a qualitative overview of the baseline ecosystem service provision of the SL area, and how this might change after the SLLP projects have been completed.

5 1.1 The natural capital approach Natural capital can be defined as ‘..elements of nature that directly or indirectly produce value to people, including ecosystems, species, freshwater, land, minerals, the air and oceans’ Natural Capital Committee (2014). It is the stock of natural assets (e.g. soils, water, biodiversity) that produces a wide range of benefits to people. These benefits are known as ecosystem services, which include food production, regulation of flooding and climate, pollination of crops, and cultural benefits such as aesthetic value and recreational opportunities. These can be broken down into provisioning, regulating and cultural services (Figure 1.1). The supporting services (e.g. nutrient cycling) are considered to be ecological processes rather than services.

The concept of natural capital and its associated approaches can be used to understand the natural capital assets of an area or organisation. Through a natural capital assessment, it is possible to understand the extent and condition of those assets, so the number and the flow of ecosystem service benefits from those assets can be established. These benefits can then be valued. Information on condition, benefits and their value allows informed and transparent land management decisions to be made. It allows an understanding of the consequences of land management change (whether that be a change from one type of natural habitat to another, or from natural habitats to, for example, hard engineering or housing developments) on the range of benefits that can be provided by a landscape, how specific changes can be tailored to enhancing certain services or values, and how environmental change (e.g. climate change) may affect natural capital assets, their benefits and values. It can reveal the value of both public and private benefits that come from managing landscapes. It is key to identifying trade-offs and synergies between different ecosystem services.

Figure 1.1 Key types of ecosystem services (based on MA (2005))

There are three essential steps to complete when taking a spatial natural capital approach (Figure 1.2). The first is to assess and map the natural capital assets. This is a natural capital asset check (basis of a natural capital investment plan) and is also

6 the foundation of a natural capital account. It forms a baseline from which to keep track of subsequent changes in the assets, that will have knock on effects to ecosystem service provision. This requires bringing together data from a range of sources across different organisations, but also identifying whether these data are suitable for use in the estimation of the biophysical flow of a range of ecosystem services (Step 2). Step 2 requires a certain level of natural capital asset data on which to base the models which estimate ecosystem service flow / production. This varies depending on the type of models used to estimate the services (e.g. EcoServ GIS, LUCI), and on the services that are to be modelled (e.g. recreation, carbon sequestration, agricultural production). For the ecosystem service maps to be of any use as a decision-making tool, it also needs to be completed at an appropriate spatial resolution to the area of interest. The last step uses economic valuation to quantify the benefits that people gain from ecosystem services. Economic valuation can be estimated in a number of units but it is common to use monetary valuation because it is familiar, continuous unit of measurement and comparable. This requires further data on market values or other studies from which the value of benefits can be transferred. Cultural services remain difficult to value, and there are still no studies from which values can reliably be transferred for water quality and flood alleviation services.

Biodiversity is part of natural capital and performs important functions within ecosystems. It plays particularly important roles in relation to ecosystem services, although the complexities of these relationships are not fully understood. When considering the valuation of ecosystem services, biodiversity is important in a number of ways: (i) as a factor that regulates the ecosystem processes that underpin ecosystem services, (ii) as a final ecosystem service that contributes directly to some goods and their values, and (iii) it can itself be the good that has value.

Step 1. Assess and map natural capital assets Phase 1 and 2

Step 2. Quan5fy and map Phase 3 ecosystem service flows

Step 3. Valua5on of benefits Phase 3

Figure 1.2 Natural capital assessment framework

7 1.2 Methodological approach A spatial mapping approach is used to describe the extent and quality of the natural capital assets that provide ecosystem services in the SL area. Existing data on the extent and condition of the natural capital assets of these sub-catchments was gathered. An overview of the mosaic of broad habitats in the SL was achieved using the CEH Land Cover Map (LCM) 2007. Although now rather dated, this gives a good indication of the diversity of habitats in this area, and is the basis for many of the soil properties and ecosystem service maps. The terrestrial ‘Habitats of Principal Importance in ’ (Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 Section 41) data were also used.

A wide range of data has been used to assess the extent of the natural capital assets of the SL area. An assessment has been made of the extent of each habitat, and also their conservation status. An assessment of other important aspects of natural capital that act as a foundation for the provision of ecosystem services have been included, for example, carbon storage capacity, and accessibility for recreation.

The woodland data used was from the Forestry Commission’s National Forest Inventory. Data on carbon storage in the soil and above ground were from the Natural England and CEH natural capital maps (https://eip.ceh.ac.uk/naturalengland- ncmaps). The majority of the data were at the national level, so all maps were derived by clipping the data to the boundaries of the SL area using GIS software.

8 2. Natural capital baseline assessment for the Sheffield Lakeland area The Sheffield Lakeland area (outlined in green in Figure 2.1) lies between the western edge of the city of Sheffield and the moorland slopes of the Peak District National Park, and in total covers an area of ~14,500 ha. ¯

0 2.5 5 Kilometers

Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017

Figure 2.1 The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership area.

9 The SL area is characterised by 12 broad habitats (see Figure 2.2). The eastern fringes of the area are urban and suburban. Extending out from here are a mix of broadleaved woodland in the valleys with grazed improved grassland and reservoirs in the valley bottoms. Within this are patches of acid grassland, moving into rough and heather grassland, conifer plantations, heather and bog habitats in the higher western fringes. ´

Broadleaved woodland Coniferous woodland Arable and horticulture Improved grassland Rough grassland Acid grassland Heather Heather grassland Bog Freshwater Urban Suburban 0 4 Kilometers

Figure 2.2 Land Cover Map 2007 for the SLLP area. This shows 10 broad natural land covers and two built environment categories. Source: LCM2007 © and database right NERC (CEH) 2011. All rights reserved. © Crown Copyright and database right 2007. Ordinance Survey Licence number 100017572. © third party licensors.

10 There are a number of nationally important priority habitats in the SL area. These are important habitats for biodiversity. There are 10 priority habitat types with deciduous woodland and blanket bog as the most predominant of all the habitats (see Table 2.1).

Blanket bog Deciduous woodland Fragmented heath Good quality semi-improved grassland Grass moorland Lowland dry acid grassland Lowland fens Lowland heathland Lowland meadows Purple moor grass and rush pastures

Figure 2.3 NERC Priority Habitats in the SLLP area that cover an area of 2453.36 ha. Source: Natural England Priority habitat inventory for the North of England 2016.

11 Table 2.1 Area of each Priority Habitat in the SL area.

Habitat Area ha (% of priority habitat area) Blanket bog 819.38 (33.4) Broadleaved woodland 1090.08 (44.43) Fragmented heath 35.53 (1.45) Good quality semi- improved 41.51 (1.69) grassland Grass moorland 241.21 (9.83) Lowland dry acid grassland 6.85 (0.28) Lowland fens 4.20 (0.17) Lowland heathland 43.61 (1.78) Lowland meadows 15.76 (0.64) Purple moor grass and rush pastures 5.81 (0.24) Not main habitat but additional 149.44 (6.09) habitats present

To estimate the total area of woodland in the SL area, data from the National Forest Inventory was used. The extent of the woodland area under all stages of woodland management described in Figure 2.4 is 2188.40 ha. The area of coniferous woodland is 696.44 ha (35% of all woodland in SL not including felled areas and prepared ground) and of deciduous woodland is 1301.29 ha (65%). A significant proportion of the woodland area is ancient woodland (327 ha, 16.32%).

A significant proportion of the SL area has a protected status. The moorland habitats extending in from the western fringes are a SAC (4914.65 ha, 34% of the SL area), and SPA (5099.98 ha, 35%), and there are a number of sites designated SSSIs (5174.86 ha, 35%) in the same area and two sites in the east of the SL area (Figure 2.5). The area also encompasses a network of Local Wildlife Sites, which cover an area of 1313.53 ha (Figure 2.6). This includes reserves managed by the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust (SRWT), an area of 121.44 ha.

12 Assumed woodland Broadleaved Conifer Felled Ground prep Low density Mixed mainly broadleaved Mixed mainly conifer Shrub Young trees Ancient woodland

Figure 2.4 Different types and stages of managed woodland in the SLLP area. Source: Forestry Commission National Forest Inventory 2016).

13 Special Area of Conservation Special Protection Area Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Figure 2.5 UK and EU conservation designations in the SL area. Source: Natural England via data.gov.uk.

14 ´

Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust Reserves Local Wildlife Sites Figure 2.6 Local Wildlife Sites and Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust Reserves. Source: SRWT and Sheffield City Council.

15 Rivers WFD Waterbodies (Reservoirs) Flood zone 3 Flood zone 2

Figure 2.7 Rivers, waterbodies and flood zones in the SL area. Source: Environment Agency via data.gov.uk. OS Open Rivers

The SL area is comprised of 8 water bodies: Agden, Broomhead, Dale Dike, Langsett, Midhope, Redmires, and Strines reservoirs and (Figure 2.7). These cover an area of 207.98 ha. The rivers Don, Loxley, Porter and Rivelin flow through this area and total 120.32 km in length. It is evident that there is a 1% risk of flooding (Flood zone 3) around Langsett and Midhope reservoirs and on The Porter in the north of the SL area, downstream of on Ewden Beck, at on the , at Redmires reservoir and Rivelin Dams. This is an area of 452.12 ha. The flood risk reduces to 0.1% (Flood zone 2) as the rivers flow into the suburbs of the city, which is an area of 551.12 ha.

16 Live Environmental Stewardship Schemes

Figure 2.8 Live environmental stewardship agreements. Source: Natural England via data.gov.uk.

The SL landscape is shaped by agriculture and is a Less Favoured Area (LFA). As a result it is predominantly sheep farming in this area, which is reliant on government subsidies. Sheep grazing occurs on the open moors, but more significantly on hill sides and valley bottoms on improved grassland covering 3811.95 ha of the SL area. An area of 7319.91 ha is under a stewardship agreement (Figure 2.8): entry level (741.45 ha), entry level plus higher level (6547.89 ha), or higher level stewardship (30.57 ha)). Arable takes up a small proportion of the area covering only 749.81 ha.

17 CROW Open access (2008)

Figure 2.9 CROW open access areas of the SL area. Source: Natural England via data.gov.uk.

The SL area is important for recreation and provides a destination for a variety of activities, for example, walking, running, climbing, mountain biking and wildlife watching. An area of 5406.21 ha (37% of SL area) of the SL is open access, this is largely the moor and heath habitats (Figure 2.10). There are also numerous greenspaces on the eastern side of the area (251 ha) that are important for recreation and leisure (Figure 2.10).

18 ´

Greenspaces (recreational, institurtional etc)

Figure 2.10 Greenspaces for leisure and recreation. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2017.

19

Asset register

An asset register (Table 2.2) has been created for the SL area, based on the information presented above. This provides an important baseline summary of the natural capital assets of the project area. An asset register can be taken again after the SLLP projects have been completed to capture any habitat that has been created or lost. It has not been possible to make an assessment of the quality of the natural capital assets in this project, due to resource constraints. If data exist on the quality of these habitats, it would be useful to add this to the asset register. Many of the Partnership projects will focus on improved management of existing habitats, rather than extensive habitat creation, so it would be good to capture these changes in order to assess impacts.

Table 2.2 The area of each habitat type in the SL area and the proportion of the area it occupies. Habitat Area (Ha) % of SLLP area Woodland 1 2188.40 14.98 Bog habitats2 2536.34 17.36 Heather2 1303.83 8.93 Freshwater2 393.55 2.69 Improved 3811.95 26.10 grassland2 Heather grassland 2 1258.08 8.61 Acid grassland 2 876.58 6.00 Rough grassland 2 851.81 5.83 Total grassland 6975.96 47.76 habitats 2,3,4 Arable2 749.81 5.13 Suburban2 504.09 3.45 Urban2 132.82 0.91 Data sources: 1 National Forest Inventory 2016, 2 Land Cover Map 2007, 3 Priority Habitat Inventory 2016, 4 OS Greenspace 2017

The asset register shows that the dominant habitat within the SL area is improved grassland. Bog habitats and woodland are also significant habitats, with smaller areas of heather and heather grassland. Acid grassland, rough grassland and arable land covers occupy only small proportions of the area.

20 3. Ecosystem service provision baseline assessment

3.1 Qualitative ecosystem services assessment A qualitative assessment has been made of the ecosystem services provided by the Sheffield Lakeland area (Table 3.1). Existing studies that have measured ecosystem service provision (or ecosystem service flows) in the area have only measured a limited sub set of all the possible services that can be provided by the Lakeland landscape. This is largely due to the aims of the studies from which the maps and data are derived having different aims to this project, but also because some ecosystem services remain difficult to measure. The qualitative assessment outlined the type of services the area is likely to provide, and the level of delivery. The level of service provision is assigned taking into consideration the ecosystem services that would be expected to be supplied given the mix of habitats within the SL area. These are expert estimations, but are essentially best guesses. This assessment has been based on the latest Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES v5.1), and a qualitative description of ecosystem services provision used in the National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA 2011). Unsurprisingly there is very significant delivery of drinking water, and significant delivery of agricultural production, and some of the cultural services, for example aesthetic experiences, recreation and the need to conserve the natural environment. The regulating services tend to have a slightly lower delivery due to the predominance of agricultural activity and grazed grassland. Health and well-being is thought to be low despite the recreational opportunities.

3.2 Quantitative ecosystem services assessment: spatial mapping The only way to be reasonably sure of the level of delivery of an ecosystem service is to measure it using spatial modelling approaches. The quantitative analysis of ecosystem services in this section is based on work completed by a research team at the University of Sheffield (UoS) (see Holt et al. 2015). The aim of the research project was to understand the spatial distribution of ecosystem services across the Metropolitan Borough of Sheffield (MBS). The SL area occupies the western edge of the city, and the north-western section of the Peak District National Park within the MBS area. The UoS data were clipped to the SL area using GIS software. Five ecosystem services from the UoS study are relevant to the SL area: (i) reduction of air pollution by vegetation, (ii) reduction of storm water runoff through retention in soils and by vegetation, (iii) carbon storage in soils and vegetation, (iv) opportunities for cultural ecosystem services (e.g. recreation and relaxation) in greenspace, and the (v) provision of habitat for flora and fauna. The services have been modelled to South Historic Environment Character Areas (see Technical Appendix). The approach used to map and to model each of these ecosystem services, including the caveats that need to be considered when interpreting these analyses, have also been included in the Technical Appendix (p32). The following maps indicate the level of ecosystem service benefit that is provided by the green infrastructure / habitat in the SL area. This is shown for each of the five ecosystem services mapped individually, and also mapped together to show hotspots of multiple ecosystem service provision. Also included are maps of above ground and topsoil carbon clipped from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and Natural England natural capital maps.

21 Table 3.1 Qualitative estimation of the baseline delivery of ecosystem services in the SL area: – no delivery; -/+ some delivery but not significant, + delivery, ++ significant delivery; +++ very significant delivery. Ecosystem service Final services Baseline category provision Food: crop and livestock production ++ Provisioning Wild food plants ++ Fibre timber ++ Fuel: wood / wood fuel + Drinking water (surface and ground) +++ Bio-remediation + Sequestration and storage (carbon) ++ Filtration and accumulation (air quality ++ Regulating regulation) Erosion control and buffering of mass + movement Wind protection + Fire protection + Hydrological cycle and water flow (flood regulation) + Pest and disease control + Pollination + Water quality regulation + Soil quality regulation + Climate regulation + Habitat and population maintenance ++ Noise attenuation + Aesthetic experiences ++ Cultural Education, training and scientific + investigation and cultural heritage Health and well-being + Experiential and physical recreation ++ Characteristics and features of ++ biodiversity that are valued (existence, option, bequest) Spiritual and cultural experiences ++

22 Reduction of air pollution

1.12 - 1.23 1.23 - 1.32 1.32 - 1.41 1.41 - 1.51 1.51 - 1.68 1.68 - 2.21

Figure 3.1 The mean reduction in pollution (flux μg m-2 s-1) for Sheffield’s two most problematic pollutants PM10 and NO2 in the SL area. Source: Holt et al. (2015).

There is a low removal of pollutants in the moorland and freshwater habitats, and highest removal in areas of the SL with woodland. Trees are the most effective vegetation at absorbing airborne pollutants. Grassland habitats do absorb some pollution, but this is minimal.

23 Reduction of storm water runoff

0.06 - 0.87 0.87 - 1.34 1.34 - 1.74 1.74 - 2.26 2.26 - 2.82 2.82 - 3.26

Figure 3.2 The ability of natural land covers in the SL area to soak up storm water runoff (cm depth m-2). This is the average reduction in run off of a typical rainfall event in Sheffield, and an extreme rainfall event (based on June 2007). Source: Holt et al. (2015).

The middle section of the SLLP area from north to south, which comprises a mosaic of bog, heather, woodland, and a range in quality of grasslands, can retain the greatest amount of water, the higher bog is able to do this less well. The service is at its lowest in the suburban and urban areas due to sealed surfaces (note that the reservoirs are also poor at soaking up water, but the model only considered the capacity of vegetation to soak up water).

24 Carbon storage

1.45 - 48.68 48.68 - 87.71 87.71 - 124.03 124.03 - 175.87 175.87 - 276.24 276.24 - 675.45

Figure 3.3 The carbon storage capacity (tonnes per ha) of natural land covers in the SL area. Source: Holt et al. (2015).

The bog habitat areas at the western fringes are the most effective at storing carbon (particularly Howden, Broomhead, Midhope and Hallam Moors). Other habitats that show high carbon storage are woodlands, areas of heather and heather grassland. The total carbon stored using this modelling approach, which combines above ground vegetation and soil carbon, is 4,381,883 tonnes.

25

Above ground carbon 0.38 - 9.95 9.95 - 19.51 19.51 - 29.08 29.08- 38.64 38.64 - 48.21

Figure 3.4 Above ground carbon (tonnes per ha) mapped at 1 x 1 km. Contains data supplied by Natural Environment Research Council © NERC (Centre for Ecology & Hydrology). The total carbon stored by above ground vegetation is 141,836 tonnes in the SL area. The areas where carbon storage is low are the high moorland areas where there is little vegetation and the middle of the SL area, which is dominated by improved and rough grassland and grazing. Woodland is associated with the highest carbon storage values.

26

Topsoil carbon 49.67 - 58.50 58.50 - 67.33 67.33 - 76.16 76.16 - 84.98 84.98 - 93.81

Figure 3.5 Topsoil (0-15cm) carbon (tonnes per ha) mapped at 1 x 1 km. Contains data supplied by Natural Environment Research Council © NERC (Centre for Ecology & Hydrology). White areas are those without data.

The total topsoil carbon storage in the SLLP is 1,061,010 tonnes. Topsoil carbon is at its highest in the bog and heather habitats at the western side of the SL area. In good condition bog habitats act as a carbon sink and play an important role in the control of water resources (UK NEA 2011). There are still reasonably high levels of topsoil carbon in the east of the region. The lowest level appears to be associated with a large area of arable in the mid northern edge of the SL area.

27 Opportunities for cultural ecosystem services

0 1

Figure 3.6 Accessible areas for cultural ecosystem services (e.g. recreation) according to ANGSt guidelines (Natural England 2010). Source: Holt et al. (2015).

The area in red in Figure 3.6 shows which regions of the SL are accessible for benefiting from cultural ecosystem service benefits, according to the ANGSt criteria. This area (1) totals 8011.60 ha. These accessible areas are characterised by moorland, heather, heather grassland, woodland and areas around the reservoirs, common, parkland and cemeteries on the edges of the city. Inaccessible land is largely agricultural (pasture and arable/horticultural).

28 Provision of habitat for flora and fauna

0.04 - 1.19 1.19 - 1.60 1.60 - 1.90 1.90 - 2.12 2.12 - 2.33 2.33 - 2.61

Figure 3.7 The capacity of the SLLP area to provide habitat for flora and fauna measured using an index combining habitat diversity, area of natural land covers and their connectivity. Source: Holt et al. (2015).

Biodiversity is important for the resilience of ecosystems, and as the base for the provision of ecosystem services. This index reflects the proportion of the area that is comprised of natural land cover, the diversity of habitats and their connectivity. The bog / moorland areas provide the highest proportion of these three characteristics, along with woodlands, heather, heather and acid grassland. The highest scoring area is Loxley and Wadsley Common (south-eastern edge of the SL area / north-western fringe of the city). The index is lower where there is agricultural land.

29 Hotspots of service provision

¹

Number of ES

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 3.8 The number of services for which each Historic Environment Character Area is a hotspot. Hotspots are defined as the top 10% of Historic Environment Character Area polygons with the highest ecosystem services provision value. Source: Holt et al. (2015).

Areas that provide up to 5 or 6 services at a high level of provision, tend to be areas of woodland (the only area to score 6 under this way of measuring hotspots is Wantley Dragon Wood in Deepcar). The moorland and reservoir areas provide up to 4 ecosystem services. The agricultural areas tend to be those that only produce 1 service. Suburban and urban areas with no green space do not provide any.

30 3.3 Quantitative ecosystem services assessment: non-spatial estimation Three ecosystem services were quantified specifically for this project. While spatial mapping would be slightly more useful for decision-making, the total physical value of ecosystem services are still useful as a baseline. Data on the spatial extent of woodland and grassland habitats were derived from section 2. The methods used to calculate carbon sequestration, timber production and air pollution regulation are outlined in the Technical Appendix.

Table 3.2 Annual physical flows (non-spatial) of ecosystem services from the woodland and grassland elements of the SL area. Ecosystem service Annual physical flow

Carbon sequestration (tCO2) 18,115.62 (woodland)

Air pollution regulation (t) PM10 162.32 SO2 3.61 (woodland and grassland) Timber production (m3) 16,110.80 (woodland)

The non-spatial physical flows of carbon sequestration are reasonable (Table 3.2). If this service was mapped spatially, it would show the biggest difference in carbon sequestration capacity between coniferous and deciduous woodland, the mix of coniferous species in the SL area would show higher levels of production. The same trend would be seen for the timber production service. Table 3.2 also shows a reasonable capacity of the grassland and woodland habitats to take up PM10 and SO2. If mapped spatially the woodlands would perform better than the grassland habitats, and the coniferous woodland would take up slightly more pollutants than the deciduous woodland. The biggest difference would be seen in the spatial position of the woodland and grassland relative to the background pollution levels. It is likely that the woodland and grassland nearest to the city fringes in the east of the SL area would have higher background pollution levels, therefore provide higher levels of the pollution regulation service.

3.4 Summary The qualitative assessment of ecosystem services shows that the natural capital of Sheffield Lakeland provides a diverse range of ecosystem services that will benefit people within and outside the area. However, there are trade-offs between the level of provision of these services, and whilst some of the provisioning services such as agricultural and timber production are high, there will be impacts on the provision of some of the regulating ecosystem services (e.g. pollination, pest and disease control, erosion control, water regulation and quality).

The mapping of ecosystem services shows the relative importance of the natural capital assets across the SL area for providing ecosystem services. The actual values of provision are not as important here, as the relative levels of provision. The moorland habitat is very important for carbon storage (topsoil), but is performing less well for reduction of storm water runoff, and is not effective at providing air

31 pollution regulation (but there is low background air pollution in this rural area). It is also vitally important for the provision of cultural services, and habitat for biodiversity. Woodland is an important habitat for all of the ecosystem services. In particular its role in water quality regulation, flood alleviation, recreational opportunities and other cultural services will be vital for the SL area, given the environmental challenges that exist. The maps and the non-spatial physical flows also highlight the capacity of the woodland to take up carbon and airborne pollutants. It is important that woodlands and greenspaces, particularly on the edge of the SL area near the urban fringe, can be used to maximise these services where demand is at its greatest.

This is by no means a comprehensive baseline quantification and mapping of ecosystem services. There are important ecosystem service benefits that have not been captured. For example, recreation in terms of the number of visits made to the area, and to which sites the visits are made, the health and well-being benefits derived from these visits, and the agricultural production value. It is possible to measure these services with further data and resource. To pick up the natural capital changes, and consequent changes in the flow of ecosystem service benefits, in the partnership area after the projects have been completed, the area would need to be spatially mapped and modelled. 4. Impact of on-going initiatives There are some on-going initiatives that may have impact on the SL area during the project period. However, there is little information on which to base an understanding on how these projects will modify its natural capital.

Sheffield City Council’s Flood Alleviation Scheme

The Rivelin Roscoe flood storage area (a 11-12m high barrier across the Rivelin valley) is likely to have a significant impact on ecosystem service provision in the SLLP area. It is particularly likely to reduce the aesthetic, well-being and recreation benefits of the area, as well as there being a loss of other services due to the replacement of natural capital with grey infrastructure. However, there have been funding issues and there is no set timescale for the plan. The case for Natural Flood Risk Management is being put forward, and the SLLP projects can provide opportunities to support this.

Sheffield Moors Partnership

The Sheffield Moors Partnership are planning woodland management works to be continued at Redmires Reservoir Plantations, and Lady Canning’s Plantation in 2018. There will be increases in footpath access and improved provision for cyclists around specific areas of Redmires Reservoir. Parking and visitor management is also to be improved. Conservation grazing continues at Redmires. is increasing the structure of the habitat, and blocking historic drainage ditches to restore natural storage and movement of water within the blanket bog. At Wyming Brook the moorland fringe woodland contains pine and larch with an oak understorey. This may be managed for predominantly native woodland in the future. This is likely to increase the recreation service, and increase the flood alleviation capacity of the area. 32 ’s SSSI recovery programme

There are some areas of SSSI in the SLLP owned by Yorkshire Water (YW). YW aim to maintain and manage SSSIs to ensure that they meet target condition (recovering or favourable status). It is not clear exactly which sites they will be improving in the SLLP area.

Moors for the Future / MoorLIFE 2020

The far western fringes of the SLLP may overlap with some of the Moors for the Future Moor (MFTF) LIFE 2020 projects. MFTF are to produce a map that will highlight where these projects fall within the SLLP area. 5. Impact of the SLLP projects on ecosystem service provision The breadth of SLLP projects can potentially increase the capacity of the area to provide ecosystem services across all categories of services (provisioning, regulating, and cultural, see Figure 1.1). A number of projects are focused on the restoration of wetland, wet grassland, meadows, heathland, hedgerows and improving management and restoring woodland habitats across SRWT reserves, SSSI sites, across the river valleys and around reservoir sites within the SL area. One project in particular focuses on promoting Natural Flood Management and increased water quality. Habitat interventions across small sites in the SL area will roughen the landscape and improve soil retention. These projects are likely to increase the ability of the natural capital to deliver increased flood alleviation, water purification, air quality regulation, carbon sequestration, timber / wood fuel production, pollination, climate regulation, and opportunities for recreation, whilst creating quality habitat to support biodiversity and promote resilience of the ecological system.

A number of projects will also promote the cultural services that are supported by the natural capital of the SL area. The restoration of buildings and dry stone walls, the increased accessibility of sites, the increased ability of isolated or vulnerable social groups to reach the natural environment of the SL area, the art and stories and music rooted in the areas history, are key to increasing the cultural heritage, aesthetic and spiritual values, recreational opportunities and health and well-being associated with the landscape. 6. Summary and recommendations There are particular issues and pressures in this region around the decline in biodiversity, the importance of water quality and storage, the need to alleviate downstream flooding in the upper reaches of the catchment, the impacts of marginal sheep farming, and to continue providing recreational opportunities and maintain the cultural heritage for a growing population. Consequently there is a need to manage the landscape for multiple-benefits. The key is to understand which habitats can be ecologically restored, extended or created, and where these should be located, to ensure that a suite of critical services can be provided simultaneously. Trade-offs between ecosystem services are inevitable, and it may not be possible to enhance certain services significantly unless some existing habitats are transformed from their current use. The SL area is marginal for agriculture, despite this a large proportion of the area is under sheep farming. Such areas tend only to provide food

33 production services, and negatively impact of the ability of the natural environment to provide other ecosystem services. It would be very beneficial for the SLLP projects to focus on how to encourage different land management approaches that create habitats that deliver multiple services e.g. woodland creation. As the UK’s agricultural policy is reviewed for exiting the EU, Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) have been identified as a measure that can encourage changes in farm practices. The feasibility and benefits of this type of approach should be considered in the SL area. The SLLP projects consider the need to slow the flow using on farm measures and planting woodland for water. Opportunity mapping should be considered for understanding where planting woodlands in the river catchments could be optimised to deliver conservation, flood alleviation, water quality regulation and erosion control. If hydrological modelling for the catchments within the SL area has already been completed, and is accessible, this should be consulted before decisions are made on where the best woodland for water sites might be. This is important given the need to promote Natural Flood Management in the light of the Sheffield Flood Alleviation proposals. Influencing the management of, and restoring peat bog, will also be of importance for water and carbon storage capacity. Collaboration with other partnerships (e.g. Moors for the Future) may be the way forward here.

It is vital to ensure that the natural capital assets are managed to ensure provisioning and regulating services, but cultural services are extremely important to the SL area. Exploring the sites where recreational opportunities, both physical and experiential, can be created alongside the benefits discussed above should be a priority. However, this is a delicate balance, and there is a real danger that enhancing the ‘Outdoor Economy’ strategy of the Sheffield City Council too much could create trade-offs rather than synergies between these different services. Recreation and health and well-being are highly valuable public benefits, but these will decline if the natural capital that supports them is eroded from high recreational pressure.

Promoting the natural capital approach to sustainable management of the SL area among partners could be very useful. Land owners and moorland managers particularly are becoming more familiar with the natural capital concept, and are beginning to see how a natural capital accounting approach could be used to demonstrate the public benefits that come from their businesses. Taking a natural capital approach to assess businesses and land management decisions reveals both the ecosystem services and disservices associated with the practices. Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes that offer additional income to change management practises may be a real incentive for management change, certainly if societal pressure to change management practices continues to rise.

7. Future work There is further work that could be done to create a more comprehensive baseline of the ecosystem services provision by which to measure SLLP project success. Only a subset of services have been measured. Recreation, health and well-being and

34 agricultural production are all services that it would be beneficial to capture for the SL area.

The approach taken here is at the SL landscape scale. The review of ecosystem service provision after the SLLP project has come to an end will also be at this scale, in order to assess the combined impacts of the partnership projects. However, this natural capital approach could also be usefully applied at the project level, particularly in the case of the Natural Flood Management and Woodlands project. It is important that the projects record the quality of the baseline habitats at the beginning of the project, to ensure that successes can be assessed at their end.

A proposal for reviewing the ecosystem service provision of the SL area is being written. It would be useful to express any increases (or losses) in ecosystem services in monetary terms at this stage. This shows the value of the enhanced public benefits, and will be a convincing way to present the impact of the SLLP project to key decision-makers and land managers.

35 Technical Appendix

Data interpretation and caveats Each of the maps requires careful interpretation, bearing in mind how the data were derived, modelled and the scale at which it has been mapped. The LCM 2007 is based on remotely sensed data (Landsat, see Morton et al. (2011)). There are misclassification errors with certain habitats in this map, particularly for habitats relevant to the sub-catchment areas e.g. grassland, heather grass, bogs and montane habitats. These errors can exceed 50% when distinguishing between rough, acid and calcareous grassland. The resolution of the data is also quite coarse (25m). We, therefore, consider the priority habitats map, based on the priority habitats inventory for the North of England (2016), to be more reliable. This is because it is taken from a number of different sources that include on the ground assessments, National Vegetation Classification surveys, condition assessments, SSSI and Environmental Stewardship surveys. Here, the LCM 2007 is useful for characterising the habitats in between the priority habitats.

Any errors in the baseline data will be taken through into ecosystem service modelling. The land cover data is not up to date, so there may be small areas of habitat that have increased, decreased or no longer exist. For example, areas of woodland that have been felled. This should be considered when using the ecosystem service maps, as these maps are based on LCM 2007 data. The modelling approach will add further error, although attempts are made to minimise these (see Holt et al. 2016 for further details). The models for each ecosystem service are indicators of that service, not measures of the service itself. They are also relatively simple models (in order to be user friendly) that can effectively capture the processes for which they are indicators. They, therefore, give an indication of the direction and magnitude of service provision, rather than a direct and accurate measurement of it.

Spatial mapping of ecosystem services

The ecosystem service models (section 3.) were taken from a scientific paper (Holt et al. (2015)). Below describes the approach, data and models used.

Spatial units for mapping

Initially, ecosystem services were modelled over the grid of 500m x 500m squares imposed within the boundaries of the unitary authority of Sheffield (derived from GIS data from the Office for National Statistics, 2004). They were then, using means weighted by area, mapped at the Historic Environment Character Areas spatial unit (see the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation Project http://sytimescapes.org.uk).

Ecosystem service models

Ecosystem service models were based on existing models that could be used, or adapted for use, in combination with the study area data on land cover, to enable calculation of the level of provision of each service. These models were used to show the additional service generated by the urban greenspace infrastructure, when 36 compared to the non-green alternative, i.e. an entirely built environment. So, for example the difference in pollutant removal between the urban environment with greenspace in it and the same area with the greenspace replaced by non-green (built) urban surfaces. The reason for this is that artificial surfaces will also influence the particular processes underlying the services we are interested in, particularly in the case of storm water run-off, reduction of air pollution and carbon storage. For example, they can provide deposition surfaces for pollutants, abstract small amounts of storm water and urban soils can contain a substantial amount of organic carbon beneath impervious surfaces.

The ecosystem services of reduction of air pollution, heat island mitigation, storm water runoff reduction, and carbon storage were, therefore, quantified and mapped as the difference between the level of service (e.g. amount of air pollution reduced) that occurs given the actual land cover composition (including green space), and the level of service that would occur if the whole area were composed of 28% buildings and 72% other manmade surfaces (a hypothetical scenario replacing the current levels of greenspace with buildings and manmade surfaces to the same proportions as existing artificial surface areas of the city). Neither the opportunities for cultural services nor habitat provision for biodiversity were compared to a hypothetical land cover as the modelling was based on proportion of the area that is suitable for providing the services. That is, if greenspace did not exist the level of these services would be zero.

Reduction of air pollution

The air pollution reduction model focuses on the amount of pollution removed over and above that which would be removed in the absence of the greenspace infrastructure for Sheffield’s two most problematic pollutants: nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (with a particle diameter of <10 μm; PM10) (Elleker, 2009; Sheffield City Council, 2008a; Sheffield City Council, 2008b). The potential production of air pollution reduction is either the capacity of plant and ground surfaces to intercept pollutants or the inverse of the resistance to deposition or the deposition velocity. The actual production of the ecosystem service is also dependent on how the interception capacity is used, which is determined by the local levels of air pollution. Inputs to the model comprised land cover, meteorological and pollutant concentration data, as well as a number of empirical parameters such as process rates and constants. These data were used to estimate the deposition velocity, d, of the pollutants to the different types of land cover found in the study area. The estimates were then superimposed on the land cover map and an average calculated across each 500m grid square. This was also the spatial resolution of the estimates of pollutant concentration, C, from the Sheffield City Council’s AIRVIRO model. These two inputs were used to calculate the total flux of pollutant deposition to the land covers, F, for each 500m grid square.

A second estimate of F was made assuming that all land cover was artificial, i.e. no ecosystem service was being produced. The first estimate (from the land cover map) was then divided by the second (assuming no natural land covers) to calculate the ecosystem service provided by the presence of natural land covers, and the monthly figures averaged to produce a single annual average for each pollutant. The figures

37 were divided rather than subtracted in order to give equal weighting to the two pollutants, concentrations of which occur over different orders of magnitude. Finally, the mean of these two figures was taken to generate a single index of ecosystem service production for each 500m grid square area. The land cover composition of each polygon in the HECA map was used to calculate the deposition velocity, and was multiplied by the area-weighted mean (derived from the 500m grid squares) pollutant concentration to calculate the pollutant flux.

Storm water runoff reduction Urbanisation replaces natural land covers with developed and often impermeable surfaces such as buildings and roads. This reduces the amount of precipitation that is intercepted and evapotranspired by vegetation. It will also reduce the infiltration and storage capacity of the soil. This can cause a significant increase in surface flow. The storm water runoff reduction model calculates the ability of the greenspace to abstract more water than the hypothetical scenario, using the USDA-NRCS Soil Conservancy Service's curve number (CN) method to estimate surface runoff following a storm event. This method assigns a “curve number” to each area according to its vegetation cover and soil type, describing its capacity to intercept and abstract precipitation. When applied to a specified precipitation scenario, the curve number can calculate the proportion of precipitation that runs off as surface flow (USDA-NRCS 1986). The curve number method is suitable for application in urban areas (USDA-NRCS 1986), and has been implemented in similar studies (Whitford et al. (2001) and Tratalos et al. (2007)). The model uses the land cover map and soils map (and associated soil texture data) as input. Curve numbers were assigned from lists given in a USDA-NRCS technical report (USDA-NRCS 1986), using previous implementations by Whitford et al. (2001) and Tratalos et al. (2007) as guidance. Two rainfall event scenarios were designed: a ‘typical heavy rainfall’ scenario, representing a fairly common event in Sheffield, with 1.2cm rainfall and soils not especially wet due to recent rainfall; and an ‘extreme rainfall’ event, based on the June 2007 rainfall that caused extensive flooding in Sheffield, with 6cm rainfall onto already saturated soils. For each scenario, the runoff volume per m2 was spatially assigned according to the land cover and soils maps, and from this value was subtracted the runoff that would have occurred if each m2 was covered by artificial, impervious surfaces. This calculated the reduction in runoff due to natural land covers. The average reduction in runoff from the two scenarios was used as the quantification of the ecosystem service.

Carbon storage Greenspaces vary in composition, and therefore, their capacity to sequester carbon. The carbon storage model assesses the capacity for, and spatial pattern of, carbon storage, using land cover based estimates of carbon biomass in different types of vegetation, and estimates of the organic carbon content of soils from the NATMAP soils map. Soils under manmade surfaces and buildings were assumed to have half the carbon content that they would otherwise, because the development process generally causes large losses of carbon (Pouyat, Yesilonis, & Nowak, 2006) (although there is now emerging evidence that existing assumptions about urban soil carbon may be open to question, see (Edmondson et al., 2012)). Soil carbon losses can occur during development regardless of whether the soil is directly disturbed or not, due to the loss of plant, microbial and earthworm biomass, which reduces inputs of 38 organic matter (the source of carbon) to the soil (Byrne, Bruns, & Kim, 2008). Direct disturbance can also expose the deeper soil layer to conditions in which carbon is likely to oxidise to the atmosphere (Jandl, Lindner, Bauwens, Baritz, Hagedorn et al., 2007). To quantify the ecosystem service provided by natural land covers, an estimate was also made of the carbon content of the different soil types when under sealed surfaces. This second estimate was subtracted from the figure for actual carbon storage.

Opportunities for cultural ecosystem services in public greenspaces The model of access to opportunities for cultural ecosystem services in greenspace describes the spatial availability of greenspace infrastructure to the general public. The production of opportunities is calculated as the proportion of an area of interest that is covered by land uses that are considered to provide such opportunities (e.g. public parks, moorland, woodlands). The supply of opportunities was quantified using the four distance-related greenspace provision standards (see Handley, Pauleit, Slinn, Barber, Baker, Jones et al., 2003). Areas of publicly accessible greenspace were identified from the HECA dataset. The land use map legend (Fig. 1) was studied in order to identify whether areas of each category were likely to fulfil two requirements: (i) that greenspace is a major component of that land use; and (ii) that the greenspace is freely publicly accessible. These areas were identified on the land use map and used to generate a map of publicly accessible greenspace. The proportion of each area of interest meeting each of the standards was calculated, i.e. within 300m of a 2ha greenspace, 2km of a 10ha greenspace, 5km of a 100ha greenspace and 10km of a 500ha greenspace (Handley et al., 2003). These proportions were summed and divided by four in order to calculate an index quantifying this ecosystem service. The map in Figure 3.6 shows O or 1, rather than 4 levels of accessibility, because the HECA map was used to assign the basemap of areas that are publically accessible. Areas of greenspace located only partially within, or nearby to the boundaries of the study area were also included in generating these proportions.

Provision of habitat for biodiversity Biodiversity is thought to be critical to the production of many ecosystem processes, services and benefits (Cardinale, Duffy, Gonzalez, Hooper, Perrings, Venail et al., 2012; Mace, Norris & Fitter, 2011). Due to a lack of consistent and reliable records of biodiversity at the scale required for the study area, we developed a land cover- based metric for ecosystem service providing biodiversity. It describes the degree of urbanisation and the variety of remnant natural habitats, similar to that of Whitford et al. (2001). Urban development increases impermeable surfaces, splitting the natural vegetation into smaller patches that may have low connectivity ( Bolger, Suarez, Crooks, Morrison & Case, 2000; Crooks 2002). Greenspace management by gardeners and landscape architects means that the remaining natural vegetation may also be converted to different types of land cover, changing the availability of some types of habitat (McKinney, 2006). Given this, three metrics, proportion of area comprising of natural land covers, habitat diversity and natural land cover patch connectivity, were chosen to reflect different components of these complex effects, and then combined to produce a single indicator of the biodiversity potential of the landscape.

39

Data inputs Four spatial data inputs were required for the ecosystem service models, a land cover map, land use map (South Yorkshire Historic Character GIS dataset for calculating the provision of habitat for biodiversity service), soil map (LANDis National Soil Map GIS dataset (NATMAP Vector) and associated soil attribute data (SOILERIES and HORIZON data tables). The land cover map was made to suit the requirements of the study and was a combination of data from the level two vector version of the Land Cover Map 2000 (LCM 2000), and Ordnance Survey Mastermap 2008 topography layer. The latter was used to identify relatively homogeneous land cover units as a basis for the tailored land cover map.

Above ground and topsoil carbon maps Data on carbon storage in the soil and above ground were from the Natural England and CEH natural capital maps (https://eip.ceh.ac.uk/naturalengland-ncmaps). Forests and other vegetation sequester carbon. The carbon density of each non- woodland land cover type is estimated based on biomass conversion equations from the scientific literature. Woodland carbon density is estimated using species and age specific data. These were up-scaled using extent of each category from the Land Cover Map 2007 (Henrys et al. 2016). Soil organic carbon also plays an important role in soil function as an energy source for maintaining structure, resilience and retaining water (NE, CEH soil carbon report). It is also an important foundation of a number of provisioning and regulating ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient cycling, primary production, climate regulation). Soil carbon data is derived from soil samples collected in 591 km squares across England and then extrapolated to other areas using statistical analyses (Henrys et al. 2012a).

Non-spatial quantification of ecosystem services Carbon sequestration Carbon sequestration from the woodland areas in the SL area were calculated following the UK Woodland Carbon Code methodology and look-up tables (Woodland Carbon Code 2012a,b). The species mix of deciduous and coniferous woodland was taken from the Forest Inventory for Yorkshire and the (2002). They are predominantly corsican pine, sitka spruce and larch, and oak, beech, birch, ash and sycamore. The average yield class was used for each species, as well as an average spacing between trees, and it was assumed that deciduous woodland was not thinned, but coniferous areas were. The sequestration rates were averaged over a 60 year period for coniferous plantations and 100 years for the deciduous woodlands (these being the time periods after which they are harvested). The average annual sequestration rates were then multiplied by the area of each woodland type and added together to give the total sequestration estimate for woodland at the site.

Timber production The physical flow of timber production was estimated using the average yield classes of the woodland types present, as outlined above. The physical flow of this service was calculated by multiplying the yield class by the area of each woodland type.

40 Air pollution regulation We measured the ability of the woodland and grassland habitats in the SLLP to absorb two key pollutants, particulate matter ≤10μm in diameter (PM10) and sulphur dioxide (SO2). Quantifying the physical flow of the air quality regulation service provided by the woodland and grassland was based on the absorption calculation in Powe & Willis (2004) and the method in ONS (2016). The deposition rates for PM10 and SO2 in coniferous woodland, deciduous woodland and grassland were taken from Powe & Willis (2004). The average background pollution concentration in 2015 for PM10 and SO2 were calculated using Defra data (Modelling of Ambient Air Quality (MAAQ) https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/pcm-data). The surface area index of coniferous and deciduous woodlands in on-leaf and off-leaf periods was taken from Powe & Willis (2004). The proportion of dry days (rainfall <1mm) was taken from MET office regional value data for 2017 for the North of England (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/datasets). The proportion of on-leaf relative to off-leaf days was estimated at the UK level using the average number of bare leaf days for five of the most common broadleaf tree species (ash, beech, horse chestnut, oak, silver birch) in the UK using The Woodland Trust data averages tool (http://www.naturescalendar.org.uk/findings/dataaverages.htm).

41 References Bolger, D. T., Suarez, A.V., Crooks, K.R., Morrison, S.A., Case, T.J., 2000. Arthropods in urban habitat fragments in southern California: area, age, and edge effects. Ecol. Applic. 10: 1230-1248.

Byrne, L. B., Bruns, M.A., Kim, K.C., 2008. Ecosystem properties of urban land covers at the aboveground–belowground interface. Ecosystems. 11: 1065-1077.

Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G.M., Tilman, D., Wardles, D.A., Kinzig, A.P., Daily, G.C., Loreau, M., Grace, J.B., Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D.S., Naeem, S., 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 486: 59-67.

Crooks, K. R., 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conserv. Biol. 16: 488-502.

Edmondson, J., Davies, Z.G, McHugh, N., Gaston, K.J., Leake, J.R., 2012. Organic carbon hidden in urban ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 2: 936.

Elleker, A., 2009. Air quality updating and screening assessment for Sheffield City Council. Sheffield City Council, Sheffield.

Forestry Commission 2002. National inventory of woodland and trees England. Regional report for Yorkshire and the Humber. FC.

Handley, J., Pauleit, S., Slinn, P., Barber, A., Baker, M. Jones, C., S. Lindley, 2003. Accessible natural green space standards in towns and cities: a review and toolkit for their implementation. English Nature research reports number 526: English Nature, Peterborough, UK.

Henrys, P.A.; Keith, A.; Wood, C.M. 2016. Model estimates of aboveground carbon for Great Britain. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre. http://doi.org/10.5285/9be652e7-d5ce-44c1-a5fc-8349f76f5f5c

Henrys, P.A., Keith, A.M., Robinson, D.A., Emmett, B.A. 2012a. Model estimates of topsoil carbon [Countryside Survey]. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre. http://doi.org/10.5285/9e4451f8-23d3-40dc-9302-73e30ad3dd76

Holt, A.R., Mears, M., Maltby, L. & Warren P. 2015. Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 16: 33-46.

Jandl, R., Lindner, M., Vesterdal, L. Bauwens, B. Baritz, R. Hagedorn, F. Johnson, D.W. Minkkinen, K., Byrne, K.A., 2007. How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma, 137: 253-268.

Mace, G.M., Norris, K., Fitter, A.H., 2011. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27: 19-26.

42 McKinney, M. L., 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol. Conserv. 127: 247-260.

Morton, D., Rowland, C., Wood, C., Meek, L., Marston, C., Smith, G., Simpson, I.C. (2011) Final report for LCM2007 – the new UK land cover map. CS Technical Report No 11/07 NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology 112pp. (CEH project number: C03259).

Natural Capital Committee 2014. The state of natural capital: restoring our natural assets. UK.

Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2016. Annex 1: Background and methods for experimental pollution removal estimates. UK National Accounts. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/annex1b ackgroundandmethodsforexperimentalpollutionremovalestimates.

Pouyat, R. V., Yesilonis, I.D., Nowak, D.J., 2006. Carbon storage by urban soils in the United States. J. Environ. Qual. 35: 1566-1575.

Powe, N., A., & Willis, K.G. 2004. Mortality and morbidity benefits of air pollution (SO2 and PM10) absorption attributable to woodland in Britain. Journal of Environmental Management, 70: 119-128.

Sheffield City Council, 2008a. Air Quality Progress Report August 2008. Sheffield City Council, Sheffield.

Sheffield City Council, 2008b. Detailed Assessment for PM10. Sheffield City Council, Sheffield.

Tratalos, J., Fuller, R.A. Warren, P.H. Davies, R.G., Gaston K.J., 2007. Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landsc. and Urban Plan., 83: 308-317.

USDA-NRCS. 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds. TR55. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service - Conservation Engineering Division.

UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

Whitford, V., Ennos, A.R., Handley J.F., 2001. “City form and natural process” - indicators for the ecological performance of urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK. Land. Urban Plan. 57: 91-103.

Woodland Carbon Code 2012a. Carbon Lookup Tables V1.5, Forestry Commission. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-8jue9t.

43 Woodland Carbon Code 2012b. Estimating woodland carbon sequestration from the Carbon Lookup Tables, Version 1.4, Forestry Commission. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-8jue9t.

44