This commentary reflects on the experiences of a cohort of human and physical geographers in enacting environmental collaborations during their doctoral studies. The authors identify three key structural barriers encountered whilst attempting a collaborative approach: (1) doctoral funding priorities, (2) doctoral resourcing and (3) assessing doctoral collaboration. The authors discuss how the negotiation of these encounters came to frame their understanding of collaborative approaches to environmental knowledge creation. Competitive application processes for doctoral studentships can encourage the overpromising of the impact of planned environmental collaboration, potentially co-opting the voices of partners/communities to satisfy doctoral funding requirements. Given insufficient funding of collaborations, the authors argue that this overpromising of doctoral research's impact can later result in difficult trade-offs between undertaking additional commitments at the expense of the career progression of the doctoral student, contributing to educational inequalities and scaling-back the initial plans at the cost of collaborators encountering environmental crises. The trade-off is further problematised by institutional assessment procedures that do not adequately recognise the more nuanced contributions of environmental collaborations and a prevailing culture promoting peer-review publishing. Overall, the commentary argues that these barriers help to reproduce inequalities in the distribution of voice in environmental scholarship, undermining efforts to democratise environmental knowledge creation in doctoral research. The authors call for specific structural reforms of doctoral programmes to help address these challenges and support a broader resistance to the inadequate resourcing and evaluation of environmental collaborative research in UK higher education.

In anthropogenic landscapes, wildlife reintroductions are likely to result in interactions between people and reintroduced species. People living in the vicinity may have little familiarity with the reintroduced species or associated management, so will need to learn to live with the species in a new state of “Renewed Coexistence.” In England, Eurasian beavers ( Castor fiber ) are being reintroduced and U.K. Government agencies are currently considering their national approach to reintroduction and management. Early indications are this will include requirement for “Beaver Management Groups” (BMGs) to engage with local stakeholders. This policy paper reports on qualitative research that captured lessons from the governance of two existing BMGs in Devon (south‐west England), drawing on both a prior study and new interview data. Through the analysis, we identified that BMGs are not a fixed structure, but an adaptive process . This consists of three stages ( Formation , Functioning , and Future? ), influenced by resource availability and national policy direction. We argue that, where they are used, Species‐specific Management Groups could provide a “front line” for the integration of reintroduced species into modern landscapes, but their role or remit could be scaled back over time and integrated into existing structures or partnerships to reduce pressure on limited resources, as knowledge of reintroduced species (such as beaver) grows and its presence becomes “normalized.” There must be sufficient flexibility in forthcoming policy to minimize constraint on the adaptive nature of BMGs and similar groups for other reintroduced species, if they are to facilitate a sustainable coexistence.

According to the IUCN guidelines, wildlife reintroduction should consider any impacts on humans within feasibility assessments. Eurasian beavers Castor fiber are recovering across their native range, due to protection laws and reintroductions. In Central Italy, a self-sustaining, naturalised population of Eurasian beavers has been identified in the last five years. A questionnaire to measure whether and how citizens in the local area perceive the presence of the beaver was administered to 1114 respondents. We observed a comprehensive awareness of the presence of the beaver in Italy and a high ability to distinguish it from non-native coypus Myocastor coypus (92.3%). We also recorded a general high knowledge of issues related to the presence of the beaver (i.e., potential effects on indigenous biodiversity). The majority (65.5%) of the surveyed population was in favour of reintroducing the beaver in Central Italy, and only 1.2% was firmly against it. The majority of interviewed people was against the removal of beavers from Central Italy (65.8%), whereas only 3.7% was in favor, citing fears of perceived impacts on the river, crops, and fish populations.

Individual animals are often given names by humans. For example, names are attributed to domestic animals to acknowledge their closeness to people, some research studies use names to identify differences between individuals in a study group, or zoos often use names to tell stories that attract public or media attention.Publicly naming individual animals can provide opportunities in conservation, but there are also risks. In this perspective we exemplify such opportunities and risks in the context of wildlife reintroductions. We draw on examples and observations from our experience researching Eurasian beaver Castor fiber reintroduction in England, to encourage careful thinking before publicly attributing a name to an individual in reintroduction projects.Naming individuals in reintroduction can: be a low-cost engagement tool; help people relate to unfamiliar reintroduced species; encourage local ownership of reintroduction projects; enable an effective tool for communicating information about the species and ways to coexist; or support creative or cultural expression.Yet naming individuals in reintroduction could: risk misrepresentation of natural species characteristics; make it challenging to normalise the sense that the reintroduced species is a wild animal; unintentionally imply that humans have ownership or power over the animal; cause distraction from establishing viable populations due to focus on the individual; or result in human investment in individual animals, which may have influence on reintroduction outcomes if that animal later comes to harm or dies (naturally or otherwise).Synthesis and Applications. We argue there is more to the act of naming individuals than may first appear. If considering doing so, we call for careful thought about whether it is appropriate and how to go about it. While we intentionally refrain from concluding whether 'to name or not to name', we call for careful, informative, message framing that takes advantage of the opportunities and is prepared for future circumstances, when naming of individuals does take place.

Water voles (Arvicola amphibius) are critically endangered in Great Britain and there is a pressing need for successful conservation strategies. Meanwhile, another semi-aquatic rodent, the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) is being restored to much of its native range including Great Britain. Beavers are known as ecosystem engineers and keystone species, creating wetland habitats. As part of the River Otter Beaver Trial in South-West England, free-living beavers were reintroduced in a location where water vole were present and being surveyed. Here, we present survey data showing the expansion of water vole into newly beaver engineered wetland areas. We propose that complex beaver wetlands may benefit water vole populations by creating new habitat and providing refuge from predation, warranting further investigation as a nature recovery option.

Species reintroductions are growing in popularity, and example motivations include supporting species populations or the restoration of ecosystem function. Interactions between humans and the reintroduced species are likely to occur post-reintroduction. Coexistence between humans and wildlife is adaptive and dynamic, in part requiring management of conflicts between humans and wildlife, or of conflicts between humans over wildlife management. We seek to learn from the experiences of steering group members in a Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) project in England and identify how governance of coexistence with reintroduced species may differ from the governance of coexistence with species that are already present in the landscape. Using a qualitative thematic analysis of an online survey, we identify a series of lessons in six key areas: (1) project governance, (2) stakeholder engagement, (3) research and monitoring programme, (4) strategy to manage arising conflicts, (5) public engagement, and (6) broad perspectives on reintroduction trials. We advocate for reflective evaluation as an essential component of reintroduction projects to enable knowledge-sharing from experiences, leading to improved practices in the future. Reflecting on our analysis, we identify and define ‘Renewed Coexistence’—a new term that draws on pre-existing coexistence knowledge but identifies the unique elements that relate to governing coexistence with reintroduced species.

Primate species demonstrate high levels of intelligence, innovation, and social learning. These characteristics give rise to a high likelihood of new behaviours occurring and being socially transmitted to other individuals within a group. Capuchin monkeys are group-living and are commonly considered to be among the most intelligent non-ape primates. They exhibit a large repertoire of complex behaviours and have been shown to be capable of innovating to problem solve. However, observations of new behaviours in wild populations are rare in comparison to captive populations. Here we describe Panamanian white-faced capuchins (Cebus imitator) carrying out a behaviour which has not been previously documented in capuchin species and may be related to predator avoidance. This behaviour was video-recorded and to our knowledge is the first record of a capuchin species using tail-dipping behaviour to access an open water source in the wild.

Abstract Natural flood management (NFM) methods work with natural processes to reduce flood risk, while often providing additional benefits such as water quality improvement or habitat provision. Increasingly, the activity of an animal—beavers—is recognised to potentially provide flow attenuation, along with multiple benefits for the environment and society, but there can also be associated challenges. We use Q‐Methodology to elicit and understand human perspectives of beavers and their potential role in flood management among communities living downstream of beavers at three sites in England (Cornwall, Yorkshire and the Forest of Dean). This is the first time a study has focused on downstream communities as the primary stakeholders. We identify diverse perspectives that exhibit a range of value judgements. We suggest a catchment‐based approach to beaver management and public engagement may facilitate deeper recognition of contextual perspectives in decision‐making and enable knowledge dissemination with communities. Further, we examine the relationship between beavers and other NFM methods through these perspectives. In doing so we identify features that relate to the unique element of relying on the natural behaviour of beavers for flood management, rather than human flood managers being the primary decision‐makers.

Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) reintroduction is taking place in England with potential benefits for flood alleviation and biodiversity; however there is also opposition. One area of controversy relates to fish and fishing. A previous meta-analysis of research into beaver-fish relationships found perceived benefits of beavers amongst fish and beaver "experts" included increased fish abundance and productivity, whilst perceived negatives included impeded fish passage and reduced spawning habitat availability. We further this understanding using Q-Methodology (a social science technique) to reveal three nuanced and contrasting perspectives that exist amongst the angling community in the catchment of a trial reintroduction. Due to a conflict potential between groups, we suggest management themes to help reduce this where reintroduction occurs: open, cross-sectoral dialogue about research into beaver-fish relationships and management; a management strategy which supports ecosystem benefits whilst providing a sense of empowerment for individuals to respond to negative impacts.

Social factors hold implications for the success or failure of wildlife reintroductions. Potential conflict issues may prevent projects from proceeding or succeeding. The manner in which wildlife managers engage with affected people in conflict scenarios may prevent or contribute toward conflict escalation, so an understanding of how to improve engagement is required. We conducted interviews with individuals who reported conflicts with beavers (Castor fiber) within the case study of a reintroduction trial in England, called the ‘River Otter Beaver Trial’. Using a qualitative thematic analysis, we identified five themes to be considered when engaging with affected people in beaver reintroduction conflicts: (1) Proactive Engagement or a Fast Response; (2) Appropriate Communication; (3) Shared Decision-Making; (4) Sense that Humans are Responsible for Conflicts with Reintroduced Species; (5) A Need for Certainty. We conclude that engagement with affected individuals will likely be improved, with reduced conflict potential, where these themes are addressed.

Beavers have the ability to modify ecosystems profoundly to meet their ecological needs, with significant associated hydrological, geomorphological, ecological, and societal impacts. To bring together understanding of the role that beavers may play in the management of water resources, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems, this article reviews the state-of-the-art scientific understanding of the beaver as the quintessential ecosystem engineer. This review has a European focus but examines key research considering both Castor fiber-the Eurasian beaver and Castor canadensis-its North American counterpart. In recent decades species reintroductions across Europe, concurrent with natural expansion of refugia populations has led to the return of C. fiber to much of its European range with recent reviews estimating that the C. fiber population in Europe numbers over 1.5 million individuals. As such, there is an increasing need for understanding of the impacts of beaver in intensively populated and managed, contemporary European landscapes. This review summarizes how beaver impact: (a) ecosystem structure and geomorphology, (b) hydrology and water resources, (c) water quality, (d) freshwater ecology, and (e) humans and society. It concludes by examining future considerations that may need to be resolved as beavers further expand in the northern hemisphere with an emphasis upon the ecosystem services that they can provide and the associated management that will be necessary to maximize the benefits and minimize conflicts. This article is categorized under:Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems.

Wildlife reintroduction projects are required to account for social and economic factors. Wildlife tourism is often cited as a benefit of reintroduction, so an understanding of whether and how this manifests is required. Through a case study of a village in the catchment of a live reintroduction project (Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) in England) we reveal how reintroduced species tourism has economic benefit for local business, but the scale of benefit is dependent upon business initiatives that take the opportunity (eg merchandise, marketing etc.). We suggest reintroduction practitioners should actively encourage local businesses to maximise opportunities, especially where tourism is cited as a reason to reintroduce. We recommend further research into whether benefits remain in the long-term, but speculate some value will persist. Finally, we recognise reintroduction-related wildlife tourism may interact with other local issues, but seeing a reintroduced species or signs of its activity can produce positive emotional responses.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines state that anticipated impacts must be considered in wildlife reintroduction, including the impacts on humans. Further, since reintroduction projects can be halted by resulting human–wildlife conflicts or human–human conflicts about wildlife, the perceptions of stakeholders and publics are of great importance. Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) reintroduction is being debated in Great Britain at a devolved level. A decision has already been taken in Scotland to allow beavers already present to remain, while a number of reintroduction trials are taking place in England (both fenced and unfenced). There are also proposals for a reintroduction trial in Wales. We use a sub‐set of results from a nationwide survey (n = 2,759) to identify four social areas that we propose decision‐makers should consider in the debate: key stakeholder perceptions; engagement methods; attitudes towards legal protection and management responsibilities; and support for management techniques. In this paper, we investigate the complex social dimensions of wildlife reintroduction and we argue that emphasis should be placed on the need to recognise societal perceptions of potential management solutions, beyond perceptions of reintroduction itself. This is paramount in order to develop a management strategy that is more likely to garner social support and reduce potential future conflicts, should beaver reintroduction proceed.