2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Rewilding—The farmers’ perspective. Perceptions and attitudinal support for rewilding among the English farming community

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          • Rewilding is an increasingly common conservation approach, aiming to restore ecosystem processes and minimise human intervention. Rewilding has the potential to profoundly change landscapes and people–nature relations. These issues prompt an ongoing debate about how and if rewilding should be done.

          • Farmers are key stakeholders in this debate; they stand to be both affected by and influence the trajectory of rewilding initiatives developing in the United Kingdom and globally. Despite this, a comprehensive understanding of farmers' perceptions towards rewilding is lacking.

          • Here, we focus on how members of the farming community in England perceive common rewilding scenarios (beaver release, farm‐level rewilding and landscape‐scale rewilding), and how these perceptions shape farmers' attitudinal support for rewilding practices.

          • Using thematic analysis of semi‐structured interviews with 36 farmers and farming representatives, we show that the diversity of famers' attitudes can be understood through the prism of perceptions on five core issues: (a) the perceived need for restoration action, (b) the ecological effectiveness of rewilding, (c) rewilding's compatibility with ensuring food security, (d) rewilding's compatibility with rural lifestyles, livelihoods and economies and (e) multidimensional justice of rewilding initiatives. These issues are rooted in collective farming values, and farmers' perceptions of these issues are influenced by mental models, perceived social impacts and perceived ecological outcomes of rewilding initiatives. Diverse perceptions result in a range of attitudes, from enthusiastic support to strong opposition to different rewilding practices.

          • We argue that the scope to increase support for rewilding varies depending on the type of underlying negative perceptions. Where the negative perceptions are based on objectively verifiable causal beliefs (mental models), opponents' minds may be changed through the provision of positive experiences, social learning, and adhering to good governance principles. However, where negative perceptions are based on values, for example, a preference for traditional rural landscapes, they are unlikely to change easily. Pursuing rewilding ambitions that clash with the values of local farmers may risk social conflicts, but accommodating these values too much may compromise rewilding's own goals. Rewilding initiatives will need dialogue and social engagement to navigate their path around this tension.

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

          Abstract

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

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people.

          Continuing population and consumption growth will mean that the global demand for food will increase for at least another 40 years. Growing competition for land, water, and energy, in addition to the overexploitation of fisheries, will affect our ability to produce food, as will the urgent requirement to reduce the impact of the food system on the environment. The effects of climate change are a further threat. But the world can produce more food and can ensure that it is used more efficiently and equitably. A multifaceted and linked global strategy is needed to ensure sustainable and equitable food security, different components of which are explored here.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study.

            Qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis are two commonly used approaches in data analysis of nursing research, but boundaries between the two have not been clearly specified. In other words, they are being used interchangeably and it seems difficult for the researcher to choose between them. In this respect, this paper describes and discusses the boundaries between qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis and presents implications to improve the consistency between the purpose of related studies and the method of data analyses. This is a discussion paper, comprising an analytical overview and discussion of the definitions, aims, philosophical background, data gathering, and analysis of content analysis and thematic analysis, and addressing their methodological subtleties. It is concluded that in spite of many similarities between the approaches, including cutting across data and searching for patterns and themes, their main difference lies in the opportunity for quantification of data. It means that measuring the frequency of different categories and themes is possible in content analysis with caution as a proxy for significance. © 2013 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Now I see it, now I don't: researcher's position and reflexivity in qualitative research

              M R Berger (2015)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                People and Nature
                People and Nature
                Wiley
                2575-8314
                2575-8314
                December 2022
                August 19 2022
                December 2022
                : 4
                : 6
                : 1435-1449
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Grantham Research Institute London School of Economics London UK
                [2 ] School of Life Sciences Anglia Ruskin University Cambridge UK
                [3 ] Institute for Global Sustainable Development, School for Cross‐Faculty Studies University of Warwick Coventry UK
                [4 ] School of Life Science University of Sussex Brighton UK
                [5 ] Sussex Sustainability Research Programme (SSRP) University of Sussex Brighton UK
                [6 ] School of Natural Sciences University of Bangor Bangor UK
                Article
                10.1002/pan3.10376
                d652bb6d-f263-42d4-9346-3a770b4f11d5
                © 2022

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article