## 4 Discussion
* Assess qualitative differences within a given land class/habitat type--examples include the ability to resolve uncut and cut grassland as shown in the habitat assessment for the Skylark and, by inference, whether grassland areas are grazed or are tall/scrubby (the Kidney Vetch flower is associated with the latter, and the SB butterfly is dependent on this plant). * Automate quantitative assessment of the habitat/land cover and automate the representation of the extended range of land-cover/habitat types via supervised image classification. This raises the potential to efficiently quantify at a finely resolved level (e.g., 1 to a few m), the provision and location of suitable habitats for these, and most likely, many other species. Given the availability of suitable VHR image coverage, even quite large areas (up to 23 km\({}^{2}\)) are tractable to this finely resolved habitat assessment approach. * Evaluate negative aspects of habitat provision such as discontinuities in valuable 'corridors' such as hedgerows (important avenues for migration and movement for wildlife and therefore a highly distinctive habitat) and diversity of 'qualities' within a given habitat type (such as ponds where features such as the quality of adjacent vegetation are also important). * Evaluate habitat provision and quality efficiently and readily over time, offering valuable information for management decision making, e.g., urgency of intervention or responses and for efficient MRV for incentive schemes and policies. * Assess habitat in 'non-traditional' urban and suburban areas by using the more finely resolved observation offered by VHR imagery to analyse the distribution and connectedness of relevant habitat types in such settings, and to support the nature recovery potential of private gardens, municipal and public spaces, and the built environment. These benefits from the use of VHR imagery within this research are compelling. There are also a number of improvements and limitations that can be recognised. For example, species-habitat knowledge is a critical factor in the VHR interpretation as noted at the beginning of this discussion. It would have been advantageous to have had more extensive data, particularly for the occurrence records of the given species (and for those that they rely on for food). For instance, the SWF butterfly relies on the presence of Viola flowers and SB butterfly on the Kidney Vetch and having the records of the distribution and detailed preferences of these two plants would likely have allowed the creation of a more accurate habitat suitability analysis from VHR observations. Regarding access to VHR imagery, a more comprehensive time sequence for the imagery would have allowed unequivocal demonstration of land-use management directly supporting habitat provision. A good example of this was the full habitat assessment benefit that would have been possible if VHR imagery had been available for the precise harvesting time of silage grass cutting in relation to the Skylark. It is apparent from the levels of VHR resolution examined that the results presented here reflect habitat availability and its characteristics. The observations do not confirm if the species in question is actually present or not. The debate about whether the key metric for biodiversity conservation and enhancement should be (i) the availability of appropriate habitat (and its 'connectedness') or, (ii) whether it should be based strictly on species occurrence, lies outside the scope of this research. Therefore, it should be recognised clearly that the scope of the VHR imagery used here is at the level of habitat recognition and availability, rather than as a proof of species presence (although occurrence of the species was recorded where available in the image presentations).