Policy proposals to address predation of wildlife by domestic cats (Felis catus) include reducing cat populations, regulating ownership, educating owners, and restricting cats’ outdoor access. Such proposals rarely account for cat owners’ perspectives, however, and are frequently met with strong, principled opposition. We conducted a Q‐methodological study to investigate the views of domestic cat owners in the UK on the roaming and hunting behaviors of their pets. We identified five distinctive cat‐owner perspectives: (1) Concerned Protectors focus on cat safety, (2) Freedom Defenders prioritize cat independence and oppose restrictions on behavior, (3) Tolerant Guardians believe outdoor access is important for cats but dislike their hunting, (4) Conscientious Caretakers feel some responsibility for managing their cats’ hunting, and (5) Laissez‐faire Landlords were largely unaware of the issues surrounding roaming and hunting behavior. Most participants valued outdoor access for cats and opposed confinement to prevent hunting; cat confinement policies are therefore unlikely to find support among owners in the UK. To address this conservation challenge, we argue that generic policies will be less effective than multidimensional strategies offering owners practical husbandry approaches that are compatible with their diverse circumstances, capabilities, and senses of responsibility.

The surveillance and control of introduced and invasive species has become an increasingly important component of environmental management. However, initiatives targeting ‘charismatic’ wildlife can be controversial. Opposition to management, and the subsequent emergence of social conflict, present significant challenges for would-be managers. Understanding the substance and development of these disputes is therefore vital for improving the legitimacy and effectiveness of wildlife management. It also provides important insights into human-wildlife relations and the 'social dimensions’ of wildlife management. Here, we examine how the attempted eradication of small populations of introduced monk parakeets (Myiopsitta monachus) from England has been challenged and delayed by opposition from interested and affected communities. We consider how and why the UK Government's eradication initiative was opposed, focusing on three key themes: disagreements about justifying management, the development of affective attachments between people and parakeets, and the influence of distrustful and antagonistic relationships between proponents and opponents of management. We draw connections between our UK case and previous management disputes, primarily in the USA, and suggest that the resistance encountered in the UK might readily have been foreseen. We conclude by considering how management of this and other introduced species could be made less conflict-prone, and potentially more effective, by reconfiguring management approaches to be more anticipatory, flexible, sensitive, and inclusive.

Wildlife reintroductions can unsettle social and ecological norms, and are often controversial. In this paper, we examine the recent (re)introduction of Eurasian beavers to England, to analyse responses to an unauthorised release of a formerly resident species. Although the statutory response to the introduction was to attempt to reassert ecological and political order by recapturing the beavers, this action was strongly opposed by a diverse collective, united and made powerful by a common goal: to protect England’s ‘new’ nonhuman residents. We show how this clash of state resolve and public dissent produced an uneasy compromise in the form of a formal, licensed ‘beaver reintroduction trial’, in which the new beaver residents have been allowed to remain, but under surveillance. We propose that although the trial is unorthodox and risky, there is an opportunity for it to be treated as a ‘wild experiment’ through which a more open-ended, experimental approach to co-inhabiting with wildlife might be attempted.

We consider the motivations, strategies and costs involved in invasive mammal management undertaken in the UK. Widespread established invasive mammals require long-term management to limit damage or spread, but ongoing management is costly and complex. Long-term management is most effective where it is applied at a landscape scale, but this requires overarching co-ordination between multiple stakeholders. Five challenges for successful long-term management of invasive mammal species are identified as: defining landscape scale strategies, management co-ordination, stakeholder and community engagement, sustainable funding and evidence requirements. We make recommendations on the supportive infrastructure needed for effective landscape-scale management of invasive mammals to fulfil long-term conservation aims, as follows. 1. There is a need for evidence-based Invasive Species Action Plans to provide strategy for the long-term ongoing management of prioritised species at appropriate scales. 2. Where possible, multispecies approaches to invasive species management should be adopted. 3. Trusted leadership should be identified to take ownership of Action Plans and provide an overarching co-ordination to bring individuals, organisations and funders together. 4. Support for a centralised hub for training, data and knowledge flows will greatly improve scientific outcomes through a searchable evidence base and best practise and knowledge sharing.

Flagship species are an important tool for mobilizing support for conservation. Here, we extend this concept to include individual organisms, whose characteristics, fates, and connections to people can garner public attention, attract conservation support, and spur activism. Flagship individuals typically share a similar suite of characteristics, including (1) species-level traits associated with charisma; (2) individual traits that are unique or distinctive; (3) a high degree of exposure to humans; and (4) a known, noteworthy life history or fate. The interplay between these characteristics and human agency establishes unique connections between flagship individuals and people, and generates widespread media attention. We discuss how the selection and promotion of flagship individuals can inspire empathy and, ultimately, conservation action. Finally, we identify the limitations of the flagship individual approach, while arguing that, if carefully and strategically implemented, it has the potential to produce substantial benefits for conservation policy and practice.

Species reintroductions are an increasingly popular conservation tool, typically aiming to achieve direct conservation benefits. Socio-cultural drivers also exist but have, to date, received very little attention in research and policy. As a case study, we focus on the recent and ongoing reintroduction of the white stork Ciconia ciconia to England, key drivers of which include connecting people with nature, providing local socio-economic benefits and inspiring environmental restoration. We surveyed 3531 people in Britain to establish and explore baseline perceptions toward white storks and their reintroduction, including their cultural salience. Findings were compared and evaluated between (i) self-selecting and nationally representative samples and (ii) residents living close to release sites versus non-locals. In contrast to self-selecting participants, most of the nationally representative sample had never heard of nor seen a white stork and were unaware of the reintroduction. Attitudes were more positive in the self-selecting sample and neutral or uncertain in the nationally representative sample. Consequently, to assess views of both engaged communities and wider publics, we recommend reintroductions adopt a similar two-mode sampling strategy to that used here when undertaking social feasibility assessments/public consultations. Eighty-six percent of participants supported the reintroduction overall. Reasons provided for support were diverse, relating to perceived or experienced socio-cultural benefits and values, general biodiversity enrichment, and moral impetus to restore formerly native species. Criticisms, raised by a minority, related to uncertainty/disagreement about the white stork's formerly native status; rigour of the ecological risk assessment; and a perceived lack of transparency regarding how the project supports conservation efforts. Given that reintroductions have underexplored potential to (re)establish socio-cultural relationships between people, wildlife and landscapes, and these are increasingly cited as justifications for reintroductions, we encourage further discussion and research in this area. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Abstract


Conservation conflicts are complex and can be deep‐rooted, with stakeholders holding entrenched policy positions. The actors involved producing verbal interconnected interactions that form policy debates. Thus, conservation debates can be viewed as network phenomena with stakeholders forming coalitions in support of, or opposition to, certain policies and practices.

We used Discourse Network Analysis of print media to investigate the structure and dynamics of the stakeholder debate around the management of hen harriers Circus cyaneus, a bird of prey at the centre of a long‐standing conservation conflict in the United Kingdom.

We aimed to determine whether the structure of discourse coalitions changed among the diverse aspects of the debate and whether the polarisation of the debate has changed through time. Our search and selection criteria led to the analysis of 737 statements within 131 newspaper articles published from August 1993 to December 2019.

We show that, while the discourse network of the overall debate is quite unstructured, actors formed divergent coalitions when defining the conservation problem and its solutions. In contrast, discourses converged around reactions with positive or negative emotions in relation to events and issues of hen harrier conservation. Polarisation among actors has increased over time and peaked in the second half of the 2010s, concurrent with the release of the species recovery plan.

Our study highlights the value of analysing discourse networks in conservation policy debates. Discourse networks reveal which aspects of any conservation problem cause stakeholders to converge or diverge and can identify periods of intensified debate that, ultimately, contribute to informing conflict mitigation and resolution processes.

Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Abstract


Conservation translocations are complex and challenging, but are frequently employed to tackle biodiversity decline. Large predator translocations can be particularly emotive and contentious, in part because they present actual or perceived risks to the safety and livelihoods of people. Understanding the social feasibility of conservation translocations is imperative, and provides opportunities to identify and address these risks.

In Britain, the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx is the most frequently raised prospect for large carnivore reintroduction. We used Q‐Methodology to explore stakeholder perspectives on the prospect of lynx reintroduction to Scotland.

We identified five perspectives: Lynx for Change was supportive of lynx reintroduction, feeling that lynx could facilitate ecosystem restoration. Lynx for Economy was also supportive, anticipating economic benefits to local communities. No to Lynx was strongly opposed, perceiving that humans were fulfilling the roles of absent large carnivores. Scotland is not Ready supported the conversation but perceived prohibitive socio‐ecological barriers. We are not Convinced was not satisfied that an adequate case for biodiversity gain had been made, but was open to further exploration of the potential.

There were important areas of divergence among the perspectives over the potential impacts on sheep farming and the degree to which environments should be managed by people or encouraged to self‐regulate. There was a consensus on a lack of trust between stakeholder groups, which was primarily rooted in participants' experiences of previous wildlife reintroductions and the contemporary management of recovering predators. However, there was also consensus that, should lynx reintroduction continue to be explored, a participatory, cross‐sectoral approach could address these trust issues, help manage existing and emergent conflicts, and build knowledge collaboratively.

We provide a foundation for future dialogue between stakeholders over the prospective reintroduction of the lynx to Scotland and recommend a stakeholder‐focused participatory process as the next step. Our findings have wider relevance for wildlife reintroductions, species recovery and conservation conflicts elsewhere.

Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Abstract


The global redistribution of species due to climate change and other anthropogenic causes is driving novel human–wildlife interactions with complex consequences. On the one hand, range‐shifting species could disrupt recipient ecosystems. On the other hand, these species may be contracting in their historic range, contributing to loss of biodiversity there. Given that arriving range‐shifting species could also perhaps have positive effects on recipient ecosystems, there is [in principle] a net benefit equation to be calculated. Thus, public opinion on these species may be divided and they may present a unique challenge to wildlife management.

We surveyed the opinion of wildlife recorders about the establishment and management of eight birds and eight insects whose ranges have recently shifted into the United Kingdom. We asked whether respondents' attitudes were explained by the species' or respondents' characteristics, and whether or not climate change was emphasised as a cause of range‐shift. We also conducted qualitative analysis of the recorders' text responses to contextualise these results.

Attitudes to range‐shifting species were mostly positive but were more ambivalent for less familiar taxa and for insects compared with birds. Respondents were strongly opposed to eradicating or controlling new range‐shifters, and to management aimed to increase their numbers. Whether climate change was presented as the cause of range‐shifts did not affect attitudes, likely because respondents assumed climate change was the driver regardless.

These findings suggest that it will be difficult to generate support for active management to support or hinder species' redistribution, particularly for invertebrate or overlooked species among wildlife recorders. However, the positive attitudes suggest that on the whole range‐shifting species are viewed sympathetically. Engaging with wildlife recorders may represent an opportunity to garner support for conservation actions which will benefit both currently native and arriving species, such as improvements to habitat quality and connectivity.

Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Abstract
Conservation decisions are typically constrained by the availability of published evidence. Practitioners and non‐academic experts often possess additional knowledge, including about the practical plausibility of conservation actions, which may lead to more effective planning and outcomes. However, practitioner knowledge is rarely considered during formal evidence syntheses.
Alongside a formal literature review, we conducted 26 interviews involving 38 conservation professionals to elicit their knowledge of the conservation of a protected and declining species in England, the hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius.
Practitioners and non‐academic experts provided additional insights about dormouse ecology and conservation, beyond those synthesized from the published literature, though we found few contradictions between these different information sources. Instead, practitioner knowledge helped to verify, clarify and expand upon evidence from empirical studies. In general, practitioners emphasized that dormice are far more adaptable than traditionally perceived, with thriving populations found in hedgerows, scrub, road verges and railway verges, rather than solely within broadleaf woodlands.
Proposed opportunities for restoring dormouse populations included improving hedgerow management, creating new woodlands, bringing existing woodlands back into management, setting aside unproductive land and improving habitat connectivity. However, participants emphasized the need for landscape‐scale approaches, accounting for the impacts of climate change, and better surveying and monitoring. Key practical considerations included overcoming time and financial constraints, providing better advice, knowledge and training, changing attitudes of land owners and managers and balancing other demands such as agricultural productivity and the requirements of other species.
Despite the insights they provided, participants highlighted many remaining knowledge gaps. These included uncertainties arising from the published literature, as well as scarcely studied topics that are of major practical importance, namely the effectiveness of dormouse mitigation measures in planning and development, and the impacts of anthropogenic disturbance and pollution on dormice.
Our findings improve the evidence base for restoring hazel dormouse populations and for further empirical evidence gathering. More generally, the study highlights how practitioner knowledge can help both to supplement traditional published evidence and to better frame conservation programmes, which may lead to more successful outcomes.

AbstractBeekeepers are central to pollinator health. For policymakers and beekeeping organisations to develop widely accepted strategies to sustain honeybee populations alongside wild pollinators, a structured understanding of beekeeper motivations is essential. UK beekeepers are increasing in number, with diverse management styles despite calls for coordinated practice to manage honeybee health. Our Q methodology study in Cornwall, UK, indicated five beekeeping perspectives; conventional hobbyists, natural beekeepers, black bee farmers, new-conventional hobbyists and pragmatic bee farmers. Motivations can be shared across perspectives but trade-offs (notably between economic, social responsibility and ideological motivations) result in differing practices, some of which counter ‘official’ UK advice and may have implications for pollinator health and competition. Honeybee conservation emerged as a key motivator behind non-conventional practices, but wild pollinator conservation was not prioritised by most beekeepers in practice. Q methodology has the potential to facilitate non-hierarchical collaboration and conceptualisation of sustainable beekeeping, moving towards co-production of knowledge to influence policy.

AbstractPredation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus presents a threat to biodiversity conservation in some ecological contexts. The proportions of wild prey captured and eaten by domestic cats and thus the contributions of wild prey to cat diets are hard to quantify. This limits the understanding of any impacts of cats may have on wild animal populations and confounds analyses of the effects of interventions aimed at reducing wildlife killing. We used stable isotope analyses to quantify the relative contributions of wild and provisioned foods to the diets of domestic cats kept as companion animals and which frequently captured wild prey. We tested the effects of treatments aimed at reducing killing upon stable isotope ratios of cat whiskers and, where treatments had significant effects, we estimated variation in the contributions of wild prey to cats’ diets before and during treatment. We evaluated bells, Birdsbesafe collar covers, provision of food in a “puzzle feeder,” provision of food in which meat was the principal source of protein, object play, and a control group. As expected, cat diets consisted primarily of provisioned foods, though the contribution of wild animals to the diets of these cats, all of which regularly caught wild animals, was low (cat food ˜96%, wild animals ˜3–4%). Compared to the pre‐treatment period and control group, cats with a Birdsbesafe collar cover exhibited a significant reduction in nitrogen stable isotope ratios in their whiskers and consumed less wild prey, most likely attributable to effective inhibition of hunting, particularly for birds. Fitting cats with a Birdsbesafe collar cover, therefore, reduced both returns of wild birds and consumption of wild prey. While multiple interventions can significantly affect the numbers of wild animals that cats capture and return home, the remarkably small dietary contributions made by wild animal prey mean dietary change is harder to discern. Domestic cats rely almost exclusively on food provided by people, even when they frequently kill wild animals. This suggests that the hunting behavior of domestic cats may be driven by behavioral motivations, or by a need to address micronutrient requirements, but is unlikely to alter macronutrient intake.

1.The domestic cat shares a longstanding history with humans. Depending on the ecological and cultural contexts in which it lives, it can be classified as an invasive species, feral animal, pest-controller and companion animal. Cat behavioural plasticity and adaptability to all ecosystems is mainly related to the retention of hunting behaviour, the management of which is a source of social controversies. Pet owners are often opposed to common hunting management strategies, due to safety concerns or limits imposed upon what they perceive as natural feline behaviours. Conversely, wildlife conservationists often advocate cat confinement as cats pose a threat to wild animal populations. A better understanding of cat hunting behaviour and novel management strategies that recognise both views are required for ameliorating these conflicts.

2. The retention of hunting behaviour by cats is an underexplored issue. Through a literature review, I identified drivers and facilitators of hunting behaviour, and the available measures to reduce impact of cats on wild fauna through population-level and individual-level strategies. Hunting is driven by evolutionary constraints mainly related to an obligate carnivorous diet. Lethal approaches are considered indispensable for cat eradications from islands and large-scale population control. Enrichment has the potential to be a successful approach for reducing hunting in pet cats.

3. Confinement and collar-mounted devices reduce prey killed by domestic cats, but owner uptake of those is low. With a before-after-control-impact design trial, I found that, alongside conventional approaches, the novel enrichment measures of provision of high-meat content, grain-free food and introduction of daily object play reduced numbers of prey items brought home by 36%, and 25% respectively. Such approaches reduce hunting motivation, rather than impeding hunting, and are likely to find more support among cat owners concerned about welfare implications of other interventions.

4. The number of prey items brought home represents only a proportion of the total prey killed by cats, but other prey is eaten. I used Bayesian stable isotope mixing models (BSIMMs) to estimate contributions of wild and provisioned foods to diets of cats, analysing whiskers of cats that depredate wild animals. I also determined whether common deterrents and novel interventions affect the relative importance of wild prey in cats’ diet. Wild prey was discernible from provisioned pet foods, indicating that cat diets consisted primarily of provisioned foods and wild animals contribute a low proportion. Fitting cats with a BirdsBeSafe collar cover further reduces consumption of wild prey. I concluded that hunting wild prey is likely to address some micronutrients requirements, or behavioural motivations.

5. Cat owners express safety concerns regarding their cats’ roaming behaviour. Cats are also a threat to wild fauna when roaming outside. I investigated the spatial ecology of cats that were both free to roam and partially confined by owners, and whether intervention measures for reducing predation also affect cat spatial behaviour. Cat home range size and roaming behaviour are affected by outdoor access. Cats fitted with a bell, provided with high-meat content food and subjected to object play increased time cats were located at home (Bell +29%; Food +20%; Play +24%). The most effective approach for reducing roaming remains confinement, whether partial or permanent.

6. Cat personality has been hypothesised to affect between-individual variation in hunting behaviour. I tested whether variation in the ‘Feline Five’ personality factors (scored by owners) allowed discrimination between cats that bring home prey and those that do not, and whether variation in number of prey returned is related to personality scores. Cats returning home prey were perceived by owners to be high in ‘extraversion’ or low in ‘neuroticism’. Variation in number of prey returned was not affected by any of the personality factors. Assessing behavioural needs through characterisation of individual personality has the potential to enhance approaches for managing hunting by cats.

7. Domestic cats have retained hunting behaviour, which may satisfy behavioural motivational needs and/or nutritional requirements. The novel strategies proposed for reducing hunting in pet cats broaden the approaches owners can adopt while accommodating their diverse perspectives on cat husbandry. A better understanding of the analytical components making the food successful in reducing hunting motivation is advised, particularly for improving environmental sustainability of pet food. Hunting management can be enhanced by designing solutions that consider both the wild and the domestic sides of cats, leading to successful results for conservation.

Policy proposals to address predation of wildlife by domestic cats (Felis catus) include reducing cat populations, regulating ownership, educating owners, and restricting cats’ outdoor access. Such proposals rarely account for cat owners’ perspectives, however, and are frequently met with strong, principled opposition. We conducted a Q‐methodological study to investigate the views of domestic cat owners in the UK on the roaming and hunting behaviors of their pets. We identified five distinctive cat‐owner perspectives: (1) Concerned Protectors focus on cat safety, (2) Freedom Defenders prioritize cat independence and oppose restrictions on behavior, (3) Tolerant Guardians believe outdoor access is important for cats but dislike their hunting, (4) Conscientious Caretakers feel some responsibility for managing their cats’ hunting, and (5) Laissez‐faire Landlords were largely unaware of the issues surrounding roaming and hunting behavior. Most participants valued outdoor access for cats and opposed confinement to prevent hunting; cat confinement policies are therefore unlikely to find support among owners in the UK. To address this conservation challenge, we argue that generic policies will be less effective than multidimensional strategies offering owners practical husbandry approaches that are compatible with their diverse circumstances, capabilities, and senses of responsibility.

Abstract


Domestic cats Felis catus are distinct from other domesticated animals because their phenotype and genotype are relatively unchanged. While they live with people as pets or pest controllers, they retain capacity for survival independent of human support and readily persist as feral animals. Most cats retain some propensity to express hunting behaviours, even if hunting is not required for nutrition. In some settings, depredation by cats is a threat to biodiversity conservation, leading to attempts to mitigate their impacts.

We characterise drivers and facilitators of the hunting behaviour of domestic cats: evolutionary origins, diet, life history, personality and environment. Hunting is driven particularly by evolutionary constraints and associated physiological and nutritional requirements. Proximate causes of variation in hunting behaviours relate to prey availability, husbandry and degree of domestication, while early life history and personality play further roles.

We review cat management approaches in terms of effectiveness, feasibility and welfare. Amongst lethal, large‐scale methods of population control, poisoning is most frequently used in cat eradications from islands. Because poisoning is challenged on welfare grounds, euthanasia is used at smaller scales and in inhabited, mainland settings. Non‐lethal approaches, primarily surgical sterilisation, are favoured by cat advocates but entail challenging logistics and scale. In attempts to inhibit predation of wild species by pet cats, owners restrict outdoor access and use collar‐mounted devices, including bells, sonic devices, collar covers and bibs. Other individual‐level interventions, such as dietary and behavioural enrichment, some of which may improve cat welfare, have potential, but effects on hunting remain untested.

Understanding and managing the hunting behaviour of cats are complex challenges. We highlight drivers and facilitators of this behaviour, representing starting points for formulating solutions that might be acceptable to cat owners and wider groups of people who value cat welfare, while also being effective for wildlife conservation.

Abstract


Disagreements and disputes over the management of predatory animals are a frequent feature of conservation conflicts. In the UK, there are long‐standing conflicts surrounding legal and illegal killing of predators as part of management fostering game species as quarry for sport shooting. Despite the central role of gamekeepers as stakeholders and actors in this predominant form of predator management, little direct attention has been paid to their perspectives and motivations.

We conducted semi‐structured interviews on the subject of predator management with 20 gamekeepers across the south of England and applied a social‐psychological approach to explore the underlying beliefs, norms and information sources associated with their actions. Data were analysed for patterns in terminology, rationalization or subject and synthesized into broad ‘motivations’, which were structured using a framework from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB).

Six primary motivations for predator management emerged: professional identity, personal norms, potential penalties, perceived impact, personal enjoyment and perceived ease. Perceived impact of predators on released game, and wildlife more broadly, was a central driver of predator killing. We identified three indirect influences on how this impact is judged: ‘maintaining balance’, ‘appeal to nature’ and ‘problem individuals’. We find that predator killing by gamekeepers is not solely a function of perceived economic loss but a product of multiple factors, including perceived professional norms, a sense of personal responsibility for game and non‐game wildlife, and assessments of predator populations and behaviours based on personal encounters.

Motivations were well characterized within the TPB framework, with links to subjective norms, attitudes and perceived behavioural control. Our use of this social‐psychological approach to understanding the actions and preferences of these key stakeholders highlights how behaviours that are central to conservation conflicts have multiple social and ecological drivers. Characterizing the multiple motivations behind predator killing might help address aspects of the social conflicts with which sport shooting is currently associated, if actions, deliberation and, where appropriate, mediation, can be targeted at the key concerns of these central stakeholders and actors.

A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Abstract


Reversing global declines in predator populations is a major conservation objective, though people frequently come into conflict over carnivore conservation. As part of a national recovery programme for the pine marten Martes martes, a protected mesocarnivore in the UK, we used Q‐methodology to understand the perspectives of residents living in an area in which a pine marten translocation project was planned.

In contrast to binary ‘for or against’ characterizations of debates surrounding such projects, we identified four perspectives with distinct priorities and concerns. A single perspective, ‘Concerned Manager’, opposed the translocation and marten recovery more generally, was apprehensive about impacts and favoured traditional predator management practices. Support was characterized by three perspectives: ‘Environmental Protectionist’, ‘Natural Resource Steward’ and ‘Cautious Pragmatist’. Two explicitly supported the translocation but differed in their priorities: Environmental Protectionist framed marten restoration as an ethical imperative, whereas Natural Resource Steward emphasized ecological and economic benefits. Cautious Pragmatist supported marten recovery, but expressed ambivalence about the translocation.

We identified areas of divergence between the four perspectives, particularly surrounding risks posed by martens and need for predator control. We identified two areas of consensus among the four perspectives: support for a biodiverse environment and translocations as a means of achieving this (though this was contingent on the species), and agreement there would be economic and ecological benefits if martens controlled non‐native grey squirrels Sciurus carolinensis.

We highlight that perspectives on this project were influenced by wider issues of wildlife management and conservation, particularly the impact and management of increasing populations of another mesocarnivore, the badger Meles meles. Negative experiences and perceptions of badgers were germane to the Concerned Manager perspective, and their fear that protected status would preclude marten population control. ‘Rewilding’ emerged as a divisive background issue, against which some participants evaluated the translocation.

In facilitating understanding of perspectives and establishing the contexts through which they were formed, we found that Q‐methodology enabled us, as a team comprising conservation practitioners and researchers, to engage meaningfully with affected residents. We recommend the tool as a useful step in assessing social feasibility of conservation translocations.

A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Human perceptions of nature and the environment are increasingly being recognised as important for environmental management and conservation. Understanding people's perceptions is crucial for understanding behaviour and developing effective management strategies to maintain, preserve and improve biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. As an interdisciplinary team, we produced a synthesis of the key factors that influence people's perceptions of invasive alien species, and ordered them in a conceptual framework. In a context of considerable complexity and variation across time and space, we identified six broad-scale dimensions: (1) attributes of the individual perceiving the invasive alien species; (2) characteristics of the invasive alien species itself; (3) effects of the invasion (including negative and positive impacts, i.e. benefits and costs); (4) socio-cultural context; (5) landscape context; and (6) institutional and policy context. A number of underlying and facilitating aspects for each of these six overarching dimensions are also identified and discussed. Synthesising and understanding the main factors that influence people's perceptions is useful to guide future research, to facilitate dialogue and negotiation between actors, and to aid management and policy formulation and governance of invasive alien species. This can help to circumvent and mitigate conflicts, support prioritisation plans, improve stakeholder engagement platforms, and implement control measures.

Abstract


The potential impact of domestic cats on wildlife is the subject of growing international interest and concern. While feral cats are often the primary focus of research and debate, in many societies a substantial proportion of domestic cats are owned by private individuals. We present a typology that classifies domestic cats in relation to varying degrees of human control over their reproduction, movement, and provisioning. Understanding the perceptions and practices of cat owners will be key to identifying and mitigating any negative ecological effects of cat hunting behaviour.

To investigate how cat owners perceive (a) their pets’ hunting behaviour, (b) their responsibilities for managing this, and (c) the mitigation strategies available, we conducted detailed interviews with a diverse sample of cat owners in the United Kingdom.

We identified a spectrum of views on hunting behaviour, from owners who perceived hunting as positive (for pest control, or as healthy cat behaviour) to those who were deeply concerned about its consequences for wild animals, their populations, and welfare. However, hunting was widely understood as a normal, natural component of cat behaviour, and owners rarely perceived a strong individual responsibility for preventing or reducing it.

Those who did wish to manage hunting perceived several barriers to this, including concern that they were unable to control behaviour effectively without compromising cat welfare, doubt about the efficacy and practicality of popular mitigation measures, and unfamiliarity with alternative options. We recommend that (a) initiatives directed at changing cat owners’ behaviour consider the multiple factors and competing priorities that inform their decision‐making (particularly cat health and welfare and practicality or cost of interventions); (b) researchers work collaboratively with cat owners and veterinary, cat welfare, and conservation organizations to identify effective solutions, and (c) some degree of accountability for managing problematic hunting behaviour should be promoted as a part of “responsible pet ownership” initiatives.

A plain language summary is available for this article.

Introduced species can have important effects on the component species and processes of native ecosystems. However, effective introduced species management can be complicated by technical and social challenges. We identify “social–ecological mismatches” (that is, differences between the scales and functioning of interacting social and ecological systems) as one such challenge. We present three case studies in which mismatches between the organization and functioning of key social and ecological systems have contributed to controversies and debates surrounding introduced species management and policy. We identify three common issues: social systems and cultures may adapt to a new species’ arrival at a different rate than ecosystems; ecological impacts can arise at one spatial scale while social impacts occur at another; and the effects of introduced species can spread widely, whereas management actions are constrained by organizational and/or political boundaries. We propose strategies for collaborative knowledge building and adaptive management that may help address these challenges.

The surveillance and control of introduced and invasive species has become an increasingly important component of environmental management. However, initiatives targeting ‘charismatic’ wildlife can be controversial. Opposition to management, and the subsequent emergence of social conflict, present significant challenges for would-be managers. Understanding the substance and development of these disputes is therefore vital for improving the legitimacy and effectiveness of wildlife management. It also provides important insights into human-wildlife relations and the 'social dimensions’ of wildlife management. Here, we examine how the attempted eradication of small populations of introduced monk parakeets (Myiopsitta monachus) from England has been challenged and delayed by opposition from interested and affected communities. We consider how and why the UK Government's eradication initiative was opposed, focusing on three key themes: disagreements about justifying management, the development of affective attachments between people and parakeets, and the influence of distrustful and antagonistic relationships between proponents and opponents of management. We draw connections between our UK case and previous management disputes, primarily in the USA, and suggest that the resistance encountered in the UK might readily have been foreseen. We conclude by considering how management of this and other introduced species could be made less conflict-prone, and potentially more effective, by reconfiguring management approaches to be more anticipatory, flexible, sensitive, and inclusive.

AbstractCinema offers a substantial opportunity to share messages with a wide audience. However, there is little research or evidence about the potential benefits and risks of cinema for conservation. Given their global reach, cinematic representations could be important in raising awareness of conservation issues and species of concern, as well as encouraging greater audience engagement due to their heightened emotional impact on viewers. Yet there are also risks associated with increased exposure, including heightened visitor pressure to environmentally sensitive areas or changes to consumer demand for endangered species. Conservationists can better understand and engage with the film industry by studying the impact of movies on audience awareness and behavior, identifying measurable impacts on conservation outcomes, and engaging directly with the movie industry, for example, in an advisory capacity. This improved understanding and engagement can harness the industry's potential to enhance the positive impacts of movies featuring species, sites, and issues of conservation concern and to mitigate any negative effects. A robust evidence base for evaluating and planning these engagements, and for informing related policy and management decisions, needs to be built.

As invasive species management becomes more ambitious in scope and scale, projects are increasingly challenged by disputes and conflicts among people, which can produce undesirable environmental and social outcomes. Here, we examine when and how conflicts have arisen from invasive species management, and consider why some management approaches may be more prone to conflict than others. Insufficient appreciation of sociopolitical context, non‐existent or perfunctory public and community engagement, and unidirectional communications can all foster “destructive” conflict. We propose that approaches to conflict in invasive species management might be transformed by anticipating disagreements, attending more carefully to the social‐ecological contexts of management, adopting more inclusive engagement mechanisms, and fostering more open, responsive communication. Conflicts may be unavoidable, but they can be anticipated and need not be destructive.

Wildlife reintroductions can unsettle social and ecological norms, and are often controversial. In this paper, we examine the recent (re)introduction of Eurasian beavers to England, to analyse responses to an unauthorised release of a formerly resident species. Although the statutory response to the introduction was to attempt to reassert ecological and political order by recapturing the beavers, this action was strongly opposed by a diverse collective, united and made powerful by a common goal: to protect England’s ‘new’ nonhuman residents. We show how this clash of state resolve and public dissent produced an uneasy compromise in the form of a formal, licensed ‘beaver reintroduction trial’, in which the new beaver residents have been allowed to remain, but under surveillance. We propose that although the trial is unorthodox and risky, there is an opportunity for it to be treated as a ‘wild experiment’ through which a more open-ended, experimental approach to co-inhabiting with wildlife might be attempted.

Summary


Invasive species management aims to prevent or mitigate the impacts of introduced species but management interventions can themselves generate social impacts that must be understood and addressed.

Established approaches for addressing the social implications of invasive species management can be limited in effectiveness and democratic legitimacy. More deliberative, participatory approaches are emerging that allow integration of a broader range of socio‐political considerations. Nevertheless, there is a need to ensure that these are rigorous applications of social science.

Social impact assessment offers a structured process of identifying, evaluating and addressing social costs and benefits. We highlight its potential value for enabling meaningful public participation in planning and as a key component of integrated assessments of management options.

Policy implications. As invasive species management grows in scope and scale, social impact assessment provides a rigorous process for recognising and responding to social concerns. It could therefore produce more democratic, less conflict‐prone and more effective interventions.

Summary


Invasive non‐native plants (INNPs) can have serious and widespread negative ecological and socio‐economic impacts. It is therefore important they are managed appropriately. Within domestic gardens management decisions, which will tend to be made by individual members of the public, are likely to vary depending on (a) understanding of problems caused by INNP, and (b) knowledge of best practice.

Using content analysis, an approach seldom employed in an ecological context, this study analysed variation in internet‐based information sources regarding INNP to determine how this collective discourse might influence risk perceptions and management decisions for domestic garden owners/managers. We used Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica in the UK, as a case study, as it is one of the most ecologically and economically damaging INNP in the region. Our analysis categorized the types of author disseminating information about Japanese knotweed, the relative frequency of documents between author categories, and variation in content and style between and within author categories.

We identified five author categories: environmental NGOs, control companies, government, media and the property market. There was extensive variation in document structure, topics discussed, references and links to other sources, and language style; sometimes this variation was between author categories and sometimes within author categories. The most significant variation in topics discussed between author categories was indirect socio‐economic problems, with control companies discussing these most. The number of pieces of legislation referenced and the proportion of militaristic words used were also highly significantly different between author categories. Some documents used neutral terminology and were more circumspect, whilst others were more forceful in expressing opinions and sensational.

The author category returning the highest number of documents was the subcategory local government, the shortest of which contained neither links to other information nor referenced any organizations. Further analysis of local government documents revealed conflicting advice regarding the disposal of Japanese knotweed waste material; confusion about this topic could result in decisions being made that spread Japanese knotweed further and are potentially unlawful.

The potential implications of our findings for the management of INNP in domestic gardens and societal perceptions of risks posed by INNP are discussed.

Synthesis and applications. To help prevent inappropriate management of invasive non‐native plants (INNPs), for example Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica in domestic gardens, we recommend that local and national authorities collaborate and work towards disseminating more consistent messages about (a) the potential socio‐economic and ecological problems caused by INNP, whilst avoiding hyperbole, and (b) the most appropriate management techniques.

The deserts of the Australian outback are ideal territories for dromedary camels, Camelus dromedarius. Dromedaries' flexible adaptations allow them to eat 80% of Australian plant species and they obtain much of their water through ingesting vegetation; they thrive where other species perish. In many ways, the dromedary could be said to "belong" in this harsh environment. Yet for numerous Australians, particularly ranchers, conservation managers, and increasingly local and national governments, camels are perceived as pests and unwelcome invaders. Anthropologists studying human classifications of non-human animals have suggested that those species or populations that fail to fit neatly into existing classification systems come to be considered "out of place," particularly when they enter human domains or disturb existing perceptual boundaries of environmental order. Through exploring and analyzing academic, government, and media publications, this review proposes that today's Australian dromedaries exemplify "animals out of place" and discusses how and why they have developed this status. It is further suggested that in addition to being classified as "out of place" in Australia, the dromedary has also become "out of time," as its classification has transformed with temporal shifts in human circumstances, cultural values, and worldviews.