Beavers, a Rural Community and Ecotourism: A Case Study on ...€¦ · University of Exeter Beavers...

University of Exeter Beavers and Ecotourism

1

Appendix to the ‘River Otter Beaver Trial’ Science & Evidence Report:

Beavers, a Rural Community and Ecotourism:

A Case Study on the River Otter, England

Roger Auster

University of Exeter

[email protected]

Supervisors: Prof. Richard Brazier, Prof. Stewart Barr

Funding: University of Exeter, Devon & Cornwall Wildlife Trusts, Plymouth City Council

The research findings in this document are intended to be written up with

further interpretation for scientific peer review as part of an ongoing PhD

project. The results presented in this document have therefore not yet been

subject to this process, but have been examined by the ‘River Otter Beaver

Trial’ Science & Evidence Forum. Following scientific peer review, this

document will be superseded by the relevant publication.

Statement on Data Ownership The data that is reported upon within this report is owned by the report author and is

held at the University of Exeter, with the exception of the footpath counter data

which is owned by East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The

author would like to thank East Devon AONB for access and for the permission to use

this data within this report.

CONTENTS 1. Introduction

2. Methods

3. Community Background

3.1. Questionnaire Respondents

3.2. Feelings about the Presence of Beavers

3.3. Use of the River

3.4. Feelings upon Seeing Beavers

4. ‘Beaver-Watching’ Activity in the Community

4.1. Interest in ‘Beaver-Watching’

4.2. When the Community ‘Beaver-Watch’ (if they do so)

4.3. Willingness to Travel

4.4. Limitations Preventing ‘Beaver-Watching’

5. Beavers and Visitors to the Village

5.1. Community Perspective

5.2. Footpath Counter Data

5.3. Effect of Beavers on Footpath Usage

5.4. Perspectives of Impacts of Visitors on the Community

mailto:[email protected]


2

6. Impacts on Business


6.2. Business Perspective

6.2.1. Visitors/Customer Numbers

6.2.2. Products and Merchandise

6.2.3. Events

6.2.4. Marketing

6.2.5. Impacts on Other Businesses and Supply Chain

6.2.6. Other Initiatives

6.2.7. Additional Impacts

6.2.8. Comments on Beavers and Business in the Future

6.2.9. Other Comments from Businesses

6.3. Community ‘Beaver-Watcher’ Expenditure

6.4. Valuing ‘Beaver-Watching’ Near to the Village

6.4.1. Valuation 1 – Proportion of Total Footpath Use

6.4.2. Valuation 2 – Proportion of Respondents indicating they use the

River for ‘Viewing Wildlife’ and Total Footpath Use

6.4.3. Valuation 3 – The Summer Period

6.5. Supplementary Results from Cornwall Beaver Project – Visiting ‘Beaver-

Watcher’ Expenditure

6.5.1. Travel Costs

6.5.2. Expenditure in Local Businesses

6.5.3. Motivations to Visit the Project

6.6. Nationwide Survey Perspective

1. Introduction The River Otter catchment in East Devon and Somerset is subject to a licensed Trial

reintroduction of Eurasian beavers (Castor fiber) until 2020, having begun in 2015.

Detailed within the licence agreement issued by Natural England are the needs for

research into the potential impacts of Eurasian beavers (hereon referred to as

‘beavers’) upon tourism.

The scope of this report is to independently and impartially investigate the impacts

upon tourism activity within the River Otter and explore the economic factors

involved through a case study of a village on the River Otter, near to which a

beaver territory was established. The report will look at perspectives within the

community and local businesses of the impacts of beavers and related tourism.

All respondent identities and personal data are treated as confidential. As such, the

specific village will also not be identified to further protect respondent identities and

will instead be referred to as ‘the village’.

The village is in the River Otter catchment as is situated very near to the river itself. A

public footpath runs along the river bank both upstream (north) and downstream

(south) of the village.

2. Methods The findings in this report are taken from five sources:


3

1. A mail-return questionnaire was undertaken in the aforementioned River Otter

community. A paper questionnaire was delivered to 289 properties identified by the

researcher as within the boundaries of the village on 20th December 2018. These

were supplied with a stamped, addressed envelope to return the questionnaire.

Respondents were asked to submit their completed survey by 10th January 2019

(responses were accepted until two weeks after this date to allow for late entries). As

an extra incentive for survey completion, an optional prize draw was offered in

return for completed surveys. 66 surveys were returned to the researcher, a response

rate of 22.84%. In the following analyses, each n reported relates to the number of

respondents who provided an answer to each question in turn (if there was no

answer given these respondents were excluded from each analysis).

2. Each business within the community was invited to participate in an interview to

document their experiences. Five businesses were identified in the community and

each was invited to partake in the research. If no response was received a repeat

invitation was issued. Every business was invited at least twice. No response was

received from two businesses. Three businesses took part in an interview. Following

the interviews and mail-return questionnaire, one business from outside the

boundaries of the community was identified as one of interest to invite. However, no

response from this business was received.

Participating businesses were asked about:

• The contextual background of their business.

• Their description and views of the beavers and their activity in the local

vicinity and whether there has been any direct impacts of this for the

business.

• Whether there have been any changes in customer numbers and/or

backgrounds which they related to the presence of beavers on the Otter.

• Whether they have undertaken or planned to undertake any business

changes or initiatives in response to the presence of beavers on the Otter.

The background descriptions of each business as they described themselves are

provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptions of participating businesses

Business

ID

Number

Description (in respondents’ words)

B01 “Primarily I would say B01 functions as a visitor attraction in all respects.

It is multi-faceted in that it is still a working watermill, […] we have a

bakery, we have a soon-to-be new farm shop, we have a food shop,

we have a restaurant, we have a gallery and crafts, and then we

have a live music scene as well. So it sort of encompasses lots of

different things. […] The whole sort of ethics of what we’re about is

quite in sync with nature.”

B02 “It’s a community-owned shop so it’s owned by the village and it’s run

by volunteers apart from one paid manager. It’s been open for nearly

five years and it works as a bit like a corner shop but we try to have a

bit of everything for visitors and for locals.”


4

B03 “The business I would describe as a hotel, public house and restaurant

so it pretty much sums up all of hospitality in one building!”

B04 This was the business invited to participate from outside of the village

for which no reply was received. However, a code is assigned to

protect the identity of the business when it occurs in respondent

answers. This business is a holiday park which provides

accommodation for visitors.

3. East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty installed footpath counters in the

community in 2017. The records are detailed in this report.

4. Supplementary results are taken from a questionnaire from visitors to the fenced

beaver project in Cornwall. This questionnaire was issued to visitors who were visiting

the project for a ‘beaver-watching’ experience. The questionnaire asked about the

expenditure they had undertaken as part of the experience. These results are used

as it was not possible to obtain similar results from visitors to the River Otter in Devon

(although similar questions were included in the community mail-return questionnaire

described in Source 1). This was because they were challenging to locate or identify

when attempts were made in July and August 2018.

5. Additional supplementary findings are reported from a nationwide attitudinal

survey conducted in 2017 (Auster et al, 2019).

3. Community Background

3.1. Questionnaire Respondents

Table 2 details the background information provided by respondents to the mail-

return questionnaire.

Table 2. Mail-return questionnaire respondent information

Occupation Age Distance Resident From Watercourse

Number of Years Resident

in Village

Resident Before Beaver Trial? (>4 years / pre-2015)

Administration 1 <18 1 It extends to the riverside itself

3 "New" (Up to 1)

4 Yes 53

Farming 1 18-24 3 Up to 200 metres away

8 2 to 5 11 No 12

Finance 1 25-34 1 200-500 metres away

25 6 to 10 9

Garden & Maintenance

2 35-44 1 500-1000 metres away

23 11 to 15 10

Health & Social Care

6 45-54 8 >1000 metres away

3 16 to 20 10

Hospitality 1 55-64 13 >20 21

Management 2 65-74 24

Research & Education

2 75 and Over

15


5

Retired 42

Solicitor 1

Student 2

Unemployed 1

TOTAL 62 66 64 65 65

3.2. Feelings about the Presence of Beavers

In the mail-return questionnaire, respondents were asked how they felt about the

presence of beavers on the river near to their village and provided with a text box.

Their responses were analysed using a thematic content analysis. In Figures 1a, 1b

and 1c, respondent answers are illustrated according to whether they described

positive, negative or neutral feelings. 61 respondents (92.42%) provided the answer

to the question. In these figures, the green boxes indicate a word used by

respondents to describe a feeling. Some respondents gave further comment or

description as to why, these are presented in the blue boxes. To note, some

respondents provided multiple feelings. Therefore, in these figures, n is the number of

comments were such feelings were expressed, which may outnumber the number of

respondents to the question.

Figure 1a. Positive Feelings Expressed.

Figure 1b. Negative Feelings Expressed.


6

Figure 1c. Neutral Feelings Expressed.

3.3. Use of the River

In the mail-return questionnaire, respondents were asked to identify how they used

the river near to their village in by selecting options from a list. Respondents could

select multiple answers. 65 respondents (98.48% of the total) answered the question.

The responses are detailed in Figure 2 in descending order from the most highly

selected option.


7

Respondents who selected ‘Other’ were asked to specify their river use. 2 stated that

they live there, 1 stated that they visited the river for work, 1 visited the river to show

visitors around, 1 visited the river to see if flooding is imminent, 1 stated that they

used to visit the river for all of the reasons (except ‘I do not visit the river’) but

stopped as they claimed their dog was always ill after doing so.

The questionnaire then asked whether the respondents’ use of the River Otter had

been influenced by the presence of beavers. 55 respondents (83.33%) provided an

answer to the question. Their responses are given in Table 3.

TABLE 3. HAS COMMUNITY USE OF THE RIVER BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE PRESENCE

OF BEAVERS?

Has River Use Been

Influenced?

Further Details Given

YES

(n=23)

Increased time by the river

More watchful for beavers on walks

To see signs of beaver activity

To see the beavers

More likely to take visitors

More walks in the evening

More wildlife to see so more enjoyable walks

More early morning walks

More careful with the dogs on walks

Dogs can’t swim in the river anymore

Now walk different stretches of the river as it has got

too busy

Walk less frequently

NO

(n=32)

Use the river anyway

Not changed frequency of river use

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Walking

Viewing Wildlife

Peace and Quiet

Dog-walking

Photography

Get from A to B

Kayaking

Other

Running

Cycling

I do not visit the river

Fishing

Swimming

Figure 2. Respondents' Use of the River Otter


8

Am a resident in the village

3.4. Feelings upon Seeing Beavers

The questionnaire asked respondents whether they had seen the beavers or signs of

their activity. Of the 62 respondents (93.93%) who provided an answer, 56 (90.32%)

said that they had whereas 6 (9.68%) said that they had not. If respondents said that

they had, the questionnaire asked for them to describe their feelings, which 54

respondents did so (81.81% of total respondent pool, 96.43% of respondents who said

they had seen beavers or signs of their activity). The emotion words were run through

a word frequency analysis (the analysis was run with stemmed words). Figure 3

demonstrates the results of the analysis. The larger the word appears, the more

frequently it occurred in respondent answers.

The five most used words were ‘excited’ (used 11 times), ‘interested’ (used 9 times),

‘happy’ (used 8 times), ‘pleased’ (used 8 times) and ‘privileged’ (used 4 times).

95.77% of emotive words used were positive, whilst 4.23% were negative emotion

words. Of those that were negative, there was one occurrence of the word

‘concerning’, and one occurrence of the word ‘worrying’. In both of these

instances, the respondents were describing their feelings having seen signs of beaver

“gnawing” and “damage to trees”. There was one occurrence of the word ‘sad’

which the respondent used to describe how they felt at seeing “so many people

'viewing' the beavers and disturbing them”.

Figure 3. Word frequency analysis results on emotion words respondents used to

describe how they felt when they had seen beavers or signs of their activity.


9

4. ‘Beaver-Watching’ Activity in the Community In this section, the term ‘beaver-watching’ is defined as the act of visiting the river

especially to try and view either beavers or signs of their activity. This same definition

was provided to respondents in the community mail-return questionnaire prior to

asking the following questions.

Examples of what can be seen whilst beaver-watching

4.1. Interest in ‘Beaver-Watching’

The community questionnaire asked whether respondents were personally interested

in ‘beaver-watching’. 61/66 respondents (92.42%) answered the question. Of those,

59.02% answered ‘Yes’ whereas 40.98% answered ‘No’, as seen in Figure 4.

Respondents were then asked to explain their answer to which 39 respondents did

so (59.09% of the total respondent pool, 63.93% of respondents who answered the

previous question). Their answers were analysed using a thematic content analysis

and a summary of the reasons given is detailed in Table 4.

36

25

Figure 4. Respondent

answers when asked "Are

you personally interested in

'beaver-watching'?"

Yes No


10

TABLE 4. REASONS WHY RESPONDENTS WERE/WERE NOT INTERESTED IN ‘BEAVER-

WATCHING’.

Interested in

‘Beaver-

Watching’?

Reasons Given

YES

(n=34)

As an ancillary activity to running/walking/dog-walking

Would like to see beavers

Am an animal-lover

Enjoy observing wildlife in natural environment

It is an interesting project

For photography

With children

Go to see wildlife in general

Good to see an increase in the diversity of wildlife, when the

news elsewhere is depressing.

Interesting to see unusual wildlife

Like to look for any differences in how the water flows/floods

Beavers are exciting to watch

Beavers help rid the area of Himalayan Balsam

General interest

To see a species I wouldn’t otherwise encounter

See beaver effects in an ecosystem

Have never seen a beaver in the wild so would find it exciting

As a one-off

Keep an eye on beavers’ wellbeing

To make the most of the opportunity

NO

(n=5)

Interested to see the beavers while walking but would not make

special trip

Surrounded by wildlife we see every day

Pop down to the river time-to-time

Do not wish to disturb beavers

Beavers not easy to locate and see

Respondents were informed that they could skip the questions about ‘beaver-

watching’ activity if they had indicated that they were not interested in it.

4.2. When the Community ‘Beaver-Watch’ (if they do so)

Respondents were asked at which time of day they would be likely to go ‘beaver-

watching’. Respondents were able to select multiple options. 41 respondents

(62.12%) answered the question. The answers given are demonstrated in Figure 5.

The most selected option was to go in the evening (87.80%), with the second most

selected option being the morning (48.78%). All options were selected by at least 4

respondents (9.76%).


11

Respondents were further asked in which seasons they would be likely to go

‘beaver-watching’, with the ability to select multiple options. 41 respondents

(62.12%) answered the question, with the answers demonstrated in Figure 6. Summer

was most highly selected (82.93%), followed by Spring (78.05%). All options were

selected by at least 16 respondents (39.02%).

4.3. Willingness to Travel

The mail-return questionnaire asked respondents how far they would be willing to

travel to go ‘beaver-watching’. 42 respondents (63.64%) answered the question.

Their answers are illustrated in Figure 7. The most highly selected option was ‘only if

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Night

Figure 5. Time of Day Respondents Are

Most Likely to 'Beaver-Watch'

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Spring Summer Autumn Winter

Figure 6. Seasons in Which

Respondents Are Most Likely To Go

'Beaver-Watching'


12

they are on the river near to the village’, selected by 59.52% of respondents. No

respondents selected the option indicating ‘I would book somewhere to stay away

from home’.

4.4.. Limitations Preventing ‘Beaver-Watching’

Respondents were asked about whether there were any limitations which would

prevent them from ‘beaver-watching’. 32 respondents (48.48%) gave an answer.

Reasons given included (in no particular order): Footpath accessibility (ie closures,

muddiness); available time; physical ability (ie. disability, injury, illness, personal

mobility); walking distance from house; dog walkers; fishermen; ability to find a

suitable site; disturbance caused by other people; not wishing to disturb beavers;

beavers are active at less sociable times (including ability to get up early, tiredness in

evenings); bad weather, there are more interesting ways to spend time; poor

light/dusk; high numbers of other people; if it was expensive; flooding.

5. Beavers and Visitors to the Village


Respondents were asked in the mail-return questionnaire whether they had noticed

a change in the number of visitors to the village since 2015, the year in which the

‘River Otter Beaver Trial’ was licensed. 62 respondents (93.93%) answered the

question. 69.35% answered that there had been a change in the number of visitors,

11.29% answered that there had not whilst 19.35% indicated that they did not know.

Of those that felt there had been a change, 90.70% expressed that they felt there

had been an increase in the number of visitors, no respondents indicated that the

number of visitors had decreased whilst 9.30% indicated that there had been a

variable change in the number of visitors. 22 respondents provided further

description of the change in visitors. Comments included:

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Only if they are on the river near to the village

I would travel a short distance from home

I would travel a long distance from home

I would book somewhere to stay away from

home

Figure 7. Community Questionnaire Respondents'

Willingness To Travel To Go 'Beaver-Watching'


13

There were more people initially but not anymore

More visitors have come from overseas and are asking about beavers

There are more photographers

Fewer visitors in the past year -> closure of footbridge -> beavers more shy this

year

There are only more visitors in certain river reaches

The answers to the question are illustrated in Figure 8.

Respondents were then asked whether the change they had described was

attributable to the presence of beavers (if they had indicated a change in visitor

numbers). 48 respondents (72.72% of the total respondent pool) answered the

question. 31.25% answered ‘Yes, completely’, 56.25% answered ‘Yes, in part’ and

12.50% answered ‘No’. These answers are illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 8. Mail-Return Respondents' Views on

Whether There Has Been a Change in Visitor

Numbers Since 2015

Yes, there has been an increase Yes, there has been a decrease

No, there has been no change I don't know

There has been a variable change


14

Respondents who answered ‘Yes, in part’ or ‘No’ were asked what other factors

may have led to this increase in the number of visitors. Their answered included:

Not sure

Already popular place

Beautiful area

Birdwatching

Fishing

Increase in: cyclists; walking; ‘staycations’; photographers; leisure time; good

weather; size of nearby holiday park

5.2. Footpath Counter Data

Between June 2017 and February 2019, East Devon AONB installed two footpath

counters on the riverside footpath in the village in response to reports of increased

footpath use following the establishment of a beaver territory on the river near to the

village. These were either side of the access road bridge, one on the North side

(‘North’) and one to the South (‘South’). Total footpath counts have been provided

by the authority on a monthly basis (excluding the months of October and

November 2018 due to technical issues). The total data is presented sequentially in

Figure 10. Generally, the observable trend has been that the footpath was more

frequently used in the summer months, and that the footpath south of the bridge

was more widely used. (A total count of the two footpath counters has not been

calculated as it is not discernible how many counts on both counters would have

been duplicates of a single footpath use).

Figure 9. Respondents' View On Whether a

Change in Visitor Numbers is Attributable To The

Presence of Beavers on the River Near To The

Village

Yes, completeley Yes, in part No


15

5.3. Effect of Beavers on Footpath Usage

As the footpath counters were established retrospectively, baseline footpath use is

not available and therefore it is difficult to ascertain how much of the observed

footpath activity pertains to the activity of ‘beaver-watchers’. However, there have

been two summers (the season in which beavers are more easily observable) which

can be compared - between the months of June and September.

In the summer of 2017, a family of beavers (with kits) was easily observable as they

had established a lodge upstream of the village (North). In the winter of that year,

the beavers then moved upstream and away from this location (Devon Wildlife Trust,

2019, personal communication [email]). As such, it is possible to compare the peak

“beaver-watching” months (the months in which it is easiest to observe a beaver)

between a year where beavers were present and easily observable, and a year in

which they were not.

A chi squared test was used to test for a difference between the two years for each

footpath counter separately. A statistically significant difference was identified

between the summers of 2017 and 2018 for both the North (X2 (3) = 885.6715, n = 52859, p <

0.00001) and South (X2 (3) = 729.1707, n = 104166, p < 0.00001) footpath counter. In total across the

summer months, 10,925 fewer counts were observed on the North counter in 2018

than in 2017, and 15,506 fewer counts were observed on the South counter in the

same months.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Ju

n-1

7

Ju

l-17

Au

g-1

7

Se

p-1

7

Oc

t-1

7

No

v-1

7

De

c-1

7

Ja

n-1

8

Fe

b-1

8

Ma

r-18

Ap

r-1

8

Ma

y-1

8

Ju

n-1

8

Ju

l-18

Au

g-1

8

Se

p-1

8

Oc

t-1

8

No

v-1

8

De

c-1

8

Jan

-19

Fe

b-1

9

Co

un

t

Month

Figure 10. Riverside Footpath Counter Data

North South


16

Figures 11a and 11b illustrate the number of counts across these two summers, whilst

Figure 11c illustrates the difference which was observed in counts between the years

for the footpath counters.

It could be inferred from these results that the movement of beavers away from this

area may have led to a reduction in footpath usage throughout the summer of

2018. However, the exact proportion of the reduction in visitor numbers that could

be attributed towards this factor is uncertain due to other variables which may have

contributed towards this decline. For example this could be due to differences in the

weather conditions or perhaps the ability to access the footpath (notably, there is a

footbridge used to access the path upstream on the North side which was closed for

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Co

un

t

Month

Figure 11a. Footpath

Counts in the summers of

2017 and 2018 (North)

2017 2018

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Co

un

t

Month

Figure 11b. Footpath

Counts in the summers of

2017 and 2018 (South)

2017 2018

-6000

-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

June July August September

Diffe

ren

ce

in

Co

un

t

Month

Figure 11c. Observed Differences in Footpath

Counts in Summer Months

North South


17

safety reasons after the summer of 2017). Also to note, there may also be ‘beaver-

watchers’ using the path in the summer of 2018 which therefore are not picked up in

the difference between the two summers.

5.4. Perspectives of Impacts of Visitors on the Community

Respondents to the mail-return questionnaire were asked whether they believed

there to be impacts of visitors to the village on its’ residents. 59 respondents (89.39%)

answered the question.

Figure 12 demonstrates the results of a word frequency analysis on respondent

answers (with stemmed words included). Most frequently cited was impacts on

parking, with 41 occurrences. There were also 24 counts of references towards cars

and 14 occurrences of a reference to traffic.

Figure 12. Word frequency analysis of respondents’ answers as to whether there were

impacts of visitors to the village on residents.

Table 5 provides further information by summarising the responses given to the

question.


18

Table 5. Community views of impacts of visitors on the

village

Perceived Impacts – In no particular order

Pressure on parking with more visitors

Overprotective visitors getting angry, eg at dog-

walkers

Increased traffic

Residents pleased to have beavers

Speeding cars

Inconsiderate dog-walkers encouraging dogs into the

river

Off-road cyclists damaging riverbanks and footpaths

Increased litter and plastic pollution

Number of cars and visitors on the road bridge can be

dangerous

Good business for local businesses

Beaver activity means willow tree will need to be felled

at a cost

Limited impact

No impacts

Increased noise pollution from increased traffic

New local interest for wildlife watchers and

photographers

Higher footfall damaging for riverbank ecosystem

Potential for volunteer schemes and funding

Visitors are no problem

No toilet for visitors

Visitors don’t slow for horses

Footpaths more worn and muddy

6. Impacts on Business


The mail-return questionnaire asked how respondents felt any described change in

visitors to the village (see Section 5.1) may or may not have an impact upon local

businesses. 46 respondents (67.70%) respondents answered the question. Of those,

65.22% reported that they felt businesses were positively impacted, 6.52% reported

that they felt there would be no impact whilst 28.26% stated that they did not know.

None of the respondents indicated that they felt local businesses were negatively

impacted. These results are illustrated in Figure 13.


19

Respondents were then offered the opportunity to provide further comments on the

impacts on local businesses including why they felt the way that they did so. 29

respondents provided a comment (43.93% of the total respondent pool, 63.04% of

respondents who answered the previous question).

Amongst these, comments given amongst those who felt businesses would be

impacted upon including the following: an increase in visitors leads to more custom;

people ask where the beavers are; the impact on visitor numbers is small; people

need sustenance after walking [so visit businesses].

Amongst the comments, those given in regard to respondents who felt there would

be no impact upon businesses included the following: businesses are not likely to be

open at peak beaver-viewing times; not sure extra visitors is likely to be due to the

beavers as community was never told of the release.

6.2. Business Perspective

As well as engaging with the local community, the businesses in the village were

invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Details of the businesses involved

can be seen in Section 2.

6.2.1. Visitor/Customer Numbers

The businesses were asked whether they had seen a change in the

visitors/customers as a result of the presence of beavers on the nearby river. The

answers given by each business are provided in Table 6.

Figure 13. Respondent views on (if and) how

changes in visitor numbers to the village impact

upon local businesses

Positively Negatively No impact on local businesses I don’t know


20

Table 6. Business Views on Beaver Impacts on Visitors

Business

ID

Change

Reported?

Business Comments/Details Given

B01 Yes “It certainly has more of a family appeal, I’d definitely say

that’s been the case. […] I think it’s brought more foot

traffic at certain times of year, at certain times of the day;

obviously in the evening people are out trying to see

them.”

“When there was quite a lot of press at one point […] I’d

say yeah we did see higher numbers and certainly there

was more people talking about it. And you know, if you

have your staff talking about it you have your interaction

with customers on that basis. I think it would be hard for us

to measure and it is a very popular footpath out there so I

think the fact they are here just adds to that whole

equation. There’s been various TV people turn up here to

be filmed out there. There’s probably a week doesn’t go

past that we will see people here that are clearly here

because they are interested in beavers. So if they weren’t

here, would those people be here? Probably not. They’d

be somewhere else, looking for something else.”

B02 Unsure “It’s very hard to say because we we’re gradually building

our customer-base up at any rate so I suppose we didn’t

specifically know if people had come to see the beavers or

whether they had just come to see the village. […] I think in

the last five years we’ve certainly noticed an increase in

visitors, and the season has extended a bit more. I can’t

say if that was due to the beavers.”

B03 Yes “You do get a lot of people coming to see them and

there’s a few people as well that check in not realising

there’s beavers there as well so they will take the time to go

and have a look […] It does bring a bit of tourist trade

down, you get people coming down to see it and other

people that don’t know anything about it until they get

onto the river itself and find out about it.”

6.2.2. Products and Merchandise

Table 7 provides the details of whether the businesses reported any new beaver-

related products or merchandise.

Table 7. Beaver-Related Products or Merchandise Reported by Businesses

Business

ID

Products

Reported?


B01 Yes “We have stocked various beaver merchandise in the

gallery. […] coasters with little pictures of a beaver on,

cards, beavers made of bronze […] more recently this

winter we’ve brought on three lines of beer made for us,

and one of those beers is beaver bitter. Now that’s sold


21

particularly well, we then use that in our restaurant for using

in certain dishes.”

B02 Yes “We do sell, we’ve got these pictures [beaver and otter

pictures on wall] and we do sell postcards. We’ve got

postcards of those two pictures.”

B03 No

6.2.3. Events

Table 8 provides the details of whether respondents reported any beaver-related

events held at their business.

Table 8. Events Held At Businesses

Business

ID

Events

Reported?


B01 Yes “Beaver days here where the countryside learning officer

and the wildlife trust have come out to the site on specific

days to give people a learning experience. […] and they

have been, in terms of our visitor days, the most popular

days we run in a year. The highest turnout of people is for

beaver days.”

B02 No

B03 Yes

(intended)

“We have considered in the past doing, there was a

gentleman who was going to do a guided walk […] and

he was going to do that in the evenings […] and make

people more aware of it and how it affects the land

around it and everything. Unfortunately something

happened around it, I don’t know what it was, and it fell

through and I don’t know if there’s any chance that the

idea gets revived or not”

6.2.4. Marketing

Table 9 provides the details of whether respondents reported the use of beavers in

their marketing.

Table 9. Use of Beavers in Marketing Conducted by Businesses

Business

ID

Marketing

Reported?


B01 Yes “I think any opportunity that affords itself to us and

promotes the business we could potentially use that as a

vehicle to do that, with the wildlife, whether that be

beavers or otters, then we would seize that opportunity. So

as far as we’re concerned, wildlife tourism is a growing

market and fundamentally if the river and the environment

here promotes something along those lines then that suits

us and we will grow with it hopefully. […] we’re very keen

on promoting the wildlife of the river. It’s a very popular


22

walking destination, so by adding in, as far as people are

concerned, a cute furry animal is very marketable. So

that’s worked very well for us. […] It’s become for us a

unique selling point.”

“When there was quite a lot of press at one point […] I’d

say yeah we did see higher numbers and certainly there

was more people talking about it. And you know, if you

have your staff talking about it you have your interaction

with customers on that basis. I think it would be hard for us

to measure and it is a very popular footpath out there so I

think the fact they are here just adds to that whole

equation. There’s been various TV people turn up here to

be filmed out there. There’s probably a week doesn’t go

past that we will see people here that are clearly here

because they are interested in beavers. So if they weren’t

here, would those people be here? Probably not. They’d

be somewhere else, looking for something else.”

B02 No

B03 Indirectly “I think it made the national news four or five years back.

So people are aware of it.”

6.2.5. Impacts on Other Businesses and Supply Chain

Table 10 provides the details of whether respondents reported any known impacts of

beavers on other businesses or their supply chains.

Table 10. Beaver Impacts on Other Businesses or Their Supply Chains

Business

ID

Supply

Chain

Impacts

Reported?


B01 No

B02 Yes,

limited

“We’ve got less flooding. Of course the village gets cut off,

and if the village gets cut off then our supply chain gets cut

off. Certainly when we do get cut off there are less

customers, I mean it was snow last year. But, you know I

don’t think that they’ve impacted either way on the whole

really.”

B03 No “Not our supply chain in itself, hasn’t really disrupted us

really.”


23

6.2.6. Other Initiatives

Table 11 provides the details of whether respondents reported any other possible

beaver-related initiatives under consideration.

Table 11. Possible Other Initiatives Referenced by Businesses

Business

ID

Possibility

for Other

Initiatives?


B01 Yes “I think any opportunity that affords itself to us and

promotes the business we could potentially use that as a

vehicle to do that, with the wildlife, whether that be

beavers or otters, then we would seize that opportunity. So

as far as we’re concerned, wildlife tourism is a growing

market and fundamentally if the river and the environment

here promotes something along those lines then that suits

us. […] I think probably the one thing I’d like to have is a bit

more interpretation because people who are here, I think

we should engage more people and at the moment, say if

you were here on a week’s holiday up the road at B04,

where would you even find anything out about the

beavers? […] You know, we have video the other day of a

beaver being released after it had been checked from a

trap and that would have been absolute marketing gold

but we didn’t use it because from our point of view they’re

being trapped here for a reason and if I put that around I

suspect every man and his dog would have been looking

and that would have ruined the whole point of trapping

them because everybody would have been there. So

we’re sort of conscious of our role in promoting it and we

wouldn’t want to impact in a negative way. But I think

potentially what does need to happen is it needs to be

upsold to visitors because people are genuinely interested,

and the level that they’re interested at is not up here [raises

hand], it’s real simple stuff, and for us family-orientated

facts; what a beaver does, what the young beaver is

called, all that sort of thing. And I think that would be a real

good thing.”

B02 Yes “We’ve got a brand new manager who literally started last

week and she’s very keen to do all kinds of promotions so I

think watch-this-space at the moment. […] It is certainly a

possibility. […] We could probably do some more, and

some more local beaver-based projects”

B03 Yes “We have considered in the past doing, there was a

gentleman who was going to do a guided walk […] he was

going to do that in the evenings […] to try and make

people more aware of it and how it affects the land

around it and everything. Unfortunately something

happened around it, I don’t know what it was, and it fell

through and I don’t know if there’s any chance that the

idea gets revived or not.”


24

6.2.7. Additional Impacts

Table 12 provides the details of whether respondents reported any other beaver-

related impacts for their business.

Table 12. Additional Impacts of Beavers Reported by Businesses

Business

ID

Additional

Impacts?


B01 Yes “We have the only public toilets for 5km, we are a bit of a

hub on the river. We got funds from defra to provide a

community facility as part of our development. The

increased interest caused by the beavers was included in

the application.”

“I think a general interest in the River Otter and promoting

the area, it’s given us a larger sphere of influence I would

say”

B02 No

B03 Yes “You do get people coming down and people who say

through booking.com and stuff that ‘we’re coming to see

the beavers’”

“I wouldn’t call it an exploitable resource but, you know, it’s

a thing that, obviously there’s not many rivers in the UK that

have got beavers on there so you can tell, we’ve got this

up here as well, you can stop in and have a coffee before

you go or whatever.”

6.2.8. Comments on Beavers and Business in the Future

Table 13 provides details of any comments made by businesses on the potential

future implications if beavers are to remain and/or become more widespread.

Table 13. Business Comments on Beavers and Business in the Future

Business

ID

Comments

Made?


B01 Yes “I suppose the problem would be that if there’s beavers in

everybody’s back garden, the uniqueness of having them

here will have less of a pull. So if there’s more and more

and more of them, but as far as we’re concerned that

may be inevitable. If beavers are reintroduced on a far

larger scale then so be it. So I suppose it’s probably for

other businesses outside of the… if their geographically

more remote from us then I think other businesses can see

a clear benefit from it. If, for example, there were more

and more beavers in this locality then it’s probably going

to dilute that down a little bit for those of us that are here.

But that wouldn’t be something that we’d still not promote

because of the nature of the business that we are and this

isn’t a farm park or a zoo so the whole sort of ethics of


25

what we’re about is quite in sync with nature and those

sorts of things.”

B02 Yes “It’s trying to promote the positive really, and promoting

the local environment really, there’s no point trashing it

with your animals because they like to play!”

B03 No

6.2.9. Other Comments from Businesses

Table 14 provides the details of whether business respondents made any further

comments.

Table 14. Other Comments Made by Businesses

Business

ID

Other

Comments?


B01 Yes “What would be ideal is the current situation and trying

to, once again it goes back to this whole education thing

of educating people, having more interpretation. Again

[B01] is a key point on the river. You get lots of people are

perhaps not from the area who are down on holiday,

these are things you should and shouldn’t do.”

“We would be quite happy from the business point of

view with beavers being here. We are used to them, i

think the hard steps of probably getting the trial

underway broke the ground and it would be a shame to

lose that position.”

“I just think that’s probably again important that there is

more education about it and done in a quite popular

way because unfortunately universities, large landowners,

can sometimes come across as rather high-for-looting

and that’s not intentional in any way but then it doesn’t

have perhaps the mass appeal of public opinion.”

“We have a two acre site here, so in terms of physical

interaction with beavers…. Eating our trees. We only took

the business on in December 2015 and actually it was in

the first week of taking it on that I wondered why there

were these trails across the grass where obviously the tail,

because the grass was quite long and wet, so we realised

they were here enjoying themselves here. So in terms of

actually interaction with them, is seeing them here, we

had beaver traps here […] So seeing beavers, seeing

beavers in the traps and the only thing that we’ve had to

do as a business is wrap all our apple trees with wire. […] I

rang the estate. We work quite closely together, and I

said “they’re eating all my trees.” And she said “I’ll get

someone out to come wrap some chicken wire round”.

And, I can’t remember the gentleman’s name, but he


26

was quite quick. […] yeah so that’s how that happened.

Other than that, other than seeing bits of wood that

they’ve enjoyed eating, whizzing past in the river when

we get a flood and things like that, no other physical

interaction as such.”

“I don’t want to tempt fate but when we first took it on

we had lots of flooding. Nothing too horrendous as in any

buildings but within the first 6 months I think we’d seen

probably 20 occasions where our car park had flooded

with water and the pace of the water coming into it was

very quick after rainfall over the hills. I think over the past

three years, if I’m honest, I think I’ve seen it, touch wood,

slow down a little bit. Now whether that’s anything to do

with them, I’m crediting them with helping in that regard,

and hopefully they are.”

B02 Yes “We try not to compete with [B01] which is the other

thing.”

“There’s been a lot of conversation recently because

there’s one very noticeable dam near the bridge and I

said to people if they’ve got children ‘go and show them

that’.”

B03 Yes “Overall, where else can you go in the UK and say ‘I’ve

got beavers half a mile up the road’? Not many other

places!”

6.3. Community Beaver-Watcher Expenditure

In the mail-return questionnaire, respondents were asked whether they would spend

money in a local business as part of a beaver-watching experience, with the ability

to select multiple options. 25 respondents answered the question (36.36% of the total

respondent pool, 69.4% of respondents who indicated they were personally

interested in beaver-watching). The respondent answers are illustrated in Figure 14.

The most highly selected option was a pub/restaurant.


27

If respondents answered ‘Other’ they were asked to specify their answer, and 18

respondents (72.00% of those who answered the question) used the box to provide

further information. 14 respondents stated that they lived in the village so they

wouldn't use these businesses, 2 said spending in businesses wasn't necessary or that

they wouldn't do so, 1 stated they spent money in B01, whilst 1 said they would take

a picnic.

In addition, respondents were asked whether they would take any equipment on a

typical ‘beaver-watching experience. 38 respondents (57.57%) answered the

question. In descending order of frequency, respondent answers indicated they

would take the following equipment: Camera (21); Binoculars (14); Nothing (8) – 1

further specified that they would expect this to be provided; Suitable clothing

(including waterproofs, footwear) (5); Phone (2); Portable Seat (2);

Snacks/Picnic/Water (2); Flask (1); Walking Stick (1); Tripod (1); Head torch (1). As

such, although the majority of these items are re-usable, their use in a ‘beaver-

watching’ experience will contribute towards their usable lifespan or value and the

possibility of purchase for a ‘beaver-watching’ activity cannot currently be ruled

out.

Respondents were then asked hypothetically how much they would be willing to

pay (in total) for a "typical" 'beaver-watching' experience near to the village, stating

that this was all-inclusive of expenditure on travel, local business and the experience

of viewing beavers etc. 46 respondents answered the question (69.70%). Their

answers are illustrated in Figure 15. 97.83% of respondents indicated that they would

spend less than £40 and 56.52% of respondents indicated they would not be willing

to spend any money. The average ‘willingness-to-pay’ value per respondent for a

‘beaver-watching’ experience near to the village was £7.74 (range £5.78-£9.70).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Pub/Restaurant

Café

Shop

Other

Percentage of Respondents

Bu

sin

ess

Typ

eFigure 14. Businesses that respondents indicated they

would spend money in as part of a 'beaver-watching'

experience near to the village


28

6.4. Valuing ‘Beaver-Watching’ Near to the Village

Using the resident ‘willingness-to-pay’ average value of £7.74 (range £5.78-£9.70)

ascertained in Section 6.3 and East Devon AONB’s footpath counter data described

in Sections 5.2 and 5.3, an indicative estimate range of value has been calculated

for ‘beaver-watching’ activity in village. Three estimates are made, one for the total

value of the months recorded on the footpath counters, one which looks at this in

accordance with respondents’ answers to how they use the river near to the village

and one which focuses upon the summer months.

Of note, these figures are calculated using the average figure of residents’

willingness-to-pay for a ‘beaver-watching’ experience. This figure may differ for

visitors to the village, such as by incurring travel costs.

6.4.1. Valuation 1 – Proportion of Total Footpath Use

The total number of ‘beaver-watchers’ is an unknown, as is the number of footpath

counts which pertain towards ‘beaver-watching’ activity. However, between the

months of June 2017 and February 2019 the total number of footpath counts is

known (excluding the months of October and November in 2017 due to technical

issues).

In Figures 16a and 16b, the values of the ‘willingness-to-pay’ values have been

applied across the number of footpath counts to indicate the potential value of

‘beaver-watching’. As referenced, the number of counts pertaining to ‘beaver-

watching’ is unknown, but we have assumed this value to be somewhere between

0% and 40% of the total footpath counts. This area is highlighted in green, whereas

the less likely value range (>40% of footpath counts) is highlighted in red.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Expenditure Range

Figure 15. Residents' Willingness-to-Pay' Values For A

"Typical" 'Beaver-Watching' Experience Near To The

Village


29

Based upon the available months of footpath counter data, the highest potential

average value we estimate - at 40% of total footpath counts - for North and South

respectively is £285,358.32 (range £213,097.04-£357,619.60) and £639,611.93 (range

£477,643.02-£801,580.84).

£0.00

£100,000.00

£200,000.00

£300,000.00

£400,000.00

£500,000.00

£600,000.00

£700,000.00

£800,000.00

£900,000.00

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Re

sid

en

ts' W

illin

gn

ess

-To

-Pa

y V

alu

e

% of Footpath Counts

Figure 16a. Residents' Willingness-To-Pay For A

'Beaver-Watching' Experience and North Footpath

Counter Total

Lower Range (£5.78) Average (£7.74) Upper Range (£9.70)

£0.00

£500,000.00

£1,000,000.00

£1,500,000.00

£2,000,000.00

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Re

sid

en

ts' W

illin

gn

ess

-To

-Pa

y V

alu

e

% of Footpath Counts

Figure 16b. Applying Residents' Willingness-To-Pay

For A 'Beaver-Watching' Experience to South

Footpath Count Data

Lower Range (£5.78) Average (£7.74) Upper Range (£9.70)


30

6.4.2. Valuation 2 – Proportion of respondents indicating they use the river for

‘Viewing Wildlife’ and total footpath use

In Section 3.3 residents were asked about their use of the river near to the village. In

that multiple-response question, 19.17% of respondents indicated that the river was

used for ‘Viewing Wildlife’. If this figure is applied footpath counter data alongside

the ‘willingness-to-pay’ values, the average total value North is £136,758 (range

£102,126.80-£171,389.20) and the average total value South is £306,534 (range

£228,910.40-£384,157.60).

6.4.3. Valuation 3 – The Summer Period

In Section 5.3, the difference in footpath use between the summers of 2017 and 2018

(one with and one without beaver presence) is examined. Noting that there are

important variables that may have contributed towards the decrease in numbers

which are discussed, the residents’ willingness-to-pay values are applied to the

difference in visitor numbers between these summers as these may be indicative of

the number of ‘beaver-watchers’ in the summer of 2017.

As such, the average willingness-to-pay estimate North is £84,559.50 (range

£63,146.50-£105,972.50) based upon a difference of 10,925 counts and South is

£120,016.44 (range £89624.68-£150,408.20) based upon a difference of 15,506 counts

for the summer of 2017.

If it were true that the difference in footpath counts were a reduction in ‘beaver-

watchers’, this value would not have been met in 2018. Hence, this is indicative of

temporal variation based upon the activity and proximity of beavers.

6.5. Supplementary Results from Cornwall Beaver Project – Visiting ‘Beaver-

Watcher’ Expenditure

The previous results related to a local ‘beaver-watching’ experience for residents

within the community. It is possible that visitors to the community may undertake

different expenditure or be ‘willing-to-pay’ a different value for a ‘beaver-watching’

experience for which they have travelled. Attempts were made to survey visiting

‘beaver-watchers’ on the riverbanks near to the case study village however there

was little ‘beaver-watching’ activity when attempts were made, therefore

participants were difficult to identify and the participant pool was of unknown size.

As such, supplementary results are presented here from surveys issued to visitors to

the Cornwall Beaver Project.

The Cornwall Beaver Project is a fenced enclosure in Ladock, run by Cornwall

Wildlife Trust and Woodland Valley Farm, in partnership with researchers at the

University of Exeter who undertake scientific research on the impacts of beavers.

Visitors are able to book ‘beaver-watching’ experiences at the project at a cost of

£10.

A short paper survey was issued to visitors by the Project on behalf of the University of

Exeter to the project to explore the actual expenditure visitors had undertaken as


31

part of their experience across the 2018 season (between March and October). 127

visitors surveys were submitted (the total number of visitors is uncertain).

6.5.1. Travel Costs

Firstly, visitors were asked how far they had travelled for their visit to the Cornwall

Beaver Project. 119 (93.70%) respondents answered the question. Their answers are

illustrated in Figure 17. 89.08% of respondents had travelled up to 30miles to visit the

project.

Visitors to the project were then asked how much their travel to the project had cost.

123 respondents (96.85%) answered the question, and their responses are illustrated

in Figure 18. 98.37% of answers reported that they had spent up to or equal to £20.

8.13% indicated that they had not incurred any travel costs.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

<5 Miles 5-10 Miles 11-20 Miles 21-30 Miles 31-40 Miles 41-50 Miles >50 Miles

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Distance Travelled

Figure 17. Distance Travelled By Respondents To Visit

Cornwall Beaver Project in 2018


32

6.5.2. Expenditure in Local Businesses

Respondents were asked whether they had undertaken any expenditure in local

businesses as part of their visit to the Cornwall Beaver Project, with the option to

select multiple answers. 35 respondents (27.56%) provided an answer to the

question. Respondent answers are illustrated in Figure 19. Of those who selected

‘Other’ the following details were specified: car parking; pasty; scouts; farm; RNLI

Fundraising Event.

Figure 18. Travel Costs Reported By Visitors To

Cornwall Beaver Project in 2018

£0 £1-5 £6-10 £11-15 £16-20 £21-25

£26-30 £31-35 £36-40 £41-45 £46-50 >£50


33

Respondents were then asked approximately how much they had spent in these

local businesses. However, only 1 respondent provided an answer of “£1-10”.

6.5.3. Motivations to Visit the Project

Respondents were asked why they had chosen to visit the Cornwall Beaver Project.

118 (92.91%) respondents provided an answer. A word frequency analysis (with

stemmed words) or respondent answers was conducted, the result of which is

illustrated in Figure 20. The most frequently occurring words were ‘beavers’ and

‘interested’, both of which were used 48 times. The word ‘see’ then occurred 40

times, and there were 31 occurrences of the word ‘wildlife’.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Shop(s)

Leisure Activity

Restaurant(s)

Pub/Bar(s)

Other

None

Frequency

Bu

sin

ess

Typ

eFigure 19. Local Business Types in Which

Respondents Undertook Expenditure as part of a

Visit to Cornwall Beaver Project in 2018


34

Figure 20. Word frequency analysis of respondents’ comments on their motivation for

visiting the Cornwall Beaver Project in 2018.

Table 15 provides further information by listing the reasons that were given, in no

particular order.

Table 15. Reasons given as motivation to visit Cornwall Beaver Project by Visitors in

2018

Description (in no particular order)

Interest in: potential for flood alleviation; wildlife; conservation; mammals;

reintroduction; the ‘great outdoors’; habitat management; wetland habitats.

To see: beavers; what is going on; impact on biodiversity; habitat creation by

beavers; beavers in natural habitat.

To learn: about beavers; about the project

Heard about the project: from a friend; from a neighbour; from a family member;

having seen media publicity (eg BBC Wildlife Magazine, Facebook, Television).

Beavers are a new concept in Cornwall

Beavers are a natural solution to environmental problems

As a member of Cornwall Wildlife Trust

Attended with a community group (eg. Scouts, Womens’ Institute)

For photography/wildlife photography


35

To support the project

To take family members (children/grandchildren/parents)

It is a good opportunity

6.6. Nationwide Survey Perspective

In the nationwide attitudinal survey conducted in 2017 (Auster et al., 2019),

respondents were asked for their views of the impacts of beavers upon the broad

field of ‘Economics’. As this is of similar focus to this case study, the content analysis

of reasons given for a respondents view are provided here in Table 16. In the same

survey, respondents were asked for their views of the impacts of beavers on the

broad field of ‘Recreation and Leisure’, the content analysis results of which follow in

Table 17. In these tables, ‘N’ refers to the number of usable responses given for each

perspective, whilst ‘n’ refers to the number of reasons given within these responses.

(As respondents sometimes gave more than 1 reasons, n can be greater than N).

The % column represents the percentage of n relating to the reason given. Further

details for these tables are provided in the appendix detailing respondents’ reasons

for their answers to the nationwide questionnaire.

Table 16. Nationwide reasons for view of beaver impact on ‘Economics’

VIEW REASON %

Positive

N=2027*

n=2690

[Eco]tourism, recreation and local business opportunity 43.38

Beneficial Ecosystem Services [excluding ecotourism and business

opportunity]

37.70

Need to consider the negative impacts too 5.43

Beavers are a native species 2.97

Benefits outweigh costs [recognise costs] 2.64

Generally positive 2.49

Benefits to conservation and research 1.08

Affection for beavers 1.00

Context dependent 0.97

Nature shouldn’t be about economics 0.71

Job creation 0.56

There are gains but they are limited 0.41

“I don’t know” 0.22

Needs further research 0.19

Economics should be focused on sustainability 0.15

Destabilise hierarchical economical structure 0.07

Management needed for other species 0.04

Negative

N=388**

n=388

[Riparian] costs of flood risk, wetland, erosion and tree damage 45.10

Management/Repair expenses 15.21

Risk of revenue loss from fishing/fisheries 9.79

Costs not outweighed by benefits [although benefits recognised] 8.76

Generally negative 3.61

Initial reintroduction [and trial] is costly 2.84

Those affected by costs don’t get benefits 2.84


Environment has changed since beavers were present 2.06

Better use of money elsewhere 1.80

Overpopulation leads to nuisance 1.80

More research required 1.29

Protection may limit ability to manage 1.03


36

Beavers should not be reintroduced 0.77

Disapproval of illegal releases 0.52

Beavers could introduce diseases 0.26

Increase in footpath use increases damage and livestock

disturbance

0.26

Neutral

N=336

n=336

Presented both positive and negative reasons (reflected above as

appropriate)

45.24



Limited or neutral effects 7.74

Requires further research or evidence 4.17

Irrelevant/shouldn’t be a factor in reintroduction 3.27

Requires management 2.38

Don’t understand the question 1.79

Economics is about humans not beavers 0.30

*including 132 positive comments in the neutral category

**including 119 negative comments in the neutral category

Table 17. Nationwide reasons for view of beaver impact on ‘Recreation and Leisure’

VIEW REASON %

Positive

N=1825*

n=2089

Encouraged outdoor activities and engagement with nature

[excluding fishing and ecotourism]

44.9

0

Beneficial for Ecotourism, Education & Conservation Awareness 30.6

4

Ecosystem Services improve recreational experiences [broadly stated] 6.85

Beneficial for fishing 4.64

Other considerations (including public access, ability to see beavers,

local conflicts, beaver welfare, ‘novelty value’)

5.17

Generally positive 2.35

Affection for beavers 1.48

Excitement of new species [broadly] 1.20


Limited gains 0.72

Ethical values (eg environment belongs to everyone) 0.62

Works positively elsewhere 0.14

Don’t know 0.14

Opportunity for television 0.10

Provides study opportunities 0.10

Dislike the question 0.05

Negative

N=179**

n=229

Potential effects on fishing/fisheries 34.9

3

Obstruction of river navigation/waterways 17.4

7

Access restricted 8.30

Restrict country/water sports [excluding fishing and boating] 8.30

Generally negative 7.86

Negative environmental change 7.86

Risk to beaver welfare from recreationists 3.93

Potential for too many visitors 2.62

Impacts are overrated 1.75

Beavers are not there for our recreation 1.75

Beavers should be in zoos/kept to private land 1.31



37

Ecotourism will wane as novelty decreases 0.87

Less recreational opportunity leads to economic losses 0.44

Risk of injury (such as from coppiced tree spikes) 0.44

Resources would be better invested in other UK species 0.44


Risk of trespass 0.44

Neutral

N=224

n=228

Present positive and/or negative reasons (reflected above as

appropriate)

42.5

4

Don’t know or No Opinion 23.6

8

Little or no effect 20.6

1


Beavers should be left alone 2.19

Other recreational [nature] opportunities 1.32

Beavers and what project represents are more important [than

leisure/entertainment]

0.88


Don’t understand question 0.88

Education will be required 0.88

*including 73 positive comments in the neutral category

**including 72 negative comments in the neutral category

References Auster, R.E., Puttock, A.K. & Brazier, R.E. (2019). Unravelling perceptions of Eurasian

beaver reintroduction in Great Britan. AREA. In Press.

Beavers, a Rural Community and Ecotourism: A Case Study on ...€¦ · University of Exeter Beavers...

Documents

Transcript of Beavers, a Rural Community and Ecotourism: A Case Study on ...€¦ · University of Exeter Beavers...