Beavers and flood alleviation: Human perspectives from downstream communities

Abstract

Natural flood management (NFM) methods work with natural processes to reduce flood risk, while often providing additional benefits such as water quality improvement or habitat provision. Increasingly, the activity of an animalbeavers-is recognised to potentially provide flow attenuation, along with multiple benefits for the environment and society, but there can also be associated challenges. We use Q-Methodology to elicit and understand human perspectives of beavers and their potential role in flood management among communities living downstream of beavers at three sites in England (Cornwall, Yorkshire and the Forest of Dean). This is the first time a study has focused on downstream communities as the primary stakeholders. We identify diverse perspectives that exhibit a range of value judgements. We suggest a catchment-based approach to beaver management and public engagement may facilitate deeper recognition of contextual perspectives in decision-making and enable knowledge dissemination with communities. Further, we examine the relationship between beavers and other NFM methods through these perspectives. In doing so we identify features that relate to the unique element of relying on the natural behaviour of beavers for flood management, rather than human flood managers being the primary decision-makers.

Exploring the dynamics of flow attenuation at a beaver dam sequence

“…As shown for woody debris dams (Dixon et al, 2016 ; Lane, 2017 ), there is likely to be a cumulative effect, but this is unlikely to simply equate to the sum of the impact of individual dam complexes (Larsen et al, 2021 ). This understanding will prove key for informing future policy on beaver management but also effective approaches for human‐engineered NFM projects that seek to replicate beaver dam processes (Auster et al, 2022 ; Munir & Westbrook, 2021 ).…”

Learning to live with reintroduced species: beaver management groups are an adaptive process

“…In December 2021, Natural England contracted the authors to capture lessons from governance of the River Otter and River Tamar BMGs, providing evidence for decision-making. The final report (Auster et al 2022a) is also intended as a learning resource for other BMGs. We drew on findings from a previous qualitative survey of River Otter Beaver Trial (ROBT) Steering Group stakeholder experiences (Auster et al 2022c) and explored applicability to other contexts through deductive thematic analysis of new qualitative semi-structured interview data; themes identified in Auster et al 2022c were applied as a coding framework to identify features in the data.…”

“…Here, interview participants (n = 10) were purposively selected individuals involved with the Tamar BMG, as members of lead organizations or as participating stakeholders. The project received ethical approval from University of Exeter's Geography Ethics Committee, interviews were conducted in person (or online) between January and March 2022, and the semi-structured interview questions are available in Auster et al (2022a).…”

“…Beavers are ecosystem engineers with the ability to modify riverine landscapes via dam‐building, canal building, foraging (including tree‐felling) and burrowing behaviors (Brazier et al 2020 b ). These activities lead to creation of complex, dynamic wetlands that support biodiversity (Stringer & Gaywood 2016; Law et al 2019), and their dam‐building can slow water flows through landscapes, reducing flooding downstream (Puttock et al 2020; Auster et al 2022 b ) and increasing drought and fire resilience (Fairfax & Whittle 2020). However, these same activities can conflict with different stakeholder interests.…”

“…As different people may experience benefits of beaver reintroduction to those who incur costs, a management approach that holistically considers the contrasting issues will be required (Brazier et al 2020 b ). BMGs must be able to consider both potential benefits and negative impacts and involve both beneficiaries and cost‐bearers within communities (Auster et al 2022 b ) (see Brazier et al 2020 b for a review of beaver impacts and human–beaver interactions). Discussion must be respectful in tone to be inclusive of different viewpoints and enable stakeholders to feel their views are being considered, as reported among ROBT Steering Group stakeholders (Auster et al 2022 c ).…”