Value diversity and conservation conflict

Lessons from the management of red grouse and hen harriers in England

Freya St. John, Janna Steadman, Gail Austen, Stephen Redpath

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

1. Conflicts between people over wildlife management are damaging, widespread,
and notoriously difficult to resolve where people hold different values and worldviews. Cognitive approaches examining steps from human thought to action can
help us understand conflict and explore strategies for their management.
2. We focused on the conflict between hunters and conservationists over the management of red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoticus) and hen harriers (Circus cyaneus) in the English uplands which represents a classic, persistent conflict, where human dimensions are poorly understood.
3. Guided by conceptual frameworks from social and environmental psychology, we conducted a questionnaire‐based study to assess wildlife value orientations of key stakeholders. We quantified attitudes towards hen harriers, grouse shooting,
gamekeepers, and raptor conservationists. We also measured support/opposition
for harrier management strategies in England and investigated trust in the responsible government authority.
4. We present data from 536 respondents from field sport or nature conservation
organizations. Respondents were categorized according to the primary objectives
of their affiliated organization: Field sport (i.e., hunters), Non‐raptor, Pro‐raptor,
and Pro‐bird (i.e., organizations promoting conservation of birds excluding raptors, raptors specifically, or birds generally).
5. Utilitarian value orientations were prominent among Field sport and Non‐raptor
respondents. Most Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird participants held mutualist value orientations, indicating they did not support shooting or management of wildlife.
6. As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy, we found strong correlations between
attitude and support for management options, our proxy for behaviour.
7. Pro‐bird affiliates showed clear preference for less invasive management, and
along with Pro‐raptor respondents did not support brood management (removal
and later release of eggs/young when harrier density is high). Field sport individuals expressed a degree of support for all management types. Trust in Natural England was limited.
8. Understanding value orientations and attitudes of stakeholders helps explain differences in levels of support for management approaches. Our study highlighted strongly divergent beliefs. Such positions are hard to change. Increasing the level of ecological knowledge alone is unlikely to facilitate conflict management. Instead, conflict management would benefit from combining such knowledge with a focus on relationships, deliberation, and trust in addition to exploring comanagement interventions.
Original languageEnglish
Article number1
Pages (from-to)6-17
Number of pages11
JournalPeople and Nature
Volume1
Issue number1
Early online date17 Dec 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2019

Fingerprint

sport
raptor
conflict management
stakeholder
bird
comanagement
wildlife management
conflict
conceptual framework
egg

Keywords

  • conflict
  • conservation psychology
  • perceptions
  • hen harrier
  • predator
  • red grouse
  • trust
  • wildlife value orientations

Cite this

Value diversity and conservation conflict : Lessons from the management of red grouse and hen harriers in England. / St. John, Freya; Steadman, Janna; Austen, Gail; Redpath, Stephen.

In: People and Nature, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1, 01.03.2019, p. 6-17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{424efcdf4d2141fc9b0eb37e5bddd491,
title = "Value diversity and conservation conflict: Lessons from the management of red grouse and hen harriers in England",
abstract = "1. Conflicts between people over wildlife management are damaging, widespread,and notoriously difficult to resolve where people hold different values and worldviews. Cognitive approaches examining steps from human thought to action canhelp us understand conflict and explore strategies for their management.2. We focused on the conflict between hunters and conservationists over the management of red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoticus) and hen harriers (Circus cyaneus) in the English uplands which represents a classic, persistent conflict, where human dimensions are poorly understood.3. Guided by conceptual frameworks from social and environmental psychology, we conducted a questionnaire‐based study to assess wildlife value orientations of key stakeholders. We quantified attitudes towards hen harriers, grouse shooting,gamekeepers, and raptor conservationists. We also measured support/oppositionfor harrier management strategies in England and investigated trust in the responsible government authority.4. We present data from 536 respondents from field sport or nature conservationorganizations. Respondents were categorized according to the primary objectivesof their affiliated organization: Field sport (i.e., hunters), Non‐raptor, Pro‐raptor,and Pro‐bird (i.e., organizations promoting conservation of birds excluding raptors, raptors specifically, or birds generally).5. Utilitarian value orientations were prominent among Field sport and Non‐raptorrespondents. Most Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird participants held mutualist value orientations, indicating they did not support shooting or management of wildlife.6. As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy, we found strong correlations betweenattitude and support for management options, our proxy for behaviour.7. Pro‐bird affiliates showed clear preference for less invasive management, andalong with Pro‐raptor respondents did not support brood management (removaland later release of eggs/young when harrier density is high). Field sport individuals expressed a degree of support for all management types. Trust in Natural England was limited.8. Understanding value orientations and attitudes of stakeholders helps explain differences in levels of support for management approaches. Our study highlighted strongly divergent beliefs. Such positions are hard to change. Increasing the level of ecological knowledge alone is unlikely to facilitate conflict management. Instead, conflict management would benefit from combining such knowledge with a focus on relationships, deliberation, and trust in addition to exploring comanagement interventions.",
keywords = "conflict, conservation psychology, perceptions, hen harrier, predator, red grouse, trust, wildlife value orientations",
author = "{St. John}, Freya and Janna Steadman and Gail Austen and Stephen Redpath",
note = "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/pan3.5",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "6--17",
journal = "People and Nature",
issn = "2575-8314",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Value diversity and conservation conflict

T2 - Lessons from the management of red grouse and hen harriers in England

AU - St. John, Freya

AU - Steadman, Janna

AU - Austen, Gail

AU - Redpath, Stephen

N1 - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - 1. Conflicts between people over wildlife management are damaging, widespread,and notoriously difficult to resolve where people hold different values and worldviews. Cognitive approaches examining steps from human thought to action canhelp us understand conflict and explore strategies for their management.2. We focused on the conflict between hunters and conservationists over the management of red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoticus) and hen harriers (Circus cyaneus) in the English uplands which represents a classic, persistent conflict, where human dimensions are poorly understood.3. Guided by conceptual frameworks from social and environmental psychology, we conducted a questionnaire‐based study to assess wildlife value orientations of key stakeholders. We quantified attitudes towards hen harriers, grouse shooting,gamekeepers, and raptor conservationists. We also measured support/oppositionfor harrier management strategies in England and investigated trust in the responsible government authority.4. We present data from 536 respondents from field sport or nature conservationorganizations. Respondents were categorized according to the primary objectivesof their affiliated organization: Field sport (i.e., hunters), Non‐raptor, Pro‐raptor,and Pro‐bird (i.e., organizations promoting conservation of birds excluding raptors, raptors specifically, or birds generally).5. Utilitarian value orientations were prominent among Field sport and Non‐raptorrespondents. Most Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird participants held mutualist value orientations, indicating they did not support shooting or management of wildlife.6. As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy, we found strong correlations betweenattitude and support for management options, our proxy for behaviour.7. Pro‐bird affiliates showed clear preference for less invasive management, andalong with Pro‐raptor respondents did not support brood management (removaland later release of eggs/young when harrier density is high). Field sport individuals expressed a degree of support for all management types. Trust in Natural England was limited.8. Understanding value orientations and attitudes of stakeholders helps explain differences in levels of support for management approaches. Our study highlighted strongly divergent beliefs. Such positions are hard to change. Increasing the level of ecological knowledge alone is unlikely to facilitate conflict management. Instead, conflict management would benefit from combining such knowledge with a focus on relationships, deliberation, and trust in addition to exploring comanagement interventions.

AB - 1. Conflicts between people over wildlife management are damaging, widespread,and notoriously difficult to resolve where people hold different values and worldviews. Cognitive approaches examining steps from human thought to action canhelp us understand conflict and explore strategies for their management.2. We focused on the conflict between hunters and conservationists over the management of red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoticus) and hen harriers (Circus cyaneus) in the English uplands which represents a classic, persistent conflict, where human dimensions are poorly understood.3. Guided by conceptual frameworks from social and environmental psychology, we conducted a questionnaire‐based study to assess wildlife value orientations of key stakeholders. We quantified attitudes towards hen harriers, grouse shooting,gamekeepers, and raptor conservationists. We also measured support/oppositionfor harrier management strategies in England and investigated trust in the responsible government authority.4. We present data from 536 respondents from field sport or nature conservationorganizations. Respondents were categorized according to the primary objectivesof their affiliated organization: Field sport (i.e., hunters), Non‐raptor, Pro‐raptor,and Pro‐bird (i.e., organizations promoting conservation of birds excluding raptors, raptors specifically, or birds generally).5. Utilitarian value orientations were prominent among Field sport and Non‐raptorrespondents. Most Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird participants held mutualist value orientations, indicating they did not support shooting or management of wildlife.6. As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy, we found strong correlations betweenattitude and support for management options, our proxy for behaviour.7. Pro‐bird affiliates showed clear preference for less invasive management, andalong with Pro‐raptor respondents did not support brood management (removaland later release of eggs/young when harrier density is high). Field sport individuals expressed a degree of support for all management types. Trust in Natural England was limited.8. Understanding value orientations and attitudes of stakeholders helps explain differences in levels of support for management approaches. Our study highlighted strongly divergent beliefs. Such positions are hard to change. Increasing the level of ecological knowledge alone is unlikely to facilitate conflict management. Instead, conflict management would benefit from combining such knowledge with a focus on relationships, deliberation, and trust in addition to exploring comanagement interventions.

KW - conflict

KW - conservation psychology

KW - perceptions

KW - hen harrier

KW - predator

KW - red grouse

KW - trust

KW - wildlife value orientations

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/value-diversity-conservation-conflict-lessons-management-red-grouse-hen-harriers-england

U2 - 10.1002/pan3.5

DO - 10.1002/pan3.5

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 6

EP - 17

JO - People and Nature

JF - People and Nature

SN - 2575-8314

IS - 1

M1 - 1

ER -