Value diversity and conservation conflict: Lessons from the management of red grouse and hen harriers in England

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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). 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. As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy, we found strong correlations between attitude and support for management options, our proxy for behaviour. 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. 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. A plain language summary is available for this article.

Understanding diverse approaches to predator management among gamekeepers in England

“…We observed that gamekeeper professional identity was rooted in concepts of custodianship and that much predator control was undertaken with the objective of conserving game and non‐game wildlife. Where the objective is to build trust between stakeholders by identifying common narratives and goals (Hodgson et al., 2018; St John et al., 2019), we suggest that a focus on these relational values has the best chance of success. Similarly, focusing on the stewardship relationships that emerged from the professional identity and personal norm motivations might have merit where the goal is behavioural change for predator conservation as targeting these would ‘recognise and work within the boundaries of existing values’ (Manfredo, Teel, & Dietsch, 2016).…”

“…One challenge, for example, would be that the personal enjoyment that motivates some predator removal is likely to be rooted in values that are not shared by all actors (Manfredo et al., 2017). Indeed, recent research from the uplands found that stakeholders on different ‘sides’ of conflicts over predators have divergent wildlife value orientations (St John et al., 2019). Yet, our findings also suggest there may be opportunities to mitigate social conflicts over predators by focusing on shared ‘relational values’ between stakeholders.…”

“…However, predator killing has become an area of social conflict, centring on concerns for animal welfare and threats to some conservation objectives that may not align with sporting interests (such as maintaining or increasing populations of birds of prey: Roos et al., 2018; Thirgood & Redpath, 2008) . These conflicts are primarily a consequence of differences in what the various actors consider to be acceptable management options (Marshall, White, & Fischer, 2007) and the different wildlife value orientations that guide such assessments (St John, Steadman, Austen, & Redpath, 2019). Conflicts are exacerbated by illegal predator killing, which is often linked to game management (Amar et al., 2012; Melling, Thomas, Price, & Roos, 2018).…”

“…Despite the large spatial extent of game management (Sage et al., 2005) and the central roles of gamekeepers in management practices, and in social disagreements over wildlife (Marshall et al., 2007; White et al., 2009), there is little published literature considering their motivations for particular actions. This is surprising as research on predator management in the uplands has shown that, despite similar wildlife value orientations (St John et al., 2019), there is variation in how respondents with shooting interests view predator management options (Marshall et al., 2007). Indeed, unpublished gamekeeper survey data suggest there are differences in both how predators are viewed and in the control regimes (which animals were targeted and with what intensity) that are enacted (GWCT, 2011).…”

Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts

“…Furthermore, although different conservation managers and stakeholders are unlikely to always agree—for both practical and value‐based reasons (Rust ; St John et al. )—better understanding others’ positions and increasing dialogue helps foster more effective collaboration (Game et al. ; Lute et al.…”