Exploring beliefs behind support for and opposition to wildlife management methods: a qualitative study

Norman Dandy, Stephanie Ballantyne, Darren Moseley, Robin Gill, Christopher Quine, Rene Van Der Wal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Wildlife management methods such as culling (lethal control) and fencing can be controversial in some circumstances. Such controversy can be problematic for decision-makers or those managing decision-making processes and can lead to management delays or inertia. Understanding the reasons why people support or oppose specific management methods is therefore an important objective for researchers. Attitudes towards methods are in part based on individual beliefs about those methods, the species of wildlife being managed and other associated phenomena. This paper adopts a qualitative approach to develop understanding of these beliefs. We conducted 17 focus-groups on wild deer management at two locations in Britain, with both 'professional' land manager and 'public' participants (n = 103). We identified a number of individual beliefs which are grouped into five categories: naturalness, overabundance, impacts, effectiveness and animal welfare. Our findings suggest that potentially controversial management methods will receive most support where the objective is to maintain a 'natural' environment, at sites where impacts are evident, and when using targeted and effective methods.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)695-706
Number of pages12
JournalEuropean Journal of Wildlife Research
Volume58
Issue number4
Early online date1 Mar 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2012

Keywords

  • beliefs
  • lethal control
  • fencing
  • deer
  • public
  • overabundance

Cite this

Exploring beliefs behind support for and opposition to wildlife management methods : a qualitative study. / Dandy, Norman; Ballantyne, Stephanie; Moseley, Darren; Gill, Robin; Quine, Christopher; Van Der Wal, Rene.

In: European Journal of Wildlife Research, Vol. 58, No. 4, 08.2012, p. 695-706.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dandy, Norman ; Ballantyne, Stephanie ; Moseley, Darren ; Gill, Robin ; Quine, Christopher ; Van Der Wal, Rene. / Exploring beliefs behind support for and opposition to wildlife management methods : a qualitative study. In: European Journal of Wildlife Research. 2012 ; Vol. 58, No. 4. pp. 695-706.
@article{c9c514f88d8e4c2ba467554316e9ffd7,
title = "Exploring beliefs behind support for and opposition to wildlife management methods: a qualitative study",
abstract = "Wildlife management methods such as culling (lethal control) and fencing can be controversial in some circumstances. Such controversy can be problematic for decision-makers or those managing decision-making processes and can lead to management delays or inertia. Understanding the reasons why people support or oppose specific management methods is therefore an important objective for researchers. Attitudes towards methods are in part based on individual beliefs about those methods, the species of wildlife being managed and other associated phenomena. This paper adopts a qualitative approach to develop understanding of these beliefs. We conducted 17 focus-groups on wild deer management at two locations in Britain, with both 'professional' land manager and 'public' participants (n = 103). We identified a number of individual beliefs which are grouped into five categories: naturalness, overabundance, impacts, effectiveness and animal welfare. Our findings suggest that potentially controversial management methods will receive most support where the objective is to maintain a 'natural' environment, at sites where impacts are evident, and when using targeted and effective methods.",
keywords = "beliefs, lethal control, fencing, deer, public, overabundance",
author = "Norman Dandy and Stephanie Ballantyne and Darren Moseley and Robin Gill and Christopher Quine and {Van Der Wal}, Rene",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1007/s10344-012-0619-1",
language = "English",
volume = "58",
pages = "695--706",
journal = "European Journal of Wildlife Research",
issn = "1612-4642",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring beliefs behind support for and opposition to wildlife management methods

T2 - a qualitative study

AU - Dandy, Norman

AU - Ballantyne, Stephanie

AU - Moseley, Darren

AU - Gill, Robin

AU - Quine, Christopher

AU - Van Der Wal, Rene

PY - 2012/8

Y1 - 2012/8

N2 - Wildlife management methods such as culling (lethal control) and fencing can be controversial in some circumstances. Such controversy can be problematic for decision-makers or those managing decision-making processes and can lead to management delays or inertia. Understanding the reasons why people support or oppose specific management methods is therefore an important objective for researchers. Attitudes towards methods are in part based on individual beliefs about those methods, the species of wildlife being managed and other associated phenomena. This paper adopts a qualitative approach to develop understanding of these beliefs. We conducted 17 focus-groups on wild deer management at two locations in Britain, with both 'professional' land manager and 'public' participants (n = 103). We identified a number of individual beliefs which are grouped into five categories: naturalness, overabundance, impacts, effectiveness and animal welfare. Our findings suggest that potentially controversial management methods will receive most support where the objective is to maintain a 'natural' environment, at sites where impacts are evident, and when using targeted and effective methods.

AB - Wildlife management methods such as culling (lethal control) and fencing can be controversial in some circumstances. Such controversy can be problematic for decision-makers or those managing decision-making processes and can lead to management delays or inertia. Understanding the reasons why people support or oppose specific management methods is therefore an important objective for researchers. Attitudes towards methods are in part based on individual beliefs about those methods, the species of wildlife being managed and other associated phenomena. This paper adopts a qualitative approach to develop understanding of these beliefs. We conducted 17 focus-groups on wild deer management at two locations in Britain, with both 'professional' land manager and 'public' participants (n = 103). We identified a number of individual beliefs which are grouped into five categories: naturalness, overabundance, impacts, effectiveness and animal welfare. Our findings suggest that potentially controversial management methods will receive most support where the objective is to maintain a 'natural' environment, at sites where impacts are evident, and when using targeted and effective methods.

KW - beliefs

KW - lethal control

KW - fencing

KW - deer

KW - public

KW - overabundance

U2 - 10.1007/s10344-012-0619-1

DO - 10.1007/s10344-012-0619-1

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 695

EP - 706

JO - European Journal of Wildlife Research

JF - European Journal of Wildlife Research

SN - 1612-4642

IS - 4

ER -