PR

IFY

SG

OL

BA

NG

OR

B

AN

GO

R U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y

Value diversity and conservation conflict Lessons from the managementof red grouse and hen harriers in EnglandSt John Freya A V Steadman Janna Austen Gail Redpath Steve M

People and Nature

DOI101002pan35

Published 01032019

Publishers PDF also known as Version of record

Cyswllt ir cyhoeddiad Link to publication

Dyfyniad or fersiwn a gyhoeddwyd Citation for published version (APA)St John F A V Steadman J Austen G amp Redpath S M (2019) Value diversity andconservation conflict Lessons from the management of red grouse and hen harriers in EnglandPeople and Nature 1(1) 6-17 httpsdoiorg101002pan35

Hawliau Cyffredinol General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors andorother copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legalrequirements associated with these rights

bull Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of privatestudy or research bull You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain bull You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim

24 May 2020

People and Nature 20181ndash12 emsp|emsp1wileyonlinelibrarycomjournalpan3

Received6June2018emsp |emsp Accepted19November2018DOI 101002pan35

R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E

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

Freya A V St John1 emsp|emspJanna Steadman2emsp|emspGail Austen1emsp|emspSteve M Redpath3

ThisisanopenaccessarticleunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicensewhichpermitsusedistributionandreproductioninanymediumprovidedtheoriginalworkisproperlycitedcopy2018TheAuthorsPeople and NaturepublishedbyJohnWileyampSonsLtdonbehalfofBritishEcologicalSociety

1SchoolofNaturalSciencesBangorUniversityBangorUK2DurrellInstituteofConservationampEcologySchoolofAnthropologyandConservationUniversityofKentCanterburyUK3InstituteofBiologicalampEnvironmentalScienceUniversityofAberdeenAberdeenUK

CorrespondenceFreyaAVStJohnSchoolofNaturalSciencesBangorUniversityBangorUKEmailfstjohnbangoracuk

Funding informationThisresearchwasfundedbyDepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairsoftheUKGovernment

HandlingEditorLeahGibbs

Abstract1 Conflictsbetweenpeopleoverwildlifemanagementaredamagingwidespreadandnotoriouslydifficulttoresolvewherepeopleholddifferentvaluesandworld-viewsCognitiveapproachesexaminingstepsfromhumanthoughttoactioncanhelpusunderstandconflictandexplorestrategiesfortheirmanagement

2 Wefocusedontheconflictbetweenhuntersandconservationistsovertheman-agementofredgrouse(Lagopus lagopus scoticus)andhenharriers(Circus cyaneus) intheEnglishuplandswhichrepresentsaclassicpersistentconflictwherehumandimensionsarepoorlyunderstood

3 Guidedbyconceptualframeworksfromsocialandenvironmentalpsychologyweconductedaquestionnaire‐basedstudytoassesswildlifevalueorientationsofkeystakeholders We quantified attitudes towards hen harriers grouse shootinggamekeepersandraptorconservationistsWealsomeasuredsupportoppositionforharriermanagementstrategiesinEnglandandinvestigatedtrustintherespon-siblegovernmentauthority

4 Wepresentdatafrom536respondentsfromfieldsportornatureconservationorganizationsRespondentswerecategorizedaccordingtotheprimaryobjectivesoftheiraffiliatedorganizationFieldsport(iehunters)Non‐raptorPro‐raptorandPro‐bird (ieorganizationspromotingconservationofbirdsexcluding rap-torsraptorsspecificallyorbirdsgenerally)

5 UtilitarianvalueorientationswereprominentamongFieldsportandNon‐raptorrespondentsMostPro‐raptorandPro‐birdparticipantsheldmutualistvalueori-entationsindicatingtheydidnotsupportshootingormanagementofwildlife

6 Assuggestedbythecognitivehierarchywefoundstrongcorrelationsbetweenattitudeandsupportformanagementoptionsourproxyforbehaviour

7 Pro‐bird affiliates showed clear preference for less invasive management andalongwithPro‐raptorrespondentsdidnotsupportbroodmanagement(removalandlaterreleaseofeggsyoungwhenharrierdensityishigh)Fieldsportindividu-als expressed a degree of support for all management types Trust in NaturalEnglandwaslimited

8 Understandingvalueorientationsandattitudesofstakeholdershelpsexplaindif-ferencesinlevelsofsupportformanagementapproachesOurstudyhighlighted

2emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

1emsp |emspINTRODUC TION

Conflictbetweenpeopleoverthemanagementofwildlife iswide-spread(RedpathGutieacuterrezWoodampYoung2015)Suchissuesarenotoriously complex and difficult to resolve as they often involvepartieswithdifferentidentitiesvaluesandworldviewsIdentifyingandagreeingupon interventions in such ldquowickedrdquo settings is chal-lenging in part becauseweneed a cross‐disciplinary approach toaddress these problems (Mason et al 2018) Even if the ecologyis understood and management put in place to minimize wildlifeimpact underlying social conflicts are likely to continue if theyaredrivenbydeep‐seatedvaluedifferences (MaddenampMcQuinn2014Manfredoetal2017)Scholarsfromdiversefieldsincludinganthropology geography and history have explored connectionsandinteractionsbetweenhumansandnonhumananimals(DeMello2012) For example through an anthropological lensWhitehouse(2009) investigated ldquothe goose problemrdquo on Islay ScotlandDuffyandMoore(2010)examinedthepoliticalecologyofhumanndashanimalrelationshipsinthecontextofelephanttourismandPooley(2016)interrogated environmental histories of human relationswithNile

crocodilesInspiredbyitsappliednatureherewefocusonhumandimensionsofwildliferesearchwhichaimstoevaluatepublicopin-ionregardingspeciesandtheirmanagementinordertoinformman-agementdecisions(Manfredo2008)

Cognitiveapproaches thatexamineconceptsunderpinning thestepfromhumanthoughttoactioncanhelpusunderstandpeoplesbehaviourandsocialconflictsAccordingtosocio‐psychologicalthe-oryanindividualsviewoftheworldcanbeorganizedaccordingtoacognitivehierarchyconsistingofvaluesbasicbeliefsthatdeterminevalueorientationattitudesandnormsbehavioural intentionsandbehaviour(Figure1)Thesecognitionsarepresumedtobuilduponeach other For example values which are modes of conduct orqualitiesoflifethatweholddearsuchashonestyorfreedominflu-encepeoplesattitudesandnormswhichinturnaffectbehaviourValuesinthissensewhichdifferfromvalueaspreferenceorvalueasacontributiontoagoal(TadakiSinnerampChan2017)transcendspecificsituationsthussomeoneholdinghonestyasavaluewouldexpressthisintheirattitudesacrossmultipletopics(eg lawcom-plianceandinteractionswithfriends)Inturntheseattitudeswouldleadapersontobehaveinamannerconsistentwiththisvalue(eg

stronglydivergentbeliefsSuchpositionsarehardtochangeIncreasingthelevelofecologicalknowledgealoneisunlikelytofacilitateconflictmanagementInsteadconflictmanagementwouldbenefitfromcombiningsuchknowledgewithafocuson relationshipsdeliberation and trust in addition toexploring comanagementinterventions

K E Y W O R D S

conflictconservationpsychologyperceptionshenharrierpredatorredgrousetrustwildlifevalueorientations

F I G U R E 1 emspThecognitivehierarchy(left)consistsofgeneralcognitions(valuesandvalueorientations)andspecificcognitions(attitudesandnorms)whichunderpinbehaviouralintentionsandbehavioursAnunderlyingvalueconcerningldquorespectforliferdquomaytakedivergentpathsForexampleonesvaluesmayorientatetowardsanimalshavingrightsequaltopeopleorincontrasttowardshumaneuseofanimalsSuchdifferencesinvalueorientationultimatelyresultindifferentbehavioursinthisexamplevotingtobanhuntingcomparedtoengaginginhuntingAdaptedfromVaskeandManfredo(2012)HumaniconbyFreepik

Values

Value orientations(Basic belief patterns)

Attitude amp norms

Behavioural intentions

Behaviours

Respect for life

Animals have rights like human

We should use animals but be humane

Hunting is a negative activityYou should not kill animals

Hunting it a positive activityYou should eat animals you shoot

HuntsVotes to ban hunting

Intends to support anti-hunt activities

Intends to hunt

emspensp emsp | emsp3People and NatureST JOHN eT al

theywouldcompletetaxreturnsandbehonestwiththeirfriends)(Manfredo 2008 Vaske ampManfredo 2012) Basic beliefs whichdefinehowpeopleapplyspecificvaluestotheir livessitbetweenvaluesandattitudesandnormsinthecognitivehierarchyWhilein-dividualsmaysharethesamefirst‐ordervaluesuchasrespectforlifetheymaydifferintheirbasicbeliefsassociatedwiththisvalue(Figure1VaskeampManfredo2012)Becausevalueorientationsulti-matelyinfluencebehaviourunderstandingtheminrelationtowild-life canhelpmanagerspredict support for interventions (VaskeampDonnelly1999VaskeampManfredo2012)IndeedChanetal(2016)outlinedhowamorerobustconsiderationofrelationalvalueswhichconcern all manners of relationships between people and natureincluding relationshipsbetweenpeople that involvenaturewouldleadtomoreproductivepolicyapproaches

Twopredominantvalueorientationshavebeenidentifiedinre-lationtowildlifeutilitarianismandmutualismIndividualsholdingautilitarianwildlifevalueorientationbelievewildlifeexistsforhumanuseandenjoymentandthat itshouldbemanagedtobenefitpeo-pleConverselymutualists believe in the harmonious coexistenceofhumansandwildlifeandthatwildlife isdeservingofrightssim-ilartopeople(JacobsVaskeampSijtsma2014WhittakerVaskeampManfredo2006)PeoplecanalsobeclassifiedasholdingpluralistordistancedwildlifevalueorientationsPluralistsholdbothutilitar-ianandmutualistbeliefsand theexpressionofoneviewover theother is influencedbycontextdistanced individualsdonot advo-cateeitherperspectiveindicativeofalimitedconnectiontowildlifeandlittleinterestinwildlifeissues(TeelampManfredo2010)Wildlifevalueorientationshavehelpedexplainpatternsofhumanbehaviourrelatingtowildlifeinanumberofstudies(egFultonManfredoampLipscomb1996Jacobsetal2014TeelampManfredo2010VaskeampDonnelly1999)Forexampleindividualsholdingmutualisticvalueorientations towards forestsweresignificantlymore likely toholdproforest‐preservation attitudes and intended to vote in supportof forest preservation compared to individuals holding utilitarianvalueorientations(VaskeampDonnelly1999)IncontrastindividualsholdingutilitarianvalueorientationsshowedlimitedsupportforthereintroductionofwolvesorbisontoGermanycomparedtopeopleholding mutualistic value orientations (Hermann Voszlig amp Menzel2013)Managementactionsdesignedtoaddressconservationcon-flictsmaynot thereforebeacceptedunanimouslyas stakeholdersmayvaryintheirwildlifevalueorientationsandthusinwhatactionstheydeemtobeacceptable(Jacobsetal2014)

The persistent conflict between hunting and conservation in-terestsoverthemanagementofredgrouse (Lagopus lagopus scoti‐cus) andhenharrier (Circus cyaneus) in theUKuplands representsaclassicexampleofhowresearchhasfocussedonecology(ElstonSpeziaBainesampRedpath2014ThirgoodampRedpath20052008)Grousemanagementoccursonprivateestates inheather (Calluna vulgaris)mdashdominated moorlandsmdasha habitat of international con-servation interest (ThompsonMacDonaldMarsden amp Galbraith1995)InEnglandmuchofthegrousemanagementisintensiveandfocusedondeliveringlargenumbersofbirdsforshootingPredationbyraptorsinparticularhenharrierscanincertaincircumstances

significantly limit red grouse populations reducing the numberavailabletoshootandthustheeconomicviabilityofdrivengrouseshoots (Sotherton Tapper amp Smith 2009 Thirgood et al 2000)ConsequentlyharriersandotherraptorsalthoughprotectedunderUKlegislationsince1952areillegallykilledongrousemoors(Amaretal2012RedpathAmarSmithThompsonampThirgood2010)TheextentofillegalpersecutionmeansharriersarevirtuallyabsentfromintensivelymanagedgrousemoorsacrosstheUnitedKingdom(Redpathetal2010)Theconflictishighlypoliticalandconstantlychangingbutinessenceitisbetweenthosewhowishtominimizetheimpactofharriersongrousepopulationssometimesthroughil-legalkillingofharriersandadvocatesofharrierswhodemandthatthelawbeupheldbeforeanycompromisingsolutionsbeconsidered(ThirgoodampRedpath2008)Increasinglyhoweverargumentsem-ployedbyconservationistsareshiftingtowardsbroaderimpactsofgrousemanagementonuplandecosystemsasawhole(Avery2015Thompsonetal2016)

Althoughthereisgeneralagreementabouttheevidenceoftheecologicalrelationshipsbetweenharriersandgrousethereismuchless agreement aboutmanagement Suggested strategies have in-cludeddiversionaryfeedingofharrierstoreducepredatoryimpactongrousereintroductionofharriersawayfromgrousemoorsre-moving eggschicks fromnestswhenharrier density is high rear-ingincaptivityandreleasing(broodmanagement)licencinggrousemoors to ensure sustainable and legal management practicesand banning driven grouse shooting (Avery 2015 Harper 2018RedpathThirgoodampLeckie2001ThirgoodampRedpath2008)Ofthesediversionaryfeedinghasbeentrialledatonesiteandfoundtobeeffectiveatreducingthenumberofgrousechickseatenbyharri-ers(Redpathetal2001)DespitethisfeedinghasnotbeenwidelytakenupongrousemoorsOthermethodshavenotbeentrialledStudieshaveexaminedtheecologyofthisconflictandondevelop-ingmitigationtoreducetheimpactofpredationongrousestocksSofarsuchapproacheshavefailedtoreducetheconflictThecriticalhumandimensionshavebeenmuchlessstudied(HodgsonRedpathFischerampYoung2018MarshallWhiteampFischer2007)yetareessential to the development of conflict management strategies(ThirgoodampRedpath2008)

ThereiscurrentlynodialogueprocessinplacetosupportconflictmanagementintheconflictoverharrierandgrousemanagementinEnglandPreviousdialogue searching for shared solutionswases-tablishedin2005(Elstonetal2014)Howeverthiswasunsuccess-fulasconservationorganizationswithdrewfromtheprocesspartlybecause harriers continued to be killed illegally becoming locallyextinct as a breeding bird in England in 2013 This led to theUKGovernmentsDepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairs(DEFRA)viaNaturalEnglandtakingovertheprocessandproduc-ingthejointactionplantoincreasetheEnglishhenharrierpopula-tion Theplan includes six actionsmonitoring harrier populationsinEnglandandtheUKdiversionaryfeedingimprovingintelligenceandenforcementnestandwinterroostprotectionareintroductionintosouthernEnglandonlandnotassociatedwithgrouseshootingandatrialbroodmanagementschemeBroodmanagemententails

4emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

eggsoryoungfromonenestbeingremovedraisedincaptivityandlaterreleasediftwoharriernestsoccurwithin10km(DEFRA2016)

Our study aimed to explore factors associated with supportopposition for the different interventions proposed in the ActionPlanWetargetedarangeoforganizationstakingpositionsondif-ferentsidesofthedebatefromprofieldsports(iehuntingshoot-ing fishing) to proraptor (specializing in raptor protection)NGOsSpecificallytheaimsofthisstudywereto (i)assesswildlifevalueorientations(ii)quantifyattitudestowardshenharriersmaintainingaruralwayof lifegrouseshootinggamekeepersandraptorcon-servationists (iii)understandperceptions towards theActionPlanmanagementstrategiesand(iv)investigatelevelsoftrustinNaturalEnglandastheresponsiblegovernmentauthoritySuchinsightwillhelp inunderstandingwhyconflictpersistsandguide itseffectivemanagement

2emsp |emspMATERIAL S AND METHODS

Questionnaire construction was guided by conceptual frame-works developed in social and environmental psychology (egFultonetal1996Marshalletal2007Manfredo2008TeelampManfredo2010) thataimtounderstandhumanactions towardswildlifeThequestionnaire(SupplementaryInformation)consistedofsixcoresectionsFirstweexploredrespondentsrsquobasicknowl-edgeandexperienceofharriersSecondbasicbeliefsweremeas-ured by asking respondents to indicate their level of agreementwithninebeliefstatementsaboutwildlifemanagementshootingandequalitybetweenpeopleandwildlife(SupportinginformationTableS1)Thesestatementswereadaptedfrompreviousstudies(Fultonetal1996Whittakeretal2006ZainalAbidinampJacobs2016) to suit the harriergrousemanagement context Togetherthescoresfromthesestatementsformedanindexthatdescribedwhere respondents sat on the utilitarian‐mutualist continuumthat is their wildlife value orientation (Manfredo 2008 Teel ampManfredo 2010) Third 19 statements investigated specific at-titudestowardsharriersontheEnglishuplands the importanceof harrier conservation compared tomaintaining a rural way oflife grouse shooting gamekeepers and raptor conservationists(SupportinginformationTableS2)Fourthparticipantswereaskedtoexpress their levelof support for current andproposedman-agementoptionsdefinedintheActionPlanFifthforeachman-agementoption respondents indicatedhowmuch the approachwouldincreasethenumberofharriersinEnglandreduceimpactofharriersonredgrouse reducedisagreementsbetweenstake-holders and reduce illegal harrier killing Lastly using a 5‐pointscalerespondentsindicatedtheirleveloftrustinNaturalEngland(strongly distrust=minus2 strongly trust=2) Respondents couldselect ldquoDont knowrdquo or similar (eg not applicable) throughoutThe questionnaire was piloted among colleagues and membersofDEFRAsBroodManagementWorkingGroupwithminoreditsmadepriortodatacollection

21emsp|emspData collection

We disseminated the online questionnaire (SurveyMonkey)through eight organizations that represented the interests offieldsportsandbirdsOrganizationswereprovidedwithauniqueweb linktothequestionnaireembeddedwithinemail text intro-ducingthestudyInvitationswereonlysenttomembersresidingin England as management approaches differ elsewhere in theUnitedKingdomWheregt400members fulfilled thiscriteria in-vitationsweresenttoasimplerandomsampleofindividualsOurstudywasapprovedbyBangorUniversityEthicsCommittee(ap-provalnumbercns2017fsj01)

22emsp|emspAnalysis

PriortoanalysisdatafromtheeightorganizationswerecombinedRespondentswereassignedtooneoffourcategoriesaccordingtotheprimaryobjectivesoftheiraffiliatedorganizationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingonthepro-tectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo (specializing inraptorprotec-tion)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)

StatementsmeasuringbasicbeliefitemswerecodedsuchthathighscoreswereindicativeofutilitarianresponsesbeforewildlifevalueorientationswereassessedConfirmatoryfactoryanalysis(CFA)was conducted to test whether the a priori groupings ofvariablesintowildlifebeliefdimensionsandwildlifevalueorien-tation domainswere a good fit to the data (Fulton et al 1996TeelampManfredo2010)TheCFAswereperformedusingprinci-pal axis factoringwith orthogonal (varimax) rotation Reliabilityof variable groupings was confirmed using Cronbachs alpha (ameasure of how closely related a set of variables are) and thusaveragescoresacrosseachofthedimensionsanddomainswerecalculatedWe assessed the internal consistency of statementsmeasuringattitudesinfivetopicsusingCronbachsalphabeforecalculatingaverageindividual‐levelattitudescorespertopic

Weusedone‐wayanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)andposthoctests(TukeysHSD)toassessdifferencesinrespondentaffiliationwildlifevalueorientationandattitudesPearsonsrwasusedtoinvestigate the relationship betweenwildlife value orientationsand attitudes attitudes and support formanagement and par-ticipantaffiliationand trust inNEAll analyseswereconductedinSPSS(version24)

3emsp |emspRESULTS

Of 2807 invited participants 555 responded Records where noquestionswereansweredweredeleted (n=19) leavingdata from536 respondents affiliated to Field sport (n=142) Non‐raptor(n=145)Pro‐raptor(n=147)andPro‐bird(n=102)organizationsMost respondentswereawareof theActionPlan (864)but lessthanhalf(396)hadreadit

emspensp emsp | emsp5People and NatureST JOHN eT al

31emsp|emspBasic beliefs and wildlife value orientation

Confirmatory factor analysis provided factor loadings that sup-ported the a priori grouping of the nine basic belief statementsinto three dimensions named ldquoWildlife Managementrdquo ldquoShootingrdquoand ldquoEquality betweenpeople andwildliferdquo reflecting the contentof the statements incorporated into each dimension (SupportingInformation Table S1) This analysis shows for example that thefivestatementsdesignedtomeasurebasicbeliefstowardsshootingdoindeedmeasureoneunderlyingldquolatentvariablerdquowhichwehavecalledShootingThereliabilityofourthreebasicbeliefdimensionswasconfirmedbyCronbachsalphawhichrangedfrom052to092(SupportingInformationTableS1)

ThesecondfactoranalysisofrespondentsrsquobasicbeliefdimensionscoresidentifiedtwowildlifevalueorientationdomainsdefinedasSpeciesManagementwhichencompassedbasicbeliefsconcerningWildlifeManagement andShooting andEqualitybetweenpeopleand wildlife (ldquoEqualityCOR(20)rdquo) Respondents were then catego-rized into wildlife value orientations according to their scores onSpecies Management (median=05) and Equality (median=minus05)withhighscoresbeingabovethemedianineachdomainThisscor-ingrevealedfourcategoriesalongthetwodimensionstowhichweassignedthelabelsUtilitarianPluralistAPluralistBandMutualist(Table 1) Respondents categorized as Utilitarian scored high forbothSpeciesManagementandEqualitywhich indicatedthat theyheldaviewofhumanmasteryofnatureandprioritizedhumanwell‐beingovertherightsofwildlifeIndividualsassignedtothePluralistsA category accrued high scores indicative of support for SpeciesManagementbutscoredlowonEqualityshowingtheynotonlysup-portedWildlifeManagementbutalsoconsiderwildlifedeservingofrightsPluralistBindividualsdidnotadvocateawhollyutilitarianor

mutualistviewtheyscoredlowonSpeciesManagementandhighonrightsindicatingalackofsupportforshootingormanagementbutnotduetobeingadvocatesofwildliferightsMutualistsscoredlowonSpeciesManagementandlowonEqualityindicatingthattheydidnotsupportshootingormanagementofwildlifeandviewedwildlifetobesomewhatequaltohumansanddeservingofrights

Mean wildlife value orientation scores differed significantlybetween Utilitarian Pluralist A Pluralist B and Mutualist respon-dents (Species Management (F(3491)=52241 plt001 Equality(F(3491)=38916 plt001) Post hoc tests (Tukeys HSD) revealedthatsupportforWildlifeManagementandShootingwasloweramongpeopleholdingMutualistandPluralistBvalueorientationscomparedto Utilitarian or Pluralist A orientations In contrast people holdingUtilitarianandPluralistBvalueorientationssupportedargumentsthatindicatedtheneedsofpeoplearemore importantthantherightsofanimalwhencomparedtopeopleclassifiedasMutualistorPluralistA

Whilethereisvariationinwildlifevalueorientationwithinaffil-iations(eg512ofFieldSportrespondentsholdUtilitarianvalueorientations438PluralistA17PluralistBand33Mutualist)themajority(512)ofFieldSportaffiliatesandmany(397)asso-ciatedwithNon‐raptororganizationsreportedUtilitarianvalueori-entationsinkeepingwithhumandominationofwildlifePluralistAvaluesindicativeofsupportforWildlifeManagementandadegreeofEqualitybetweenhumanandwildlifewerealsocommoninthesegroups(438and397respectively)IncontrastmostindividualsassociatedwithPro‐raptororPro‐birdorganizationsheldMutualistvalue orientations (716 and 756 respectively) indicating thattheydidnotsupportShootingorWildlifeManagementandviewedwildlife tobe somewhatequal tohumansanddeservingof rightsPluralistBorientationsindicatingalackofsupportforShootingorManagementbutprioritizationofhumanwell‐beingovertherights

TA B L E 1 emspMeanwildlifevalueorientationscoresofrespondentscategorizedasUtilitarianPluralistandMutualist(minimum=minus2maximum=2higherscoresindicateutilitarianvalues)ThetwopluralistcategoriesrepresentdifferentcombinationofutilitarianandmutualistvaluesPeoplecategorizedasPluralistAsupportSpeciesManagementandperceivewildlifedeservingofrightsthosecategorizedasPluralistBdonotsupportSpeciesManagementandprioritizehumanneedsoverwildliferightsBelowthepercentagesofrespondentsfittingintoeachwildlifevalueorientationcategoryaccordingtoorganizationalaffiliationarepresented

Wildlife value orientation domains (bold) and basic belief dimensions

Wildlife value orientations

Utilitarian (n = 121) Mean (SE)

Pluralist A (n = 119) Mean (SE)

Pluralist B (n = 41) Mean (SE)

Mutualist (n = 185) Mean (SE)

Species management 140 (004) 118 (004) minus043 (010) minus052 (004)

Wildlifemanagementbeliefs 130(006) 113(006) minus060(015) minus040(006)

Shootingbeliefs 150(005) 123(006) minus026(015) minus064(006)

Equality between people and wildlife 059 (005) minus101 (004) 033 (008) minus129 (004)

Beliefsinneedsofpeoplecomingbeforewildlife

059(005) minus101(004) 033(008) minus129(004)

Affiliation

Fieldsport(iehuntingshootingfishing) 512 438 17 33

Non‐raptor(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)

397 397 66 140

Pro‐raptor(specializinginraptorprotection) 60 90 134 716

Pro‐bird(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)

33 67 144 756

6emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

ofwildlifewerealsopresentinthesegroups(134and144re-spectively)(Table1)

32emsp|emspAttitudes

Reliability analysis revealed high internal consistency for sets of at-titude statements within the five core areas measured Cronbachsalpha ranged from 069 to 085 (Supporting Information Table S2)Consequently average scores for each attitude realm were calcu-lated for individuals There were statistically significant differencesbetween respondent affiliation and their attitudes towards harrierson theEnglishuplands (F(3439)=11757ple0001) the importanceof harrier conservation compared tomaintaining a rural way of life(F(3444)=16875 ple0001) grouse shooting (F(3401)=28094ple0001) gamekeepers (F(3443)=11013 ple0001) and raptorconservationists(F(3450)=9571ple0001)(Figure2)Posthoctestsrevealed no significant differences between attitudes held by FieldSportandNon‐raptorndashaffiliatedindividuals (p=048110090092and072)Respondentsaffiliatedtothesetypesoforganizationsgener-allyreportedmorenegativeattitudestowardsharriersintheuplandstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralway of life and raptor conservationists Compared to other groupsthey also reportedmore positive attitudes towards grouse shootingandgamekeepers Individuals associatedwithPro‐raptororPro‐birdorganizationsdidnotdiffersignificantlyintheirattitudestowardshar-riersintheuplands(p=021)gamekeepers(p=059)orraptorconser-vationists(p=098)HoweverPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdiddiffersignificantlyintheirattitudestowardstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralwayoflife(p=003)andattitude towards grouse shooting (ple0001) Pro‐bird respondentsreportedmoreMutualistviewsthananyothergrouptheysupportedharrierconservationovermaintainingaruralwayoflifeandheldnega-tiveattitudestowardsgrouseshooting(Figure2)

AcrossallrespondentsvaluesassociatedwithSpeciesManagementand Equality were significantly related to respondents attitudes(SupportingInformationTableS3)Forexampleaswildlifevalueori-entationscoresincreasedindicativeofmoreutilitarianvaluesattitudetowardsharriersontheEnglishuplandsdeclined(SpeciesManagementr =minus062 p le0001 Equality r = minus046 p le0001) while attitude to-wardsShootingbecamemorepositive(SpeciesManagementr = 077p le0001Equalityr=043p le0001)

Across all respondents 80 of the correlations between at-titudes and support formanagementwere significant (SupportingInformationTableS4)AsattitudescorestowardsharriersincreasedindicativeofmoreMutualistviewssotoodidsupportformonitor-ing(r=064p le0001) improvingintelligence(r=065p le0001)andnestandroostprotection(r=073p le0001)whilesupportforbroodmanagementdeclined(r =minus024p le0001)Asattitudesto-wardsshootingbecamemorepositiveindicativeofmoreUtilitarianviewssotoodidsupport formore invasiveformsofmanagement(egbroodmanagementr=051p le0001)Inotherwordswhereindividuals sat on the Utilitarian‐Mutualist spectrum influencedtheir attitudes and these attitudeswere related to expressions ofsupportoppositionfordifferentmanagementoptions

33emsp|emspWithin‐group differences in levels of support for harrier management

UnlikeallothergroupsField sport respondents reported statis-tically similar levels of support for all management approaches(FieldsportF(5700)=188p=010Non‐raptorF(5722)=1095plt0001 Pro‐raptor F(5798)=841 plt0001 Pro‐birdsF(5550)=25576 plt0001) (Figure 3 Supporting InformationTable S5) Post hoc tests revealed that Non‐raptor respondentsreportedsignificantlylowerlevelsofsupportforasouthernrein-troduction(M=005SD =122)comparedtoothermanagement

F I G U R E 2 emspMeanscorestoattitudestatementsconcerningfivetopicstheexistenceofharriersontheEnglishuplandstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralwayoflifegrouseshootinggamekeepersandraptorconservationistsDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)Errorbarsshow95confidenceinterval

emspensp emsp | emsp7People and NatureST JOHN eT al

approachestheirsupportforthereintroductiondidnotdiffersig-nificantlytothelowlevelofsupporttheyreportedforbroodman-agement (M=028 SD=123) Within Pro‐raptor and Pro‐birdrespondentsmonitoringnestandroostprotectionand improv-ingintelligencereceivedhighandstatisticallysimilarlevelsofsup-portIncontrastthesegroupsreportedsignificantlylowerlevelsof support for broodmanagement compared to any otherman-agement approach (M=minus012 SD=130 M=minus143 SD=093respectively)

34emsp|emspBetween‐group differences in levels of support for harrier management

With the exception of diversionary feeding which was generallybackedbyallgroupslevelsofsupportformanagementoptionsvar-ied significantly by respondent affiliation (Supporting InformationTableS6Figure3)Pro‐raptorandPro‐bird respondents reportedstatisticallysimilarandsignificantlyhigherlevelsofsupportformon-itoringnestandroostprotectionandimproving intelligencecom-paredtoFieldsportandNon‐raptorrespondentsLevelsofsupportforbroodmanagementdifferedsignificantlyamonggroupssupportwas highest among Field sport followed by Non‐raptor affiliatesHowever theiraverage levelsofsupport for thismanagementap-proachwereconservativerangingfromM=028(SD=123Non‐raptor) toM=075 (SD=115 Field sport)where 0=Neutral and2=strongly support Pro‐bird respondents reported significantlygreateroppositiontobroodmanagementwhichwasalsoopposedbyPro‐raptoraffiliatesLevelsofsupportforasouthernreintroduc-tionwerestatisticallysimilarandhighestamongFieldsportfollowedbyPro‐raptorindividuals(M=092SD =097094SD =127)whileNon‐raptorandPro‐birdapprovalofthisformofmanagementcen-tredaroundneutral(M=005SD =122M =minus001SD =126)

35emsp|emspImpact of proposed action plan measures on hen harrier recovery in England

Views on howmanagement activitieswould impact harrier recov-eryandgrousemanagementinEnglandvariedbetweenrespondentgroups(Figure4)Withtheexceptionofmonitoringgroupsdisagreedsignificantlyonwhethereachmanagementactivitywould increaseharriernumbers(Figure4aSupportingInformationTableS7)OfallmanagementactivitiespresentedPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespond-entsreportedimprovingintelligenceandnestandroostprotectiontobemostlikelytoincreaseharriernumbersposthoctestsrevealedthattheseopinionsdifferedsignificantlytoFieldsportandNon‐rap-torrespondentsFieldsportandNon‐raptorindividualsdidnotdiffersignificantlyinthedegreetowhichtheythoughtbroodmanagementwasausefultoolforincreasingharriernumbersbuttheirviewsdif-feredsignificantlytothePro‐raptorandPro‐birdaffiliates

Therewasnosignificantdifference in thedegree towhich re-spondentsbelieveddiversionaryfeedingwouldreducetheimpactofharrierongrousemeansrangedfrom072(SD =101FieldSport)to097(SD =078General‐bird)wheretwoindicatesstrongagree-mentthatdiversionaryfeedingwouldreducetheimpactofharrier(Figure4b Supporting InformationTableS8) Field sport affiliatesweresignificantlymore likelythanothergroupstoperceivebroodmanagementandasouthernreintroductionaseffectiveapproachestoreducingtheimpactofharriersongrouse

Therewere no significant differences in opinions reported byindividualsfromdifferentaffiliationsandtheeffectivenessofmon-itoring diversionary feeding or improving intelligenceat reducingdisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersanswerssatbetweenneutralandagree(Figure4cSupportingInformationTableS9)ComparedtoallgroupsFieldsportrespondentsweresignificantlymorelikelytoreportthatbroodmanagementorasouthernreintroductionwould

F I G U R E 3 emspMeanlevelofsupportforeachofthesixmanagementoptionsthetrialbroodmanagementschemeareintroductionintosouthernEnglanddiversionaryfeedingnestandwinterroostprotectionimprovingintelligenceandenforcementandmonitoringharrierpopulationsintheUnitedKingdomDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)Errorbarsshow95confidenceintervalsStatisticallysignificantdifferenceswithingroupsaredenotedbyanasterisk

8emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

reducestakeholderconflictNoothergroupheldtheseopinionsandPro‐birdrespondentsweresignificantlylesslikelythanothergroupsto believe that a southern reintroduction or brood managementwouldreducedisagreements

While there were some significant differences in levels ofagreementbetweengroupsallrespondentsagreedthattheillegalkilling of harriers could be reduced throughmonitoring nest androostprotectionandimprovingintelligence(Figure4dSupporting

InformationTableS10)FieldsportsandNon‐raptorgroupsbelievedthatdiversionaryfeedingandbroodmanagementwouldreduce il-legal killing but these views differed significantly to respondentsassociatedwithPro‐raptorandPro‐birdorganizations

Trust in Natural England differed significantly across groups(F(3428)=688ple0001)PosthoctestsrevealedthatFieldsportand Pro‐raptor respondents reported statistically similar answerswith a mean value indicative of slight trust (M=030 SD =111

F I G U R E 4 emspMeanlevelofbeliefthateachmanagementoptionswould(a)increasethenumberofhenharriers(b)reducetheimpactofharriersongrouse(c)reducedisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersand(d)reduceillegalkillingofharriersminus2indicatesdisagreement0neitheragreementordisagreementand+2indicatesstrongagreementDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)StatisticallysignificantdifferencesaredenotedbyanasteriskErrorbarsshow95confidenceinterval

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

(a) Increase number of harriers (b) Reduce impact of harriers

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(c) Reduce stakeholderdisagreements

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(d) Reduce illegal harrier killing

Affiliation

Field sport

Nonminusraptor

Prominusraptor

Prominusbird

emspensp emsp | emsp9People and NatureST JOHN eT al

M=035 SD =035 p=098) Non‐raptor and Pro‐bird affiliatesalsoreportedstatisticallysimilarresponses(p=10)butwithameanvalue indicative of slight distrust in Natural England (M =minus010SD =093M =minus011SD =102p=10)

4emsp |emspDISCUSSION

Ourwork highlights the very different value orientations held bystakeholdersinthisconflictWhilethemajorityofrespondentsaf-filiated with field sport organizations reported utilitarian valuesthe majority of Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondents were drivenbymutualist beliefs These valueorientationswere strongly asso-ciatedwith peoples attitudes towardsmanagement Those at theutilitarianendofthespectrumgenerallyheldattitudessupportiveof grouse shooting and gamekeepers in contrast to those on themutualist side As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy (Vaske ampManfredo 2012)we also found strong correlations between atti-tudeandsupportformanagementoptionsourproxyforbehaviourThoseholdingmorepositiveattitudes towardsharriersonEnglishuplands and less positive attitudes towards grouse shooting andgamekeepersgenerallyshowedgreatersupportformonitoringnestprotectionand increased intelligence Incontrast thosereportingmore positive attitudes towards shooting or gamekeepers weremore supportive of reintroduction and brood management Ourfindingsaddtoagrowingbodyofresearchprovidingevidencethatwildlifevalueorientationshelpexplainpatternsofhumanbehaviourrelatingtowildlife(egFultonetal1996Jacobsetal2014TeelampManfredo2010VaskeampDonnelly1999)Furthermoreourworkhighlightstheimportanceoffosteringrelationalvaluesthatisval-ues pertaining to allmanner of relationships betweenpeople andnatureforproenvironmentalprotection(Chanetal2016)

Wildlifevalueorientationsdochangebuttheydososlowlyandit isunlikelythattheychangeinresponsetospecific interventions(Heberlein2012Manfredoetal2017)Moreoverwhereattitudesare related strongly to underlying values as they are here theycanalsobedifficulttochange(Heberlein2012Manfredo2008)Howeverthefactthatvaluesaredeep‐setandalongwithattitudeschangeslowlydoesnotmeanthatconflictsbetweenpartiescannotbereducedandmanagedThereisconsiderableproofthatattitudesandbehaviourare relativelyunresponsive toevidenceandknowl-edge(egEricssonampHeberlein2003HeberleinampEricsson2008)Thusdrivestochangeattitudesandultimatelybehaviourthrougheducationprogrammesareunlikelytobesuccessful(CurtiampValdez2009EspinosaampJacobson2012)Howeverjustasvaluesarecul-tivatedthroughrepeatedexperiencewithpeergroups(Chanetal2016) attitudes also change in relation toexperience (EspinosaampJacobson 2012 Heberlein amp Ericsson 2008 Sponarski VaskeBathampLoeffler2016)ThissuggeststhatinaconservationconflictchangesinentrenchedpositionsaremorelikelytoemergethroughexposuretostakeholderswithdifferentbeliefsandtothesystemandinterventionsinquestionFurthermoresuccessfulmanagementmaydependupon identifying value similarity among stakeholders

andbuildinguponsharedvalues tosupportengagementandseekcompromiseratherthanhighlightingdifferences(Manfredo2008)

Withrespecttotheharrierndashgrouseconflicttherearecommonal-itiesinvaluesamongFieldsportandNon‐raptoraffiliatesyetthereislimitedoverlapinthevaluesheldbythesetwogroupsandrespon-dentsassociatedwithorganizationswhoseprimaryobjectiveisavianconservationThisrepresentsaconsiderablechallengetore‐estab-lishingdialogueanditseemsplausiblethatdivergentvaluespreventmeaningful dialogue between groupsHowever as suggested in arecentanalysisofconflictsaroundbirdsofpreyinScotlandsharednarrativescanofferaspringboardtonewexchangesbetweenstake-holders (Hodgson et al 2018)Consequently theremaybemeritin expanding the dialogue beyond harriers and towardsmoorlandmanagementmore broadly thiswouldwiden the opportunity foridentificationofcommonnarrativesandgoalsAsisoftenthecasewhere conservation conflicts revolve around enigmatic predatorsthehighlypolitical andemotivenatureof theharrierndashgrouse con-flictmeansestablishingamoreexpansivedialoguewillbechalleng-ingHowever approaches such as transdisciplinarity and adaptiveco‐managementwhich are designed to build a shared experiencearoundresearchmayofferasolution(Armitageetal2009Kleinetal2001)

Transdisciplinarityandadaptivecomanagementlinktotheideaofconflicttransformationwhichconcernstheexplorationandac-knowledgementofvaluesandfocusondeliberativeresponsesandthebuildingoftrustandrelationships(MaddenampMcQuinn2014)Ifpartiesarepreparedtocometothetableanddeliberatethenthereis scope tomanageproblems to reduceconflict (egButleretal2015LundmarkampMatti2015)Thesuccessful implementationofthesedeliberativeprocessesrequiresconsiderationoftrustrepre-sentativeness acknowledgement of different knowledge spheresdialogue toexploreperspectivesandagreedgoalsand leadership(Davenport Leahy Anderson amp Jakes 2007 Sjoumllander‐LindqvistJohanssonampSandstroumlm2015Youngetal2016)Suchapproachesdonotchangevaluesorremoveconflictbuttheyallowforexposuretodifferentviewsandthepotentialdevelopmentofcompromiseandsolutionsthroughdeliberation

Younget al (2016)highlighted the importanceofbuildingandmaintaining trust between stakeholders where conservation con-flictsoccurWorkingincollaborativeteamscanhelpinthisprocess(Stern2008)Similarlytrustintheagencyresponsibleformanage-ment is critical (Beierle amp Konisky 2000 Sponarski Vaske Bathamp Musiani 2014) Without trust people are less likely to acceptmanagementinterventions(CvetkovichampWinter2003NyaupaneGraefeampBurns2009) In thisstudy trust inNaturalEnglanddif-feredsignificantlyacrossgroupsandwasgenerallyweakaddress-ingthisrepresentsanopportunityandasignificantchallengeLikemanyconservationconflictspartiesinvolvedintheharrierndashgrouseconflict have high levels of ecological knowledge Building trustbetweenNatural Englandand suchwell‐informedparties requiresawillingnessto integratesuchknowledgeintoconservationpolicyand ldquoa willingness to share power in terms of knowledge and policy im‐plementationrdquo(Youngetal2016)NaturalEnglandstrivedtoattain

10emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

thisgoalbyestablishingamultipartyboardtocodeveloptheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)HowevertheprocessfailedtoovercomesomeofthedifferencesbetweenkeypartiesIncontrastpartiesappeartobebecomingmorepolarizedinthisconflictEncouragingsuchstake-holderstocomebacktothetablewillprovechallengingespeciallyunderthespotlightofaggressivesocialmediacampaigns

Inthisstudywepresentevidencethateachrespondentgroupsupportedatleastfourofthesixmanagementapproachesoutlinedin theAction Plan (DEFRA 2016) Probird affiliates showed clearpreference for less invasive management and alongside Pro‐rap-tor respondents did not support broodmanagement Support forasouthernreintroductionwasalso limited IncontrastFieldsportindividualsexpressedadegreeofsupportforallmanagementtypesandshowednostatisticallysignificantpreferenceforanyofthemLevelsofsupportfordiversionaryfeedingdidnotdiffersignificantlybetween groups but among Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondentsreceived significantly less support than monitoring improving in-telligenceornestandroostprotectionAllgroupsconsideredthatmostmanagementapproachesoutlinedintheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)wouldincreasethenumbersofharriersinEnglandOurresultsindicatediversionaryfeedingwasmostfavouredandreceivedgreat-estconsensusAllgroupsalsoconsideredthatthisapproachhadthepotentialtoreducetheimpactofharrierongrousebutPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdidnotconsiderthatitwouldreducetheextentofillegalkillingInsteadallgroupsagreedthattheillegalkill-ingofharrierscouldbereducedthroughimprovedintelligenceandnestandroostprotectionHoweveritwasovertheissueofbroodmanagementwheretherewasmostdisagreementPro‐birdaffiliateswerestronglyagainstbroodmanagementwhilesupportersoffieldsportswereinfavour

TheDEFRArecentlylicensedatrialofbroodmanagementAsex-pectedthishasprovedhighlycontroversialamongsomeconserva-tionorganizationsandisnowsubjecttotwojudicialreviews(Harper2018)ShoulditgoaheadthetrialwillenableatestofwhetherornotbroodmanagementcanreverseharrierdeclinesinEnglandandachancetoseeifoutcomesleadtochangesinpositionregardingthetechniqueWesuspect that suchchangeswillbedependentuponthewaythetrialisimplementedifgroupsareexcludedtheyarelesslikelytomoveposition

Aswehaveseennewknowledgemaynotleadtoachangeinattitudesor theacceptanceofbroodmanagementasa legitimatestrategyIndeedinthisfracturedandpolarizeddebateitishardtosee how any progress towards conflictmanagement can developwithout further investment in a strong deliberative process thatinvests inbuilding trust througha comanagementprocess that issupportedbygovernmentAnysuchprocesswillrequireleadershiponall sides resources time and importantly awillingness toen-gageandseekcompromises(Armitageetal2009)Howeverpartlybecauseofcontinuedillegalkilling(MellingThomasPriceampRoos2018) itcurrentlyseemsunlikely thatkeyconservationorganiza-tionswouldbewilling tocometo thetableandwill insteadcon-tinuetopursueanadversarialfocusonlicensingorbanninggrouseshooting

A number of studies have highlighted the importance of un-derstanding stakeholder values in conflicts over wildlife manage-ment (egManfredoetal2004Dickman2010DietschTeelampManfredo 2016 Lute Navarrete Nelson amp Gore 2016) ThesehavefocusedonthepublicorononespecificsetofstakeholdersOurresearchhashighlightedtherelevanceofconsideringthevaluesheldbydivergentgroupsofstakeholders invested inasinglecon-flict(seealsoBredinLindhjemDijkampLinnell2015)Suchafocusemphasizesthecriticaldifferencebetweenconsideringtheseissuesas conflicts between people over the management of wildlife asopposedtohumanndashwildlifeconflicts(Redpathetal2013)Ignoringthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthevaluesheldbydifferentgroupsofstakeholdersinvolvedinconservationconflictswillhinderattemptstomanagethem

ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS

WethankourstudyparticipantsaswellasArjunAmarandJulietteYoungforprovidingfeedbackonanearlierdraft

AUTHOR S CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors contributed to conceptual design or data acquisitionanalysis and interpretation writing or revising text approved thesubmissionandagreeaccountability

DATA ACCE SSIBILIT Y

DataarepubliclyavailablethroughFigshareusingthefollowinglinkhttpsfigsharecomarticlesStJohn_et_al_dataset_for_Value_diver-sity_and_conservation_conflict_Lessons_from_the_management_of_red_grouse_and_hen_harriers_in_England_People_Nature7359209

ORCID

Freya A V St John httpsorcidorg0000‐0002‐5707‐310X

Steve M Redpath httpsorcidorg0000‐0001‐5399‐9477

R E FE R E N C E S

AmarACourtIRDavisonMDowningSGrimshawTPickfordT amp Raw D (2012) Linking nest histories remotely sensedland use data and wildlife crime records to explore the impactof grouse moor management on peregrine falcon populationsBiological Conservation 145(1) 86ndash94 httpsdoiorg101016JBIOCON201110014

ArmitageD R Plummer R Berkes F Arthur R I CharlesA TDavidson‐Hunt I J amp Wollenberg E K (2009) Adaptive co‐ managementforsocialndashecologicalcomplexityFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2) 95ndash102 httpsdoiorg101890 070089

AveryM(2015)Inglorious Conflict in the UplandsLondonBloomsburyNaturalHistory

Beierle T C amp Konisky D M (2000) Values conflict andtrust in participatory environmental planning Journal of

emspensp emsp | emsp3People and NatureST JOHN eT al

theywouldcompletetaxreturnsandbehonestwiththeirfriends)(Manfredo 2008 Vaske ampManfredo 2012) Basic beliefs whichdefinehowpeopleapplyspecificvaluestotheir livessitbetweenvaluesandattitudesandnormsinthecognitivehierarchyWhilein-dividualsmaysharethesamefirst‐ordervaluesuchasrespectforlifetheymaydifferintheirbasicbeliefsassociatedwiththisvalue(Figure1VaskeampManfredo2012)Becausevalueorientationsulti-matelyinfluencebehaviourunderstandingtheminrelationtowild-life canhelpmanagerspredict support for interventions (VaskeampDonnelly1999VaskeampManfredo2012)IndeedChanetal(2016)outlinedhowamorerobustconsiderationofrelationalvalueswhichconcern all manners of relationships between people and natureincluding relationshipsbetweenpeople that involvenaturewouldleadtomoreproductivepolicyapproaches

Twopredominantvalueorientationshavebeenidentifiedinre-lationtowildlifeutilitarianismandmutualismIndividualsholdingautilitarianwildlifevalueorientationbelievewildlifeexistsforhumanuseandenjoymentandthat itshouldbemanagedtobenefitpeo-pleConverselymutualists believe in the harmonious coexistenceofhumansandwildlifeandthatwildlife isdeservingofrightssim-ilartopeople(JacobsVaskeampSijtsma2014WhittakerVaskeampManfredo2006)PeoplecanalsobeclassifiedasholdingpluralistordistancedwildlifevalueorientationsPluralistsholdbothutilitar-ianandmutualistbeliefsand theexpressionofoneviewover theother is influencedbycontextdistanced individualsdonot advo-cateeitherperspectiveindicativeofalimitedconnectiontowildlifeandlittleinterestinwildlifeissues(TeelampManfredo2010)Wildlifevalueorientationshavehelpedexplainpatternsofhumanbehaviourrelatingtowildlifeinanumberofstudies(egFultonManfredoampLipscomb1996Jacobsetal2014TeelampManfredo2010VaskeampDonnelly1999)Forexampleindividualsholdingmutualisticvalueorientations towards forestsweresignificantlymore likely toholdproforest‐preservation attitudes and intended to vote in supportof forest preservation compared to individuals holding utilitarianvalueorientations(VaskeampDonnelly1999)IncontrastindividualsholdingutilitarianvalueorientationsshowedlimitedsupportforthereintroductionofwolvesorbisontoGermanycomparedtopeopleholding mutualistic value orientations (Hermann Voszlig amp Menzel2013)Managementactionsdesignedtoaddressconservationcon-flictsmaynot thereforebeacceptedunanimouslyas stakeholdersmayvaryintheirwildlifevalueorientationsandthusinwhatactionstheydeemtobeacceptable(Jacobsetal2014)

The persistent conflict between hunting and conservation in-terestsoverthemanagementofredgrouse (Lagopus lagopus scoti‐cus) andhenharrier (Circus cyaneus) in theUKuplands representsaclassicexampleofhowresearchhasfocussedonecology(ElstonSpeziaBainesampRedpath2014ThirgoodampRedpath20052008)Grousemanagementoccursonprivateestates inheather (Calluna vulgaris)mdashdominated moorlandsmdasha habitat of international con-servation interest (ThompsonMacDonaldMarsden amp Galbraith1995)InEnglandmuchofthegrousemanagementisintensiveandfocusedondeliveringlargenumbersofbirdsforshootingPredationbyraptorsinparticularhenharrierscanincertaincircumstances

significantly limit red grouse populations reducing the numberavailabletoshootandthustheeconomicviabilityofdrivengrouseshoots (Sotherton Tapper amp Smith 2009 Thirgood et al 2000)ConsequentlyharriersandotherraptorsalthoughprotectedunderUKlegislationsince1952areillegallykilledongrousemoors(Amaretal2012RedpathAmarSmithThompsonampThirgood2010)TheextentofillegalpersecutionmeansharriersarevirtuallyabsentfromintensivelymanagedgrousemoorsacrosstheUnitedKingdom(Redpathetal2010)Theconflictishighlypoliticalandconstantlychangingbutinessenceitisbetweenthosewhowishtominimizetheimpactofharriersongrousepopulationssometimesthroughil-legalkillingofharriersandadvocatesofharrierswhodemandthatthelawbeupheldbeforeanycompromisingsolutionsbeconsidered(ThirgoodampRedpath2008)Increasinglyhoweverargumentsem-ployedbyconservationistsareshiftingtowardsbroaderimpactsofgrousemanagementonuplandecosystemsasawhole(Avery2015Thompsonetal2016)

Althoughthereisgeneralagreementabouttheevidenceoftheecologicalrelationshipsbetweenharriersandgrousethereismuchless agreement aboutmanagement Suggested strategies have in-cludeddiversionaryfeedingofharrierstoreducepredatoryimpactongrousereintroductionofharriersawayfromgrousemoorsre-moving eggschicks fromnestswhenharrier density is high rear-ingincaptivityandreleasing(broodmanagement)licencinggrousemoors to ensure sustainable and legal management practicesand banning driven grouse shooting (Avery 2015 Harper 2018RedpathThirgoodampLeckie2001ThirgoodampRedpath2008)Ofthesediversionaryfeedinghasbeentrialledatonesiteandfoundtobeeffectiveatreducingthenumberofgrousechickseatenbyharri-ers(Redpathetal2001)DespitethisfeedinghasnotbeenwidelytakenupongrousemoorsOthermethodshavenotbeentrialledStudieshaveexaminedtheecologyofthisconflictandondevelop-ingmitigationtoreducetheimpactofpredationongrousestocksSofarsuchapproacheshavefailedtoreducetheconflictThecriticalhumandimensionshavebeenmuchlessstudied(HodgsonRedpathFischerampYoung2018MarshallWhiteampFischer2007)yetareessential to the development of conflict management strategies(ThirgoodampRedpath2008)

ThereiscurrentlynodialogueprocessinplacetosupportconflictmanagementintheconflictoverharrierandgrousemanagementinEnglandPreviousdialogue searching for shared solutionswases-tablishedin2005(Elstonetal2014)Howeverthiswasunsuccess-fulasconservationorganizationswithdrewfromtheprocesspartlybecause harriers continued to be killed illegally becoming locallyextinct as a breeding bird in England in 2013 This led to theUKGovernmentsDepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairs(DEFRA)viaNaturalEnglandtakingovertheprocessandproduc-ingthejointactionplantoincreasetheEnglishhenharrierpopula-tion Theplan includes six actionsmonitoring harrier populationsinEnglandandtheUKdiversionaryfeedingimprovingintelligenceandenforcementnestandwinterroostprotectionareintroductionintosouthernEnglandonlandnotassociatedwithgrouseshootingandatrialbroodmanagementschemeBroodmanagemententails

4emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

eggsoryoungfromonenestbeingremovedraisedincaptivityandlaterreleasediftwoharriernestsoccurwithin10km(DEFRA2016)

Our study aimed to explore factors associated with supportopposition for the different interventions proposed in the ActionPlanWetargetedarangeoforganizationstakingpositionsondif-ferentsidesofthedebatefromprofieldsports(iehuntingshoot-ing fishing) to proraptor (specializing in raptor protection)NGOsSpecificallytheaimsofthisstudywereto (i)assesswildlifevalueorientations(ii)quantifyattitudestowardshenharriersmaintainingaruralwayof lifegrouseshootinggamekeepersandraptorcon-servationists (iii)understandperceptions towards theActionPlanmanagementstrategiesand(iv)investigatelevelsoftrustinNaturalEnglandastheresponsiblegovernmentauthoritySuchinsightwillhelp inunderstandingwhyconflictpersistsandguide itseffectivemanagement

2emsp |emspMATERIAL S AND METHODS

Questionnaire construction was guided by conceptual frame-works developed in social and environmental psychology (egFultonetal1996Marshalletal2007Manfredo2008TeelampManfredo2010) thataimtounderstandhumanactions towardswildlifeThequestionnaire(SupplementaryInformation)consistedofsixcoresectionsFirstweexploredrespondentsrsquobasicknowl-edgeandexperienceofharriersSecondbasicbeliefsweremeas-ured by asking respondents to indicate their level of agreementwithninebeliefstatementsaboutwildlifemanagementshootingandequalitybetweenpeopleandwildlife(SupportinginformationTableS1)Thesestatementswereadaptedfrompreviousstudies(Fultonetal1996Whittakeretal2006ZainalAbidinampJacobs2016) to suit the harriergrousemanagement context Togetherthescoresfromthesestatementsformedanindexthatdescribedwhere respondents sat on the utilitarian‐mutualist continuumthat is their wildlife value orientation (Manfredo 2008 Teel ampManfredo 2010) Third 19 statements investigated specific at-titudestowardsharriersontheEnglishuplands the importanceof harrier conservation compared tomaintaining a rural way oflife grouse shooting gamekeepers and raptor conservationists(SupportinginformationTableS2)Fourthparticipantswereaskedtoexpress their levelof support for current andproposedman-agementoptionsdefinedintheActionPlanFifthforeachman-agementoption respondents indicatedhowmuch the approachwouldincreasethenumberofharriersinEnglandreduceimpactofharriersonredgrouse reducedisagreementsbetweenstake-holders and reduce illegal harrier killing Lastly using a 5‐pointscalerespondentsindicatedtheirleveloftrustinNaturalEngland(strongly distrust=minus2 strongly trust=2) Respondents couldselect ldquoDont knowrdquo or similar (eg not applicable) throughoutThe questionnaire was piloted among colleagues and membersofDEFRAsBroodManagementWorkingGroupwithminoreditsmadepriortodatacollection

21emsp|emspData collection

We disseminated the online questionnaire (SurveyMonkey)through eight organizations that represented the interests offieldsportsandbirdsOrganizationswereprovidedwithauniqueweb linktothequestionnaireembeddedwithinemail text intro-ducingthestudyInvitationswereonlysenttomembersresidingin England as management approaches differ elsewhere in theUnitedKingdomWheregt400members fulfilled thiscriteria in-vitationsweresenttoasimplerandomsampleofindividualsOurstudywasapprovedbyBangorUniversityEthicsCommittee(ap-provalnumbercns2017fsj01)

22emsp|emspAnalysis

PriortoanalysisdatafromtheeightorganizationswerecombinedRespondentswereassignedtooneoffourcategoriesaccordingtotheprimaryobjectivesoftheiraffiliatedorganizationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingonthepro-tectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo (specializing inraptorprotec-tion)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)

StatementsmeasuringbasicbeliefitemswerecodedsuchthathighscoreswereindicativeofutilitarianresponsesbeforewildlifevalueorientationswereassessedConfirmatoryfactoryanalysis(CFA)was conducted to test whether the a priori groupings ofvariablesintowildlifebeliefdimensionsandwildlifevalueorien-tation domainswere a good fit to the data (Fulton et al 1996TeelampManfredo2010)TheCFAswereperformedusingprinci-pal axis factoringwith orthogonal (varimax) rotation Reliabilityof variable groupings was confirmed using Cronbachs alpha (ameasure of how closely related a set of variables are) and thusaveragescoresacrosseachofthedimensionsanddomainswerecalculatedWe assessed the internal consistency of statementsmeasuringattitudesinfivetopicsusingCronbachsalphabeforecalculatingaverageindividual‐levelattitudescorespertopic

Weusedone‐wayanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)andposthoctests(TukeysHSD)toassessdifferencesinrespondentaffiliationwildlifevalueorientationandattitudesPearsonsrwasusedtoinvestigate the relationship betweenwildlife value orientationsand attitudes attitudes and support formanagement and par-ticipantaffiliationand trust inNEAll analyseswereconductedinSPSS(version24)

3emsp |emspRESULTS

Of 2807 invited participants 555 responded Records where noquestionswereansweredweredeleted (n=19) leavingdata from536 respondents affiliated to Field sport (n=142) Non‐raptor(n=145)Pro‐raptor(n=147)andPro‐bird(n=102)organizationsMost respondentswereawareof theActionPlan (864)but lessthanhalf(396)hadreadit

emspensp emsp | emsp5People and NatureST JOHN eT al

31emsp|emspBasic beliefs and wildlife value orientation

Confirmatory factor analysis provided factor loadings that sup-ported the a priori grouping of the nine basic belief statementsinto three dimensions named ldquoWildlife Managementrdquo ldquoShootingrdquoand ldquoEquality betweenpeople andwildliferdquo reflecting the contentof the statements incorporated into each dimension (SupportingInformation Table S1) This analysis shows for example that thefivestatementsdesignedtomeasurebasicbeliefstowardsshootingdoindeedmeasureoneunderlyingldquolatentvariablerdquowhichwehavecalledShootingThereliabilityofourthreebasicbeliefdimensionswasconfirmedbyCronbachsalphawhichrangedfrom052to092(SupportingInformationTableS1)

ThesecondfactoranalysisofrespondentsrsquobasicbeliefdimensionscoresidentifiedtwowildlifevalueorientationdomainsdefinedasSpeciesManagementwhichencompassedbasicbeliefsconcerningWildlifeManagement andShooting andEqualitybetweenpeopleand wildlife (ldquoEqualityCOR(20)rdquo) Respondents were then catego-rized into wildlife value orientations according to their scores onSpecies Management (median=05) and Equality (median=minus05)withhighscoresbeingabovethemedianineachdomainThisscor-ingrevealedfourcategoriesalongthetwodimensionstowhichweassignedthelabelsUtilitarianPluralistAPluralistBandMutualist(Table 1) Respondents categorized as Utilitarian scored high forbothSpeciesManagementandEqualitywhich indicatedthat theyheldaviewofhumanmasteryofnatureandprioritizedhumanwell‐beingovertherightsofwildlifeIndividualsassignedtothePluralistsA category accrued high scores indicative of support for SpeciesManagementbutscoredlowonEqualityshowingtheynotonlysup-portedWildlifeManagementbutalsoconsiderwildlifedeservingofrightsPluralistBindividualsdidnotadvocateawhollyutilitarianor

mutualistviewtheyscoredlowonSpeciesManagementandhighonrightsindicatingalackofsupportforshootingormanagementbutnotduetobeingadvocatesofwildliferightsMutualistsscoredlowonSpeciesManagementandlowonEqualityindicatingthattheydidnotsupportshootingormanagementofwildlifeandviewedwildlifetobesomewhatequaltohumansanddeservingofrights

Mean wildlife value orientation scores differed significantlybetween Utilitarian Pluralist A Pluralist B and Mutualist respon-dents (Species Management (F(3491)=52241 plt001 Equality(F(3491)=38916 plt001) Post hoc tests (Tukeys HSD) revealedthatsupportforWildlifeManagementandShootingwasloweramongpeopleholdingMutualistandPluralistBvalueorientationscomparedto Utilitarian or Pluralist A orientations In contrast people holdingUtilitarianandPluralistBvalueorientationssupportedargumentsthatindicatedtheneedsofpeoplearemore importantthantherightsofanimalwhencomparedtopeopleclassifiedasMutualistorPluralistA

Whilethereisvariationinwildlifevalueorientationwithinaffil-iations(eg512ofFieldSportrespondentsholdUtilitarianvalueorientations438PluralistA17PluralistBand33Mutualist)themajority(512)ofFieldSportaffiliatesandmany(397)asso-ciatedwithNon‐raptororganizationsreportedUtilitarianvalueori-entationsinkeepingwithhumandominationofwildlifePluralistAvaluesindicativeofsupportforWildlifeManagementandadegreeofEqualitybetweenhumanandwildlifewerealsocommoninthesegroups(438and397respectively)IncontrastmostindividualsassociatedwithPro‐raptororPro‐birdorganizationsheldMutualistvalue orientations (716 and 756 respectively) indicating thattheydidnotsupportShootingorWildlifeManagementandviewedwildlife tobe somewhatequal tohumansanddeservingof rightsPluralistBorientationsindicatingalackofsupportforShootingorManagementbutprioritizationofhumanwell‐beingovertherights

TA B L E 1 emspMeanwildlifevalueorientationscoresofrespondentscategorizedasUtilitarianPluralistandMutualist(minimum=minus2maximum=2higherscoresindicateutilitarianvalues)ThetwopluralistcategoriesrepresentdifferentcombinationofutilitarianandmutualistvaluesPeoplecategorizedasPluralistAsupportSpeciesManagementandperceivewildlifedeservingofrightsthosecategorizedasPluralistBdonotsupportSpeciesManagementandprioritizehumanneedsoverwildliferightsBelowthepercentagesofrespondentsfittingintoeachwildlifevalueorientationcategoryaccordingtoorganizationalaffiliationarepresented

Wildlife value orientation domains (bold) and basic belief dimensions

Wildlife value orientations

Utilitarian (n = 121) Mean (SE)

Pluralist A (n = 119) Mean (SE)

Pluralist B (n = 41) Mean (SE)

Mutualist (n = 185) Mean (SE)

Species management 140 (004) 118 (004) minus043 (010) minus052 (004)

Wildlifemanagementbeliefs 130(006) 113(006) minus060(015) minus040(006)

Shootingbeliefs 150(005) 123(006) minus026(015) minus064(006)

Equality between people and wildlife 059 (005) minus101 (004) 033 (008) minus129 (004)

Beliefsinneedsofpeoplecomingbeforewildlife

059(005) minus101(004) 033(008) minus129(004)

Affiliation

Fieldsport(iehuntingshootingfishing) 512 438 17 33

Non‐raptor(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)

397 397 66 140

Pro‐raptor(specializinginraptorprotection) 60 90 134 716

Pro‐bird(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)

33 67 144 756

6emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

ofwildlifewerealsopresentinthesegroups(134and144re-spectively)(Table1)

32emsp|emspAttitudes

Reliability analysis revealed high internal consistency for sets of at-titude statements within the five core areas measured Cronbachsalpha ranged from 069 to 085 (Supporting Information Table S2)Consequently average scores for each attitude realm were calcu-lated for individuals There were statistically significant differencesbetween respondent affiliation and their attitudes towards harrierson theEnglishuplands (F(3439)=11757ple0001) the importanceof harrier conservation compared tomaintaining a rural way of life(F(3444)=16875 ple0001) grouse shooting (F(3401)=28094ple0001) gamekeepers (F(3443)=11013 ple0001) and raptorconservationists(F(3450)=9571ple0001)(Figure2)Posthoctestsrevealed no significant differences between attitudes held by FieldSportandNon‐raptorndashaffiliatedindividuals (p=048110090092and072)Respondentsaffiliatedtothesetypesoforganizationsgener-allyreportedmorenegativeattitudestowardsharriersintheuplandstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralway of life and raptor conservationists Compared to other groupsthey also reportedmore positive attitudes towards grouse shootingandgamekeepers Individuals associatedwithPro‐raptororPro‐birdorganizationsdidnotdiffersignificantlyintheirattitudestowardshar-riersintheuplands(p=021)gamekeepers(p=059)orraptorconser-vationists(p=098)HoweverPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdiddiffersignificantlyintheirattitudestowardstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralwayoflife(p=003)andattitude towards grouse shooting (ple0001) Pro‐bird respondentsreportedmoreMutualistviewsthananyothergrouptheysupportedharrierconservationovermaintainingaruralwayoflifeandheldnega-tiveattitudestowardsgrouseshooting(Figure2)

AcrossallrespondentsvaluesassociatedwithSpeciesManagementand Equality were significantly related to respondents attitudes(SupportingInformationTableS3)Forexampleaswildlifevalueori-entationscoresincreasedindicativeofmoreutilitarianvaluesattitudetowardsharriersontheEnglishuplandsdeclined(SpeciesManagementr =minus062 p le0001 Equality r = minus046 p le0001) while attitude to-wardsShootingbecamemorepositive(SpeciesManagementr = 077p le0001Equalityr=043p le0001)

Across all respondents 80 of the correlations between at-titudes and support formanagementwere significant (SupportingInformationTableS4)AsattitudescorestowardsharriersincreasedindicativeofmoreMutualistviewssotoodidsupportformonitor-ing(r=064p le0001) improvingintelligence(r=065p le0001)andnestandroostprotection(r=073p le0001)whilesupportforbroodmanagementdeclined(r =minus024p le0001)Asattitudesto-wardsshootingbecamemorepositiveindicativeofmoreUtilitarianviewssotoodidsupport formore invasiveformsofmanagement(egbroodmanagementr=051p le0001)Inotherwordswhereindividuals sat on the Utilitarian‐Mutualist spectrum influencedtheir attitudes and these attitudeswere related to expressions ofsupportoppositionfordifferentmanagementoptions

33emsp|emspWithin‐group differences in levels of support for harrier management

UnlikeallothergroupsField sport respondents reported statis-tically similar levels of support for all management approaches(FieldsportF(5700)=188p=010Non‐raptorF(5722)=1095plt0001 Pro‐raptor F(5798)=841 plt0001 Pro‐birdsF(5550)=25576 plt0001) (Figure 3 Supporting InformationTable S5) Post hoc tests revealed that Non‐raptor respondentsreportedsignificantlylowerlevelsofsupportforasouthernrein-troduction(M=005SD =122)comparedtoothermanagement

F I G U R E 2 emspMeanscorestoattitudestatementsconcerningfivetopicstheexistenceofharriersontheEnglishuplandstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralwayoflifegrouseshootinggamekeepersandraptorconservationistsDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)Errorbarsshow95confidenceinterval

emspensp emsp | emsp7People and NatureST JOHN eT al

approachestheirsupportforthereintroductiondidnotdiffersig-nificantlytothelowlevelofsupporttheyreportedforbroodman-agement (M=028 SD=123) Within Pro‐raptor and Pro‐birdrespondentsmonitoringnestandroostprotectionand improv-ingintelligencereceivedhighandstatisticallysimilarlevelsofsup-portIncontrastthesegroupsreportedsignificantlylowerlevelsof support for broodmanagement compared to any otherman-agement approach (M=minus012 SD=130 M=minus143 SD=093respectively)

34emsp|emspBetween‐group differences in levels of support for harrier management

With the exception of diversionary feeding which was generallybackedbyallgroupslevelsofsupportformanagementoptionsvar-ied significantly by respondent affiliation (Supporting InformationTableS6Figure3)Pro‐raptorandPro‐bird respondents reportedstatisticallysimilarandsignificantlyhigherlevelsofsupportformon-itoringnestandroostprotectionandimproving intelligencecom-paredtoFieldsportandNon‐raptorrespondentsLevelsofsupportforbroodmanagementdifferedsignificantlyamonggroupssupportwas highest among Field sport followed by Non‐raptor affiliatesHowever theiraverage levelsofsupport for thismanagementap-proachwereconservativerangingfromM=028(SD=123Non‐raptor) toM=075 (SD=115 Field sport)where 0=Neutral and2=strongly support Pro‐bird respondents reported significantlygreateroppositiontobroodmanagementwhichwasalsoopposedbyPro‐raptoraffiliatesLevelsofsupportforasouthernreintroduc-tionwerestatisticallysimilarandhighestamongFieldsportfollowedbyPro‐raptorindividuals(M=092SD =097094SD =127)whileNon‐raptorandPro‐birdapprovalofthisformofmanagementcen-tredaroundneutral(M=005SD =122M =minus001SD =126)

35emsp|emspImpact of proposed action plan measures on hen harrier recovery in England

Views on howmanagement activitieswould impact harrier recov-eryandgrousemanagementinEnglandvariedbetweenrespondentgroups(Figure4)Withtheexceptionofmonitoringgroupsdisagreedsignificantlyonwhethereachmanagementactivitywould increaseharriernumbers(Figure4aSupportingInformationTableS7)OfallmanagementactivitiespresentedPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespond-entsreportedimprovingintelligenceandnestandroostprotectiontobemostlikelytoincreaseharriernumbersposthoctestsrevealedthattheseopinionsdifferedsignificantlytoFieldsportandNon‐rap-torrespondentsFieldsportandNon‐raptorindividualsdidnotdiffersignificantlyinthedegreetowhichtheythoughtbroodmanagementwasausefultoolforincreasingharriernumbersbuttheirviewsdif-feredsignificantlytothePro‐raptorandPro‐birdaffiliates

Therewasnosignificantdifference in thedegree towhich re-spondentsbelieveddiversionaryfeedingwouldreducetheimpactofharrierongrousemeansrangedfrom072(SD =101FieldSport)to097(SD =078General‐bird)wheretwoindicatesstrongagree-mentthatdiversionaryfeedingwouldreducetheimpactofharrier(Figure4b Supporting InformationTableS8) Field sport affiliatesweresignificantlymore likelythanothergroupstoperceivebroodmanagementandasouthernreintroductionaseffectiveapproachestoreducingtheimpactofharriersongrouse

Therewere no significant differences in opinions reported byindividualsfromdifferentaffiliationsandtheeffectivenessofmon-itoring diversionary feeding or improving intelligenceat reducingdisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersanswerssatbetweenneutralandagree(Figure4cSupportingInformationTableS9)ComparedtoallgroupsFieldsportrespondentsweresignificantlymorelikelytoreportthatbroodmanagementorasouthernreintroductionwould

F I G U R E 3 emspMeanlevelofsupportforeachofthesixmanagementoptionsthetrialbroodmanagementschemeareintroductionintosouthernEnglanddiversionaryfeedingnestandwinterroostprotectionimprovingintelligenceandenforcementandmonitoringharrierpopulationsintheUnitedKingdomDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)Errorbarsshow95confidenceintervalsStatisticallysignificantdifferenceswithingroupsaredenotedbyanasterisk

8emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

reducestakeholderconflictNoothergroupheldtheseopinionsandPro‐birdrespondentsweresignificantlylesslikelythanothergroupsto believe that a southern reintroduction or brood managementwouldreducedisagreements

While there were some significant differences in levels ofagreementbetweengroupsallrespondentsagreedthattheillegalkilling of harriers could be reduced throughmonitoring nest androostprotectionandimprovingintelligence(Figure4dSupporting

InformationTableS10)FieldsportsandNon‐raptorgroupsbelievedthatdiversionaryfeedingandbroodmanagementwouldreduce il-legal killing but these views differed significantly to respondentsassociatedwithPro‐raptorandPro‐birdorganizations

Trust in Natural England differed significantly across groups(F(3428)=688ple0001)PosthoctestsrevealedthatFieldsportand Pro‐raptor respondents reported statistically similar answerswith a mean value indicative of slight trust (M=030 SD =111

F I G U R E 4 emspMeanlevelofbeliefthateachmanagementoptionswould(a)increasethenumberofhenharriers(b)reducetheimpactofharriersongrouse(c)reducedisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersand(d)reduceillegalkillingofharriersminus2indicatesdisagreement0neitheragreementordisagreementand+2indicatesstrongagreementDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)StatisticallysignificantdifferencesaredenotedbyanasteriskErrorbarsshow95confidenceinterval

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

(a) Increase number of harriers (b) Reduce impact of harriers

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(c) Reduce stakeholderdisagreements

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(d) Reduce illegal harrier killing

Affiliation

Field sport

Nonminusraptor

Prominusraptor

Prominusbird

emspensp emsp | emsp9People and NatureST JOHN eT al

M=035 SD =035 p=098) Non‐raptor and Pro‐bird affiliatesalsoreportedstatisticallysimilarresponses(p=10)butwithameanvalue indicative of slight distrust in Natural England (M =minus010SD =093M =minus011SD =102p=10)

4emsp |emspDISCUSSION

Ourwork highlights the very different value orientations held bystakeholdersinthisconflictWhilethemajorityofrespondentsaf-filiated with field sport organizations reported utilitarian valuesthe majority of Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondents were drivenbymutualist beliefs These valueorientationswere strongly asso-ciatedwith peoples attitudes towardsmanagement Those at theutilitarianendofthespectrumgenerallyheldattitudessupportiveof grouse shooting and gamekeepers in contrast to those on themutualist side As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy (Vaske ampManfredo 2012)we also found strong correlations between atti-tudeandsupportformanagementoptionsourproxyforbehaviourThoseholdingmorepositiveattitudes towardsharriersonEnglishuplands and less positive attitudes towards grouse shooting andgamekeepersgenerallyshowedgreatersupportformonitoringnestprotectionand increased intelligence Incontrast thosereportingmore positive attitudes towards shooting or gamekeepers weremore supportive of reintroduction and brood management Ourfindingsaddtoagrowingbodyofresearchprovidingevidencethatwildlifevalueorientationshelpexplainpatternsofhumanbehaviourrelatingtowildlife(egFultonetal1996Jacobsetal2014TeelampManfredo2010VaskeampDonnelly1999)Furthermoreourworkhighlightstheimportanceoffosteringrelationalvaluesthatisval-ues pertaining to allmanner of relationships betweenpeople andnatureforproenvironmentalprotection(Chanetal2016)

Wildlifevalueorientationsdochangebuttheydososlowlyandit isunlikelythattheychangeinresponsetospecific interventions(Heberlein2012Manfredoetal2017)Moreoverwhereattitudesare related strongly to underlying values as they are here theycanalsobedifficulttochange(Heberlein2012Manfredo2008)Howeverthefactthatvaluesaredeep‐setandalongwithattitudeschangeslowlydoesnotmeanthatconflictsbetweenpartiescannotbereducedandmanagedThereisconsiderableproofthatattitudesandbehaviourare relativelyunresponsive toevidenceandknowl-edge(egEricssonampHeberlein2003HeberleinampEricsson2008)Thusdrivestochangeattitudesandultimatelybehaviourthrougheducationprogrammesareunlikelytobesuccessful(CurtiampValdez2009EspinosaampJacobson2012)Howeverjustasvaluesarecul-tivatedthroughrepeatedexperiencewithpeergroups(Chanetal2016) attitudes also change in relation toexperience (EspinosaampJacobson 2012 Heberlein amp Ericsson 2008 Sponarski VaskeBathampLoeffler2016)ThissuggeststhatinaconservationconflictchangesinentrenchedpositionsaremorelikelytoemergethroughexposuretostakeholderswithdifferentbeliefsandtothesystemandinterventionsinquestionFurthermoresuccessfulmanagementmaydependupon identifying value similarity among stakeholders

andbuildinguponsharedvalues tosupportengagementandseekcompromiseratherthanhighlightingdifferences(Manfredo2008)

Withrespecttotheharrierndashgrouseconflicttherearecommonal-itiesinvaluesamongFieldsportandNon‐raptoraffiliatesyetthereislimitedoverlapinthevaluesheldbythesetwogroupsandrespon-dentsassociatedwithorganizationswhoseprimaryobjectiveisavianconservationThisrepresentsaconsiderablechallengetore‐estab-lishingdialogueanditseemsplausiblethatdivergentvaluespreventmeaningful dialogue between groupsHowever as suggested in arecentanalysisofconflictsaroundbirdsofpreyinScotlandsharednarrativescanofferaspringboardtonewexchangesbetweenstake-holders (Hodgson et al 2018)Consequently theremaybemeritin expanding the dialogue beyond harriers and towardsmoorlandmanagementmore broadly thiswouldwiden the opportunity foridentificationofcommonnarrativesandgoalsAsisoftenthecasewhere conservation conflicts revolve around enigmatic predatorsthehighlypolitical andemotivenatureof theharrierndashgrouse con-flictmeansestablishingamoreexpansivedialoguewillbechalleng-ingHowever approaches such as transdisciplinarity and adaptiveco‐managementwhich are designed to build a shared experiencearoundresearchmayofferasolution(Armitageetal2009Kleinetal2001)

Transdisciplinarityandadaptivecomanagementlinktotheideaofconflicttransformationwhichconcernstheexplorationandac-knowledgementofvaluesandfocusondeliberativeresponsesandthebuildingoftrustandrelationships(MaddenampMcQuinn2014)Ifpartiesarepreparedtocometothetableanddeliberatethenthereis scope tomanageproblems to reduceconflict (egButleretal2015LundmarkampMatti2015)Thesuccessful implementationofthesedeliberativeprocessesrequiresconsiderationoftrustrepre-sentativeness acknowledgement of different knowledge spheresdialogue toexploreperspectivesandagreedgoalsand leadership(Davenport Leahy Anderson amp Jakes 2007 Sjoumllander‐LindqvistJohanssonampSandstroumlm2015Youngetal2016)Suchapproachesdonotchangevaluesorremoveconflictbuttheyallowforexposuretodifferentviewsandthepotentialdevelopmentofcompromiseandsolutionsthroughdeliberation

Younget al (2016)highlighted the importanceofbuildingandmaintaining trust between stakeholders where conservation con-flictsoccurWorkingincollaborativeteamscanhelpinthisprocess(Stern2008)Similarlytrustintheagencyresponsibleformanage-ment is critical (Beierle amp Konisky 2000 Sponarski Vaske Bathamp Musiani 2014) Without trust people are less likely to acceptmanagementinterventions(CvetkovichampWinter2003NyaupaneGraefeampBurns2009) In thisstudy trust inNaturalEnglanddif-feredsignificantlyacrossgroupsandwasgenerallyweakaddress-ingthisrepresentsanopportunityandasignificantchallengeLikemanyconservationconflictspartiesinvolvedintheharrierndashgrouseconflict have high levels of ecological knowledge Building trustbetweenNatural Englandand suchwell‐informedparties requiresawillingnessto integratesuchknowledgeintoconservationpolicyand ldquoa willingness to share power in terms of knowledge and policy im‐plementationrdquo(Youngetal2016)NaturalEnglandstrivedtoattain

10emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

thisgoalbyestablishingamultipartyboardtocodeveloptheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)HowevertheprocessfailedtoovercomesomeofthedifferencesbetweenkeypartiesIncontrastpartiesappeartobebecomingmorepolarizedinthisconflictEncouragingsuchstake-holderstocomebacktothetablewillprovechallengingespeciallyunderthespotlightofaggressivesocialmediacampaigns

Inthisstudywepresentevidencethateachrespondentgroupsupportedatleastfourofthesixmanagementapproachesoutlinedin theAction Plan (DEFRA 2016) Probird affiliates showed clearpreference for less invasive management and alongside Pro‐rap-tor respondents did not support broodmanagement Support forasouthernreintroductionwasalso limited IncontrastFieldsportindividualsexpressedadegreeofsupportforallmanagementtypesandshowednostatisticallysignificantpreferenceforanyofthemLevelsofsupportfordiversionaryfeedingdidnotdiffersignificantlybetween groups but among Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondentsreceived significantly less support than monitoring improving in-telligenceornestandroostprotectionAllgroupsconsideredthatmostmanagementapproachesoutlinedintheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)wouldincreasethenumbersofharriersinEnglandOurresultsindicatediversionaryfeedingwasmostfavouredandreceivedgreat-estconsensusAllgroupsalsoconsideredthatthisapproachhadthepotentialtoreducetheimpactofharrierongrousebutPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdidnotconsiderthatitwouldreducetheextentofillegalkillingInsteadallgroupsagreedthattheillegalkill-ingofharrierscouldbereducedthroughimprovedintelligenceandnestandroostprotectionHoweveritwasovertheissueofbroodmanagementwheretherewasmostdisagreementPro‐birdaffiliateswerestronglyagainstbroodmanagementwhilesupportersoffieldsportswereinfavour

TheDEFRArecentlylicensedatrialofbroodmanagementAsex-pectedthishasprovedhighlycontroversialamongsomeconserva-tionorganizationsandisnowsubjecttotwojudicialreviews(Harper2018)ShoulditgoaheadthetrialwillenableatestofwhetherornotbroodmanagementcanreverseharrierdeclinesinEnglandandachancetoseeifoutcomesleadtochangesinpositionregardingthetechniqueWesuspect that suchchangeswillbedependentuponthewaythetrialisimplementedifgroupsareexcludedtheyarelesslikelytomoveposition

Aswehaveseennewknowledgemaynotleadtoachangeinattitudesor theacceptanceofbroodmanagementasa legitimatestrategyIndeedinthisfracturedandpolarizeddebateitishardtosee how any progress towards conflictmanagement can developwithout further investment in a strong deliberative process thatinvests inbuilding trust througha comanagementprocess that issupportedbygovernmentAnysuchprocesswillrequireleadershiponall sides resources time and importantly awillingness toen-gageandseekcompromises(Armitageetal2009)Howeverpartlybecauseofcontinuedillegalkilling(MellingThomasPriceampRoos2018) itcurrentlyseemsunlikely thatkeyconservationorganiza-tionswouldbewilling tocometo thetableandwill insteadcon-tinuetopursueanadversarialfocusonlicensingorbanninggrouseshooting

A number of studies have highlighted the importance of un-derstanding stakeholder values in conflicts over wildlife manage-ment (egManfredoetal2004Dickman2010DietschTeelampManfredo 2016 Lute Navarrete Nelson amp Gore 2016) ThesehavefocusedonthepublicorononespecificsetofstakeholdersOurresearchhashighlightedtherelevanceofconsideringthevaluesheldbydivergentgroupsofstakeholders invested inasinglecon-flict(seealsoBredinLindhjemDijkampLinnell2015)Suchafocusemphasizesthecriticaldifferencebetweenconsideringtheseissuesas conflicts between people over the management of wildlife asopposedtohumanndashwildlifeconflicts(Redpathetal2013)Ignoringthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthevaluesheldbydifferentgroupsofstakeholdersinvolvedinconservationconflictswillhinderattemptstomanagethem

ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS

WethankourstudyparticipantsaswellasArjunAmarandJulietteYoungforprovidingfeedbackonanearlierdraft

AUTHOR S CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors contributed to conceptual design or data acquisitionanalysis and interpretation writing or revising text approved thesubmissionandagreeaccountability

DATA ACCE SSIBILIT Y

DataarepubliclyavailablethroughFigshareusingthefollowinglinkhttpsfigsharecomarticlesStJohn_et_al_dataset_for_Value_diver-sity_and_conservation_conflict_Lessons_from_the_management_of_red_grouse_and_hen_harriers_in_England_People_Nature7359209

ORCID

Freya A V St John httpsorcidorg0000‐0002‐5707‐310X

Steve M Redpath httpsorcidorg0000‐0001‐5399‐9477

R E FE R E N C E S

AmarACourtIRDavisonMDowningSGrimshawTPickfordT amp Raw D (2012) Linking nest histories remotely sensedland use data and wildlife crime records to explore the impactof grouse moor management on peregrine falcon populationsBiological Conservation 145(1) 86ndash94 httpsdoiorg101016JBIOCON201110014

ArmitageD R Plummer R Berkes F Arthur R I CharlesA TDavidson‐Hunt I J amp Wollenberg E K (2009) Adaptive co‐ managementforsocialndashecologicalcomplexityFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2) 95ndash102 httpsdoiorg101890 070089

AveryM(2015)Inglorious Conflict in the UplandsLondonBloomsburyNaturalHistory

Beierle T C amp Konisky D M (2000) Values conflict andtrust in participatory environmental planning Journal of

4emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

eggsoryoungfromonenestbeingremovedraisedincaptivityandlaterreleasediftwoharriernestsoccurwithin10km(DEFRA2016)

Our study aimed to explore factors associated with supportopposition for the different interventions proposed in the ActionPlanWetargetedarangeoforganizationstakingpositionsondif-ferentsidesofthedebatefromprofieldsports(iehuntingshoot-ing fishing) to proraptor (specializing in raptor protection)NGOsSpecificallytheaimsofthisstudywereto (i)assesswildlifevalueorientations(ii)quantifyattitudestowardshenharriersmaintainingaruralwayof lifegrouseshootinggamekeepersandraptorcon-servationists (iii)understandperceptions towards theActionPlanmanagementstrategiesand(iv)investigatelevelsoftrustinNaturalEnglandastheresponsiblegovernmentauthoritySuchinsightwillhelp inunderstandingwhyconflictpersistsandguide itseffectivemanagement

2emsp |emspMATERIAL S AND METHODS

Questionnaire construction was guided by conceptual frame-works developed in social and environmental psychology (egFultonetal1996Marshalletal2007Manfredo2008TeelampManfredo2010) thataimtounderstandhumanactions towardswildlifeThequestionnaire(SupplementaryInformation)consistedofsixcoresectionsFirstweexploredrespondentsrsquobasicknowl-edgeandexperienceofharriersSecondbasicbeliefsweremeas-ured by asking respondents to indicate their level of agreementwithninebeliefstatementsaboutwildlifemanagementshootingandequalitybetweenpeopleandwildlife(SupportinginformationTableS1)Thesestatementswereadaptedfrompreviousstudies(Fultonetal1996Whittakeretal2006ZainalAbidinampJacobs2016) to suit the harriergrousemanagement context Togetherthescoresfromthesestatementsformedanindexthatdescribedwhere respondents sat on the utilitarian‐mutualist continuumthat is their wildlife value orientation (Manfredo 2008 Teel ampManfredo 2010) Third 19 statements investigated specific at-titudestowardsharriersontheEnglishuplands the importanceof harrier conservation compared tomaintaining a rural way oflife grouse shooting gamekeepers and raptor conservationists(SupportinginformationTableS2)Fourthparticipantswereaskedtoexpress their levelof support for current andproposedman-agementoptionsdefinedintheActionPlanFifthforeachman-agementoption respondents indicatedhowmuch the approachwouldincreasethenumberofharriersinEnglandreduceimpactofharriersonredgrouse reducedisagreementsbetweenstake-holders and reduce illegal harrier killing Lastly using a 5‐pointscalerespondentsindicatedtheirleveloftrustinNaturalEngland(strongly distrust=minus2 strongly trust=2) Respondents couldselect ldquoDont knowrdquo or similar (eg not applicable) throughoutThe questionnaire was piloted among colleagues and membersofDEFRAsBroodManagementWorkingGroupwithminoreditsmadepriortodatacollection

21emsp|emspData collection

We disseminated the online questionnaire (SurveyMonkey)through eight organizations that represented the interests offieldsportsandbirdsOrganizationswereprovidedwithauniqueweb linktothequestionnaireembeddedwithinemail text intro-ducingthestudyInvitationswereonlysenttomembersresidingin England as management approaches differ elsewhere in theUnitedKingdomWheregt400members fulfilled thiscriteria in-vitationsweresenttoasimplerandomsampleofindividualsOurstudywasapprovedbyBangorUniversityEthicsCommittee(ap-provalnumbercns2017fsj01)

22emsp|emspAnalysis

PriortoanalysisdatafromtheeightorganizationswerecombinedRespondentswereassignedtooneoffourcategoriesaccordingtotheprimaryobjectivesoftheiraffiliatedorganizationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingonthepro-tectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo (specializing inraptorprotec-tion)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)

StatementsmeasuringbasicbeliefitemswerecodedsuchthathighscoreswereindicativeofutilitarianresponsesbeforewildlifevalueorientationswereassessedConfirmatoryfactoryanalysis(CFA)was conducted to test whether the a priori groupings ofvariablesintowildlifebeliefdimensionsandwildlifevalueorien-tation domainswere a good fit to the data (Fulton et al 1996TeelampManfredo2010)TheCFAswereperformedusingprinci-pal axis factoringwith orthogonal (varimax) rotation Reliabilityof variable groupings was confirmed using Cronbachs alpha (ameasure of how closely related a set of variables are) and thusaveragescoresacrosseachofthedimensionsanddomainswerecalculatedWe assessed the internal consistency of statementsmeasuringattitudesinfivetopicsusingCronbachsalphabeforecalculatingaverageindividual‐levelattitudescorespertopic

Weusedone‐wayanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)andposthoctests(TukeysHSD)toassessdifferencesinrespondentaffiliationwildlifevalueorientationandattitudesPearsonsrwasusedtoinvestigate the relationship betweenwildlife value orientationsand attitudes attitudes and support formanagement and par-ticipantaffiliationand trust inNEAll analyseswereconductedinSPSS(version24)

3emsp |emspRESULTS

Of 2807 invited participants 555 responded Records where noquestionswereansweredweredeleted (n=19) leavingdata from536 respondents affiliated to Field sport (n=142) Non‐raptor(n=145)Pro‐raptor(n=147)andPro‐bird(n=102)organizationsMost respondentswereawareof theActionPlan (864)but lessthanhalf(396)hadreadit

emspensp emsp | emsp5People and NatureST JOHN eT al

31emsp|emspBasic beliefs and wildlife value orientation

Confirmatory factor analysis provided factor loadings that sup-ported the a priori grouping of the nine basic belief statementsinto three dimensions named ldquoWildlife Managementrdquo ldquoShootingrdquoand ldquoEquality betweenpeople andwildliferdquo reflecting the contentof the statements incorporated into each dimension (SupportingInformation Table S1) This analysis shows for example that thefivestatementsdesignedtomeasurebasicbeliefstowardsshootingdoindeedmeasureoneunderlyingldquolatentvariablerdquowhichwehavecalledShootingThereliabilityofourthreebasicbeliefdimensionswasconfirmedbyCronbachsalphawhichrangedfrom052to092(SupportingInformationTableS1)

ThesecondfactoranalysisofrespondentsrsquobasicbeliefdimensionscoresidentifiedtwowildlifevalueorientationdomainsdefinedasSpeciesManagementwhichencompassedbasicbeliefsconcerningWildlifeManagement andShooting andEqualitybetweenpeopleand wildlife (ldquoEqualityCOR(20)rdquo) Respondents were then catego-rized into wildlife value orientations according to their scores onSpecies Management (median=05) and Equality (median=minus05)withhighscoresbeingabovethemedianineachdomainThisscor-ingrevealedfourcategoriesalongthetwodimensionstowhichweassignedthelabelsUtilitarianPluralistAPluralistBandMutualist(Table 1) Respondents categorized as Utilitarian scored high forbothSpeciesManagementandEqualitywhich indicatedthat theyheldaviewofhumanmasteryofnatureandprioritizedhumanwell‐beingovertherightsofwildlifeIndividualsassignedtothePluralistsA category accrued high scores indicative of support for SpeciesManagementbutscoredlowonEqualityshowingtheynotonlysup-portedWildlifeManagementbutalsoconsiderwildlifedeservingofrightsPluralistBindividualsdidnotadvocateawhollyutilitarianor

mutualistviewtheyscoredlowonSpeciesManagementandhighonrightsindicatingalackofsupportforshootingormanagementbutnotduetobeingadvocatesofwildliferightsMutualistsscoredlowonSpeciesManagementandlowonEqualityindicatingthattheydidnotsupportshootingormanagementofwildlifeandviewedwildlifetobesomewhatequaltohumansanddeservingofrights

Mean wildlife value orientation scores differed significantlybetween Utilitarian Pluralist A Pluralist B and Mutualist respon-dents (Species Management (F(3491)=52241 plt001 Equality(F(3491)=38916 plt001) Post hoc tests (Tukeys HSD) revealedthatsupportforWildlifeManagementandShootingwasloweramongpeopleholdingMutualistandPluralistBvalueorientationscomparedto Utilitarian or Pluralist A orientations In contrast people holdingUtilitarianandPluralistBvalueorientationssupportedargumentsthatindicatedtheneedsofpeoplearemore importantthantherightsofanimalwhencomparedtopeopleclassifiedasMutualistorPluralistA

Whilethereisvariationinwildlifevalueorientationwithinaffil-iations(eg512ofFieldSportrespondentsholdUtilitarianvalueorientations438PluralistA17PluralistBand33Mutualist)themajority(512)ofFieldSportaffiliatesandmany(397)asso-ciatedwithNon‐raptororganizationsreportedUtilitarianvalueori-entationsinkeepingwithhumandominationofwildlifePluralistAvaluesindicativeofsupportforWildlifeManagementandadegreeofEqualitybetweenhumanandwildlifewerealsocommoninthesegroups(438and397respectively)IncontrastmostindividualsassociatedwithPro‐raptororPro‐birdorganizationsheldMutualistvalue orientations (716 and 756 respectively) indicating thattheydidnotsupportShootingorWildlifeManagementandviewedwildlife tobe somewhatequal tohumansanddeservingof rightsPluralistBorientationsindicatingalackofsupportforShootingorManagementbutprioritizationofhumanwell‐beingovertherights

TA B L E 1 emspMeanwildlifevalueorientationscoresofrespondentscategorizedasUtilitarianPluralistandMutualist(minimum=minus2maximum=2higherscoresindicateutilitarianvalues)ThetwopluralistcategoriesrepresentdifferentcombinationofutilitarianandmutualistvaluesPeoplecategorizedasPluralistAsupportSpeciesManagementandperceivewildlifedeservingofrightsthosecategorizedasPluralistBdonotsupportSpeciesManagementandprioritizehumanneedsoverwildliferightsBelowthepercentagesofrespondentsfittingintoeachwildlifevalueorientationcategoryaccordingtoorganizationalaffiliationarepresented

Wildlife value orientation domains (bold) and basic belief dimensions

Wildlife value orientations

Utilitarian (n = 121) Mean (SE)

Pluralist A (n = 119) Mean (SE)

Pluralist B (n = 41) Mean (SE)

Mutualist (n = 185) Mean (SE)

Species management 140 (004) 118 (004) minus043 (010) minus052 (004)

Wildlifemanagementbeliefs 130(006) 113(006) minus060(015) minus040(006)

Shootingbeliefs 150(005) 123(006) minus026(015) minus064(006)

Equality between people and wildlife 059 (005) minus101 (004) 033 (008) minus129 (004)

Beliefsinneedsofpeoplecomingbeforewildlife

059(005) minus101(004) 033(008) minus129(004)

Affiliation

Fieldsport(iehuntingshootingfishing) 512 438 17 33

Non‐raptor(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)

397 397 66 140

Pro‐raptor(specializinginraptorprotection) 60 90 134 716

Pro‐bird(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)

33 67 144 756

6emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

ofwildlifewerealsopresentinthesegroups(134and144re-spectively)(Table1)

32emsp|emspAttitudes

Reliability analysis revealed high internal consistency for sets of at-titude statements within the five core areas measured Cronbachsalpha ranged from 069 to 085 (Supporting Information Table S2)Consequently average scores for each attitude realm were calcu-lated for individuals There were statistically significant differencesbetween respondent affiliation and their attitudes towards harrierson theEnglishuplands (F(3439)=11757ple0001) the importanceof harrier conservation compared tomaintaining a rural way of life(F(3444)=16875 ple0001) grouse shooting (F(3401)=28094ple0001) gamekeepers (F(3443)=11013 ple0001) and raptorconservationists(F(3450)=9571ple0001)(Figure2)Posthoctestsrevealed no significant differences between attitudes held by FieldSportandNon‐raptorndashaffiliatedindividuals (p=048110090092and072)Respondentsaffiliatedtothesetypesoforganizationsgener-allyreportedmorenegativeattitudestowardsharriersintheuplandstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralway of life and raptor conservationists Compared to other groupsthey also reportedmore positive attitudes towards grouse shootingandgamekeepers Individuals associatedwithPro‐raptororPro‐birdorganizationsdidnotdiffersignificantlyintheirattitudestowardshar-riersintheuplands(p=021)gamekeepers(p=059)orraptorconser-vationists(p=098)HoweverPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdiddiffersignificantlyintheirattitudestowardstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralwayoflife(p=003)andattitude towards grouse shooting (ple0001) Pro‐bird respondentsreportedmoreMutualistviewsthananyothergrouptheysupportedharrierconservationovermaintainingaruralwayoflifeandheldnega-tiveattitudestowardsgrouseshooting(Figure2)

AcrossallrespondentsvaluesassociatedwithSpeciesManagementand Equality were significantly related to respondents attitudes(SupportingInformationTableS3)Forexampleaswildlifevalueori-entationscoresincreasedindicativeofmoreutilitarianvaluesattitudetowardsharriersontheEnglishuplandsdeclined(SpeciesManagementr =minus062 p le0001 Equality r = minus046 p le0001) while attitude to-wardsShootingbecamemorepositive(SpeciesManagementr = 077p le0001Equalityr=043p le0001)

Across all respondents 80 of the correlations between at-titudes and support formanagementwere significant (SupportingInformationTableS4)AsattitudescorestowardsharriersincreasedindicativeofmoreMutualistviewssotoodidsupportformonitor-ing(r=064p le0001) improvingintelligence(r=065p le0001)andnestandroostprotection(r=073p le0001)whilesupportforbroodmanagementdeclined(r =minus024p le0001)Asattitudesto-wardsshootingbecamemorepositiveindicativeofmoreUtilitarianviewssotoodidsupport formore invasiveformsofmanagement(egbroodmanagementr=051p le0001)Inotherwordswhereindividuals sat on the Utilitarian‐Mutualist spectrum influencedtheir attitudes and these attitudeswere related to expressions ofsupportoppositionfordifferentmanagementoptions

33emsp|emspWithin‐group differences in levels of support for harrier management

UnlikeallothergroupsField sport respondents reported statis-tically similar levels of support for all management approaches(FieldsportF(5700)=188p=010Non‐raptorF(5722)=1095plt0001 Pro‐raptor F(5798)=841 plt0001 Pro‐birdsF(5550)=25576 plt0001) (Figure 3 Supporting InformationTable S5) Post hoc tests revealed that Non‐raptor respondentsreportedsignificantlylowerlevelsofsupportforasouthernrein-troduction(M=005SD =122)comparedtoothermanagement

F I G U R E 2 emspMeanscorestoattitudestatementsconcerningfivetopicstheexistenceofharriersontheEnglishuplandstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralwayoflifegrouseshootinggamekeepersandraptorconservationistsDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)Errorbarsshow95confidenceinterval

emspensp emsp | emsp7People and NatureST JOHN eT al

approachestheirsupportforthereintroductiondidnotdiffersig-nificantlytothelowlevelofsupporttheyreportedforbroodman-agement (M=028 SD=123) Within Pro‐raptor and Pro‐birdrespondentsmonitoringnestandroostprotectionand improv-ingintelligencereceivedhighandstatisticallysimilarlevelsofsup-portIncontrastthesegroupsreportedsignificantlylowerlevelsof support for broodmanagement compared to any otherman-agement approach (M=minus012 SD=130 M=minus143 SD=093respectively)

34emsp|emspBetween‐group differences in levels of support for harrier management

With the exception of diversionary feeding which was generallybackedbyallgroupslevelsofsupportformanagementoptionsvar-ied significantly by respondent affiliation (Supporting InformationTableS6Figure3)Pro‐raptorandPro‐bird respondents reportedstatisticallysimilarandsignificantlyhigherlevelsofsupportformon-itoringnestandroostprotectionandimproving intelligencecom-paredtoFieldsportandNon‐raptorrespondentsLevelsofsupportforbroodmanagementdifferedsignificantlyamonggroupssupportwas highest among Field sport followed by Non‐raptor affiliatesHowever theiraverage levelsofsupport for thismanagementap-proachwereconservativerangingfromM=028(SD=123Non‐raptor) toM=075 (SD=115 Field sport)where 0=Neutral and2=strongly support Pro‐bird respondents reported significantlygreateroppositiontobroodmanagementwhichwasalsoopposedbyPro‐raptoraffiliatesLevelsofsupportforasouthernreintroduc-tionwerestatisticallysimilarandhighestamongFieldsportfollowedbyPro‐raptorindividuals(M=092SD =097094SD =127)whileNon‐raptorandPro‐birdapprovalofthisformofmanagementcen-tredaroundneutral(M=005SD =122M =minus001SD =126)

35emsp|emspImpact of proposed action plan measures on hen harrier recovery in England

Views on howmanagement activitieswould impact harrier recov-eryandgrousemanagementinEnglandvariedbetweenrespondentgroups(Figure4)Withtheexceptionofmonitoringgroupsdisagreedsignificantlyonwhethereachmanagementactivitywould increaseharriernumbers(Figure4aSupportingInformationTableS7)OfallmanagementactivitiespresentedPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespond-entsreportedimprovingintelligenceandnestandroostprotectiontobemostlikelytoincreaseharriernumbersposthoctestsrevealedthattheseopinionsdifferedsignificantlytoFieldsportandNon‐rap-torrespondentsFieldsportandNon‐raptorindividualsdidnotdiffersignificantlyinthedegreetowhichtheythoughtbroodmanagementwasausefultoolforincreasingharriernumbersbuttheirviewsdif-feredsignificantlytothePro‐raptorandPro‐birdaffiliates

Therewasnosignificantdifference in thedegree towhich re-spondentsbelieveddiversionaryfeedingwouldreducetheimpactofharrierongrousemeansrangedfrom072(SD =101FieldSport)to097(SD =078General‐bird)wheretwoindicatesstrongagree-mentthatdiversionaryfeedingwouldreducetheimpactofharrier(Figure4b Supporting InformationTableS8) Field sport affiliatesweresignificantlymore likelythanothergroupstoperceivebroodmanagementandasouthernreintroductionaseffectiveapproachestoreducingtheimpactofharriersongrouse

Therewere no significant differences in opinions reported byindividualsfromdifferentaffiliationsandtheeffectivenessofmon-itoring diversionary feeding or improving intelligenceat reducingdisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersanswerssatbetweenneutralandagree(Figure4cSupportingInformationTableS9)ComparedtoallgroupsFieldsportrespondentsweresignificantlymorelikelytoreportthatbroodmanagementorasouthernreintroductionwould

F I G U R E 3 emspMeanlevelofsupportforeachofthesixmanagementoptionsthetrialbroodmanagementschemeareintroductionintosouthernEnglanddiversionaryfeedingnestandwinterroostprotectionimprovingintelligenceandenforcementandmonitoringharrierpopulationsintheUnitedKingdomDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)Errorbarsshow95confidenceintervalsStatisticallysignificantdifferenceswithingroupsaredenotedbyanasterisk

8emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

reducestakeholderconflictNoothergroupheldtheseopinionsandPro‐birdrespondentsweresignificantlylesslikelythanothergroupsto believe that a southern reintroduction or brood managementwouldreducedisagreements

While there were some significant differences in levels ofagreementbetweengroupsallrespondentsagreedthattheillegalkilling of harriers could be reduced throughmonitoring nest androostprotectionandimprovingintelligence(Figure4dSupporting

InformationTableS10)FieldsportsandNon‐raptorgroupsbelievedthatdiversionaryfeedingandbroodmanagementwouldreduce il-legal killing but these views differed significantly to respondentsassociatedwithPro‐raptorandPro‐birdorganizations

Trust in Natural England differed significantly across groups(F(3428)=688ple0001)PosthoctestsrevealedthatFieldsportand Pro‐raptor respondents reported statistically similar answerswith a mean value indicative of slight trust (M=030 SD =111

F I G U R E 4 emspMeanlevelofbeliefthateachmanagementoptionswould(a)increasethenumberofhenharriers(b)reducetheimpactofharriersongrouse(c)reducedisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersand(d)reduceillegalkillingofharriersminus2indicatesdisagreement0neitheragreementordisagreementand+2indicatesstrongagreementDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)StatisticallysignificantdifferencesaredenotedbyanasteriskErrorbarsshow95confidenceinterval

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

(a) Increase number of harriers (b) Reduce impact of harriers

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(c) Reduce stakeholderdisagreements

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(d) Reduce illegal harrier killing

Affiliation

Field sport

Nonminusraptor

Prominusraptor

Prominusbird

emspensp emsp | emsp9People and NatureST JOHN eT al

M=035 SD =035 p=098) Non‐raptor and Pro‐bird affiliatesalsoreportedstatisticallysimilarresponses(p=10)butwithameanvalue indicative of slight distrust in Natural England (M =minus010SD =093M =minus011SD =102p=10)

4emsp |emspDISCUSSION

Ourwork highlights the very different value orientations held bystakeholdersinthisconflictWhilethemajorityofrespondentsaf-filiated with field sport organizations reported utilitarian valuesthe majority of Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondents were drivenbymutualist beliefs These valueorientationswere strongly asso-ciatedwith peoples attitudes towardsmanagement Those at theutilitarianendofthespectrumgenerallyheldattitudessupportiveof grouse shooting and gamekeepers in contrast to those on themutualist side As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy (Vaske ampManfredo 2012)we also found strong correlations between atti-tudeandsupportformanagementoptionsourproxyforbehaviourThoseholdingmorepositiveattitudes towardsharriersonEnglishuplands and less positive attitudes towards grouse shooting andgamekeepersgenerallyshowedgreatersupportformonitoringnestprotectionand increased intelligence Incontrast thosereportingmore positive attitudes towards shooting or gamekeepers weremore supportive of reintroduction and brood management Ourfindingsaddtoagrowingbodyofresearchprovidingevidencethatwildlifevalueorientationshelpexplainpatternsofhumanbehaviourrelatingtowildlife(egFultonetal1996Jacobsetal2014TeelampManfredo2010VaskeampDonnelly1999)Furthermoreourworkhighlightstheimportanceoffosteringrelationalvaluesthatisval-ues pertaining to allmanner of relationships betweenpeople andnatureforproenvironmentalprotection(Chanetal2016)

Wildlifevalueorientationsdochangebuttheydososlowlyandit isunlikelythattheychangeinresponsetospecific interventions(Heberlein2012Manfredoetal2017)Moreoverwhereattitudesare related strongly to underlying values as they are here theycanalsobedifficulttochange(Heberlein2012Manfredo2008)Howeverthefactthatvaluesaredeep‐setandalongwithattitudeschangeslowlydoesnotmeanthatconflictsbetweenpartiescannotbereducedandmanagedThereisconsiderableproofthatattitudesandbehaviourare relativelyunresponsive toevidenceandknowl-edge(egEricssonampHeberlein2003HeberleinampEricsson2008)Thusdrivestochangeattitudesandultimatelybehaviourthrougheducationprogrammesareunlikelytobesuccessful(CurtiampValdez2009EspinosaampJacobson2012)Howeverjustasvaluesarecul-tivatedthroughrepeatedexperiencewithpeergroups(Chanetal2016) attitudes also change in relation toexperience (EspinosaampJacobson 2012 Heberlein amp Ericsson 2008 Sponarski VaskeBathampLoeffler2016)ThissuggeststhatinaconservationconflictchangesinentrenchedpositionsaremorelikelytoemergethroughexposuretostakeholderswithdifferentbeliefsandtothesystemandinterventionsinquestionFurthermoresuccessfulmanagementmaydependupon identifying value similarity among stakeholders

andbuildinguponsharedvalues tosupportengagementandseekcompromiseratherthanhighlightingdifferences(Manfredo2008)

Withrespecttotheharrierndashgrouseconflicttherearecommonal-itiesinvaluesamongFieldsportandNon‐raptoraffiliatesyetthereislimitedoverlapinthevaluesheldbythesetwogroupsandrespon-dentsassociatedwithorganizationswhoseprimaryobjectiveisavianconservationThisrepresentsaconsiderablechallengetore‐estab-lishingdialogueanditseemsplausiblethatdivergentvaluespreventmeaningful dialogue between groupsHowever as suggested in arecentanalysisofconflictsaroundbirdsofpreyinScotlandsharednarrativescanofferaspringboardtonewexchangesbetweenstake-holders (Hodgson et al 2018)Consequently theremaybemeritin expanding the dialogue beyond harriers and towardsmoorlandmanagementmore broadly thiswouldwiden the opportunity foridentificationofcommonnarrativesandgoalsAsisoftenthecasewhere conservation conflicts revolve around enigmatic predatorsthehighlypolitical andemotivenatureof theharrierndashgrouse con-flictmeansestablishingamoreexpansivedialoguewillbechalleng-ingHowever approaches such as transdisciplinarity and adaptiveco‐managementwhich are designed to build a shared experiencearoundresearchmayofferasolution(Armitageetal2009Kleinetal2001)

Transdisciplinarityandadaptivecomanagementlinktotheideaofconflicttransformationwhichconcernstheexplorationandac-knowledgementofvaluesandfocusondeliberativeresponsesandthebuildingoftrustandrelationships(MaddenampMcQuinn2014)Ifpartiesarepreparedtocometothetableanddeliberatethenthereis scope tomanageproblems to reduceconflict (egButleretal2015LundmarkampMatti2015)Thesuccessful implementationofthesedeliberativeprocessesrequiresconsiderationoftrustrepre-sentativeness acknowledgement of different knowledge spheresdialogue toexploreperspectivesandagreedgoalsand leadership(Davenport Leahy Anderson amp Jakes 2007 Sjoumllander‐LindqvistJohanssonampSandstroumlm2015Youngetal2016)Suchapproachesdonotchangevaluesorremoveconflictbuttheyallowforexposuretodifferentviewsandthepotentialdevelopmentofcompromiseandsolutionsthroughdeliberation

Younget al (2016)highlighted the importanceofbuildingandmaintaining trust between stakeholders where conservation con-flictsoccurWorkingincollaborativeteamscanhelpinthisprocess(Stern2008)Similarlytrustintheagencyresponsibleformanage-ment is critical (Beierle amp Konisky 2000 Sponarski Vaske Bathamp Musiani 2014) Without trust people are less likely to acceptmanagementinterventions(CvetkovichampWinter2003NyaupaneGraefeampBurns2009) In thisstudy trust inNaturalEnglanddif-feredsignificantlyacrossgroupsandwasgenerallyweakaddress-ingthisrepresentsanopportunityandasignificantchallengeLikemanyconservationconflictspartiesinvolvedintheharrierndashgrouseconflict have high levels of ecological knowledge Building trustbetweenNatural Englandand suchwell‐informedparties requiresawillingnessto integratesuchknowledgeintoconservationpolicyand ldquoa willingness to share power in terms of knowledge and policy im‐plementationrdquo(Youngetal2016)NaturalEnglandstrivedtoattain

10emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

thisgoalbyestablishingamultipartyboardtocodeveloptheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)HowevertheprocessfailedtoovercomesomeofthedifferencesbetweenkeypartiesIncontrastpartiesappeartobebecomingmorepolarizedinthisconflictEncouragingsuchstake-holderstocomebacktothetablewillprovechallengingespeciallyunderthespotlightofaggressivesocialmediacampaigns

Inthisstudywepresentevidencethateachrespondentgroupsupportedatleastfourofthesixmanagementapproachesoutlinedin theAction Plan (DEFRA 2016) Probird affiliates showed clearpreference for less invasive management and alongside Pro‐rap-tor respondents did not support broodmanagement Support forasouthernreintroductionwasalso limited IncontrastFieldsportindividualsexpressedadegreeofsupportforallmanagementtypesandshowednostatisticallysignificantpreferenceforanyofthemLevelsofsupportfordiversionaryfeedingdidnotdiffersignificantlybetween groups but among Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondentsreceived significantly less support than monitoring improving in-telligenceornestandroostprotectionAllgroupsconsideredthatmostmanagementapproachesoutlinedintheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)wouldincreasethenumbersofharriersinEnglandOurresultsindicatediversionaryfeedingwasmostfavouredandreceivedgreat-estconsensusAllgroupsalsoconsideredthatthisapproachhadthepotentialtoreducetheimpactofharrierongrousebutPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdidnotconsiderthatitwouldreducetheextentofillegalkillingInsteadallgroupsagreedthattheillegalkill-ingofharrierscouldbereducedthroughimprovedintelligenceandnestandroostprotectionHoweveritwasovertheissueofbroodmanagementwheretherewasmostdisagreementPro‐birdaffiliateswerestronglyagainstbroodmanagementwhilesupportersoffieldsportswereinfavour

TheDEFRArecentlylicensedatrialofbroodmanagementAsex-pectedthishasprovedhighlycontroversialamongsomeconserva-tionorganizationsandisnowsubjecttotwojudicialreviews(Harper2018)ShoulditgoaheadthetrialwillenableatestofwhetherornotbroodmanagementcanreverseharrierdeclinesinEnglandandachancetoseeifoutcomesleadtochangesinpositionregardingthetechniqueWesuspect that suchchangeswillbedependentuponthewaythetrialisimplementedifgroupsareexcludedtheyarelesslikelytomoveposition

Aswehaveseennewknowledgemaynotleadtoachangeinattitudesor theacceptanceofbroodmanagementasa legitimatestrategyIndeedinthisfracturedandpolarizeddebateitishardtosee how any progress towards conflictmanagement can developwithout further investment in a strong deliberative process thatinvests inbuilding trust througha comanagementprocess that issupportedbygovernmentAnysuchprocesswillrequireleadershiponall sides resources time and importantly awillingness toen-gageandseekcompromises(Armitageetal2009)Howeverpartlybecauseofcontinuedillegalkilling(MellingThomasPriceampRoos2018) itcurrentlyseemsunlikely thatkeyconservationorganiza-tionswouldbewilling tocometo thetableandwill insteadcon-tinuetopursueanadversarialfocusonlicensingorbanninggrouseshooting

A number of studies have highlighted the importance of un-derstanding stakeholder values in conflicts over wildlife manage-ment (egManfredoetal2004Dickman2010DietschTeelampManfredo 2016 Lute Navarrete Nelson amp Gore 2016) ThesehavefocusedonthepublicorononespecificsetofstakeholdersOurresearchhashighlightedtherelevanceofconsideringthevaluesheldbydivergentgroupsofstakeholders invested inasinglecon-flict(seealsoBredinLindhjemDijkampLinnell2015)Suchafocusemphasizesthecriticaldifferencebetweenconsideringtheseissuesas conflicts between people over the management of wildlife asopposedtohumanndashwildlifeconflicts(Redpathetal2013)Ignoringthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthevaluesheldbydifferentgroupsofstakeholdersinvolvedinconservationconflictswillhinderattemptstomanagethem

ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS

WethankourstudyparticipantsaswellasArjunAmarandJulietteYoungforprovidingfeedbackonanearlierdraft

AUTHOR S CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors contributed to conceptual design or data acquisitionanalysis and interpretation writing or revising text approved thesubmissionandagreeaccountability

DATA ACCE SSIBILIT Y

DataarepubliclyavailablethroughFigshareusingthefollowinglinkhttpsfigsharecomarticlesStJohn_et_al_dataset_for_Value_diver-sity_and_conservation_conflict_Lessons_from_the_management_of_red_grouse_and_hen_harriers_in_England_People_Nature7359209

ORCID

Freya A V St John httpsorcidorg0000‐0002‐5707‐310X

Steve M Redpath httpsorcidorg0000‐0001‐5399‐9477

R E FE R E N C E S

AmarACourtIRDavisonMDowningSGrimshawTPickfordT amp Raw D (2012) Linking nest histories remotely sensedland use data and wildlife crime records to explore the impactof grouse moor management on peregrine falcon populationsBiological Conservation 145(1) 86ndash94 httpsdoiorg101016JBIOCON201110014

ArmitageD R Plummer R Berkes F Arthur R I CharlesA TDavidson‐Hunt I J amp Wollenberg E K (2009) Adaptive co‐ managementforsocialndashecologicalcomplexityFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2) 95ndash102 httpsdoiorg101890 070089

AveryM(2015)Inglorious Conflict in the UplandsLondonBloomsburyNaturalHistory

Beierle T C amp Konisky D M (2000) Values conflict andtrust in participatory environmental planning Journal of

emspensp emsp | emsp5People and NatureST JOHN eT al

31emsp|emspBasic beliefs and wildlife value orientation

Confirmatory factor analysis provided factor loadings that sup-ported the a priori grouping of the nine basic belief statementsinto three dimensions named ldquoWildlife Managementrdquo ldquoShootingrdquoand ldquoEquality betweenpeople andwildliferdquo reflecting the contentof the statements incorporated into each dimension (SupportingInformation Table S1) This analysis shows for example that thefivestatementsdesignedtomeasurebasicbeliefstowardsshootingdoindeedmeasureoneunderlyingldquolatentvariablerdquowhichwehavecalledShootingThereliabilityofourthreebasicbeliefdimensionswasconfirmedbyCronbachsalphawhichrangedfrom052to092(SupportingInformationTableS1)

ThesecondfactoranalysisofrespondentsrsquobasicbeliefdimensionscoresidentifiedtwowildlifevalueorientationdomainsdefinedasSpeciesManagementwhichencompassedbasicbeliefsconcerningWildlifeManagement andShooting andEqualitybetweenpeopleand wildlife (ldquoEqualityCOR(20)rdquo) Respondents were then catego-rized into wildlife value orientations according to their scores onSpecies Management (median=05) and Equality (median=minus05)withhighscoresbeingabovethemedianineachdomainThisscor-ingrevealedfourcategoriesalongthetwodimensionstowhichweassignedthelabelsUtilitarianPluralistAPluralistBandMutualist(Table 1) Respondents categorized as Utilitarian scored high forbothSpeciesManagementandEqualitywhich indicatedthat theyheldaviewofhumanmasteryofnatureandprioritizedhumanwell‐beingovertherightsofwildlifeIndividualsassignedtothePluralistsA category accrued high scores indicative of support for SpeciesManagementbutscoredlowonEqualityshowingtheynotonlysup-portedWildlifeManagementbutalsoconsiderwildlifedeservingofrightsPluralistBindividualsdidnotadvocateawhollyutilitarianor

mutualistviewtheyscoredlowonSpeciesManagementandhighonrightsindicatingalackofsupportforshootingormanagementbutnotduetobeingadvocatesofwildliferightsMutualistsscoredlowonSpeciesManagementandlowonEqualityindicatingthattheydidnotsupportshootingormanagementofwildlifeandviewedwildlifetobesomewhatequaltohumansanddeservingofrights

Mean wildlife value orientation scores differed significantlybetween Utilitarian Pluralist A Pluralist B and Mutualist respon-dents (Species Management (F(3491)=52241 plt001 Equality(F(3491)=38916 plt001) Post hoc tests (Tukeys HSD) revealedthatsupportforWildlifeManagementandShootingwasloweramongpeopleholdingMutualistandPluralistBvalueorientationscomparedto Utilitarian or Pluralist A orientations In contrast people holdingUtilitarianandPluralistBvalueorientationssupportedargumentsthatindicatedtheneedsofpeoplearemore importantthantherightsofanimalwhencomparedtopeopleclassifiedasMutualistorPluralistA

Whilethereisvariationinwildlifevalueorientationwithinaffil-iations(eg512ofFieldSportrespondentsholdUtilitarianvalueorientations438PluralistA17PluralistBand33Mutualist)themajority(512)ofFieldSportaffiliatesandmany(397)asso-ciatedwithNon‐raptororganizationsreportedUtilitarianvalueori-entationsinkeepingwithhumandominationofwildlifePluralistAvaluesindicativeofsupportforWildlifeManagementandadegreeofEqualitybetweenhumanandwildlifewerealsocommoninthesegroups(438and397respectively)IncontrastmostindividualsassociatedwithPro‐raptororPro‐birdorganizationsheldMutualistvalue orientations (716 and 756 respectively) indicating thattheydidnotsupportShootingorWildlifeManagementandviewedwildlife tobe somewhatequal tohumansanddeservingof rightsPluralistBorientationsindicatingalackofsupportforShootingorManagementbutprioritizationofhumanwell‐beingovertherights

TA B L E 1 emspMeanwildlifevalueorientationscoresofrespondentscategorizedasUtilitarianPluralistandMutualist(minimum=minus2maximum=2higherscoresindicateutilitarianvalues)ThetwopluralistcategoriesrepresentdifferentcombinationofutilitarianandmutualistvaluesPeoplecategorizedasPluralistAsupportSpeciesManagementandperceivewildlifedeservingofrightsthosecategorizedasPluralistBdonotsupportSpeciesManagementandprioritizehumanneedsoverwildliferightsBelowthepercentagesofrespondentsfittingintoeachwildlifevalueorientationcategoryaccordingtoorganizationalaffiliationarepresented

Wildlife value orientation domains (bold) and basic belief dimensions

Wildlife value orientations

Utilitarian (n = 121) Mean (SE)

Pluralist A (n = 119) Mean (SE)

Pluralist B (n = 41) Mean (SE)

Mutualist (n = 185) Mean (SE)

Species management 140 (004) 118 (004) minus043 (010) minus052 (004)

Wildlifemanagementbeliefs 130(006) 113(006) minus060(015) minus040(006)

Shootingbeliefs 150(005) 123(006) minus026(015) minus064(006)

Equality between people and wildlife 059 (005) minus101 (004) 033 (008) minus129 (004)

Beliefsinneedsofpeoplecomingbeforewildlife

059(005) minus101(004) 033(008) minus129(004)

Affiliation

Fieldsport(iehuntingshootingfishing) 512 438 17 33

Non‐raptor(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)

397 397 66 140

Pro‐raptor(specializinginraptorprotection) 60 90 134 716

Pro‐bird(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)

33 67 144 756

6emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

ofwildlifewerealsopresentinthesegroups(134and144re-spectively)(Table1)

32emsp|emspAttitudes

Reliability analysis revealed high internal consistency for sets of at-titude statements within the five core areas measured Cronbachsalpha ranged from 069 to 085 (Supporting Information Table S2)Consequently average scores for each attitude realm were calcu-lated for individuals There were statistically significant differencesbetween respondent affiliation and their attitudes towards harrierson theEnglishuplands (F(3439)=11757ple0001) the importanceof harrier conservation compared tomaintaining a rural way of life(F(3444)=16875 ple0001) grouse shooting (F(3401)=28094ple0001) gamekeepers (F(3443)=11013 ple0001) and raptorconservationists(F(3450)=9571ple0001)(Figure2)Posthoctestsrevealed no significant differences between attitudes held by FieldSportandNon‐raptorndashaffiliatedindividuals (p=048110090092and072)Respondentsaffiliatedtothesetypesoforganizationsgener-allyreportedmorenegativeattitudestowardsharriersintheuplandstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralway of life and raptor conservationists Compared to other groupsthey also reportedmore positive attitudes towards grouse shootingandgamekeepers Individuals associatedwithPro‐raptororPro‐birdorganizationsdidnotdiffersignificantlyintheirattitudestowardshar-riersintheuplands(p=021)gamekeepers(p=059)orraptorconser-vationists(p=098)HoweverPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdiddiffersignificantlyintheirattitudestowardstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralwayoflife(p=003)andattitude towards grouse shooting (ple0001) Pro‐bird respondentsreportedmoreMutualistviewsthananyothergrouptheysupportedharrierconservationovermaintainingaruralwayoflifeandheldnega-tiveattitudestowardsgrouseshooting(Figure2)

AcrossallrespondentsvaluesassociatedwithSpeciesManagementand Equality were significantly related to respondents attitudes(SupportingInformationTableS3)Forexampleaswildlifevalueori-entationscoresincreasedindicativeofmoreutilitarianvaluesattitudetowardsharriersontheEnglishuplandsdeclined(SpeciesManagementr =minus062 p le0001 Equality r = minus046 p le0001) while attitude to-wardsShootingbecamemorepositive(SpeciesManagementr = 077p le0001Equalityr=043p le0001)

Across all respondents 80 of the correlations between at-titudes and support formanagementwere significant (SupportingInformationTableS4)AsattitudescorestowardsharriersincreasedindicativeofmoreMutualistviewssotoodidsupportformonitor-ing(r=064p le0001) improvingintelligence(r=065p le0001)andnestandroostprotection(r=073p le0001)whilesupportforbroodmanagementdeclined(r =minus024p le0001)Asattitudesto-wardsshootingbecamemorepositiveindicativeofmoreUtilitarianviewssotoodidsupport formore invasiveformsofmanagement(egbroodmanagementr=051p le0001)Inotherwordswhereindividuals sat on the Utilitarian‐Mutualist spectrum influencedtheir attitudes and these attitudeswere related to expressions ofsupportoppositionfordifferentmanagementoptions

33emsp|emspWithin‐group differences in levels of support for harrier management

UnlikeallothergroupsField sport respondents reported statis-tically similar levels of support for all management approaches(FieldsportF(5700)=188p=010Non‐raptorF(5722)=1095plt0001 Pro‐raptor F(5798)=841 plt0001 Pro‐birdsF(5550)=25576 plt0001) (Figure 3 Supporting InformationTable S5) Post hoc tests revealed that Non‐raptor respondentsreportedsignificantlylowerlevelsofsupportforasouthernrein-troduction(M=005SD =122)comparedtoothermanagement

F I G U R E 2 emspMeanscorestoattitudestatementsconcerningfivetopicstheexistenceofharriersontheEnglishuplandstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralwayoflifegrouseshootinggamekeepersandraptorconservationistsDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)Errorbarsshow95confidenceinterval

emspensp emsp | emsp7People and NatureST JOHN eT al

approachestheirsupportforthereintroductiondidnotdiffersig-nificantlytothelowlevelofsupporttheyreportedforbroodman-agement (M=028 SD=123) Within Pro‐raptor and Pro‐birdrespondentsmonitoringnestandroostprotectionand improv-ingintelligencereceivedhighandstatisticallysimilarlevelsofsup-portIncontrastthesegroupsreportedsignificantlylowerlevelsof support for broodmanagement compared to any otherman-agement approach (M=minus012 SD=130 M=minus143 SD=093respectively)

34emsp|emspBetween‐group differences in levels of support for harrier management

With the exception of diversionary feeding which was generallybackedbyallgroupslevelsofsupportformanagementoptionsvar-ied significantly by respondent affiliation (Supporting InformationTableS6Figure3)Pro‐raptorandPro‐bird respondents reportedstatisticallysimilarandsignificantlyhigherlevelsofsupportformon-itoringnestandroostprotectionandimproving intelligencecom-paredtoFieldsportandNon‐raptorrespondentsLevelsofsupportforbroodmanagementdifferedsignificantlyamonggroupssupportwas highest among Field sport followed by Non‐raptor affiliatesHowever theiraverage levelsofsupport for thismanagementap-proachwereconservativerangingfromM=028(SD=123Non‐raptor) toM=075 (SD=115 Field sport)where 0=Neutral and2=strongly support Pro‐bird respondents reported significantlygreateroppositiontobroodmanagementwhichwasalsoopposedbyPro‐raptoraffiliatesLevelsofsupportforasouthernreintroduc-tionwerestatisticallysimilarandhighestamongFieldsportfollowedbyPro‐raptorindividuals(M=092SD =097094SD =127)whileNon‐raptorandPro‐birdapprovalofthisformofmanagementcen-tredaroundneutral(M=005SD =122M =minus001SD =126)

35emsp|emspImpact of proposed action plan measures on hen harrier recovery in England

Views on howmanagement activitieswould impact harrier recov-eryandgrousemanagementinEnglandvariedbetweenrespondentgroups(Figure4)Withtheexceptionofmonitoringgroupsdisagreedsignificantlyonwhethereachmanagementactivitywould increaseharriernumbers(Figure4aSupportingInformationTableS7)OfallmanagementactivitiespresentedPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespond-entsreportedimprovingintelligenceandnestandroostprotectiontobemostlikelytoincreaseharriernumbersposthoctestsrevealedthattheseopinionsdifferedsignificantlytoFieldsportandNon‐rap-torrespondentsFieldsportandNon‐raptorindividualsdidnotdiffersignificantlyinthedegreetowhichtheythoughtbroodmanagementwasausefultoolforincreasingharriernumbersbuttheirviewsdif-feredsignificantlytothePro‐raptorandPro‐birdaffiliates

Therewasnosignificantdifference in thedegree towhich re-spondentsbelieveddiversionaryfeedingwouldreducetheimpactofharrierongrousemeansrangedfrom072(SD =101FieldSport)to097(SD =078General‐bird)wheretwoindicatesstrongagree-mentthatdiversionaryfeedingwouldreducetheimpactofharrier(Figure4b Supporting InformationTableS8) Field sport affiliatesweresignificantlymore likelythanothergroupstoperceivebroodmanagementandasouthernreintroductionaseffectiveapproachestoreducingtheimpactofharriersongrouse

Therewere no significant differences in opinions reported byindividualsfromdifferentaffiliationsandtheeffectivenessofmon-itoring diversionary feeding or improving intelligenceat reducingdisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersanswerssatbetweenneutralandagree(Figure4cSupportingInformationTableS9)ComparedtoallgroupsFieldsportrespondentsweresignificantlymorelikelytoreportthatbroodmanagementorasouthernreintroductionwould

F I G U R E 3 emspMeanlevelofsupportforeachofthesixmanagementoptionsthetrialbroodmanagementschemeareintroductionintosouthernEnglanddiversionaryfeedingnestandwinterroostprotectionimprovingintelligenceandenforcementandmonitoringharrierpopulationsintheUnitedKingdomDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)Errorbarsshow95confidenceintervalsStatisticallysignificantdifferenceswithingroupsaredenotedbyanasterisk

8emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

reducestakeholderconflictNoothergroupheldtheseopinionsandPro‐birdrespondentsweresignificantlylesslikelythanothergroupsto believe that a southern reintroduction or brood managementwouldreducedisagreements

While there were some significant differences in levels ofagreementbetweengroupsallrespondentsagreedthattheillegalkilling of harriers could be reduced throughmonitoring nest androostprotectionandimprovingintelligence(Figure4dSupporting

InformationTableS10)FieldsportsandNon‐raptorgroupsbelievedthatdiversionaryfeedingandbroodmanagementwouldreduce il-legal killing but these views differed significantly to respondentsassociatedwithPro‐raptorandPro‐birdorganizations

Trust in Natural England differed significantly across groups(F(3428)=688ple0001)PosthoctestsrevealedthatFieldsportand Pro‐raptor respondents reported statistically similar answerswith a mean value indicative of slight trust (M=030 SD =111

F I G U R E 4 emspMeanlevelofbeliefthateachmanagementoptionswould(a)increasethenumberofhenharriers(b)reducetheimpactofharriersongrouse(c)reducedisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersand(d)reduceillegalkillingofharriersminus2indicatesdisagreement0neitheragreementordisagreementand+2indicatesstrongagreementDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)StatisticallysignificantdifferencesaredenotedbyanasteriskErrorbarsshow95confidenceinterval

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

(a) Increase number of harriers (b) Reduce impact of harriers

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(c) Reduce stakeholderdisagreements

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(d) Reduce illegal harrier killing

Affiliation

Field sport

Nonminusraptor

Prominusraptor

Prominusbird

emspensp emsp | emsp9People and NatureST JOHN eT al

M=035 SD =035 p=098) Non‐raptor and Pro‐bird affiliatesalsoreportedstatisticallysimilarresponses(p=10)butwithameanvalue indicative of slight distrust in Natural England (M =minus010SD =093M =minus011SD =102p=10)

4emsp |emspDISCUSSION

Ourwork highlights the very different value orientations held bystakeholdersinthisconflictWhilethemajorityofrespondentsaf-filiated with field sport organizations reported utilitarian valuesthe majority of Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondents were drivenbymutualist beliefs These valueorientationswere strongly asso-ciatedwith peoples attitudes towardsmanagement Those at theutilitarianendofthespectrumgenerallyheldattitudessupportiveof grouse shooting and gamekeepers in contrast to those on themutualist side As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy (Vaske ampManfredo 2012)we also found strong correlations between atti-tudeandsupportformanagementoptionsourproxyforbehaviourThoseholdingmorepositiveattitudes towardsharriersonEnglishuplands and less positive attitudes towards grouse shooting andgamekeepersgenerallyshowedgreatersupportformonitoringnestprotectionand increased intelligence Incontrast thosereportingmore positive attitudes towards shooting or gamekeepers weremore supportive of reintroduction and brood management Ourfindingsaddtoagrowingbodyofresearchprovidingevidencethatwildlifevalueorientationshelpexplainpatternsofhumanbehaviourrelatingtowildlife(egFultonetal1996Jacobsetal2014TeelampManfredo2010VaskeampDonnelly1999)Furthermoreourworkhighlightstheimportanceoffosteringrelationalvaluesthatisval-ues pertaining to allmanner of relationships betweenpeople andnatureforproenvironmentalprotection(Chanetal2016)

Wildlifevalueorientationsdochangebuttheydososlowlyandit isunlikelythattheychangeinresponsetospecific interventions(Heberlein2012Manfredoetal2017)Moreoverwhereattitudesare related strongly to underlying values as they are here theycanalsobedifficulttochange(Heberlein2012Manfredo2008)Howeverthefactthatvaluesaredeep‐setandalongwithattitudeschangeslowlydoesnotmeanthatconflictsbetweenpartiescannotbereducedandmanagedThereisconsiderableproofthatattitudesandbehaviourare relativelyunresponsive toevidenceandknowl-edge(egEricssonampHeberlein2003HeberleinampEricsson2008)Thusdrivestochangeattitudesandultimatelybehaviourthrougheducationprogrammesareunlikelytobesuccessful(CurtiampValdez2009EspinosaampJacobson2012)Howeverjustasvaluesarecul-tivatedthroughrepeatedexperiencewithpeergroups(Chanetal2016) attitudes also change in relation toexperience (EspinosaampJacobson 2012 Heberlein amp Ericsson 2008 Sponarski VaskeBathampLoeffler2016)ThissuggeststhatinaconservationconflictchangesinentrenchedpositionsaremorelikelytoemergethroughexposuretostakeholderswithdifferentbeliefsandtothesystemandinterventionsinquestionFurthermoresuccessfulmanagementmaydependupon identifying value similarity among stakeholders

andbuildinguponsharedvalues tosupportengagementandseekcompromiseratherthanhighlightingdifferences(Manfredo2008)

Withrespecttotheharrierndashgrouseconflicttherearecommonal-itiesinvaluesamongFieldsportandNon‐raptoraffiliatesyetthereislimitedoverlapinthevaluesheldbythesetwogroupsandrespon-dentsassociatedwithorganizationswhoseprimaryobjectiveisavianconservationThisrepresentsaconsiderablechallengetore‐estab-lishingdialogueanditseemsplausiblethatdivergentvaluespreventmeaningful dialogue between groupsHowever as suggested in arecentanalysisofconflictsaroundbirdsofpreyinScotlandsharednarrativescanofferaspringboardtonewexchangesbetweenstake-holders (Hodgson et al 2018)Consequently theremaybemeritin expanding the dialogue beyond harriers and towardsmoorlandmanagementmore broadly thiswouldwiden the opportunity foridentificationofcommonnarrativesandgoalsAsisoftenthecasewhere conservation conflicts revolve around enigmatic predatorsthehighlypolitical andemotivenatureof theharrierndashgrouse con-flictmeansestablishingamoreexpansivedialoguewillbechalleng-ingHowever approaches such as transdisciplinarity and adaptiveco‐managementwhich are designed to build a shared experiencearoundresearchmayofferasolution(Armitageetal2009Kleinetal2001)

Transdisciplinarityandadaptivecomanagementlinktotheideaofconflicttransformationwhichconcernstheexplorationandac-knowledgementofvaluesandfocusondeliberativeresponsesandthebuildingoftrustandrelationships(MaddenampMcQuinn2014)Ifpartiesarepreparedtocometothetableanddeliberatethenthereis scope tomanageproblems to reduceconflict (egButleretal2015LundmarkampMatti2015)Thesuccessful implementationofthesedeliberativeprocessesrequiresconsiderationoftrustrepre-sentativeness acknowledgement of different knowledge spheresdialogue toexploreperspectivesandagreedgoalsand leadership(Davenport Leahy Anderson amp Jakes 2007 Sjoumllander‐LindqvistJohanssonampSandstroumlm2015Youngetal2016)Suchapproachesdonotchangevaluesorremoveconflictbuttheyallowforexposuretodifferentviewsandthepotentialdevelopmentofcompromiseandsolutionsthroughdeliberation

Younget al (2016)highlighted the importanceofbuildingandmaintaining trust between stakeholders where conservation con-flictsoccurWorkingincollaborativeteamscanhelpinthisprocess(Stern2008)Similarlytrustintheagencyresponsibleformanage-ment is critical (Beierle amp Konisky 2000 Sponarski Vaske Bathamp Musiani 2014) Without trust people are less likely to acceptmanagementinterventions(CvetkovichampWinter2003NyaupaneGraefeampBurns2009) In thisstudy trust inNaturalEnglanddif-feredsignificantlyacrossgroupsandwasgenerallyweakaddress-ingthisrepresentsanopportunityandasignificantchallengeLikemanyconservationconflictspartiesinvolvedintheharrierndashgrouseconflict have high levels of ecological knowledge Building trustbetweenNatural Englandand suchwell‐informedparties requiresawillingnessto integratesuchknowledgeintoconservationpolicyand ldquoa willingness to share power in terms of knowledge and policy im‐plementationrdquo(Youngetal2016)NaturalEnglandstrivedtoattain

10emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

thisgoalbyestablishingamultipartyboardtocodeveloptheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)HowevertheprocessfailedtoovercomesomeofthedifferencesbetweenkeypartiesIncontrastpartiesappeartobebecomingmorepolarizedinthisconflictEncouragingsuchstake-holderstocomebacktothetablewillprovechallengingespeciallyunderthespotlightofaggressivesocialmediacampaigns

Inthisstudywepresentevidencethateachrespondentgroupsupportedatleastfourofthesixmanagementapproachesoutlinedin theAction Plan (DEFRA 2016) Probird affiliates showed clearpreference for less invasive management and alongside Pro‐rap-tor respondents did not support broodmanagement Support forasouthernreintroductionwasalso limited IncontrastFieldsportindividualsexpressedadegreeofsupportforallmanagementtypesandshowednostatisticallysignificantpreferenceforanyofthemLevelsofsupportfordiversionaryfeedingdidnotdiffersignificantlybetween groups but among Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondentsreceived significantly less support than monitoring improving in-telligenceornestandroostprotectionAllgroupsconsideredthatmostmanagementapproachesoutlinedintheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)wouldincreasethenumbersofharriersinEnglandOurresultsindicatediversionaryfeedingwasmostfavouredandreceivedgreat-estconsensusAllgroupsalsoconsideredthatthisapproachhadthepotentialtoreducetheimpactofharrierongrousebutPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdidnotconsiderthatitwouldreducetheextentofillegalkillingInsteadallgroupsagreedthattheillegalkill-ingofharrierscouldbereducedthroughimprovedintelligenceandnestandroostprotectionHoweveritwasovertheissueofbroodmanagementwheretherewasmostdisagreementPro‐birdaffiliateswerestronglyagainstbroodmanagementwhilesupportersoffieldsportswereinfavour

TheDEFRArecentlylicensedatrialofbroodmanagementAsex-pectedthishasprovedhighlycontroversialamongsomeconserva-tionorganizationsandisnowsubjecttotwojudicialreviews(Harper2018)ShoulditgoaheadthetrialwillenableatestofwhetherornotbroodmanagementcanreverseharrierdeclinesinEnglandandachancetoseeifoutcomesleadtochangesinpositionregardingthetechniqueWesuspect that suchchangeswillbedependentuponthewaythetrialisimplementedifgroupsareexcludedtheyarelesslikelytomoveposition

Aswehaveseennewknowledgemaynotleadtoachangeinattitudesor theacceptanceofbroodmanagementasa legitimatestrategyIndeedinthisfracturedandpolarizeddebateitishardtosee how any progress towards conflictmanagement can developwithout further investment in a strong deliberative process thatinvests inbuilding trust througha comanagementprocess that issupportedbygovernmentAnysuchprocesswillrequireleadershiponall sides resources time and importantly awillingness toen-gageandseekcompromises(Armitageetal2009)Howeverpartlybecauseofcontinuedillegalkilling(MellingThomasPriceampRoos2018) itcurrentlyseemsunlikely thatkeyconservationorganiza-tionswouldbewilling tocometo thetableandwill insteadcon-tinuetopursueanadversarialfocusonlicensingorbanninggrouseshooting

A number of studies have highlighted the importance of un-derstanding stakeholder values in conflicts over wildlife manage-ment (egManfredoetal2004Dickman2010DietschTeelampManfredo 2016 Lute Navarrete Nelson amp Gore 2016) ThesehavefocusedonthepublicorononespecificsetofstakeholdersOurresearchhashighlightedtherelevanceofconsideringthevaluesheldbydivergentgroupsofstakeholders invested inasinglecon-flict(seealsoBredinLindhjemDijkampLinnell2015)Suchafocusemphasizesthecriticaldifferencebetweenconsideringtheseissuesas conflicts between people over the management of wildlife asopposedtohumanndashwildlifeconflicts(Redpathetal2013)Ignoringthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthevaluesheldbydifferentgroupsofstakeholdersinvolvedinconservationconflictswillhinderattemptstomanagethem

ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS

WethankourstudyparticipantsaswellasArjunAmarandJulietteYoungforprovidingfeedbackonanearlierdraft

AUTHOR S CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors contributed to conceptual design or data acquisitionanalysis and interpretation writing or revising text approved thesubmissionandagreeaccountability

DATA ACCE SSIBILIT Y

DataarepubliclyavailablethroughFigshareusingthefollowinglinkhttpsfigsharecomarticlesStJohn_et_al_dataset_for_Value_diver-sity_and_conservation_conflict_Lessons_from_the_management_of_red_grouse_and_hen_harriers_in_England_People_Nature7359209

ORCID

Freya A V St John httpsorcidorg0000‐0002‐5707‐310X

Steve M Redpath httpsorcidorg0000‐0001‐5399‐9477

R E FE R E N C E S

AmarACourtIRDavisonMDowningSGrimshawTPickfordT amp Raw D (2012) Linking nest histories remotely sensedland use data and wildlife crime records to explore the impactof grouse moor management on peregrine falcon populationsBiological Conservation 145(1) 86ndash94 httpsdoiorg101016JBIOCON201110014

ArmitageD R Plummer R Berkes F Arthur R I CharlesA TDavidson‐Hunt I J amp Wollenberg E K (2009) Adaptive co‐ managementforsocialndashecologicalcomplexityFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2) 95ndash102 httpsdoiorg101890 070089

AveryM(2015)Inglorious Conflict in the UplandsLondonBloomsburyNaturalHistory

Beierle T C amp Konisky D M (2000) Values conflict andtrust in participatory environmental planning Journal of

6emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

ofwildlifewerealsopresentinthesegroups(134and144re-spectively)(Table1)

32emsp|emspAttitudes

Reliability analysis revealed high internal consistency for sets of at-titude statements within the five core areas measured Cronbachsalpha ranged from 069 to 085 (Supporting Information Table S2)Consequently average scores for each attitude realm were calcu-lated for individuals There were statistically significant differencesbetween respondent affiliation and their attitudes towards harrierson theEnglishuplands (F(3439)=11757ple0001) the importanceof harrier conservation compared tomaintaining a rural way of life(F(3444)=16875 ple0001) grouse shooting (F(3401)=28094ple0001) gamekeepers (F(3443)=11013 ple0001) and raptorconservationists(F(3450)=9571ple0001)(Figure2)Posthoctestsrevealed no significant differences between attitudes held by FieldSportandNon‐raptorndashaffiliatedindividuals (p=048110090092and072)Respondentsaffiliatedtothesetypesoforganizationsgener-allyreportedmorenegativeattitudestowardsharriersintheuplandstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralway of life and raptor conservationists Compared to other groupsthey also reportedmore positive attitudes towards grouse shootingandgamekeepers Individuals associatedwithPro‐raptororPro‐birdorganizationsdidnotdiffersignificantlyintheirattitudestowardshar-riersintheuplands(p=021)gamekeepers(p=059)orraptorconser-vationists(p=098)HoweverPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdiddiffersignificantlyintheirattitudestowardstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralwayoflife(p=003)andattitude towards grouse shooting (ple0001) Pro‐bird respondentsreportedmoreMutualistviewsthananyothergrouptheysupportedharrierconservationovermaintainingaruralwayoflifeandheldnega-tiveattitudestowardsgrouseshooting(Figure2)

AcrossallrespondentsvaluesassociatedwithSpeciesManagementand Equality were significantly related to respondents attitudes(SupportingInformationTableS3)Forexampleaswildlifevalueori-entationscoresincreasedindicativeofmoreutilitarianvaluesattitudetowardsharriersontheEnglishuplandsdeclined(SpeciesManagementr =minus062 p le0001 Equality r = minus046 p le0001) while attitude to-wardsShootingbecamemorepositive(SpeciesManagementr = 077p le0001Equalityr=043p le0001)

Across all respondents 80 of the correlations between at-titudes and support formanagementwere significant (SupportingInformationTableS4)AsattitudescorestowardsharriersincreasedindicativeofmoreMutualistviewssotoodidsupportformonitor-ing(r=064p le0001) improvingintelligence(r=065p le0001)andnestandroostprotection(r=073p le0001)whilesupportforbroodmanagementdeclined(r =minus024p le0001)Asattitudesto-wardsshootingbecamemorepositiveindicativeofmoreUtilitarianviewssotoodidsupport formore invasiveformsofmanagement(egbroodmanagementr=051p le0001)Inotherwordswhereindividuals sat on the Utilitarian‐Mutualist spectrum influencedtheir attitudes and these attitudeswere related to expressions ofsupportoppositionfordifferentmanagementoptions

33emsp|emspWithin‐group differences in levels of support for harrier management

UnlikeallothergroupsField sport respondents reported statis-tically similar levels of support for all management approaches(FieldsportF(5700)=188p=010Non‐raptorF(5722)=1095plt0001 Pro‐raptor F(5798)=841 plt0001 Pro‐birdsF(5550)=25576 plt0001) (Figure 3 Supporting InformationTable S5) Post hoc tests revealed that Non‐raptor respondentsreportedsignificantlylowerlevelsofsupportforasouthernrein-troduction(M=005SD =122)comparedtoothermanagement

F I G U R E 2 emspMeanscorestoattitudestatementsconcerningfivetopicstheexistenceofharriersontheEnglishuplandstheimportanceofharrierconservationcomparedtomaintainingaruralwayoflifegrouseshootinggamekeepersandraptorconservationistsDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)Errorbarsshow95confidenceinterval

emspensp emsp | emsp7People and NatureST JOHN eT al

approachestheirsupportforthereintroductiondidnotdiffersig-nificantlytothelowlevelofsupporttheyreportedforbroodman-agement (M=028 SD=123) Within Pro‐raptor and Pro‐birdrespondentsmonitoringnestandroostprotectionand improv-ingintelligencereceivedhighandstatisticallysimilarlevelsofsup-portIncontrastthesegroupsreportedsignificantlylowerlevelsof support for broodmanagement compared to any otherman-agement approach (M=minus012 SD=130 M=minus143 SD=093respectively)

34emsp|emspBetween‐group differences in levels of support for harrier management

With the exception of diversionary feeding which was generallybackedbyallgroupslevelsofsupportformanagementoptionsvar-ied significantly by respondent affiliation (Supporting InformationTableS6Figure3)Pro‐raptorandPro‐bird respondents reportedstatisticallysimilarandsignificantlyhigherlevelsofsupportformon-itoringnestandroostprotectionandimproving intelligencecom-paredtoFieldsportandNon‐raptorrespondentsLevelsofsupportforbroodmanagementdifferedsignificantlyamonggroupssupportwas highest among Field sport followed by Non‐raptor affiliatesHowever theiraverage levelsofsupport for thismanagementap-proachwereconservativerangingfromM=028(SD=123Non‐raptor) toM=075 (SD=115 Field sport)where 0=Neutral and2=strongly support Pro‐bird respondents reported significantlygreateroppositiontobroodmanagementwhichwasalsoopposedbyPro‐raptoraffiliatesLevelsofsupportforasouthernreintroduc-tionwerestatisticallysimilarandhighestamongFieldsportfollowedbyPro‐raptorindividuals(M=092SD =097094SD =127)whileNon‐raptorandPro‐birdapprovalofthisformofmanagementcen-tredaroundneutral(M=005SD =122M =minus001SD =126)

35emsp|emspImpact of proposed action plan measures on hen harrier recovery in England

Views on howmanagement activitieswould impact harrier recov-eryandgrousemanagementinEnglandvariedbetweenrespondentgroups(Figure4)Withtheexceptionofmonitoringgroupsdisagreedsignificantlyonwhethereachmanagementactivitywould increaseharriernumbers(Figure4aSupportingInformationTableS7)OfallmanagementactivitiespresentedPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespond-entsreportedimprovingintelligenceandnestandroostprotectiontobemostlikelytoincreaseharriernumbersposthoctestsrevealedthattheseopinionsdifferedsignificantlytoFieldsportandNon‐rap-torrespondentsFieldsportandNon‐raptorindividualsdidnotdiffersignificantlyinthedegreetowhichtheythoughtbroodmanagementwasausefultoolforincreasingharriernumbersbuttheirviewsdif-feredsignificantlytothePro‐raptorandPro‐birdaffiliates

Therewasnosignificantdifference in thedegree towhich re-spondentsbelieveddiversionaryfeedingwouldreducetheimpactofharrierongrousemeansrangedfrom072(SD =101FieldSport)to097(SD =078General‐bird)wheretwoindicatesstrongagree-mentthatdiversionaryfeedingwouldreducetheimpactofharrier(Figure4b Supporting InformationTableS8) Field sport affiliatesweresignificantlymore likelythanothergroupstoperceivebroodmanagementandasouthernreintroductionaseffectiveapproachestoreducingtheimpactofharriersongrouse

Therewere no significant differences in opinions reported byindividualsfromdifferentaffiliationsandtheeffectivenessofmon-itoring diversionary feeding or improving intelligenceat reducingdisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersanswerssatbetweenneutralandagree(Figure4cSupportingInformationTableS9)ComparedtoallgroupsFieldsportrespondentsweresignificantlymorelikelytoreportthatbroodmanagementorasouthernreintroductionwould

F I G U R E 3 emspMeanlevelofsupportforeachofthesixmanagementoptionsthetrialbroodmanagementschemeareintroductionintosouthernEnglanddiversionaryfeedingnestandwinterroostprotectionimprovingintelligenceandenforcementandmonitoringharrierpopulationsintheUnitedKingdomDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)Errorbarsshow95confidenceintervalsStatisticallysignificantdifferenceswithingroupsaredenotedbyanasterisk

8emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

reducestakeholderconflictNoothergroupheldtheseopinionsandPro‐birdrespondentsweresignificantlylesslikelythanothergroupsto believe that a southern reintroduction or brood managementwouldreducedisagreements

While there were some significant differences in levels ofagreementbetweengroupsallrespondentsagreedthattheillegalkilling of harriers could be reduced throughmonitoring nest androostprotectionandimprovingintelligence(Figure4dSupporting

InformationTableS10)FieldsportsandNon‐raptorgroupsbelievedthatdiversionaryfeedingandbroodmanagementwouldreduce il-legal killing but these views differed significantly to respondentsassociatedwithPro‐raptorandPro‐birdorganizations

Trust in Natural England differed significantly across groups(F(3428)=688ple0001)PosthoctestsrevealedthatFieldsportand Pro‐raptor respondents reported statistically similar answerswith a mean value indicative of slight trust (M=030 SD =111

F I G U R E 4 emspMeanlevelofbeliefthateachmanagementoptionswould(a)increasethenumberofhenharriers(b)reducetheimpactofharriersongrouse(c)reducedisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersand(d)reduceillegalkillingofharriersminus2indicatesdisagreement0neitheragreementordisagreementand+2indicatesstrongagreementDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)StatisticallysignificantdifferencesaredenotedbyanasteriskErrorbarsshow95confidenceinterval

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

(a) Increase number of harriers (b) Reduce impact of harriers

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(c) Reduce stakeholderdisagreements

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(d) Reduce illegal harrier killing

Affiliation

Field sport

Nonminusraptor

Prominusraptor

Prominusbird

emspensp emsp | emsp9People and NatureST JOHN eT al

M=035 SD =035 p=098) Non‐raptor and Pro‐bird affiliatesalsoreportedstatisticallysimilarresponses(p=10)butwithameanvalue indicative of slight distrust in Natural England (M =minus010SD =093M =minus011SD =102p=10)

4emsp |emspDISCUSSION

Ourwork highlights the very different value orientations held bystakeholdersinthisconflictWhilethemajorityofrespondentsaf-filiated with field sport organizations reported utilitarian valuesthe majority of Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondents were drivenbymutualist beliefs These valueorientationswere strongly asso-ciatedwith peoples attitudes towardsmanagement Those at theutilitarianendofthespectrumgenerallyheldattitudessupportiveof grouse shooting and gamekeepers in contrast to those on themutualist side As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy (Vaske ampManfredo 2012)we also found strong correlations between atti-tudeandsupportformanagementoptionsourproxyforbehaviourThoseholdingmorepositiveattitudes towardsharriersonEnglishuplands and less positive attitudes towards grouse shooting andgamekeepersgenerallyshowedgreatersupportformonitoringnestprotectionand increased intelligence Incontrast thosereportingmore positive attitudes towards shooting or gamekeepers weremore supportive of reintroduction and brood management Ourfindingsaddtoagrowingbodyofresearchprovidingevidencethatwildlifevalueorientationshelpexplainpatternsofhumanbehaviourrelatingtowildlife(egFultonetal1996Jacobsetal2014TeelampManfredo2010VaskeampDonnelly1999)Furthermoreourworkhighlightstheimportanceoffosteringrelationalvaluesthatisval-ues pertaining to allmanner of relationships betweenpeople andnatureforproenvironmentalprotection(Chanetal2016)

Wildlifevalueorientationsdochangebuttheydososlowlyandit isunlikelythattheychangeinresponsetospecific interventions(Heberlein2012Manfredoetal2017)Moreoverwhereattitudesare related strongly to underlying values as they are here theycanalsobedifficulttochange(Heberlein2012Manfredo2008)Howeverthefactthatvaluesaredeep‐setandalongwithattitudeschangeslowlydoesnotmeanthatconflictsbetweenpartiescannotbereducedandmanagedThereisconsiderableproofthatattitudesandbehaviourare relativelyunresponsive toevidenceandknowl-edge(egEricssonampHeberlein2003HeberleinampEricsson2008)Thusdrivestochangeattitudesandultimatelybehaviourthrougheducationprogrammesareunlikelytobesuccessful(CurtiampValdez2009EspinosaampJacobson2012)Howeverjustasvaluesarecul-tivatedthroughrepeatedexperiencewithpeergroups(Chanetal2016) attitudes also change in relation toexperience (EspinosaampJacobson 2012 Heberlein amp Ericsson 2008 Sponarski VaskeBathampLoeffler2016)ThissuggeststhatinaconservationconflictchangesinentrenchedpositionsaremorelikelytoemergethroughexposuretostakeholderswithdifferentbeliefsandtothesystemandinterventionsinquestionFurthermoresuccessfulmanagementmaydependupon identifying value similarity among stakeholders

andbuildinguponsharedvalues tosupportengagementandseekcompromiseratherthanhighlightingdifferences(Manfredo2008)

Withrespecttotheharrierndashgrouseconflicttherearecommonal-itiesinvaluesamongFieldsportandNon‐raptoraffiliatesyetthereislimitedoverlapinthevaluesheldbythesetwogroupsandrespon-dentsassociatedwithorganizationswhoseprimaryobjectiveisavianconservationThisrepresentsaconsiderablechallengetore‐estab-lishingdialogueanditseemsplausiblethatdivergentvaluespreventmeaningful dialogue between groupsHowever as suggested in arecentanalysisofconflictsaroundbirdsofpreyinScotlandsharednarrativescanofferaspringboardtonewexchangesbetweenstake-holders (Hodgson et al 2018)Consequently theremaybemeritin expanding the dialogue beyond harriers and towardsmoorlandmanagementmore broadly thiswouldwiden the opportunity foridentificationofcommonnarrativesandgoalsAsisoftenthecasewhere conservation conflicts revolve around enigmatic predatorsthehighlypolitical andemotivenatureof theharrierndashgrouse con-flictmeansestablishingamoreexpansivedialoguewillbechalleng-ingHowever approaches such as transdisciplinarity and adaptiveco‐managementwhich are designed to build a shared experiencearoundresearchmayofferasolution(Armitageetal2009Kleinetal2001)

Transdisciplinarityandadaptivecomanagementlinktotheideaofconflicttransformationwhichconcernstheexplorationandac-knowledgementofvaluesandfocusondeliberativeresponsesandthebuildingoftrustandrelationships(MaddenampMcQuinn2014)Ifpartiesarepreparedtocometothetableanddeliberatethenthereis scope tomanageproblems to reduceconflict (egButleretal2015LundmarkampMatti2015)Thesuccessful implementationofthesedeliberativeprocessesrequiresconsiderationoftrustrepre-sentativeness acknowledgement of different knowledge spheresdialogue toexploreperspectivesandagreedgoalsand leadership(Davenport Leahy Anderson amp Jakes 2007 Sjoumllander‐LindqvistJohanssonampSandstroumlm2015Youngetal2016)Suchapproachesdonotchangevaluesorremoveconflictbuttheyallowforexposuretodifferentviewsandthepotentialdevelopmentofcompromiseandsolutionsthroughdeliberation

Younget al (2016)highlighted the importanceofbuildingandmaintaining trust between stakeholders where conservation con-flictsoccurWorkingincollaborativeteamscanhelpinthisprocess(Stern2008)Similarlytrustintheagencyresponsibleformanage-ment is critical (Beierle amp Konisky 2000 Sponarski Vaske Bathamp Musiani 2014) Without trust people are less likely to acceptmanagementinterventions(CvetkovichampWinter2003NyaupaneGraefeampBurns2009) In thisstudy trust inNaturalEnglanddif-feredsignificantlyacrossgroupsandwasgenerallyweakaddress-ingthisrepresentsanopportunityandasignificantchallengeLikemanyconservationconflictspartiesinvolvedintheharrierndashgrouseconflict have high levels of ecological knowledge Building trustbetweenNatural Englandand suchwell‐informedparties requiresawillingnessto integratesuchknowledgeintoconservationpolicyand ldquoa willingness to share power in terms of knowledge and policy im‐plementationrdquo(Youngetal2016)NaturalEnglandstrivedtoattain

10emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

thisgoalbyestablishingamultipartyboardtocodeveloptheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)HowevertheprocessfailedtoovercomesomeofthedifferencesbetweenkeypartiesIncontrastpartiesappeartobebecomingmorepolarizedinthisconflictEncouragingsuchstake-holderstocomebacktothetablewillprovechallengingespeciallyunderthespotlightofaggressivesocialmediacampaigns

Inthisstudywepresentevidencethateachrespondentgroupsupportedatleastfourofthesixmanagementapproachesoutlinedin theAction Plan (DEFRA 2016) Probird affiliates showed clearpreference for less invasive management and alongside Pro‐rap-tor respondents did not support broodmanagement Support forasouthernreintroductionwasalso limited IncontrastFieldsportindividualsexpressedadegreeofsupportforallmanagementtypesandshowednostatisticallysignificantpreferenceforanyofthemLevelsofsupportfordiversionaryfeedingdidnotdiffersignificantlybetween groups but among Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondentsreceived significantly less support than monitoring improving in-telligenceornestandroostprotectionAllgroupsconsideredthatmostmanagementapproachesoutlinedintheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)wouldincreasethenumbersofharriersinEnglandOurresultsindicatediversionaryfeedingwasmostfavouredandreceivedgreat-estconsensusAllgroupsalsoconsideredthatthisapproachhadthepotentialtoreducetheimpactofharrierongrousebutPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdidnotconsiderthatitwouldreducetheextentofillegalkillingInsteadallgroupsagreedthattheillegalkill-ingofharrierscouldbereducedthroughimprovedintelligenceandnestandroostprotectionHoweveritwasovertheissueofbroodmanagementwheretherewasmostdisagreementPro‐birdaffiliateswerestronglyagainstbroodmanagementwhilesupportersoffieldsportswereinfavour

TheDEFRArecentlylicensedatrialofbroodmanagementAsex-pectedthishasprovedhighlycontroversialamongsomeconserva-tionorganizationsandisnowsubjecttotwojudicialreviews(Harper2018)ShoulditgoaheadthetrialwillenableatestofwhetherornotbroodmanagementcanreverseharrierdeclinesinEnglandandachancetoseeifoutcomesleadtochangesinpositionregardingthetechniqueWesuspect that suchchangeswillbedependentuponthewaythetrialisimplementedifgroupsareexcludedtheyarelesslikelytomoveposition

Aswehaveseennewknowledgemaynotleadtoachangeinattitudesor theacceptanceofbroodmanagementasa legitimatestrategyIndeedinthisfracturedandpolarizeddebateitishardtosee how any progress towards conflictmanagement can developwithout further investment in a strong deliberative process thatinvests inbuilding trust througha comanagementprocess that issupportedbygovernmentAnysuchprocesswillrequireleadershiponall sides resources time and importantly awillingness toen-gageandseekcompromises(Armitageetal2009)Howeverpartlybecauseofcontinuedillegalkilling(MellingThomasPriceampRoos2018) itcurrentlyseemsunlikely thatkeyconservationorganiza-tionswouldbewilling tocometo thetableandwill insteadcon-tinuetopursueanadversarialfocusonlicensingorbanninggrouseshooting

A number of studies have highlighted the importance of un-derstanding stakeholder values in conflicts over wildlife manage-ment (egManfredoetal2004Dickman2010DietschTeelampManfredo 2016 Lute Navarrete Nelson amp Gore 2016) ThesehavefocusedonthepublicorononespecificsetofstakeholdersOurresearchhashighlightedtherelevanceofconsideringthevaluesheldbydivergentgroupsofstakeholders invested inasinglecon-flict(seealsoBredinLindhjemDijkampLinnell2015)Suchafocusemphasizesthecriticaldifferencebetweenconsideringtheseissuesas conflicts between people over the management of wildlife asopposedtohumanndashwildlifeconflicts(Redpathetal2013)Ignoringthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthevaluesheldbydifferentgroupsofstakeholdersinvolvedinconservationconflictswillhinderattemptstomanagethem

ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS

WethankourstudyparticipantsaswellasArjunAmarandJulietteYoungforprovidingfeedbackonanearlierdraft

AUTHOR S CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors contributed to conceptual design or data acquisitionanalysis and interpretation writing or revising text approved thesubmissionandagreeaccountability

DATA ACCE SSIBILIT Y

DataarepubliclyavailablethroughFigshareusingthefollowinglinkhttpsfigsharecomarticlesStJohn_et_al_dataset_for_Value_diver-sity_and_conservation_conflict_Lessons_from_the_management_of_red_grouse_and_hen_harriers_in_England_People_Nature7359209

ORCID

Freya A V St John httpsorcidorg0000‐0002‐5707‐310X

Steve M Redpath httpsorcidorg0000‐0001‐5399‐9477

R E FE R E N C E S

AmarACourtIRDavisonMDowningSGrimshawTPickfordT amp Raw D (2012) Linking nest histories remotely sensedland use data and wildlife crime records to explore the impactof grouse moor management on peregrine falcon populationsBiological Conservation 145(1) 86ndash94 httpsdoiorg101016JBIOCON201110014

ArmitageD R Plummer R Berkes F Arthur R I CharlesA TDavidson‐Hunt I J amp Wollenberg E K (2009) Adaptive co‐ managementforsocialndashecologicalcomplexityFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2) 95ndash102 httpsdoiorg101890 070089

AveryM(2015)Inglorious Conflict in the UplandsLondonBloomsburyNaturalHistory

Beierle T C amp Konisky D M (2000) Values conflict andtrust in participatory environmental planning Journal of

emspensp emsp | emsp7People and NatureST JOHN eT al

approachestheirsupportforthereintroductiondidnotdiffersig-nificantlytothelowlevelofsupporttheyreportedforbroodman-agement (M=028 SD=123) Within Pro‐raptor and Pro‐birdrespondentsmonitoringnestandroostprotectionand improv-ingintelligencereceivedhighandstatisticallysimilarlevelsofsup-portIncontrastthesegroupsreportedsignificantlylowerlevelsof support for broodmanagement compared to any otherman-agement approach (M=minus012 SD=130 M=minus143 SD=093respectively)

34emsp|emspBetween‐group differences in levels of support for harrier management

With the exception of diversionary feeding which was generallybackedbyallgroupslevelsofsupportformanagementoptionsvar-ied significantly by respondent affiliation (Supporting InformationTableS6Figure3)Pro‐raptorandPro‐bird respondents reportedstatisticallysimilarandsignificantlyhigherlevelsofsupportformon-itoringnestandroostprotectionandimproving intelligencecom-paredtoFieldsportandNon‐raptorrespondentsLevelsofsupportforbroodmanagementdifferedsignificantlyamonggroupssupportwas highest among Field sport followed by Non‐raptor affiliatesHowever theiraverage levelsofsupport for thismanagementap-proachwereconservativerangingfromM=028(SD=123Non‐raptor) toM=075 (SD=115 Field sport)where 0=Neutral and2=strongly support Pro‐bird respondents reported significantlygreateroppositiontobroodmanagementwhichwasalsoopposedbyPro‐raptoraffiliatesLevelsofsupportforasouthernreintroduc-tionwerestatisticallysimilarandhighestamongFieldsportfollowedbyPro‐raptorindividuals(M=092SD =097094SD =127)whileNon‐raptorandPro‐birdapprovalofthisformofmanagementcen-tredaroundneutral(M=005SD =122M =minus001SD =126)

35emsp|emspImpact of proposed action plan measures on hen harrier recovery in England

Views on howmanagement activitieswould impact harrier recov-eryandgrousemanagementinEnglandvariedbetweenrespondentgroups(Figure4)Withtheexceptionofmonitoringgroupsdisagreedsignificantlyonwhethereachmanagementactivitywould increaseharriernumbers(Figure4aSupportingInformationTableS7)OfallmanagementactivitiespresentedPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespond-entsreportedimprovingintelligenceandnestandroostprotectiontobemostlikelytoincreaseharriernumbersposthoctestsrevealedthattheseopinionsdifferedsignificantlytoFieldsportandNon‐rap-torrespondentsFieldsportandNon‐raptorindividualsdidnotdiffersignificantlyinthedegreetowhichtheythoughtbroodmanagementwasausefultoolforincreasingharriernumbersbuttheirviewsdif-feredsignificantlytothePro‐raptorandPro‐birdaffiliates

Therewasnosignificantdifference in thedegree towhich re-spondentsbelieveddiversionaryfeedingwouldreducetheimpactofharrierongrousemeansrangedfrom072(SD =101FieldSport)to097(SD =078General‐bird)wheretwoindicatesstrongagree-mentthatdiversionaryfeedingwouldreducetheimpactofharrier(Figure4b Supporting InformationTableS8) Field sport affiliatesweresignificantlymore likelythanothergroupstoperceivebroodmanagementandasouthernreintroductionaseffectiveapproachestoreducingtheimpactofharriersongrouse

Therewere no significant differences in opinions reported byindividualsfromdifferentaffiliationsandtheeffectivenessofmon-itoring diversionary feeding or improving intelligenceat reducingdisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersanswerssatbetweenneutralandagree(Figure4cSupportingInformationTableS9)ComparedtoallgroupsFieldsportrespondentsweresignificantlymorelikelytoreportthatbroodmanagementorasouthernreintroductionwould

F I G U R E 3 emspMeanlevelofsupportforeachofthesixmanagementoptionsthetrialbroodmanagementschemeareintroductionintosouthernEnglanddiversionaryfeedingnestandwinterroostprotectionimprovingintelligenceandenforcementandmonitoringharrierpopulationsintheUnitedKingdomDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)Errorbarsshow95confidenceintervalsStatisticallysignificantdifferenceswithingroupsaredenotedbyanasterisk

8emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

reducestakeholderconflictNoothergroupheldtheseopinionsandPro‐birdrespondentsweresignificantlylesslikelythanothergroupsto believe that a southern reintroduction or brood managementwouldreducedisagreements

While there were some significant differences in levels ofagreementbetweengroupsallrespondentsagreedthattheillegalkilling of harriers could be reduced throughmonitoring nest androostprotectionandimprovingintelligence(Figure4dSupporting

InformationTableS10)FieldsportsandNon‐raptorgroupsbelievedthatdiversionaryfeedingandbroodmanagementwouldreduce il-legal killing but these views differed significantly to respondentsassociatedwithPro‐raptorandPro‐birdorganizations

Trust in Natural England differed significantly across groups(F(3428)=688ple0001)PosthoctestsrevealedthatFieldsportand Pro‐raptor respondents reported statistically similar answerswith a mean value indicative of slight trust (M=030 SD =111

F I G U R E 4 emspMeanlevelofbeliefthateachmanagementoptionswould(a)increasethenumberofhenharriers(b)reducetheimpactofharriersongrouse(c)reducedisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersand(d)reduceillegalkillingofharriersminus2indicatesdisagreement0neitheragreementordisagreementand+2indicatesstrongagreementDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)StatisticallysignificantdifferencesaredenotedbyanasteriskErrorbarsshow95confidenceinterval

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

(a) Increase number of harriers (b) Reduce impact of harriers

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(c) Reduce stakeholderdisagreements

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(d) Reduce illegal harrier killing

Affiliation

Field sport

Nonminusraptor

Prominusraptor

Prominusbird

emspensp emsp | emsp9People and NatureST JOHN eT al

M=035 SD =035 p=098) Non‐raptor and Pro‐bird affiliatesalsoreportedstatisticallysimilarresponses(p=10)butwithameanvalue indicative of slight distrust in Natural England (M =minus010SD =093M =minus011SD =102p=10)

4emsp |emspDISCUSSION

Ourwork highlights the very different value orientations held bystakeholdersinthisconflictWhilethemajorityofrespondentsaf-filiated with field sport organizations reported utilitarian valuesthe majority of Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondents were drivenbymutualist beliefs These valueorientationswere strongly asso-ciatedwith peoples attitudes towardsmanagement Those at theutilitarianendofthespectrumgenerallyheldattitudessupportiveof grouse shooting and gamekeepers in contrast to those on themutualist side As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy (Vaske ampManfredo 2012)we also found strong correlations between atti-tudeandsupportformanagementoptionsourproxyforbehaviourThoseholdingmorepositiveattitudes towardsharriersonEnglishuplands and less positive attitudes towards grouse shooting andgamekeepersgenerallyshowedgreatersupportformonitoringnestprotectionand increased intelligence Incontrast thosereportingmore positive attitudes towards shooting or gamekeepers weremore supportive of reintroduction and brood management Ourfindingsaddtoagrowingbodyofresearchprovidingevidencethatwildlifevalueorientationshelpexplainpatternsofhumanbehaviourrelatingtowildlife(egFultonetal1996Jacobsetal2014TeelampManfredo2010VaskeampDonnelly1999)Furthermoreourworkhighlightstheimportanceoffosteringrelationalvaluesthatisval-ues pertaining to allmanner of relationships betweenpeople andnatureforproenvironmentalprotection(Chanetal2016)

Wildlifevalueorientationsdochangebuttheydososlowlyandit isunlikelythattheychangeinresponsetospecific interventions(Heberlein2012Manfredoetal2017)Moreoverwhereattitudesare related strongly to underlying values as they are here theycanalsobedifficulttochange(Heberlein2012Manfredo2008)Howeverthefactthatvaluesaredeep‐setandalongwithattitudeschangeslowlydoesnotmeanthatconflictsbetweenpartiescannotbereducedandmanagedThereisconsiderableproofthatattitudesandbehaviourare relativelyunresponsive toevidenceandknowl-edge(egEricssonampHeberlein2003HeberleinampEricsson2008)Thusdrivestochangeattitudesandultimatelybehaviourthrougheducationprogrammesareunlikelytobesuccessful(CurtiampValdez2009EspinosaampJacobson2012)Howeverjustasvaluesarecul-tivatedthroughrepeatedexperiencewithpeergroups(Chanetal2016) attitudes also change in relation toexperience (EspinosaampJacobson 2012 Heberlein amp Ericsson 2008 Sponarski VaskeBathampLoeffler2016)ThissuggeststhatinaconservationconflictchangesinentrenchedpositionsaremorelikelytoemergethroughexposuretostakeholderswithdifferentbeliefsandtothesystemandinterventionsinquestionFurthermoresuccessfulmanagementmaydependupon identifying value similarity among stakeholders

andbuildinguponsharedvalues tosupportengagementandseekcompromiseratherthanhighlightingdifferences(Manfredo2008)

Withrespecttotheharrierndashgrouseconflicttherearecommonal-itiesinvaluesamongFieldsportandNon‐raptoraffiliatesyetthereislimitedoverlapinthevaluesheldbythesetwogroupsandrespon-dentsassociatedwithorganizationswhoseprimaryobjectiveisavianconservationThisrepresentsaconsiderablechallengetore‐estab-lishingdialogueanditseemsplausiblethatdivergentvaluespreventmeaningful dialogue between groupsHowever as suggested in arecentanalysisofconflictsaroundbirdsofpreyinScotlandsharednarrativescanofferaspringboardtonewexchangesbetweenstake-holders (Hodgson et al 2018)Consequently theremaybemeritin expanding the dialogue beyond harriers and towardsmoorlandmanagementmore broadly thiswouldwiden the opportunity foridentificationofcommonnarrativesandgoalsAsisoftenthecasewhere conservation conflicts revolve around enigmatic predatorsthehighlypolitical andemotivenatureof theharrierndashgrouse con-flictmeansestablishingamoreexpansivedialoguewillbechalleng-ingHowever approaches such as transdisciplinarity and adaptiveco‐managementwhich are designed to build a shared experiencearoundresearchmayofferasolution(Armitageetal2009Kleinetal2001)

Transdisciplinarityandadaptivecomanagementlinktotheideaofconflicttransformationwhichconcernstheexplorationandac-knowledgementofvaluesandfocusondeliberativeresponsesandthebuildingoftrustandrelationships(MaddenampMcQuinn2014)Ifpartiesarepreparedtocometothetableanddeliberatethenthereis scope tomanageproblems to reduceconflict (egButleretal2015LundmarkampMatti2015)Thesuccessful implementationofthesedeliberativeprocessesrequiresconsiderationoftrustrepre-sentativeness acknowledgement of different knowledge spheresdialogue toexploreperspectivesandagreedgoalsand leadership(Davenport Leahy Anderson amp Jakes 2007 Sjoumllander‐LindqvistJohanssonampSandstroumlm2015Youngetal2016)Suchapproachesdonotchangevaluesorremoveconflictbuttheyallowforexposuretodifferentviewsandthepotentialdevelopmentofcompromiseandsolutionsthroughdeliberation

Younget al (2016)highlighted the importanceofbuildingandmaintaining trust between stakeholders where conservation con-flictsoccurWorkingincollaborativeteamscanhelpinthisprocess(Stern2008)Similarlytrustintheagencyresponsibleformanage-ment is critical (Beierle amp Konisky 2000 Sponarski Vaske Bathamp Musiani 2014) Without trust people are less likely to acceptmanagementinterventions(CvetkovichampWinter2003NyaupaneGraefeampBurns2009) In thisstudy trust inNaturalEnglanddif-feredsignificantlyacrossgroupsandwasgenerallyweakaddress-ingthisrepresentsanopportunityandasignificantchallengeLikemanyconservationconflictspartiesinvolvedintheharrierndashgrouseconflict have high levels of ecological knowledge Building trustbetweenNatural Englandand suchwell‐informedparties requiresawillingnessto integratesuchknowledgeintoconservationpolicyand ldquoa willingness to share power in terms of knowledge and policy im‐plementationrdquo(Youngetal2016)NaturalEnglandstrivedtoattain

10emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

thisgoalbyestablishingamultipartyboardtocodeveloptheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)HowevertheprocessfailedtoovercomesomeofthedifferencesbetweenkeypartiesIncontrastpartiesappeartobebecomingmorepolarizedinthisconflictEncouragingsuchstake-holderstocomebacktothetablewillprovechallengingespeciallyunderthespotlightofaggressivesocialmediacampaigns

Inthisstudywepresentevidencethateachrespondentgroupsupportedatleastfourofthesixmanagementapproachesoutlinedin theAction Plan (DEFRA 2016) Probird affiliates showed clearpreference for less invasive management and alongside Pro‐rap-tor respondents did not support broodmanagement Support forasouthernreintroductionwasalso limited IncontrastFieldsportindividualsexpressedadegreeofsupportforallmanagementtypesandshowednostatisticallysignificantpreferenceforanyofthemLevelsofsupportfordiversionaryfeedingdidnotdiffersignificantlybetween groups but among Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondentsreceived significantly less support than monitoring improving in-telligenceornestandroostprotectionAllgroupsconsideredthatmostmanagementapproachesoutlinedintheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)wouldincreasethenumbersofharriersinEnglandOurresultsindicatediversionaryfeedingwasmostfavouredandreceivedgreat-estconsensusAllgroupsalsoconsideredthatthisapproachhadthepotentialtoreducetheimpactofharrierongrousebutPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdidnotconsiderthatitwouldreducetheextentofillegalkillingInsteadallgroupsagreedthattheillegalkill-ingofharrierscouldbereducedthroughimprovedintelligenceandnestandroostprotectionHoweveritwasovertheissueofbroodmanagementwheretherewasmostdisagreementPro‐birdaffiliateswerestronglyagainstbroodmanagementwhilesupportersoffieldsportswereinfavour

TheDEFRArecentlylicensedatrialofbroodmanagementAsex-pectedthishasprovedhighlycontroversialamongsomeconserva-tionorganizationsandisnowsubjecttotwojudicialreviews(Harper2018)ShoulditgoaheadthetrialwillenableatestofwhetherornotbroodmanagementcanreverseharrierdeclinesinEnglandandachancetoseeifoutcomesleadtochangesinpositionregardingthetechniqueWesuspect that suchchangeswillbedependentuponthewaythetrialisimplementedifgroupsareexcludedtheyarelesslikelytomoveposition

Aswehaveseennewknowledgemaynotleadtoachangeinattitudesor theacceptanceofbroodmanagementasa legitimatestrategyIndeedinthisfracturedandpolarizeddebateitishardtosee how any progress towards conflictmanagement can developwithout further investment in a strong deliberative process thatinvests inbuilding trust througha comanagementprocess that issupportedbygovernmentAnysuchprocesswillrequireleadershiponall sides resources time and importantly awillingness toen-gageandseekcompromises(Armitageetal2009)Howeverpartlybecauseofcontinuedillegalkilling(MellingThomasPriceampRoos2018) itcurrentlyseemsunlikely thatkeyconservationorganiza-tionswouldbewilling tocometo thetableandwill insteadcon-tinuetopursueanadversarialfocusonlicensingorbanninggrouseshooting

A number of studies have highlighted the importance of un-derstanding stakeholder values in conflicts over wildlife manage-ment (egManfredoetal2004Dickman2010DietschTeelampManfredo 2016 Lute Navarrete Nelson amp Gore 2016) ThesehavefocusedonthepublicorononespecificsetofstakeholdersOurresearchhashighlightedtherelevanceofconsideringthevaluesheldbydivergentgroupsofstakeholders invested inasinglecon-flict(seealsoBredinLindhjemDijkampLinnell2015)Suchafocusemphasizesthecriticaldifferencebetweenconsideringtheseissuesas conflicts between people over the management of wildlife asopposedtohumanndashwildlifeconflicts(Redpathetal2013)Ignoringthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthevaluesheldbydifferentgroupsofstakeholdersinvolvedinconservationconflictswillhinderattemptstomanagethem

ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS

WethankourstudyparticipantsaswellasArjunAmarandJulietteYoungforprovidingfeedbackonanearlierdraft

AUTHOR S CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors contributed to conceptual design or data acquisitionanalysis and interpretation writing or revising text approved thesubmissionandagreeaccountability

DATA ACCE SSIBILIT Y

DataarepubliclyavailablethroughFigshareusingthefollowinglinkhttpsfigsharecomarticlesStJohn_et_al_dataset_for_Value_diver-sity_and_conservation_conflict_Lessons_from_the_management_of_red_grouse_and_hen_harriers_in_England_People_Nature7359209

ORCID

Freya A V St John httpsorcidorg0000‐0002‐5707‐310X

Steve M Redpath httpsorcidorg0000‐0001‐5399‐9477

R E FE R E N C E S

AmarACourtIRDavisonMDowningSGrimshawTPickfordT amp Raw D (2012) Linking nest histories remotely sensedland use data and wildlife crime records to explore the impactof grouse moor management on peregrine falcon populationsBiological Conservation 145(1) 86ndash94 httpsdoiorg101016JBIOCON201110014

ArmitageD R Plummer R Berkes F Arthur R I CharlesA TDavidson‐Hunt I J amp Wollenberg E K (2009) Adaptive co‐ managementforsocialndashecologicalcomplexityFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2) 95ndash102 httpsdoiorg101890 070089

AveryM(2015)Inglorious Conflict in the UplandsLondonBloomsburyNaturalHistory

Beierle T C amp Konisky D M (2000) Values conflict andtrust in participatory environmental planning Journal of

8emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

reducestakeholderconflictNoothergroupheldtheseopinionsandPro‐birdrespondentsweresignificantlylesslikelythanothergroupsto believe that a southern reintroduction or brood managementwouldreducedisagreements

While there were some significant differences in levels ofagreementbetweengroupsallrespondentsagreedthattheillegalkilling of harriers could be reduced throughmonitoring nest androostprotectionandimprovingintelligence(Figure4dSupporting

InformationTableS10)FieldsportsandNon‐raptorgroupsbelievedthatdiversionaryfeedingandbroodmanagementwouldreduce il-legal killing but these views differed significantly to respondentsassociatedwithPro‐raptorandPro‐birdorganizations

Trust in Natural England differed significantly across groups(F(3428)=688ple0001)PosthoctestsrevealedthatFieldsportand Pro‐raptor respondents reported statistically similar answerswith a mean value indicative of slight trust (M=030 SD =111

F I G U R E 4 emspMeanlevelofbeliefthateachmanagementoptionswould(a)increasethenumberofhenharriers(b)reducetheimpactofharriersongrouse(c)reducedisagreementsbetweenstakeholdersand(d)reduceillegalkillingofharriersminus2indicatesdisagreement0neitheragreementordisagreementand+2indicatesstrongagreementDataaregroupedaccordingtorespondentaffiliationldquoFieldsportrdquo(iehuntingshootingfishing)ldquoNon‐raptorrdquo(focusingontheprotectionofnonraptors)ldquoPro‐raptorrdquo(specializinginraptorprotection)andldquoPro‐birdrdquo(involvedinnonraptorandraptorprotection)StatisticallysignificantdifferencesaredenotedbyanasteriskErrorbarsshow95confidenceinterval

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

(a) Increase number of harriers (b) Reduce impact of harriers

Monitoring

Improving intelligence

Nest and roost protection

Diversionary feeding

Southern reintroduction

Brood management

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(c) Reduce stakeholderdisagreements

minus2 minus1 0 1 2Mean

(d) Reduce illegal harrier killing

Affiliation

Field sport

Nonminusraptor

Prominusraptor

Prominusbird

emspensp emsp | emsp9People and NatureST JOHN eT al

M=035 SD =035 p=098) Non‐raptor and Pro‐bird affiliatesalsoreportedstatisticallysimilarresponses(p=10)butwithameanvalue indicative of slight distrust in Natural England (M =minus010SD =093M =minus011SD =102p=10)

4emsp |emspDISCUSSION

Ourwork highlights the very different value orientations held bystakeholdersinthisconflictWhilethemajorityofrespondentsaf-filiated with field sport organizations reported utilitarian valuesthe majority of Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondents were drivenbymutualist beliefs These valueorientationswere strongly asso-ciatedwith peoples attitudes towardsmanagement Those at theutilitarianendofthespectrumgenerallyheldattitudessupportiveof grouse shooting and gamekeepers in contrast to those on themutualist side As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy (Vaske ampManfredo 2012)we also found strong correlations between atti-tudeandsupportformanagementoptionsourproxyforbehaviourThoseholdingmorepositiveattitudes towardsharriersonEnglishuplands and less positive attitudes towards grouse shooting andgamekeepersgenerallyshowedgreatersupportformonitoringnestprotectionand increased intelligence Incontrast thosereportingmore positive attitudes towards shooting or gamekeepers weremore supportive of reintroduction and brood management Ourfindingsaddtoagrowingbodyofresearchprovidingevidencethatwildlifevalueorientationshelpexplainpatternsofhumanbehaviourrelatingtowildlife(egFultonetal1996Jacobsetal2014TeelampManfredo2010VaskeampDonnelly1999)Furthermoreourworkhighlightstheimportanceoffosteringrelationalvaluesthatisval-ues pertaining to allmanner of relationships betweenpeople andnatureforproenvironmentalprotection(Chanetal2016)

Wildlifevalueorientationsdochangebuttheydososlowlyandit isunlikelythattheychangeinresponsetospecific interventions(Heberlein2012Manfredoetal2017)Moreoverwhereattitudesare related strongly to underlying values as they are here theycanalsobedifficulttochange(Heberlein2012Manfredo2008)Howeverthefactthatvaluesaredeep‐setandalongwithattitudeschangeslowlydoesnotmeanthatconflictsbetweenpartiescannotbereducedandmanagedThereisconsiderableproofthatattitudesandbehaviourare relativelyunresponsive toevidenceandknowl-edge(egEricssonampHeberlein2003HeberleinampEricsson2008)Thusdrivestochangeattitudesandultimatelybehaviourthrougheducationprogrammesareunlikelytobesuccessful(CurtiampValdez2009EspinosaampJacobson2012)Howeverjustasvaluesarecul-tivatedthroughrepeatedexperiencewithpeergroups(Chanetal2016) attitudes also change in relation toexperience (EspinosaampJacobson 2012 Heberlein amp Ericsson 2008 Sponarski VaskeBathampLoeffler2016)ThissuggeststhatinaconservationconflictchangesinentrenchedpositionsaremorelikelytoemergethroughexposuretostakeholderswithdifferentbeliefsandtothesystemandinterventionsinquestionFurthermoresuccessfulmanagementmaydependupon identifying value similarity among stakeholders

andbuildinguponsharedvalues tosupportengagementandseekcompromiseratherthanhighlightingdifferences(Manfredo2008)

Withrespecttotheharrierndashgrouseconflicttherearecommonal-itiesinvaluesamongFieldsportandNon‐raptoraffiliatesyetthereislimitedoverlapinthevaluesheldbythesetwogroupsandrespon-dentsassociatedwithorganizationswhoseprimaryobjectiveisavianconservationThisrepresentsaconsiderablechallengetore‐estab-lishingdialogueanditseemsplausiblethatdivergentvaluespreventmeaningful dialogue between groupsHowever as suggested in arecentanalysisofconflictsaroundbirdsofpreyinScotlandsharednarrativescanofferaspringboardtonewexchangesbetweenstake-holders (Hodgson et al 2018)Consequently theremaybemeritin expanding the dialogue beyond harriers and towardsmoorlandmanagementmore broadly thiswouldwiden the opportunity foridentificationofcommonnarrativesandgoalsAsisoftenthecasewhere conservation conflicts revolve around enigmatic predatorsthehighlypolitical andemotivenatureof theharrierndashgrouse con-flictmeansestablishingamoreexpansivedialoguewillbechalleng-ingHowever approaches such as transdisciplinarity and adaptiveco‐managementwhich are designed to build a shared experiencearoundresearchmayofferasolution(Armitageetal2009Kleinetal2001)

Transdisciplinarityandadaptivecomanagementlinktotheideaofconflicttransformationwhichconcernstheexplorationandac-knowledgementofvaluesandfocusondeliberativeresponsesandthebuildingoftrustandrelationships(MaddenampMcQuinn2014)Ifpartiesarepreparedtocometothetableanddeliberatethenthereis scope tomanageproblems to reduceconflict (egButleretal2015LundmarkampMatti2015)Thesuccessful implementationofthesedeliberativeprocessesrequiresconsiderationoftrustrepre-sentativeness acknowledgement of different knowledge spheresdialogue toexploreperspectivesandagreedgoalsand leadership(Davenport Leahy Anderson amp Jakes 2007 Sjoumllander‐LindqvistJohanssonampSandstroumlm2015Youngetal2016)Suchapproachesdonotchangevaluesorremoveconflictbuttheyallowforexposuretodifferentviewsandthepotentialdevelopmentofcompromiseandsolutionsthroughdeliberation

Younget al (2016)highlighted the importanceofbuildingandmaintaining trust between stakeholders where conservation con-flictsoccurWorkingincollaborativeteamscanhelpinthisprocess(Stern2008)Similarlytrustintheagencyresponsibleformanage-ment is critical (Beierle amp Konisky 2000 Sponarski Vaske Bathamp Musiani 2014) Without trust people are less likely to acceptmanagementinterventions(CvetkovichampWinter2003NyaupaneGraefeampBurns2009) In thisstudy trust inNaturalEnglanddif-feredsignificantlyacrossgroupsandwasgenerallyweakaddress-ingthisrepresentsanopportunityandasignificantchallengeLikemanyconservationconflictspartiesinvolvedintheharrierndashgrouseconflict have high levels of ecological knowledge Building trustbetweenNatural Englandand suchwell‐informedparties requiresawillingnessto integratesuchknowledgeintoconservationpolicyand ldquoa willingness to share power in terms of knowledge and policy im‐plementationrdquo(Youngetal2016)NaturalEnglandstrivedtoattain

10emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

thisgoalbyestablishingamultipartyboardtocodeveloptheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)HowevertheprocessfailedtoovercomesomeofthedifferencesbetweenkeypartiesIncontrastpartiesappeartobebecomingmorepolarizedinthisconflictEncouragingsuchstake-holderstocomebacktothetablewillprovechallengingespeciallyunderthespotlightofaggressivesocialmediacampaigns

Inthisstudywepresentevidencethateachrespondentgroupsupportedatleastfourofthesixmanagementapproachesoutlinedin theAction Plan (DEFRA 2016) Probird affiliates showed clearpreference for less invasive management and alongside Pro‐rap-tor respondents did not support broodmanagement Support forasouthernreintroductionwasalso limited IncontrastFieldsportindividualsexpressedadegreeofsupportforallmanagementtypesandshowednostatisticallysignificantpreferenceforanyofthemLevelsofsupportfordiversionaryfeedingdidnotdiffersignificantlybetween groups but among Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondentsreceived significantly less support than monitoring improving in-telligenceornestandroostprotectionAllgroupsconsideredthatmostmanagementapproachesoutlinedintheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)wouldincreasethenumbersofharriersinEnglandOurresultsindicatediversionaryfeedingwasmostfavouredandreceivedgreat-estconsensusAllgroupsalsoconsideredthatthisapproachhadthepotentialtoreducetheimpactofharrierongrousebutPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdidnotconsiderthatitwouldreducetheextentofillegalkillingInsteadallgroupsagreedthattheillegalkill-ingofharrierscouldbereducedthroughimprovedintelligenceandnestandroostprotectionHoweveritwasovertheissueofbroodmanagementwheretherewasmostdisagreementPro‐birdaffiliateswerestronglyagainstbroodmanagementwhilesupportersoffieldsportswereinfavour

TheDEFRArecentlylicensedatrialofbroodmanagementAsex-pectedthishasprovedhighlycontroversialamongsomeconserva-tionorganizationsandisnowsubjecttotwojudicialreviews(Harper2018)ShoulditgoaheadthetrialwillenableatestofwhetherornotbroodmanagementcanreverseharrierdeclinesinEnglandandachancetoseeifoutcomesleadtochangesinpositionregardingthetechniqueWesuspect that suchchangeswillbedependentuponthewaythetrialisimplementedifgroupsareexcludedtheyarelesslikelytomoveposition

Aswehaveseennewknowledgemaynotleadtoachangeinattitudesor theacceptanceofbroodmanagementasa legitimatestrategyIndeedinthisfracturedandpolarizeddebateitishardtosee how any progress towards conflictmanagement can developwithout further investment in a strong deliberative process thatinvests inbuilding trust througha comanagementprocess that issupportedbygovernmentAnysuchprocesswillrequireleadershiponall sides resources time and importantly awillingness toen-gageandseekcompromises(Armitageetal2009)Howeverpartlybecauseofcontinuedillegalkilling(MellingThomasPriceampRoos2018) itcurrentlyseemsunlikely thatkeyconservationorganiza-tionswouldbewilling tocometo thetableandwill insteadcon-tinuetopursueanadversarialfocusonlicensingorbanninggrouseshooting

A number of studies have highlighted the importance of un-derstanding stakeholder values in conflicts over wildlife manage-ment (egManfredoetal2004Dickman2010DietschTeelampManfredo 2016 Lute Navarrete Nelson amp Gore 2016) ThesehavefocusedonthepublicorononespecificsetofstakeholdersOurresearchhashighlightedtherelevanceofconsideringthevaluesheldbydivergentgroupsofstakeholders invested inasinglecon-flict(seealsoBredinLindhjemDijkampLinnell2015)Suchafocusemphasizesthecriticaldifferencebetweenconsideringtheseissuesas conflicts between people over the management of wildlife asopposedtohumanndashwildlifeconflicts(Redpathetal2013)Ignoringthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthevaluesheldbydifferentgroupsofstakeholdersinvolvedinconservationconflictswillhinderattemptstomanagethem

ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS

WethankourstudyparticipantsaswellasArjunAmarandJulietteYoungforprovidingfeedbackonanearlierdraft

AUTHOR S CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors contributed to conceptual design or data acquisitionanalysis and interpretation writing or revising text approved thesubmissionandagreeaccountability

DATA ACCE SSIBILIT Y

DataarepubliclyavailablethroughFigshareusingthefollowinglinkhttpsfigsharecomarticlesStJohn_et_al_dataset_for_Value_diver-sity_and_conservation_conflict_Lessons_from_the_management_of_red_grouse_and_hen_harriers_in_England_People_Nature7359209

ORCID

Freya A V St John httpsorcidorg0000‐0002‐5707‐310X

Steve M Redpath httpsorcidorg0000‐0001‐5399‐9477

R E FE R E N C E S

AmarACourtIRDavisonMDowningSGrimshawTPickfordT amp Raw D (2012) Linking nest histories remotely sensedland use data and wildlife crime records to explore the impactof grouse moor management on peregrine falcon populationsBiological Conservation 145(1) 86ndash94 httpsdoiorg101016JBIOCON201110014

ArmitageD R Plummer R Berkes F Arthur R I CharlesA TDavidson‐Hunt I J amp Wollenberg E K (2009) Adaptive co‐ managementforsocialndashecologicalcomplexityFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2) 95ndash102 httpsdoiorg101890 070089

AveryM(2015)Inglorious Conflict in the UplandsLondonBloomsburyNaturalHistory

Beierle T C amp Konisky D M (2000) Values conflict andtrust in participatory environmental planning Journal of

emspensp emsp | emsp9People and NatureST JOHN eT al

M=035 SD =035 p=098) Non‐raptor and Pro‐bird affiliatesalsoreportedstatisticallysimilarresponses(p=10)butwithameanvalue indicative of slight distrust in Natural England (M =minus010SD =093M =minus011SD =102p=10)

4emsp |emspDISCUSSION

Ourwork highlights the very different value orientations held bystakeholdersinthisconflictWhilethemajorityofrespondentsaf-filiated with field sport organizations reported utilitarian valuesthe majority of Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondents were drivenbymutualist beliefs These valueorientationswere strongly asso-ciatedwith peoples attitudes towardsmanagement Those at theutilitarianendofthespectrumgenerallyheldattitudessupportiveof grouse shooting and gamekeepers in contrast to those on themutualist side As suggested by the cognitive hierarchy (Vaske ampManfredo 2012)we also found strong correlations between atti-tudeandsupportformanagementoptionsourproxyforbehaviourThoseholdingmorepositiveattitudes towardsharriersonEnglishuplands and less positive attitudes towards grouse shooting andgamekeepersgenerallyshowedgreatersupportformonitoringnestprotectionand increased intelligence Incontrast thosereportingmore positive attitudes towards shooting or gamekeepers weremore supportive of reintroduction and brood management Ourfindingsaddtoagrowingbodyofresearchprovidingevidencethatwildlifevalueorientationshelpexplainpatternsofhumanbehaviourrelatingtowildlife(egFultonetal1996Jacobsetal2014TeelampManfredo2010VaskeampDonnelly1999)Furthermoreourworkhighlightstheimportanceoffosteringrelationalvaluesthatisval-ues pertaining to allmanner of relationships betweenpeople andnatureforproenvironmentalprotection(Chanetal2016)

Wildlifevalueorientationsdochangebuttheydososlowlyandit isunlikelythattheychangeinresponsetospecific interventions(Heberlein2012Manfredoetal2017)Moreoverwhereattitudesare related strongly to underlying values as they are here theycanalsobedifficulttochange(Heberlein2012Manfredo2008)Howeverthefactthatvaluesaredeep‐setandalongwithattitudeschangeslowlydoesnotmeanthatconflictsbetweenpartiescannotbereducedandmanagedThereisconsiderableproofthatattitudesandbehaviourare relativelyunresponsive toevidenceandknowl-edge(egEricssonampHeberlein2003HeberleinampEricsson2008)Thusdrivestochangeattitudesandultimatelybehaviourthrougheducationprogrammesareunlikelytobesuccessful(CurtiampValdez2009EspinosaampJacobson2012)Howeverjustasvaluesarecul-tivatedthroughrepeatedexperiencewithpeergroups(Chanetal2016) attitudes also change in relation toexperience (EspinosaampJacobson 2012 Heberlein amp Ericsson 2008 Sponarski VaskeBathampLoeffler2016)ThissuggeststhatinaconservationconflictchangesinentrenchedpositionsaremorelikelytoemergethroughexposuretostakeholderswithdifferentbeliefsandtothesystemandinterventionsinquestionFurthermoresuccessfulmanagementmaydependupon identifying value similarity among stakeholders

andbuildinguponsharedvalues tosupportengagementandseekcompromiseratherthanhighlightingdifferences(Manfredo2008)

Withrespecttotheharrierndashgrouseconflicttherearecommonal-itiesinvaluesamongFieldsportandNon‐raptoraffiliatesyetthereislimitedoverlapinthevaluesheldbythesetwogroupsandrespon-dentsassociatedwithorganizationswhoseprimaryobjectiveisavianconservationThisrepresentsaconsiderablechallengetore‐estab-lishingdialogueanditseemsplausiblethatdivergentvaluespreventmeaningful dialogue between groupsHowever as suggested in arecentanalysisofconflictsaroundbirdsofpreyinScotlandsharednarrativescanofferaspringboardtonewexchangesbetweenstake-holders (Hodgson et al 2018)Consequently theremaybemeritin expanding the dialogue beyond harriers and towardsmoorlandmanagementmore broadly thiswouldwiden the opportunity foridentificationofcommonnarrativesandgoalsAsisoftenthecasewhere conservation conflicts revolve around enigmatic predatorsthehighlypolitical andemotivenatureof theharrierndashgrouse con-flictmeansestablishingamoreexpansivedialoguewillbechalleng-ingHowever approaches such as transdisciplinarity and adaptiveco‐managementwhich are designed to build a shared experiencearoundresearchmayofferasolution(Armitageetal2009Kleinetal2001)

Transdisciplinarityandadaptivecomanagementlinktotheideaofconflicttransformationwhichconcernstheexplorationandac-knowledgementofvaluesandfocusondeliberativeresponsesandthebuildingoftrustandrelationships(MaddenampMcQuinn2014)Ifpartiesarepreparedtocometothetableanddeliberatethenthereis scope tomanageproblems to reduceconflict (egButleretal2015LundmarkampMatti2015)Thesuccessful implementationofthesedeliberativeprocessesrequiresconsiderationoftrustrepre-sentativeness acknowledgement of different knowledge spheresdialogue toexploreperspectivesandagreedgoalsand leadership(Davenport Leahy Anderson amp Jakes 2007 Sjoumllander‐LindqvistJohanssonampSandstroumlm2015Youngetal2016)Suchapproachesdonotchangevaluesorremoveconflictbuttheyallowforexposuretodifferentviewsandthepotentialdevelopmentofcompromiseandsolutionsthroughdeliberation

Younget al (2016)highlighted the importanceofbuildingandmaintaining trust between stakeholders where conservation con-flictsoccurWorkingincollaborativeteamscanhelpinthisprocess(Stern2008)Similarlytrustintheagencyresponsibleformanage-ment is critical (Beierle amp Konisky 2000 Sponarski Vaske Bathamp Musiani 2014) Without trust people are less likely to acceptmanagementinterventions(CvetkovichampWinter2003NyaupaneGraefeampBurns2009) In thisstudy trust inNaturalEnglanddif-feredsignificantlyacrossgroupsandwasgenerallyweakaddress-ingthisrepresentsanopportunityandasignificantchallengeLikemanyconservationconflictspartiesinvolvedintheharrierndashgrouseconflict have high levels of ecological knowledge Building trustbetweenNatural Englandand suchwell‐informedparties requiresawillingnessto integratesuchknowledgeintoconservationpolicyand ldquoa willingness to share power in terms of knowledge and policy im‐plementationrdquo(Youngetal2016)NaturalEnglandstrivedtoattain

10emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

thisgoalbyestablishingamultipartyboardtocodeveloptheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)HowevertheprocessfailedtoovercomesomeofthedifferencesbetweenkeypartiesIncontrastpartiesappeartobebecomingmorepolarizedinthisconflictEncouragingsuchstake-holderstocomebacktothetablewillprovechallengingespeciallyunderthespotlightofaggressivesocialmediacampaigns

Inthisstudywepresentevidencethateachrespondentgroupsupportedatleastfourofthesixmanagementapproachesoutlinedin theAction Plan (DEFRA 2016) Probird affiliates showed clearpreference for less invasive management and alongside Pro‐rap-tor respondents did not support broodmanagement Support forasouthernreintroductionwasalso limited IncontrastFieldsportindividualsexpressedadegreeofsupportforallmanagementtypesandshowednostatisticallysignificantpreferenceforanyofthemLevelsofsupportfordiversionaryfeedingdidnotdiffersignificantlybetween groups but among Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondentsreceived significantly less support than monitoring improving in-telligenceornestandroostprotectionAllgroupsconsideredthatmostmanagementapproachesoutlinedintheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)wouldincreasethenumbersofharriersinEnglandOurresultsindicatediversionaryfeedingwasmostfavouredandreceivedgreat-estconsensusAllgroupsalsoconsideredthatthisapproachhadthepotentialtoreducetheimpactofharrierongrousebutPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdidnotconsiderthatitwouldreducetheextentofillegalkillingInsteadallgroupsagreedthattheillegalkill-ingofharrierscouldbereducedthroughimprovedintelligenceandnestandroostprotectionHoweveritwasovertheissueofbroodmanagementwheretherewasmostdisagreementPro‐birdaffiliateswerestronglyagainstbroodmanagementwhilesupportersoffieldsportswereinfavour

TheDEFRArecentlylicensedatrialofbroodmanagementAsex-pectedthishasprovedhighlycontroversialamongsomeconserva-tionorganizationsandisnowsubjecttotwojudicialreviews(Harper2018)ShoulditgoaheadthetrialwillenableatestofwhetherornotbroodmanagementcanreverseharrierdeclinesinEnglandandachancetoseeifoutcomesleadtochangesinpositionregardingthetechniqueWesuspect that suchchangeswillbedependentuponthewaythetrialisimplementedifgroupsareexcludedtheyarelesslikelytomoveposition

Aswehaveseennewknowledgemaynotleadtoachangeinattitudesor theacceptanceofbroodmanagementasa legitimatestrategyIndeedinthisfracturedandpolarizeddebateitishardtosee how any progress towards conflictmanagement can developwithout further investment in a strong deliberative process thatinvests inbuilding trust througha comanagementprocess that issupportedbygovernmentAnysuchprocesswillrequireleadershiponall sides resources time and importantly awillingness toen-gageandseekcompromises(Armitageetal2009)Howeverpartlybecauseofcontinuedillegalkilling(MellingThomasPriceampRoos2018) itcurrentlyseemsunlikely thatkeyconservationorganiza-tionswouldbewilling tocometo thetableandwill insteadcon-tinuetopursueanadversarialfocusonlicensingorbanninggrouseshooting

A number of studies have highlighted the importance of un-derstanding stakeholder values in conflicts over wildlife manage-ment (egManfredoetal2004Dickman2010DietschTeelampManfredo 2016 Lute Navarrete Nelson amp Gore 2016) ThesehavefocusedonthepublicorononespecificsetofstakeholdersOurresearchhashighlightedtherelevanceofconsideringthevaluesheldbydivergentgroupsofstakeholders invested inasinglecon-flict(seealsoBredinLindhjemDijkampLinnell2015)Suchafocusemphasizesthecriticaldifferencebetweenconsideringtheseissuesas conflicts between people over the management of wildlife asopposedtohumanndashwildlifeconflicts(Redpathetal2013)Ignoringthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthevaluesheldbydifferentgroupsofstakeholdersinvolvedinconservationconflictswillhinderattemptstomanagethem

ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS

WethankourstudyparticipantsaswellasArjunAmarandJulietteYoungforprovidingfeedbackonanearlierdraft

AUTHOR S CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors contributed to conceptual design or data acquisitionanalysis and interpretation writing or revising text approved thesubmissionandagreeaccountability

DATA ACCE SSIBILIT Y

DataarepubliclyavailablethroughFigshareusingthefollowinglinkhttpsfigsharecomarticlesStJohn_et_al_dataset_for_Value_diver-sity_and_conservation_conflict_Lessons_from_the_management_of_red_grouse_and_hen_harriers_in_England_People_Nature7359209

ORCID

Freya A V St John httpsorcidorg0000‐0002‐5707‐310X

Steve M Redpath httpsorcidorg0000‐0001‐5399‐9477

R E FE R E N C E S

AmarACourtIRDavisonMDowningSGrimshawTPickfordT amp Raw D (2012) Linking nest histories remotely sensedland use data and wildlife crime records to explore the impactof grouse moor management on peregrine falcon populationsBiological Conservation 145(1) 86ndash94 httpsdoiorg101016JBIOCON201110014

ArmitageD R Plummer R Berkes F Arthur R I CharlesA TDavidson‐Hunt I J amp Wollenberg E K (2009) Adaptive co‐ managementforsocialndashecologicalcomplexityFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2) 95ndash102 httpsdoiorg101890 070089

AveryM(2015)Inglorious Conflict in the UplandsLondonBloomsburyNaturalHistory

Beierle T C amp Konisky D M (2000) Values conflict andtrust in participatory environmental planning Journal of

10emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

thisgoalbyestablishingamultipartyboardtocodeveloptheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)HowevertheprocessfailedtoovercomesomeofthedifferencesbetweenkeypartiesIncontrastpartiesappeartobebecomingmorepolarizedinthisconflictEncouragingsuchstake-holderstocomebacktothetablewillprovechallengingespeciallyunderthespotlightofaggressivesocialmediacampaigns

Inthisstudywepresentevidencethateachrespondentgroupsupportedatleastfourofthesixmanagementapproachesoutlinedin theAction Plan (DEFRA 2016) Probird affiliates showed clearpreference for less invasive management and alongside Pro‐rap-tor respondents did not support broodmanagement Support forasouthernreintroductionwasalso limited IncontrastFieldsportindividualsexpressedadegreeofsupportforallmanagementtypesandshowednostatisticallysignificantpreferenceforanyofthemLevelsofsupportfordiversionaryfeedingdidnotdiffersignificantlybetween groups but among Pro‐raptor and Pro‐bird respondentsreceived significantly less support than monitoring improving in-telligenceornestandroostprotectionAllgroupsconsideredthatmostmanagementapproachesoutlinedintheActionPlan(DEFRA2016)wouldincreasethenumbersofharriersinEnglandOurresultsindicatediversionaryfeedingwasmostfavouredandreceivedgreat-estconsensusAllgroupsalsoconsideredthatthisapproachhadthepotentialtoreducetheimpactofharrierongrousebutPro‐raptorandPro‐birdrespondentsdidnotconsiderthatitwouldreducetheextentofillegalkillingInsteadallgroupsagreedthattheillegalkill-ingofharrierscouldbereducedthroughimprovedintelligenceandnestandroostprotectionHoweveritwasovertheissueofbroodmanagementwheretherewasmostdisagreementPro‐birdaffiliateswerestronglyagainstbroodmanagementwhilesupportersoffieldsportswereinfavour

TheDEFRArecentlylicensedatrialofbroodmanagementAsex-pectedthishasprovedhighlycontroversialamongsomeconserva-tionorganizationsandisnowsubjecttotwojudicialreviews(Harper2018)ShoulditgoaheadthetrialwillenableatestofwhetherornotbroodmanagementcanreverseharrierdeclinesinEnglandandachancetoseeifoutcomesleadtochangesinpositionregardingthetechniqueWesuspect that suchchangeswillbedependentuponthewaythetrialisimplementedifgroupsareexcludedtheyarelesslikelytomoveposition

Aswehaveseennewknowledgemaynotleadtoachangeinattitudesor theacceptanceofbroodmanagementasa legitimatestrategyIndeedinthisfracturedandpolarizeddebateitishardtosee how any progress towards conflictmanagement can developwithout further investment in a strong deliberative process thatinvests inbuilding trust througha comanagementprocess that issupportedbygovernmentAnysuchprocesswillrequireleadershiponall sides resources time and importantly awillingness toen-gageandseekcompromises(Armitageetal2009)Howeverpartlybecauseofcontinuedillegalkilling(MellingThomasPriceampRoos2018) itcurrentlyseemsunlikely thatkeyconservationorganiza-tionswouldbewilling tocometo thetableandwill insteadcon-tinuetopursueanadversarialfocusonlicensingorbanninggrouseshooting

A number of studies have highlighted the importance of un-derstanding stakeholder values in conflicts over wildlife manage-ment (egManfredoetal2004Dickman2010DietschTeelampManfredo 2016 Lute Navarrete Nelson amp Gore 2016) ThesehavefocusedonthepublicorononespecificsetofstakeholdersOurresearchhashighlightedtherelevanceofconsideringthevaluesheldbydivergentgroupsofstakeholders invested inasinglecon-flict(seealsoBredinLindhjemDijkampLinnell2015)Suchafocusemphasizesthecriticaldifferencebetweenconsideringtheseissuesas conflicts between people over the management of wildlife asopposedtohumanndashwildlifeconflicts(Redpathetal2013)Ignoringthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthevaluesheldbydifferentgroupsofstakeholdersinvolvedinconservationconflictswillhinderattemptstomanagethem

ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS

WethankourstudyparticipantsaswellasArjunAmarandJulietteYoungforprovidingfeedbackonanearlierdraft

AUTHOR S CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors contributed to conceptual design or data acquisitionanalysis and interpretation writing or revising text approved thesubmissionandagreeaccountability

DATA ACCE SSIBILIT Y

DataarepubliclyavailablethroughFigshareusingthefollowinglinkhttpsfigsharecomarticlesStJohn_et_al_dataset_for_Value_diver-sity_and_conservation_conflict_Lessons_from_the_management_of_red_grouse_and_hen_harriers_in_England_People_Nature7359209

ORCID

Freya A V St John httpsorcidorg0000‐0002‐5707‐310X

Steve M Redpath httpsorcidorg0000‐0001‐5399‐9477

R E FE R E N C E S

AmarACourtIRDavisonMDowningSGrimshawTPickfordT amp Raw D (2012) Linking nest histories remotely sensedland use data and wildlife crime records to explore the impactof grouse moor management on peregrine falcon populationsBiological Conservation 145(1) 86ndash94 httpsdoiorg101016JBIOCON201110014

ArmitageD R Plummer R Berkes F Arthur R I CharlesA TDavidson‐Hunt I J amp Wollenberg E K (2009) Adaptive co‐ managementforsocialndashecologicalcomplexityFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2) 95ndash102 httpsdoiorg101890 070089

AveryM(2015)Inglorious Conflict in the UplandsLondonBloomsburyNaturalHistory

Beierle T C amp Konisky D M (2000) Values conflict andtrust in participatory environmental planning Journal of

emspensp emsp | emsp11People and NatureST JOHN eT al

Policy Analysis and Management 19(4) 587ndash602 httpsdoiorg1010021520‐6688(200023)194lt587AID‐PAM4gt30CO2‐Q

BredinYKLindhjemHvanDijkJampLinnellJD(2015)MappingvaluepluralitytowardsecosystemservicesinthecaseofNorwegianwildlifemanagement AQ analysisEcological Economics118 198ndash206httpsdoiorg101016jecolecon201507005

Butler J R A Young J CMcMyn I AG Leyshon B Graham IMWalkerIhellipWarburtonC(2015)Evaluatingadaptiveco‐man-agementasconservationconflictresolutionLearningfromsealsandsalmon Journal of Environmental Management160212ndash225httpsdoiorg101016JJENVMAN201506019

Chan K M A Balvanera P Benessaiah K Chapman M Diacuteaz SGoacutemez‐Baggethun E hellip Turner N (2016) OpinionWhy protectnatureRethinking values and the environmentProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America113(6)1462ndash1465httpsdoiorg101073pnas1525002113

CurtiM amp Valdez U (2009) Incorporating community education inthe strategy for harpy eagle conservation in Panama The Journal of Environmental Education 40(4) 3ndash16 httpsdoiorg103200JOEE4043‐16

Cvetkovich G amp Winter P L (2003) Trust and social representa-tions of the management of threatened and endangered spe-cies Environment and Behavior 35(2) 286ndash307 httpsdoiorg1011770013916502250139

DavenportM A Leahy J E AndersonDH amp Jakes P J (2007)Building trust in natural resource management within local com-munities A case study of the Midewin National Tallgrass PrairieRetrievedfromhttpswwwnrsfsfeduspubs9328

DEFRA(2016)JointactionplantoincreasetheEnglishhenharrierpop-ulation London Retrieved from httpsassetspublishingservicegovukgovernmentuploadssystemuploadsattachment_datafile491818hen‐harrier‐action‐plan‐england‐2016pdf 253AccessedOctober2017

DeMelloM(2012)Animals and society An introduction to human‐animal studiesNewYorkColumbiaUniversityPress

DickmanAJ(2010)Complexitiesofconflicttheimportanceofconsid-eringsocialfactorsforeffectivelyresolvinghumanndashwildlifeconflictAnimal Conservation13(5)458ndash466

DietschAMTeelTLampManfredoMJ (2016)Socialvaluesandbiodiversityconservation inadynamicworldConservation Biology30(6)1212ndash1221httpsdoiorg101111cobi12742

Duffy R amp Moore L (2010) Neoliberalising nature Elephant‐backtourisminThailandandBotswanaAntipode42(3)742ndash766httpsdoiorg101111j1467‐8330201000771x

ElstonDASpeziaLBainesDampRedpathSM(2014)WorkingwithstakeholderstoreduceconflictmdashmodellingtheimpactofvaryinghenharrierCircuscyaneusdensitiesonredgrouseLagopuslagopuspop-ulations Journal of Applied Ecology 51(5) 1236ndash1245 httpsdoiorg1011111365‐266412315

Ericsson G amp Heberlein T A (2003) Attitudes of hunters localsand the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are backBiological Conservation 111(2) 149ndash159 httpsdoiorg101016S0006‐3207(02)00258‐6

Espinosa S amp Jacobson S K (2012) Human‐wildlife conflict andenvironmental education Evaluating a community program toprotect theandeanbear inecuadorThe Journal of Environmental Education43(1)55ndash65httpsdoiorg101080009589642011579642

FultonDCManfredoMJampLipscombJ(1996)Wildlifevalueorienta-tionsAconceptualandmeasurementapproachHuman Dimensions of Wildlife1(2)24ndash47httpsdoiorg10108010871209609359060

HarperM(2018)AnupdateontheRSPBrsquosresponsehenharrierbroodmanagementRetrievedMay222018fromhttpww2rspborgukcommunityourworkbmartinharperarchive20180309update‐on‐the‐brood‐management‐of‐hen‐harriersaspx

HeberleinTA(2012)Navigating environmental attitudesNewYorkNYOxfordUniversityPress

HeberleinTAampEricssonG(2008)PublicattitudesandthefutureofwolvesCanislupusinSwedenWildlife Biology14(3)391ndash394httpsdoiorg1029810909‐6396(2008)14[391PAATFO]20CO2

HermannNVoszligCampMenzelS(2013)Wildlifevalueorientationsaspredicting factors in supportof reintroducingbisonandofwolvesmigrating toGermany Journal for Nature Conservation21(3) 125ndash132httpsdoiorg101016JJNC201211008

HodgsonIRedpathSMFischerAampYoungJ(2018)FightingtalkTheuseofdiscoursebyorganisationsintheconflictoverraptorsinScotlandLand Use Policy77332ndash343

JacobsMHVaskeJ JampSijtsmaMT (2014)Predictivepotentialofwildlifevalueorientationsforacceptabilityofmanagementinter-ventionsJournal for Nature Conservation22(4)377ndash383httpsdoiorg101016JJNC201403005

Klein J T Grossenbacher‐MansuyW Haumlberli R Bill A Scholz RWWeltiM (Eds) (2001)Transdisciplinarity Joint problem solving among science technology and society An effective way for managing complexity Basel Springer Science amp Business Media BirkhaumluserVerlagXiii+332ppISBN3‐7643‐6248‐0

LundmarkCampMattiS (2015)Exploringtheprospectsfordelibera-tivepracticesasaconflict‐reducingand legitimacy‐enhancingtoolThecaseofSwedishcarnivoremanagementWildlife Biology21(3)147ndash156httpsdoiorg102981wlb00009

LuteMLNavarreteCDNelsonMPampGoreML(2016)Moraldimensions of humanndashwildlife conflictConservation Biology 30(6)1200ndash1211httpsdoiorg101111cobi12731

Madden F amp McQuinn B (2014) Conservationrsquos blind spotThe case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservationBiological Conservation 178 97ndash106 httpsdoiorg101016jbiocon201407015

ManfredoMJ(2008)Who cares about wildlife Social science concepts for exploring human‐wildlife relationships and other issues in conserva‐tionNewYorkSpringer

ManfredoMJTeelTLampBrightAD(2004)Application of the con‐cepts of values and attitudes in human dimensions of natural resources research(pp271‐282)JeffersonCitySocietyandnaturalresourcesAsummaryofknowledge

ManfredoMJBruskotterJTTeelTLFultonDSchwartzSHArlinghaus R amp Sullivan L (2017)Why social values cannot bechanged for the sake of conservation Conservation Biology 31(4)772ndash780httpsdoiorg101111cobi12855

Marshall K White R amp Fischer A (2007) Conflicts between hu-mans over wildlife management On the diversity of stakeholderattitudes and implications for conflict management Biodiversity and Conservation 16(11) 3129ndash3146 httpsdoiorg101007s10531‐007‐9167‐5

Mason T H E Pollard C R Chimalakonda D Guerrero A Kerr‐SmithCMilheirasSAGhellipBunnefeldN(2018)WickedconflictUsingwickedproblemthinkingforholisticmanagementofconserva-tionconflictConservation Letterse12460httpsdoiorg101111conl12460

MellingTThomasMPriceMampRoosS(2018)RaptorpersecutioninthePeakDistrictNationalParkBritish Birds111275ndash290

NyaupaneGPGraefeARampBurnsRC(2009)TheroleofequitytrustandinformationonuserfeeacceptanceinprotectedareasandotherpubliclandsAstructuralmodelJournal of Sustainable Tourism17(4)501ndash517httpsdoiorg10108009669580802651699

PooleyS(2016)Theentangledrelationsofhumansandnilecrocodilesin Africa c1840‐1992 Environment and History 22(3) 421ndash454httpsdoiorg103197096734016X14661540219357

Redpath SM Amar A Smith A Thompson D B amp Thirgood SJ (2010)Peopleandnature inconflictcanwereconcilehenhar-rier conservation and game management In Species management

12emsp |emsp emspenspPeople and Nature ST JOHN eT al

Challenges and solutions for the 21st century(pp335ndash350)EdinburghTheStationaryOfficeLtd(TSO)

Redpath S M Gutieacuterrez R J Wood K A amp Young J C (2015)Conflicts in conservation Navigating towards solutionsCambridgeUKCambridgeUniversityPress

Redpath S M Thirgood S J amp Leckie F M (2001) Does supple-mentary feeding reduce predation of red grouse by hen harri-ers Journal of Applied Ecology 38(6) 1157ndash1168 httpsdoiorg101046j0021‐8901200100683x

RedpathSMYoungJCEvelyAAdamsWMSutherlandWJWhitehouseAampGutieacuterrezRJ (2013)Understandingandman-aging conservation conflicts Trends in Ecology amp Evolution 28(2)100ndash109httpsdoiorg101016jtree201208021

Sjoumllander‐LindqvistAJohanssonMampSandstroumlmC(2015)IndividualandcollectiveresponsestolargecarnivoremanagementTherolesof trust representation knowledge spheres communication andleadership Wildlife Biology21(3)175ndash185httpsdoiorg102981wlb00065

SothertonNTapperSampSmithA(2009)HenharriersandredgrouseEconomic aspects of red grouse shooting and the implications formoorland conservation Journal of Applied Ecology 46 955ndash960httpsdoiorg101111j1365‐2664200901688x

SponarskiCCVaskeJJBathAJampLoefflerT(2016)ChangingattitudesandemotionstowardcoyoteswithexperientialeducationThe Journal of Environmental Education47(4)296ndash306httpsdoiorg1010800095896420161158142

SponarskiCCVaskeJJBathAJampMusianiMM(2014)Salientvaluessocialtrustandattitudestowardwolfmanagementinsouth‐westernAlbertaCanada Environmental Conservation41(04) 303ndash310httpsdoiorg101017S0376892913000593

SternMJ(2008)CoercionvoluntarycomplianceandprotestTheroleof trust and legitimacy in combating local opposition toprotectedareas Environmental Conservation 35(03) 200ndash210 httpsdoiorg101017S037689290800502X

TadakiM Sinner J ampChan KMA (2017)Making sense of envi-ronmentalvaluesAtypologyofconceptsEcology and Society22(1)art7httpsdoiorg105751ES‐08999‐220107

Teel T L amp Manfredo M J (2010) Understanding the diversity ofpublicinterestsinwildlifeconservationConservation Biology24(1)128ndash139httpsdoiorg101111j1523‐1739200901374x

ThirgoodSJampRedpathSM(2005)HenharriersandredgrouseTheecologyof a conflictConservation Biology Series Cambridge9192

Thirgood S amp Redpath S M (2008) Hen harriers and redgrouse Science politics and humanndashwildlife conflict Journal of Applied Ecology 45(5) 1550ndash1554 httpsdoiorg101111 j1365‐2664200801519x

ThirgoodSJRedpathSMHaydonDTRotheryPNewtonIampHudsonPJ(2000)HabitatlossandraptorpredationDisentangling

long‐ and short‐termcausesof redgrousedeclinesProceedings B Biological Sciences267(1444)651ndash656

ThompsonDBAMacDonaldA JMarsden JHampGalbraithCA(1995)UplandheathermoorlandinGreatBritainAreviewofin-ternationalimportancevegetationchangeandsomeobjectivesfornatureconservationBiological Conservation71(2)163ndash178httpsdoiorg1010160006‐3207(94)00043‐P

ThompsonPSDouglasDJTHoccomDGKnottJRoosSampWilson JD (2016) Environmental impacts of high‐output drivenshootingofRedGrouseLagopuslagopusscoticaIbis158(2)446ndash452httpsdoiorg101111ibi12356

Vaske J J amp Donnelly M P (1999) A value‐attitude‐behav-ior model predicting wildland preservation voting inten-tions Society amp Natural Resources 12(6) 523ndash537 httpsdoiorg101080089419299279425

VaskeJJampManfredoMJ(2012)Socialpsychologicalconsiderationsin wildlife managementHuman dimensions of wildlife management (pp43ndash57)BaltimoreTheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress

WhittakerDVaskeJJampManfredoMJ(2006)SpecificityandthecognitivehierarchyValueorientationsandtheacceptabilityofurbanwildlifemanagementactionsSociety amp Natural Resources19(6)515ndash530httpsdoiorg10108008941920600663912

Young JC SearleKButlerA SimmonsPWattADamp JordanA (2016) The role of trust in the resolution of conservation con-flicts Biological Conservation 195 httpsdoiorg101016jbiocon201512030

ZainalAbidinZAampJacobsMH(2016)Theapplicabilityofwildlifevalue orientations scales to amuslim student sample inMalaysiaHuman Dimensions of Wildlife21(6)555ndash566httpsdoiorg1010801087120920161199745

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information may be found online in theSupportingInformationsectionattheendofthearticle

How to cite this articleStJohnFAVSteadmanJAustenGRedpathSMValuediversityandconservationconflictLessonsfromthemanagementofredgrouseandhenharriersinEnglandPeople Nat 2018001ndash12 httpsdoiorg10 1002pan35