Successful Wildlife Conservation Requires Good Governance

Self Cite

In Scotland, large deer populations are associated with negative ecological and socioeconomic impacts, such as damage to peatlands and forests, agricultural and commercial forestry losses, Lyme disease transmission, and road accidents. Increasing the annual deer cull might help address these negative impacts, but could be ethically controversial. A stratified sample of adults living in Scotland (n = 1,002) responded to our online questionnaire measuring perceptions of deer management, including the acceptability of increasing the deer cull if doing so would help achieve a variety of ecological and social objectives. Overall, respondents indicated that it would be acceptable to increase the deer cull if doing so would serve public interests by reducing negative impacts of deer, with deer welfare, environmental conservation, and public health and safety being the most relevant ethical considerations. Although rural and urban respondents reported significantly different experiences and perceptions of deer, their values (i.e., attitudes, beliefs, and policy preferences) regarding deer management were very similar. Understanding values of the general public, beyond vocal interest groups, can help inform decisions on contentious wildlife management issues.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Perceptions of Deer Management in Scotland

Hare

Daniels

Blossey

2021

Self Cite

“…Such a process ideally fosters meaningful dialogue and trust, develops the group's capacity to reconcile relationships and work through complex issues through to the implementation of shared solutions. A good process increases transparency, integrity, and legitimacy for those directly and indirectly involved, and builds capacity and support for making thoughtful, shared decisions around conservation translocation as well as other conservation or community issues (Reed, 2008;Pomeranz et al, 2021). A good process considers the political realm, public environment and cultural appropriateness-the complex social system-in which the project is embedded (Reed, 2008;Pomeranz et al, 2021).…”

Section: Moving Beyond a "Standard" Engagement Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A good process increases transparency, integrity, and legitimacy for those directly and indirectly involved, and builds capacity and support for making thoughtful, shared decisions around conservation translocation as well as other conservation or community issues (Reed, 2008;Pomeranz et al, 2021). A good process considers the political realm, public environment and cultural appropriateness-the complex social system-in which the project is embedded (Reed, 2008;Pomeranz et al, 2021). Imposed processes or prescriptive solutions will likely fail to both secure diverse support and achieve the desired aims.…”

Section: Moving Beyond a "Standard" Engagement Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Imposed processes or prescriptive solutions will likely fail to both secure diverse support and achieve the desired aims. Decision-making power should be as widely shared as possible to ensure buy-in by all sides (Reed, 2008;Pomeranz et al, 2021). Furthermore, a good process keeps the public engaged over time, with all sides recognizing that when the public's input is not taken, a clear justification will be made (e.g., the contribution goes beyond the agency's jurisdictional power, or the suggestion cannot be supported by current regulations).…”

Section: Moving Beyond a "Standard" Engagement Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evolving Our Understanding and Practice in Addressing Social Conflict and Stakeholder Engagement Around Conservation Translocations

Glikman

Frank

Bogardus

et al. 2022

The conservation field has evolved to include an understanding of human values and attitudes toward wildlife; however, there is still too little emphasis on, and prioritization of, building understanding of the complex and context-specific social conflicts among people and groups involved with or impacted by conservation actions, including translocation. Both foci add value, but the latter is critical for building receptivity for conservation efforts and more thoughtfully designing appropriate context-specific processes for stakeholder engagement and shared decision-making. A deeper analysis of the social conflict dynamics involving the human relationships among individuals and groups engaged in a conservation conflict is needed as a first step in paving the way for the long-term success of conservation projects. Using a “Levels of Conflict” model offers a starting place for the analysis of social conflict often underpinning conservation translocation efforts. Further, we recommend employing a Conservation Conflict Transformation approach when considering conservation translocations to ensure that stakeholder engagement processes sufficiently engage the system, reconcile deep-rooted conflict among those involved and offer the best chance for shared progress and conservation success.

“…Here we refrain from making specific recommendations on how to solve the deer crisis in Scotland, because such recommendations should emerge from a deliberative process through which a broad range of stakeholders, including stalkers, landowners, scientists, conservationists, and government officials, can co-produce a definition of successful deer management (Redpath et al, 2015). To be effective, this definition should include objectives for ecological, socioeconomic, and human health outcomes that are clearly articulated, informed by best available evidence, and perceived to be legitimate by affected stakeholders (Forstchen and Smith, 2014;Hare et al, 2017;Bennett and Satterfield, 2018;Pomeranz et al, 2021). Although objectives are unlikely to fully satisfy all affected stakeholders all of the time, they will be more legitimate, and therefore acceptable, if stakeholders and the public more generally, perceive the process of identifying them to be fair, and can accept that objectives reflect trade-offs between multiple competing perspectives, interests, and values (Forstchen and Smith, 2014;Ceauşu et al, 2018;Pomeranz and Stedman, 2020).…”

Section: A Vision For the Future: Co-producing A Definition Of Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

Successful Deer Management in Scotland Requires Less Conflict Not More

Kirkland

Hare

Daniels

et al. 2021

Self Cite

What would successful deer management look like in Scotland? To some, flourishing populations of native wild deer represent success. But to others, negative impacts such as damage to woodlands and peatlands, agricultural and forestry losses, deer-vehicle collisions, and facilitating Lyme disease spread represent failure. Conflicting interests and incentives among people involved in deer management mean a common definition of success, and therefore clear management targets, remain elusive. While some environmental groups urgently call for an increase in the number of deer culled (shot) each year, other stakeholders aim to maximize deer numbers. Overcoming this governance failure will require clearly articulated, scientifically valid, and socially acceptable socio-ecological objectives to be co-produced by a broad range of stakeholders. Systematic monitoring of deer impacts will also be needed to evaluate the ability of specific management interventions to achieve defined objectives. Reintroducing Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) has been suggested as a means to reduce deer numbers and their negative ecological and socioeconomic impacts. However, evidence of lynx impacts on deer numbers, deer impacts, and social conflicts over deer suggest lynx reintroduction alone would not effectively reduce negative impacts of deer in Scotland, though it could be part of a broader solution. In the short-term, achieving sustainable numbers of deer in Scotland will require a substantial increase in the number of deer culled and effective changes to the way deer management is incentivized, regulated, implemented, and monitored.