As pine martens are reintroduced to south-west England, a new study shows why local people need to be involved

Fifteen pine martens were relocated from Scotland to Dartmoor, Devon, late last year in the first phase of a reintroduction to south-west England. This autumn, more of these domestic cat-sized mammals will be released into Exmoor as part of a long-term recovery strategy to restore pine marten populations.

Pine martens live primarily in woodland habitats, feeding on fruits, small mammals and birds. They were once found throughout Britain, until habitat loss from woodland clearance and increased predator control led to population collapse. It is thought pine martens lived in south-west England until the late 19th century.

In 2023, before plans for this release had been agreed, my colleague Kirsty Frith and I were commissioned by the Two Moors Pine Marten Project – a conglomeration of seven organisations, including the county’s environmental charity Devon Wildlife Trust and Dartmoor National Park Authority – to independently capture perspectives of local people and interest groups on the proposals. This “social feasibility” assessment used an approach similar to one used previously for a release in Wales to determine how a pine marten reintroduction would be received in this area.

Our new study, published in Human Dimensions of Wildlife, outlines how we used a technique called Q-methodology. This method identifies shared perspectives and enables a rich understanding of subjectivity.

For participants, this involves a sorting exercise with discussion, placing written statements into a configuration to illustrate their levels of agreement with each. Once completed, their sorting arrangements are statistically compared and interpreted to identify perspectives which participants associate with.

Pining for martens?

Three main perspectives were identified. The anonymised participants included farmers, land managers, shooting representatives, conservationists and local residents.

Two of these perspectives supported pine martens and their reintroduction. Although similar, they exhibited some differences. The first viewpoint was more favourable to pine martens and reintroduction as a point of principle, with fewer reservations about introducing wild animals into the countryside. As one environmental farm advisor commented, “living around more nature and wildlife is a good thing”.

Although the second viewpoint still agreed strongly with reintroduction in this region, emphasis was on the motivation to restore the native population of pine martens and natural habitats. Some people expressed concerns about whether there might be negative effects on threatened native wildlife, for example, bats or dormice.

Participants wanted further evidence about the effects pine marten would have on habitats and more information about future plans for monitoring them and dealing with any issues. One participant, an environmental professional and public official, held this viewpoint and agreed with the reintroduction of pine martens “if it is done well and it is well planned”.

The third perspective was opposed to pine martens and their reintroduction. These participants were worried about introducing a predator like pine martens because they perceived them to be a threat to native wildlife, poultry and gamebirds.

They were also concerned about the availability of management support if there were negative effects from the reintroduction of pine martens. As one gamekeeper and conservationist viewed it, “they would add to the taking of wildlife when we have already lost more than 50%”.

What next?

Our new paper and previous research highlight two key challenges for any pine marten reintroduction project. By addressing those, the ability to coexist with pine martens can be improved.

People can have very different, polarised views. To minimise any conflict, reintroduction projects need to support inclusive dialogue around pine martens and how they can be monitored and managed. Unanimous support may be unlikely, but more collaborative relationships can be developed when people are involved in making plans for reintroduction.

It also really matters that people have contrasting understandings of predation. While supporters of reintroduction believed pine martens would contribute towards a functioning ecosystem, people who were less supportive were concerned that pine martens could kill threatened wildlife. Giving space for sensitive, nuanced conversations helps build trust and mutual understanding.

Our findings highlight the importance of assessing social feasibility before wildlife reintroductions take place. To ensure future success, that dynamic is just as crucial as ecological feasibility.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 35,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Roger Auster, University of Exeter

This research was commissioned by the Two Moors Pine Marten Project partnership. At the time of the research project, this included: Devon Wildlife Trust, National Trust, Woodland Trust, Exmoor National Park Authority, and Dartmoor National Park Authority. Additional content contributed by Kirsty Frith.