Using Q-methodology for understanding conservation conflicts: common voles in Spanish farmlands

The importance of social insights in conservation is often underestimated by decision-making and is one of the main obstacles for the implementation of efficient management. Conservation conflicts occur when there exist social... [ view full abstract ]

The importance of social insights in conservation is often underestimated by decision-making and is one of the main obstacles for the implementation of efficient management. Conservation conflicts occur when there exist social tensions due to restricted access to natural resources for conservation purposes, or economic losses generated by some wildlife species of conservation concern. Such conflicts are often highly complex and understanding the viewpoints of the variety stakeholders can be of great help for decision-making. Q-methodology, a framework that stands between qualitative and quantitative social research, providing precision and statistical robustness to explore human subjectivity, is increasingly used in this context. Here, we interviewed 64 farmers, employees of farming associations, conservationists, hunters and agents of the regional government to analyze their views on the problems associated with common vole (Microtus arvalis) outbreaks and their management in farmland areas of northwestern Spain. In this area, common voles invaded farmland lowlands in the last 30 years, since when they recurrently experience population outbreaks leading to significant crop damages. How vole outbreaks are managed, including through chemical and mechanical treatments of habitat, has deep conservation implications that are at the root of an important social conflict. Applying Q-methodology, we identified five main discourses about the vole issue. One discourse was built around blaming the position of conservationists and of the government as the root of the problem, minimizing the influence of farmers and the ecological implications of management. A second one focused in seeing the agricultural system as responsible for the vole presence, and on the ecological negative implications of current management. A third one placed emphasis on the communication and empathy limitations between stakeholders. Finally, one outlined that the issue is a matter of public concern that goes beyond agriculture, and the other one highlighted simultaneously the perceived responsibilities of government and conservationists, whilst acknowledging the ecological implications of the management. Farmers had a wide variety of opinions, and the socio-economic classification is not sufficient to determine the type of discourse that one could defend. Interpreting the different viewpoints revealed that the most antagonistic opinions were driven by conservationists and by farmers’ syndicates rather than by the majority of farmers or by the cooperatives employees that advise them. The analyses highlight the central position of decision makers along this main conflictual axis, and outline consensus about the lack of cooperation between stakeholders, and about the lack of technical information delivered to the farmers. All discourses shared a rejection of the use of poison as “the only solution” and plaid for more biological control to reduce vole numbers and their damage (i.e. use of birds of prey). These results could be useful to implement future socially accepted management. Through this case study, we promote Q-method as an efficient tool to investigate human dimensions of wildlife management and thus to help decision-making in any conservation conflict.