Year of publication: 2023

Authors: Johnson, V., Martin, A., and Delugin, C. (Centre for Living Sustainability, UHI Inverness)
Cite as: Johnson, V., Martin, A., and Delugin, C. Nature’s contribution to people and community engagement: socio-cultural and economic perceptions of beaver presence in the environment. NatureScot Research Report 1318.
Contents
Keywords
Background
Main findings
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Glossary
Main body of the report
Context
Literature
Methodology
Case study area
Key findings
1. Perceptions of the local environment
2. Perceptions of beavers
3. Potential reintroduction and the translocation bid consultation 
4. Community conversation action planning 
Discussion
 
Keywords
Beaver; Castor fiber; translocation; conservation translocation; reintroduction; socio-cultural perceptions; participatory action research; Beauly catchment; nature’s contribution to people
Background
A formal reintroduction of Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) to Scotland took place in 2009 after a 400-year absence (having been driven to extinction). This was done through the licensed Scottish Beaver Trial which took place from 2009-2014 in Knapdale, Argyll (Jones and Campbell-Palmer, 2014). Larger populations have become established in Tayside and the Forth valley following unofficial releases and/or escapes (Gaywood, 2018; Dowse et al., 2020). Having been granted European Protected Species status in May 2019 by the Scottish Parliament, there is now serious consideration being given to further conservation translocations of beavers to other areas in Scotland.
To this end, Scotland’s Beaver Strategy 2022-2045 (‘the Strategy’) was published in August 2022, which included setting out the steps required to implement conservation translocations and manage beavers in the short to medium-term. Within the Strategy, it is acknowledged that beavers have an ecological, social, and economic impact, and their presence might not be appropriate in all locations where they might potentially thrive. The Strategy is therefore a ‘working document’ comprising a range of themes, goals, and objectives including the stipulation that ongoing research on beavers be undertaken.
As a result, NatureScot, and the organisations involved in producing the Strategy, are seeking a greater understanding of perceptions of beavers, improving community engagement in decisions about beavers, and increasing and communicating the ecological, environmental, social, and cultural knowledge base on beaver effects and impacts. In March 2021, a partnership was established between UHI Inverness, NatureScot, and cbec ecosystem engineering to undertake research on the ecosystem roles of beavers. The collaboration established four research objectives concerning: (i) beaver effects on physical processes, (ii) socio-cultural perceptions of beavers, (iii) the communication of research outputs, and (iv) support for additional research, monitoring and teaching opportunities.
This report specifically focuses on objective (ii) the socio-cultural objective of the wider project.  It also relates directly to the Goal 8, Objective E, Action (i) of the Strategy, and the requirement to undertake research on the current perceptions/impacts of having beavers, across different stakeholders and at differing scales (p.32). It should be noted that the Strategy was not published until late in the research process (August 2022). The implications of this on the project are explored in the body of this report. This includes recognition that achieving more locally accepted conservation translocation requires time for broader consultation in the community and ongoing information and education regarding beavers and nature’s contribution to people.
The purpose of this research was to work with a community to explore perceptions (views, ideas, opinions, and feelings) about beavers and their potential translocation. Working with local communities to understand socio-cultural perceptions and the potential impacts of beavers being in, or returned to, a catchment is crucial as social factors hold implications for the success or failure of such wildlife reintroduction projects (Coz and Young, 2020; Auster, Barr and Brazier, 2022a). The potential for human-wildlife conflicts to arise, which are seldom only about ecological factors, is a particular concern (Glikman et al., 2022).
The overall aim of the project was to inform policy and management practice regarding beaver conservation translocation within Scotland through an exploration and greater understanding of socio-cultural perceptions of beavers and their effects.
Specific objectives
To collate, analyse and report field-based evidence of beaver presence effects on socio-cultural and economic perceptions associated with ‘cultural ecosystem services’ and ‘nature's contribution to people’ that relate to people’s recreational, educational, and spiritual interactions with the environment, plus provisioning/regulating and supporting ecosystem services that all contribute to human well-being and have socio-cultural and economic effects.
Under the overall objective specified above the following sub-objectives were developed at the outset of the research process in collaboration with NatureScot:
(a) Implement community-engaged research that seeks to understand differing perceptions of beavers, where beavers have already been or are likely to be translocated.
(b) Capture this experience as a detailed case study in a community where beavers have been or are likely to be translocated.
(c) Encourage dialogue on policy and practice relating to beavers locally and regionally, combining stakeholder and community perspectives with evidence from physical and ecological dimensions of the wider research project.
d) To communicate the outputs of the above work through a local community conversation held within the case study community, circulation of the report directly within the community, and dissemination of the findings nationally and academically.
Activities completed to meet objectives
An initial workshop with key stakeholders, including NatureScot, Forestry and Land Scotland, and selected local landowners, was conducted to identify a suitable location for the research. The case study site selected was the River Beauly catchment (‘the catchment’), which extends from Loch Affric to the lower reaches of the Beauly Firth and includes the sub-catchments of the Rivers Glass, Cannich, Affric, and Farrar. This was chosen due to the existing presence of a small number of beavers (from prior escapes/unofficial releases) and a proposal (‘the bid’) led by Trees for Life in collaboration with local landowners, to reintroduce beavers to the upper Beauly catchment through the conservation translocation of animals from Tayside. As any conservation translocation bid, including those involving a licence application, requires consultation as stipulated in the Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations, a meeting was held with Trees for Life to ensure this research was complementary but separate to the community consultation work they were undertaking. It was agreed with all stakeholders that it was important for the UHI research team to remain independent of the translocation bid but that the context of the bid provided an important ‘real world’ dimension to the chosen case study. The Trees for Life community consultation was undertaken concurrently, and as anticipated, had a bearing on this project, the implications of which are discussed in detail in the findings and recommendations within the main report.
Participatory action research was undertaken between March and October 2022, with 82 individuals participating from local communities across the catchment. This comprised the research team going out and inviting people to interact with a range of material (posters, post-its, stickers) at various public locations. All participants were coded by gender, age, location (residency in the catchment), and relationship to land (see Table 3 in the main body of the report and the Methodology section for a detailed explanation of the methods, including the use of coding). The research explored:  
Perceptions of beavers (in general but also situated temporally and spatially), encompassing the role of beavers ecologically, culturally, and economically.
Community members' sense of context, place, and change relating to beaver presence in the landscape.
People’s views on the proposed translocation of beavers to the Beauly catchment and their responses to the associated consultation process being undertaken by Trees for Life.
Views on the management of beavers and associated governance of their translocation and reintroduction.
Towards the end of the research process a community conversation was held to share findings and encourage dialogue locally. This is a key component of participatory research, but it also fed into the broader communication objective of the research. In this conversation, details about the full research project, including findings from the physical, ecological, and socio-cultural work, were presented to the community with participants interacting with those findings in a process of participatory action planning. On completion of the study and reporting process, full project outputs will be communicated and made accessible to a wide audience.
Implications of context on the research
This research took place within, and therefore interacted with, a dynamic and evolving policy context. This context influenced the availability and awareness of guidance and information, and the processes and practice of community engagement. Government-led support for the proposed expansion of a large mammal species throughout Scotland, including potential active intervention through conservation translocation, is significant and unmatched in possible scope/impact. The nature of engagement sought with those interested and/or affected by these proposals is under development. ‘Proportionate stakeholder engagement’ is well referenced in the Strategy. ‘Stakeholder engagement’, the role of communication in ‘public engagement’, and the need for ‘consultation’ are also referenced within the Best Practice Guidelines for Conservation Translocations in Scotland. However, precise details stipulating the nature, extent and scope of engagement, or how formal community consultation should be carried out, is not prescribed, with these activities considered to be contingent on the specifics of individual translocation proposals. The commissioning of social science participatory action research is also somewhat new to NatureScot. The implications of this are discussed within the body of the report and the findings should be viewed in this context. In particular, certain aspects became apparent during the research process, or were established after, key elements of the research were undertaken. The specific implications resulting from this context are as follows:
With regards to terminology – at the outset of the research (May 2022) the use of the terms reintroduction and translocation were discussed. It is acknowledged in the Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations that  reintroduction is one type of conservation translocation and the overarching term referenced within the Strategy is ‘conservation translocation’. However, the term ‘reintroduction’ was selected for use in the participatory materials. This reflected, in part, its more common usage at the time but it was also selected for simplicity as an accessible term which could help to introduce participants to the research. Specific aspects of beaver translocation e.g. where would the animals being reintroduced to Beauly come from and why, were then explored during interaction and discussion with participants. When exploring perceptions within an evolving policy context, the terminology used by participants is not always consistent and does not necessarily reflect official definitions. For this research it was important to document how terms were being used by those involved, in particular community members, but also Trees for Life (more detailed explanation as to how terms have been understood and used are provided within the report - see also the Glossary).
In terms of the availability of information - throughout the research process, a range of material relating to beavers, their impacts and behaviour, potential control and recognised mitigation measures, guidance on consultation etc. was being developed, and gradually made available. Fundamentally however, the aim, was to establish what the community knew and perceived. In addition to information gaps, in some instances, material was in development (e.g. the Strategy), or even if available (e.g. on the Trees for Life website), was not necessarily known about. The focus of the research was on what participants reported, which was commonly that they wanted more information or were unaware of what was available etc. This has implications for the future communication and dissemination of information about beavers and is explored further within the report.
Main findings
Below are the main findings, which are elaborated and evidenced in the main body of the report.
Perceptions of beavers
Perceptions of beavers within the community, their impacts, and contribution to people, were diverse. There was no clear link to gender, but there were intergenerational differences.
There was a high degree of common understanding across participants about beaver behaviour and activities, although there was also a demand for more information.
There were varied (and in certain instances very polarised) views about whether those behaviours and activities (e.g. beavers modifying their environment), were considered positive or negative.
What was particularly important were the participants’ relationships to the land, for example where they had a role in conservation, land management, and/or were a landowner within the catchment.
The research demonstrated a clear relationship between concerns about beaver impacts and the perceived likelihood of different forms of impact. These differences were largely informed by the proximity of participants’ land/property to watercourses.
Participants’ perceptions of beavers were influenced by the context of the proposed translocation bid, specifically this was not a hypothetical exercise, but corresponded to the real potential for beavers to be actively released into the local environment.
Perceptions of beavers and the proposed translocation were also affected (both positively and negatively) by participants’ previous experiences of, and opinions about, Trees for Life.
Proposed further action
Based on the study findings, a range of further action is proposed covering: the report, beaver impacts, beaver management, information, education, community engagement, and guidance, including responsibilities. These points have emerged through the course of the research as being considered important, with many directly specified by participants e.g. through the action planning process. More details on each point can be found in the main report.
The report - proactive dissemination of this research in the local community and to broader stakeholders.
Beaver impact - further social and ecological research on beavers’ presence and impacts in specific locations would be beneficial to inform communities of context-dependant effects. Citizen science approaches could also help to increase direct engagement with communities where conservation translocations are proposed and with the wider public.
Beaver management - there needs to be greater clarity provided locally on management responsibilities, process, resources, control, and mitigation where beaver conservation translocations are proposed.
Information - the research highlighted the need to provide general information on beavers that is easily accessible to the public and communities. Information on beaver impact and management also needs to be explained locally.  
Education - there was a general appetite for a broader and deeper understanding of beavers, their behaviour within the environment, and potential interaction with other species.
Engagement - the methodology developed and applied within this study has increased community engagement over beavers and their potential translocation to the local environment of Beauly. It has also developed our understanding of Nature’s Contributions to People more broadly.
Guidance - the findings of this study can help develop better support and guidance for those proposing conservation translocations as to what constitutes good community engagement and consultation.
Acknowledgements
The team would like to thank the broader UHI team including Melanie Smith, Bernd Haenfling and Victoria Pritchard, Melanie Manwaring MacKay and Helen Miller, and the partners in cbec ecosystem engineering, particularly Matthew O’Hare. We would also like to thank Professor Andrew Church for his advice on the ‘Nature’s Contribution to People’ framework. Thank you to NatureScot for the funding and co-construction of the project, particularly Martin Gaywood and Angus Tree. Also, to the investment in this research by UHI Inverness who have supported the socio-cultural and ecological aspects of the interdisciplinary research. Finally, thanks go to all those who participated in the research, specifically members of the local community without whose time and patience this type of research would be impossible.
NatureScot Research Report 1318 - Nature’s contribution to people and community engagement: socio-cultural and economic perceptions of beaver presence in the environment | NatureScot