Search

This commentary reflects on the experiences of a cohort of human and physical geographers in enacting environmental collaborations during their doctoral studies. The authors identify three key structural barriers encountered whilst attempting a collaborative approach: (1) doctoral funding priorities, (2) doctoral resourcing and (3) assessing doctoral collaboration. The authors discuss how the negotiation of these encounters came to frame their understanding of collaborative approaches to environmental knowledge creation. Competitive application processes for doctoral studentships can encourage the overpromising of the impact of planned environmental collaboration, potentially co‐opting the voices of partners/communities to satisfy doctoral funding requirements. Given insufficient funding of collaborations, the authors argue that this overpromising of doctoral research's impact can later result in difficult trade‐offs between undertaking additional commitments at the expense of the career progression of the doctoral student, contributing to educational inequalities and scaling‐back the initial plans at the cost of collaborators encountering environmental crises. The trade‐off is further problematised by institutional assessment procedures that do not adequately recognise the more nuanced contributions of environmental collaborations and a prevailing culture promoting peer‐review publishing. Overall, the commentary argues that these barriers help to reproduce inequalities in the distribution of voice in environmental scholarship, undermining efforts to democratise environmental knowledge creation in doctoral research. The authors call for specific structural reforms of doctoral programmes to help address these challenges and support a broader resistance to the inadequate resourcing and evaluation of environmental collaborative research in UK higher education. This commentary reflects on the experiences of a cohort of human and physical geographers in enacting environmental collaborations during their doctoral programmes. We draw attention to the key structural barriers we encountered. Going forward, we call for specific structural reforms of doctoral programmes to help address these challenges and support wider environmental collaborative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social factors hold implications for the success or failure of wildlife reintroductions. Potential conflict issues may prevent projects from proceeding or succeeding. The manner in which wildlife managers engage with affected people in conflict scenarios may prevent or contribute toward conflict escalation, so an understanding of how to improve engagement is required. We conducted interviews with individuals who reported conflicts with beavers (Castor fiber) within the case study of a reintroduction trial in England, called the 'River Otter Beaver Trial'. Using a qualitative thematic analysis, we identified five themes to be considered when engaging with affected people in beaver reintroduction conflicts: (1) Proactive Engagement or a Fast Response; (2) Appropriate Communication; (3) Shared Decision-Making; (4) Sense that Humans are Responsible for Conflicts with Reintroduced Species; (5) A Need for Certainty. We conclude that engagement with affected individuals will likely be improved, with reduced conflict potential, where these themes are addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) reintroduction is taking place in England with potential benefits for flood alleviation and biodiversity; however there is also opposition. One area of controversy relates to fish and fishing. A previous meta-analysis of research into beaver-fish relationships found perceived benefits of beavers amongst fish and beaver "experts" included increased fish abundance and productivity, whilst perceived negatives included impeded fish passage and reduced spawning habitat availability. We further this understanding using Q-Methodology (a social science technique) to reveal three nuanced and contrasting perspectives that exist amongst the angling community in the catchment of a trial reintroduction. Due to a conflict potential between groups, we suggest management themes to help reduce this where reintroduction occurs: open, cross-sectoral dialogue about research into beaver-fish relationships and management; a management strategy which supports ecosystem benefits whilst providing a sense of empowerment for individuals to respond to negative impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beavers have the ability to modify ecosystems profoundly to meet their ecological needs, with significant associated hydrological, geomorphological, ecological, and societal impacts. To bring together understanding of the role that beavers may play in the management of water resources, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems, this article reviews the state‐of‐the‐art scientific understanding of the beaver as the quintessential ecosystem engineer. This review has a European focus but examines key research considering both Castor fiber—the Eurasian beaver and Castor canadensis—its North American counterpart. In recent decades species reintroductions across Europe, concurrent with natural expansion of refugia populations has led to the return of C. fiber to much of its European range with recent reviews estimating that the C. fiber population in Europe numbers over 1.5 million individuals. As such, there is an increasing need for understanding of the impacts of beaver in intensively populated and managed, contemporary European landscapes. This review summarizes how beaver impact: (a) ecosystem structure and geomorphology, (b) hydrology and water resources, (c) water quality, (d) freshwater ecology, and (e) humans and society. It concludes by examining future considerations that may need to be resolved as beavers further expand in the northern hemisphere with an emphasis upon the ecosystem services that they can provide and the associated management that will be necessary to maximize the benefits and minimize conflicts. This article is categorized under:Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines state that anticipated impacts must be considered in wildlife reintroduction, including the impacts on humans. Further, since reintroduction projects can be halted by resulting human–wildlife conflicts or human–human conflicts about wildlife, the perceptions of stakeholders and publics are of great importance. Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) reintroduction is being debated in Great Britain at a devolved level. A decision has already been taken in Scotland to allow beavers already present to remain, while a number of reintroduction trials are taking place in England (both fenced and unfenced). There are also proposals for a reintroduction trial in Wales. We use a sub‐set of results from a nationwide survey (n = 2,759) to identify four social areas that we propose decision‐makers should consider in the debate: key stakeholder perceptions; engagement methods; attitudes towards legal protection and management responsibilities; and support for management techniques. In this paper, we investigate the complex social dimensions of wildlife reintroduction and we argue that emphasis should be placed on the need to recognise societal perceptions of potential management solutions, beyond perceptions of reintroduction itself. This is paramount in order to develop a management strategy that is more likely to garner social support and reduce potential future conflicts, should beaver reintroduction proceed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]