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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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