“Angling in the Rural Environment: Social, Economic, Ecological and
Geomorphological Interactions”
CONTEXT AND RATIONALE
Rivers and their catchments are the focus of legislative change, public use and land-use pressure: change
that will increase given the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), national and local Biodiversity
Action Plans (BAPs) and the rural agenda of the Haskins report. The sustainability, integrity and
ecological value of river catchments are also currently major issues for science (Dynesius & Nilsson
1994; Raven & Boon 2002). To manage freshwaters and their ecologies successfully, we need to address
processes which work across the boundaries between the natural environment, economy and society
through an increasingly ‘joined-up’ approach. This research will focus upon these cross-cutting processes
in an interdisciplinary, holistic assessment of river environments through the case of angling.
Angling both benefits from and influences river quality, design and management. Angling also links
urban and rural environments and is an economic driver for the rural economy (EA 2004b), involving
about 4 million people in England and Wales (EA 2004a) and contributing £6 billion to the economy
through freshwater angling alone (Radford et al. 2001). As key stakeholders, anglers can have both
positive and negative effects on river environments. They often seek to enhance catchment integrity for
the benefit of recreational fisheries (Lucas & Batley 1996), which can also benefit other wildlife and
users. Habitat improvement schemes, often carried out or stimulated by angling interests (Pretty et al.
2003), can enhance biodiversity. However, angling-related activities can damage habitats and landscape
processes and may cause serious conflicts with habitat and wildlife value (Kerkvliet & Nowell 2000).
Angling is also being promoted as part of a sustainable rural economy and for its social benefits (EA
2004b). This again requires a more integrated and a more consumption-based approach than previously
and stronger links between urban and rural areas through the development of countryside leisure pursuits
(Haskins 2003). Spending on recreation has increased more rapidly than other areas of the economy and
the EA (Environment Agency) are trying to further expand use of rural areas (Defra pers.comm.).
Recreation in the countryside has increased in socioeconomic, environmental and political importance
(Pitcher and Hollingworth 2002) and rivers are critical sites in this process.
So, studying the links between angling and river environments provides insight into how environmental
and socioeconomic drivers for rural change work. This project therefore aims to identify and analyse the
complex network of influences and feedbacks around angling in the rural environment. These include
natural and socioeconomic influences, necessitating thoroughly interdisciplinary research which will, as
we show below, involve researchers from both natural and social science disciplines (aquatic ecology,
geomorphology, anthropology, sociology, human geography), as well as stakeholders from government,
NGOs and the local community, and it will conduct reflexive ethnographic research into interdisciplinary
working and dialogue with stakeholders. This project will focus upon three rivers in northern England the Esk, Ure and Swale – in the course of a holistic and fine-grained study. These are ideal sites, because
while rural, they have experienced environmental degradation that has affected wildlife diversity
including fishes, they support diverse fish species for recreational angling and they are used by various
anglers from different socioeconomic groups.
Choosing a study scale is important because different disciplines tend to approach research at different
scales. For example, physical sciences tend to work from the plot to the reach to the catchment scale with
clear boundaries between each, but social sciences may conceive of political or economic relations at
scales from the individual to complex groups with fuzzy boundaries making limits difficult to identify.
Further, science and policy frequently work at much larger scales than the individual angler or owner of a
particular reach, often making communication, consultation and policy development more difficult where
groups think and talk differently about the same rural environments. An important aspect of this
interdisciplinary research will therefore be the explicit examination of scale, through the ways in which
1
data are collected, analysed and understood and the role of different knowledges and power in those
processes
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
Our overall aim is to analyse the complex network of natural and socioeconomic relationships around
angling in the river environment, including institutions of governance and land use practices at a range of
interconnected scales. The results will contribute to policy debates on the integrated development of the
rural river environment. The project will be organised through a series of inter-linked Work Packages
(WPs), which are linked both conceptually and practically to others through shared research teams to
ensure interdisciplinarity. Our specific objectives across these WPs are:
1. To assess the geomorphological, ecological and socioeconomic influences that angling has on the Esk,
Swale and Ure river catchments (WP: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5);
2. To assess how the natural environment, the institutional context of management and cultural practices
influence angling in these three river environments (WP: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5);
3. To identify the goods provided by the rivers to anglers and other users in the study catchments
including links through urban users (WP: 1.1, 1.2, 1.4);
4. To critique current decision making practices in order to inform and strengthen the sustainable
integrated management of rivers and their rural catchments (WP: 1.5, 2);
5. To build interdisciplinary capacity through practice and reflection (WP: All); and
6. To facilitate information and knowledge interchange between different disciplines and academics and
stakeholders in the wider community, by developing collaborative processes and tools capable of
generic application to policy development and implementation (WP: All).
PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH AND ACTION
WP1 ENVIRONMENTAL RHETORIC AND REALITY AROUND ANGLING
WP2 is about investigating the complex of natural and social processes that contribute to the development
and conservation of a river catchment, through the lens of angling, and together with WP 1.2. constitutes
the main area of primary data collection in the proposal.
WP1.1 Environmental visions and angling. This WP investigates different views about river and still
water environments and how these influence policy and practice, with particular reference to freshwater
angling. Managing and using waters for angling is motivated by ideas of what rivers should be,
particularly what fish they should contain, how the rivers and lakes should be maintained, stocked and
accessed, who should own them and what they should look like. Understanding these ideas and how
groups involved in the river environment differ in their ideas will address the drivers and conflicts
underlying how rivers are used and managed.
The academic context for this WP is in interdisciplinary work relating firstly to concepts of nature and
naturalness underlying environmental agendas and secondly to the development and uses of science and
other forms of knowledge in society. In the last ten years, academic debates have particularly focused
upon the idea and construction of nature (Cronon 1995; Braun and Castree 1998) and therefore upon how
‘nature’ and ‘naturalness’ influence perceptions about the environment and preferences for its
management and policy (Harrison and Burgess 1994; Macnaghten and Urry 1998; Eden et al. 1999,
2000). Academic debates around how scientific authority is built and maintained (Gieryn 1999), how
public trust in scientific advice is gained and lost (Irwin 1995; Irwin and Wynne 1996) and the nature of
expertise (Collins and Evans 2002; Jasanoff 2003) have been given added significance in the UK by
recent scientific controversies, such as those around climate change, GM crops and BSE, all of which
have affected debates about rural policy, economy and land use.
2
We can apply these theoretical concerns to better appreciate the case of river environments, and
particularly their management for angling, gathering primary data using an array of in-depth interviews,
Q-methodology and participant observations, in concert with WP2.4 and WP1.2 in particular. Firstly, we
will examine and compare the understandings and preferences associated with river environments for
angling and how these drive change towards an idealised or naturalised river environment. Such
perceptual and normative visions are critical both to developing policy and practice and also to conflicts
that develop over the future of the rural environment. We are concerned to differentiate between anglers
of different types and with different practices - game and coarse anglers, urban and rural residents, local
‘purists’ and ‘tourists’. Moreover, we are interested in how these visions change over time, as accepted
discourses of environmental management are challenged or orthodoxies overturned (Adams et al. 2004),
and communicated through different channels and social networks, from the virtual spaces of internet
angling chat rooms and hobby magazines to the physical spaces of angling clubs, events and shops.
These visions are themselves shaped by wider knowledges about environmental change, water use,
natural conditions and ecological development. Secondly, therefore, we shall consider: where knowledge
about river landscapes and quality comes from and how it is validated and legitimated; what sorts of
knowledges are most authoritative and influential in driving visions, policy and practice; and what gaps in
knowledge are identified by different groups. How waters, fish and riparian environments are measured
and monitored will be a key concern, because different groups use different ‘indicator’ species (WP2.2),
visual attributes or landscape qualities as proxies for measuring environmental health. Thirdly, therefore,
we are interested in how anglers ‘read’ rivers and lakes and how far such amateur, practical knowledge
communicates with, adds to, or clashes with the more professionalised expertise of scientists and
regulators. This will therefore include not only studying anglers’ views (also WP2.4) but also reflexively
considering the work done under WP2.3, in order to analyse scientific knowledges against the
knowledges of different river users, anglers and managers. Thus, ‘knowledge’ may be ecological and
historical, professional and amateur, qualitative and quantitative and, again, will be shaped by the scale at
which the river environment is experienced and managed. Finally, we shall map how these different
visions and knowledges influence changing policies and practices, from channel redesign and water
monitoring to stocking practices. This will link explicitly with the ecological and geomorphological
aspects of river management, both through investigating the visions and expectations held by groups
monitoring and implementing physical environmental change and through considering the relative
influence of different knowledges (especially scientific ones) on policy and practice.
WP1.2 Angling and ecology. This WP investigates relationships between angling, the freshwater
environment and its ecology, particularly in terms of biological diversity, a NERC priority. Angling
interests have many influences, often positive, on ecological quality of river corridors and may encourage
landowners to retain healthy river corridor environments. However, diversifying the rural economy to
boost angling revenue may intensify resource use and damage the ecological value. There is also
evidence that inland fisheries improvement schemes have failed or caused conflict with other needs
because they have not included a comprehensive analysis across all of the processes, natural and social,
that affect catchments and their users (Lucas and Marmulla 2000; Raven and Boon 2002; Cowx and
Gerdaux 2004). As a local example, in 2004 a landowner in northern England re-engineered a river reach
to make it more attractive to migrating salmonids, enabling him to charge a higher rental to anglers, but in
doing so large numbers of protected pearl mussel and their habitat were destroyed (EA pers. comm.).
This exemplifies the multiple issues of rural income, diversification, landscape change and wildlife
conservation in Britain, and more widely, that must be addressed through interdisciplinary research of the
sort proposed here.
Paradoxically, there has been a shift away from angling in natural systems and towards artificial still
waters in England and Wales (EA 2004b), many of which are homogenous in habitat and ecology yet
popular with anglers and able to provide additional rural income (EA 2004b; WP2.1). However, concern
has grown regarding the role of artificial still waters in the spread of non-native species and disease,
particularly to natural systems (Hickley & Chare 2004), because non-indigenous species are the second
3
greatest threat to global biodiversity after land use change (Sala et al. 2000). Angling has been an
important driver of this. For example, the white-clawed crayfish is threatened with extinction in Britain,
partly due to exotic crayfish escaping from still water fisheries into rivers, often following their
introduction for weed control (Bubb et al. 2004). Artificial still waters close to rivers are also susceptible
to flooding, increasing the risk of loss of stocked species. Therefore, while creating new still waters could
provide revenue and alleviate angling pressure from ecologically sensitive rivers and lakes, we should
consider the relative advantages and disadvantages.
This WP will, first, establish the influence of angling relative to other factors on the patterns of
distribution and abundance of key species along rural river corridors, including indirect effects such as
habitat management and direct effects such as disturbance. We propose to sample the following species,
based on their priority in EA/English Nature’s Freshwater BAP and similar biodiversity policies, their
populations in the Ure, Swale and Esk catchments, their significance as biotic indicators and the potential
affect of angling upon each: crayfish (native and exotic), pearl mussel, lamprey, dipper, grey heron and
brown trout. For crayfish we are particularly interested in invasion risk and species interaction. For pearl
mussel, lamprey and brown trout we will examine habitat-related effects on abundance, especially
concerning sediment dynamics and direct mortality. For birds we will examine disturbance effects.
Because the types of angling and density of anglers vary dramatically between river/lake types and
reaches, field sampling of angling activity and behaviour will be stratified in time and place and make use
of good baseline data that are available (e.g. NERC LOIS; Whitton & Lucas 1997; Lucas et al. 1998; the
EA’s GIS) in concert with the angling surveys in WP2.4. The WP will, secondly, investigate whether
(and how) angling and related land and habitat management can make an enhanced contribution to habitat
and wildlife conservation through their effects on these species. Thirdly, it will contribute to determining
mechanisms, risks of occurrence and effects of species introductions through angling and other factors
such as floods, along river corridors. Finally this WP will explore how the ecological benefits and costs
of angling can be translated into policy through inclusive decision making at local (e.g. LEAP, local
BAP), national (e.g. BAP, SSSI) and international (e.g. Habitats Directive, WFD) levels.
WP1.3 Angling and river processes. This WP will investigate the relationships between angling and the
physical river environment and catchments, especially through spatial variations in catchment silt
pollution and vegetation changes caused by land use change and the actions of anglers along river
corridors. Measuring and understanding differences in riparian and in-stream habitat in relation to
angling and other factors is fundamental to fisheries, wildlife value and environmental visions, and is
directly linked to sediment transfer.
Recent research has tended to focus on understanding and predicting diffuse pollution in catchments
caused by phosphorus and nitrogen (Heathwaite et al. 2000; Burke et al. 2003; Lane et al. 2004).
However, there has been much less research on fine sediment, commonly referred to as silt, which is also
a diffuse pollutant. Silt is important for two reasons; firstly, it is a pollutant itself in silting up gravel
spawning beds of fishes such as salmonids and lamprey, which in turn affects biodiversity (Walling et al.
2003) and, secondly, sediment associated transport of nutrients and pollutants can result in long term
pollution problems (Walling et al. 2001). Land use change, including the resulting changes in silt
supply, is seen as the most significant threat to global biodiversity (Sala et al. 2000; see WP2.2).
Research into silt transfer focuses on attributing fine sediment to particular land uses (e.g. arable fields)
(Walling et al. 2002; Collins and Walling 2002), or establishing changes in soil erosion at the field scale
(Banis et al. 2004). However, little research has been carried out into identifying the spatial variation in
location of sediment sources throughout catchments. It is important to be able to determine the spatial
pattern of supply and deposition of silt to develop sustainable catchment management solutions. This
data is also needed to validate and calibrate computer simulation models that are being developed as
catchment management tools of diffuse pollution. Once we understand the variation in silt supply and
transfer, we can then investigate how activities such as angling affect these spatial patterns; beneficially
or adversely.
4
There are four main activities within this project. Firstly, the variation of supply, transport and deposition
of fine sediment within the three rural catchments will be determined. This is a fundamental question for
sustainable catchment management and will produce results that will directly benefit the regional sections
of the EA, but also feed into national EA strategies and into BAPs. Alongside determination of silt
transfer, water quality characteristics (cations, anions and metals) will be monitored to generate a
complete data base of water quality characteristics in the study catchments. Mass flux samplers which
have been successfully piloted within an EA funded study and have produced significant results will be
used. Secondly, the extent to which angling activity modifies the fine sediment flux within rural
catchments will be explored. This will be undertaken by directly monitoring vegetation and bank erosion
but also by observing angler’s behaviour (WP2.4). This will benefit both the EA and Fishing Clubs and
results will inform current practice concerning the building of groynes (that can encourage siltation),
swims (that can weaken or strengthen banks to encourage/ limit sediment supply), alterations in channel
substrate and vegetation and the intensity and types of fishing. Thirdly, how anglers interact with bank
and in-stream vegetation will be investigated. This is one specific local land use change and interacts with
silt transfer and habitat (WP2.1, 2.2). Finally the relationship between spatial variations in fine sediment
transfer and biodiversity will be investigated. The changing patterns of sediment transfer are detrimental
to some biota, such as gravel-spawning fishes and pearl mussel, yet can be absolutely necessary for others
such as lamprey larvae (WP2.2). Linking the geomorphology to ecology in the study sites will allow us
to explore this question and will produce important information for the EA and the BAP.
WP 1.4 Integrated rural development and angling as a leisure pursuit. This WP will explore how
anglers construct this leisure pursuit in the context of their household and social lives and how angling
contributes to integrated rural development. Angler spending on permits contributes to landowners’
incomes, while other spending by anglers (and their companions) may go to local businesses, or may take
place outside the catchment altogether. The dynamics of angling as a leisure pursuit may conflict with
other leisure uses of land, with land and river management, with habitat and with biodiversity. This WP
will use angling as a nexus for identifying the opportunities for integrated rural development at a
catchment scale and the obstacles to sustainability. It will identify the significance of the (gendered)
social and economic constraints on different types of angling activity.
Existing research provides a well-rounded socio-economic overview of anglers and angling activity,
while concentrating on monetary evaluations of the contribution that angling makes to the national
(England and Wales) and regional economies (Radford et al. 2001; Spurgeon et al. 2001; EA 2004b,c).
Nine per cent of the population aged 12 and older can be considered as anglers, with men aged 35 to 54
dominating. The capital value (price for which fishing rights are bought and sold) was estimated at £3
billion in 2001, with coarse fisheries worth 75 per cent of that total. Annual expenditure in England and
Wales by game anglers on their sport (tackle, permits, travel and accommodation) has recently been
estimated at £545 million, an average spend of £682 per angler. What is known as ‘consumer surplus’ –
the amount that anglers would be willing to pay for their fishing over and above what they actually do
spend – has also been calculated (at roughly equivalent to the capital value of salmon rod fisheries).
What is missing from existing studies is understanding of the processes that lie behind the statistics. Such
understanding is essential to the nuanced development of angling for both economic (integrated rural
development) and social policy objectives and to go beyond a narrowly economic (or monetary) calculus
to embrace the non-economic benefits gained from angling. We apply the conceptual framework of Sen’s
human flourishing (Oughton et al. 2003) to understand consumption holistically by seeing economic
behaviour as embedded in an institutional context and questioning the sharp divide between consumption
and production. For Sen (1993, 1999), human flourishing derives from the achievement of valued
functionings (approximately lifestyles), which are the opportunity to achieve well being. Functionings
derive from the individual and household ‘capability set’ of real life/livelihood possibilities when
(constrained) choices are made to combine endowments of skill, income etc. in particular ways. Inter
alia, this conceptual framework provides a way of understanding how gender as an institution plays itself
out in the behavioural choices of different groups of anglers, constrained for example by who undertakes
weekend caring activities, who has access to the family car, what the level of household income is, how
5
intensive paid work activity is etc. Sen’s framework also allows a contextualised understanding of the
social policy benefits of exposing urbanites to a rural water setting.
This WP will, firstly, collect survey data for the three study catchments on types of angling, origin of
anglers, and socio-economic characteristics and expenditure levels and patterns (over time and space) for
different angling cultures (including angling companions). It will then collect in-depth (interview-based)
data on the social and economic context and the processes underpinning the decisions that anglers make,
placing their angling activities within the context of the livelihoods and lifestyle choices made by anglers
and their households, to intensify data with respect to expenditure patterns, particularly of angler
companions.
Finally, this WP will identify the relative significance of angling as a driver for integrated rural
development along the Ure, the Swale and the Esk. Preliminary findings from our current RELU project
(RES-224-25-0058) indicate that the maintenance of livelihoods takes precedence over other social,
economic and environmental concerns. Angling economic drivers will be explored through specific
linkages to the local economy, via angling and accommodation businesses for example, and as identified
from types of expenditure in the angler survey. Other key economic actors whose river bank or catchment
based interests may clash with those of angling will also be interrogated, e.g. farmers and environmental,
rambling, canoe and local residents organisations (also WP2.1). The socio-economic analysis undertaken
here will be integrated with the analysis of ecological processes (WP2.2) to provide greater understanding
of local processes of integrated rural development and feed in to the catchment plans required by 2008
under the WFD, and so enhance interdisciplinary practice.
WP 1.5 Angling and governance. This WP will examine structures of governance and practices in detail
to determine the institutional factors that enable and constrain the activities of anglers and other major
stakeholders within the river catchments. The analysis will be based upon a conceptual framework of
environmental entitlements (see Oughton and Birch, 2004). ‘Entitlements’ describes the legitimate and
effective command that stakeholders have over the natural resources of the catchment and depends upon
the stakeholders’ abilities to access and use resources and the institutional framework. ‘Institutions’
means not only the organisations which may affect governance of the river but also the ‘rules of the
game’. Legal institutions offer a formal framework for the management of the goods and services
provided by the river and its catchment, but morals and customs will also play significant roles in
everyday practices. The environmental entitlements approach thus allows the detailed investigation of
how institutions work at different scales and the relationships between those scales.
The WP will concentrate on the differing perspectives, both explicit and implicit, of the institutions and
the power relations between them. Entitlements and the institutions governing them may coincide for
some groups but equally may lead to conflict and misunderstanding. These relationships are likely to be
more complex as the scale of analysis becomes finer. For example, there may be general agreement that
socio-economic development and the protection of biodiversity are good things, but on any given reach of
the river at any given time the means to achieving these aims may be highly contested. We will be
particularly concerned to trace the rhetoric of large scale institutions, such as the WFD, as they filter
down into practice. The ability to push through and implement an imposed agenda such as this involves
local interpretation and persuasive and rhetorical capacities through written and personal interaction
(WP1.2). In addition, projects to develop the economic and social benefits of river use, especially
angling, involve the implementation of both national and local regulations (WP2.4). Further, the
outcomes of policies and practices on anglers and other user groups will be explored in relation to the
particular perceived entitlements of the group under study (also WP 2.1, 2.2).
Preliminary research on the River Esk (RELU award RES-224-25-0058) has established that the most
significant stakeholders within the local rural economy are anglers, other leisure users, landowners and
farmers and organisations such as the EA, Defra, National Park Authority and local councils. Extending
the work to the Swale and Ure catchments will introduce anglers of different types and additional
development and management agencies. The first task of the project will be to identify the most
6
significant stakeholders in each catchment and explore different institutions and uses of the river through
published and grey literature, including policy directives and regulations, government and agency
guidelines as well as the records and publications of angling groups and societies. Written documents will
reveal the metaphors and images used to describe the management of the river and thus the rhetoric of
different actors. The analysis of these materials will also provide an important context for WP3.
The second task will be to determine through a series of focus groups, the perceived entitlements of
significant stakeholders, their knowledge of, and attitudes towards the governance of the river catchment,
its natural resources and the institutions involved. The third task of this WP will be to determine what
makes institutions work, and by contrast why do they fail? This research will be carried out through a
series of semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. It will include investigation of the knowledges
held by different actors, the distribution of power and access to power in decision making and
implementation, the role of communication and trust and in particular the ways in which conflicts and
misunderstandings in the objectives and practices of different stakeholders are worked through. Together
with the rest of WP2 these findings will form a vital context to WP3.
WP2 GETTING NEW SCIENCE INTO PRACTICE
The aim of this WP is to integrate data, analysis and evaluation from the other WPs to explore best
practice in the delivery and implementation of the science and social science of angling in rural
environments, given the wide range of influences upon angling and stakeholders involved. Central to this
will be understanding the role of scale in the implementation process.
It is important to incorporate the goals of individuals and the broader community into decision-making
processes on environmental matters, such as river and angling management. Public opinion and
engagement affects ease of adoption, sense of identification with and ownership of local projects,
(Pfadenhauer 2001; Swart et al. 2001), social relevance (Wissmar and Beschta 1998), direct public
involvement and participation (Goodwin, 1998) and public support for landscape (Adams 1997). Angling
brings the question of scale to the fore as a wide ‘community’ is involved, beyond the immediate
geographical locality. McDonald et al. (2004) have already shown that conflict can emerge in river
restoration as a result of different perceived visions and priorities for management between specific
interest groups (e.g. anglers) and much of this is concerned with scale. For instance, the common
argument from a biophysical perspective that a catchment-scale treatment of root causes of environmental
degradation is required overlooks important research that suggests that it is often only the ‘local
catchment’ scale that can engage stakeholders and communities and that ‘neighbourhood catchments’
(Carroll et al. 2002) may be the only scale of management that is socially meaningful. Further, in a
democratic society, if political units are defined as spatial units that do not match catchment boundaries,
following a catchment-based approach will raise questions of democratic accountability. This effectively
explains why large-scale or catchment-scale experiments have become less favoured (Darby and Thorne
2000), despite an increasingly large-scale legislative framework (e.g. the WFD). As the spatial scale of a
restoration project increases, so do the political and social constraints (Sear 1994; Brookes and Sear
1996), such that there may have to be growing compromise between both biophysical and community
perspectives as well as within different community perspectives. At present, we have very little idea as to
how to achieve such compromise.
Given this debate, this WP will explore mechanisms for delivering sustainable angling policy, including
conventional approaches led by regulatory bodies such as the EA and emerging approaches based upon
stakeholder groups (e.g. the Upper Wharfedale Best Practice Project) or NGOs (e.g. the Yorkshire Dales
Rivers Trust), from the perspective of both environmental and socio-economic issues and with reference
to achieving compromise. Using the material from WP2, it will map the spatial, temporal and substantive
frameworks of the individuals, stakeholders and institutions that are involved in or affected by angling,
both directly and indirectly, in the three study areas.
7
WP3 DISSEMINATION AND COMMUNICATION
This WP will disseminate and communicate research results to as wide an audience as possible; both
academic and stakeholder. This will be undertaken by academic conference presentations, stakeholder
meetings, TKEs, written reports, journal publications and by a final project conference to be held on-site
in the study area (see Outputs, below). Dissemination will be undertaken during the duration of the
project and not just in the final stages.
METHODS
This proposal is founded on integrating diverse qualitative and quantitative methods (see table below)
from both natural and social science disciplines, enabling the research team to gather data collectively and
share those data across WPs. This project will thus monitor land and water use alongside socio-economic
and cultural practices, link all these to policy drivers at different scales and build interdisciplinary
capacity. Sites for detailed study will be selected within the Esk, Swale and Ure catchments to form a
nested hierarchy of locations suitable for all WPs. Good baseline data are available (e.g. NERC LOIS;
Whitton & Lucas, 1997; Lucas et al., 1998; ongoing studies), including for fisheries (EA data).
Method
Collection and textual analysis of secondary data, including:
1. Grey literature (government and consultancy reports) on river quality and use
2. Angling (hobby) literature and electronic fora (historical and contemporary)
3. Fish and catch data (locally on the three rivers and nationally)
4. Previous surveys of angling and river use
5. River flow, flood map data from EA and LOIS data
6. Land use maps; location, origin, characteristics of still waters
Collection of primary data on river use and perception, physical processes
and biodiversity, including:
1. Field surveys of angler use (quantitative data on behaviour and impact,
particularly density, geographical and temporal patterns, habitat fished,
targeted and caught fish species)
2. Survey questionnaires (quantitative data on river use, ownership, angler spend
(time and money), sociodemographics, travel patterns, targeted fish) (200 per
catchment)
3. Q methodology (quantitative data on perception and knowledge)
4. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups (qualitative data on water use,
environmental perception, science and knowledge, landscape preferences,
environmental entitlements, institutional opportunities and constraints) (24
anglers and 10 companions per river, 10 business actors, 20 entitlements)
5. Participant observation (qualitative data on environmental perception,
knowledge and behaviour, researchers, institutions and stakeholders)
6. Stream reconnaissance (to identify sites and channel change)
7. Repeat photographs (to establish bank erosion, vegetation change, to initiate
discussions of research practice and natural landscapes in interviews)
8. Laser scanning (to quantify bank erosion and vegetation change)
9. Suspended mass flux sampling (25 sites per river)
10. Catchment characteristics (rainfall, stage, water quality @ 2 sites per river)
11. Habitat surveys, condition and extent of riparian and in-stream vegetation
12. Biota sampling by observation, hand-searching and electric fishing
Relevant WPs
1,2, 3
1.1,, 2
1.2, 1.3, 1.4
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5
1.2, 1.3
1.2, 1.3
1.1, 1.3, 1.4
1.4, 1.5
2.1
1.1, 1.4, 1.5
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5
1.2, 1.3
1.2, 1.3
1.2, 1.3
1.3
1.2, 1.3
1.2, 1.3
1.2
The social science techniques will involve different research subjects in line with the objectives of the
WPs, specifically: anglers (game, coarse and both); angling companions, the angling trade (shops, licence
sellers, commercial fisheries); angling clubs and projects (locally and nationally); riparian owners and
8
managers (locally and nationally); regulatory and advisory bodies (locally and nationally); non-angling
river users: canoeists, rowers, boaters, walkers and local residents; researchers and scientists (locally and
nationally and within project team). A Q-methodology exercise will be carried out (McKeown & Thomas
1988), in which subjects sort visual representations of ‘idealised’ river environments (Fairweather &
Swaffield 2001; Robbins 2000). This will use a quantitative technique to examine the nature and
character of different views of river environments and thus complement the qualitative data from
interviews and observations (WP2.1). The researchers in the team will also complete the Q methodology
exercise, to examine and reflect upon our own positions and assumptions as interdisciplinary researchers
(WP1.2).
OUTPUTS
The outputs of this innovative, interdisciplinary project will directly inform regional and national policies
of the EA, Defra and statutory conservation bodies concerning the relative social, economic, ecological
and geomorphological values of angling activities to rural river catchments. They will particularly help
frame the effective development of angling as a rural income stream while promoting and retaining
landscapes of high environmental, wildlife and amenity value and supporting inclusive decision making
at local, national and international levels. As part of WP3 and 4, the team will produce a website with
interactive local maps of the three rivers and postings of emerging results to disseminate directly to nonacademic stakeholders and users. The research team will also seek to disseminate results through nonacademic outlets that speak directly to users and stakeholders, such as agency in-house newsletters and
angling fora. TKEs will support effective communication between scientists and stakeholders and be
used to deliver guidance and support to policy development, change and implementation. A project
conference will be held in the study area to relay results to local people and, using feedback from
stakeholders, we will also produce a guidance document for policy concerning the role of anglers as
stakeholders in decision making at multiple levels.
Academic outputs will include at least ten internationally refereed journal articles in key disciplinary and
interdisciplinary outlets (such as Environment and Planning A, Journal of Environmental Management,
Journal of Applied Ecology, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Geomorphology, Sociologia
Ruralis, Social Studies of Science, Ethics Place and Culture), drawing upon WP2 results. As part of WP
1.2, a compact handbook will be produced outlining disciplinary differences and good practice in
interdisciplinarity, for researchers encountering other disciplines and those who commission and use
research (WP 1.2). The physical and socio-economic data sets from the survey work will also be archived
to enable access by other researchers, such as through the ESRC’s Data Archive.
WORK PLAN
Action
Management and training
Management meetings
TKEs and interdisciplinary workshops
Web page development
Advisory meetings
Project preparation
Collection of grey literature (all WPs)
Collection of secondary data (all WPs)
Identify study sites (all WPs)
Identify stakeholders (1.1, 1.4, 1.5)
Plan integrated socioeconomic data needs
(WP1)
Data collection and analysis
Focus groups (1.5)
Semi-structured interviews and behaviour
1
2
3
*
*
*
*
*
Quarter years of the project
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
*
*
*
*
*
9
*
*
*
*
*
*
survey (1.1,1.2,1.4,1.5)
Biota sampling (1.2)
Sediment and water quality sampling (1.2,
1.3)
Catchment characteristics (1.2, 1.3)
Q methodology (1.2,)
Habitat survey, bank erosion and
vegetation sampling (1.2, 1.3)
Integrating WP results and exploring
mechanisms for sustainable angling policy
(2, 3)
Dissemination
Conference presentations
Stakeholder meetings
Reports, academic and popular journal
articles
On site project conference
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
REFERENCES
Adams, W.M. 1997 Rationalization and conservation: ecology and the management of nature in the United Kingdom.
Transaction of the Institute of British Geographers, 22, 277-91.
Adams, W.M., Perrow, M.R. & Carpenter, A. 2004 Conservatives and champions: river managers and the river restoration
discourse in the United Kingdom, Environment and Planning A 36, 11, 1929-1942.
Banis, Y.N., Bathurst. J.C. & Walling, D.E. 2004 Use of caesium-137 data to evaluate SHETRAN simulated long-term
erosion patterns in arable lands. Hydrological Processes, 18, 1795-1809.
Braun, B. & Castree, N. 1998 (edited) Remaking Reality. London, Routledge.
Brookes, A. & Sear, D.A., 1996. Geomorphological principles for restoring channels. In Brookes, A. and Shields, F.D., River
Channel Restoration, Wiley, Chichester, 75-101.
Bubb, D.H., Thom, T.J. & Lucas, M.C. 2004 Movement and dispersal of the invasive signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus
in upland rivers. Freshwater Biology 49, 357-368.
Burke, S., Heathwaite, L. & Quinn, P. 2003. Strategic management of non-point source pollution from sewage sludge. Water
Science and Technology, 47, 305-310.
Carrithers, M. 1992 Why Humans Have Cultures: Explaining Anthropology and Social Diversity. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Carrithers, M. in press. Anthropology as a moral science of possibilities. Current Anthropology.
Carroll, C., Rohde, K., Millar, G., Dougall, C., Stevens, S. Ritchie, R. & Lewis, S. 2002 Neighbourhood catchments: a new
approach for achieving ownership and change in catchment stream management. Water Science and Technology 45, 18591.
Clark, K. 2001 The politics of schemas. XML.com. (http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/01/31/politics.html, 4 February 2005).
Collins, A.L. & Walling, D.E. 2002 Selecting fingerprint properties for discriminating potential suspended sediment sources
in river basins. Journal of Hydrology, 261, 218-244.
Collins, H.M. & Evans, R. 2002 The third wave of science studies, Social Studies of Science, 32, 2, 235-296.
Cowx, I.G. & Gerdaux, D. 2004 The effects of fisheries management practises on freshwater ecosystems. Fisheries
Management and Ecology 11, 145-151.
Cronon, W. 1995 (edited) Uncommon Ground WW Norton and Company, New York.
Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N.J. & Porter, J.R. 2003 Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 100 39-51.
Darby, S.E. & Thorne, C.R. 2000 A river runs through it : morphological and landowner sensitivities along the Upper Missouri
River, Montana, USA. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, 25, 91-107.
Dynesius, M. & Nilsson, C. 1994 Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world.
Science 266, 753-762.
Eden, S., Tunstall, S. & Tapsell, S. 2000 Translating nature: river restoration as nature-culture. Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space, 18, 257-273.
Eden, S., Tunstall. S. & Tapsell, S. 1999 Environmental restoration: environmental management or environmental threat? Area 31,
2, 151-159.
EA 2004a Conservation, Access and Recreation Report 2003/04. Environment Agency, Bristol.
EA 2004b Our Nation’s Fisheries. Environment Agency, Bristol.
EA 2004c Angling in 2015: getting more people into fishing Environment Agency, Bristol.
10
Fairweather, J.R. & Swaffield S.R. 2001 Visitor Experiences of Kaikoura New Zealand: an interpretative study using
photographs of landscapes and Q method. Tourism Management 22, 3, 219-228.
Fernandez, J. & M. Huber 2001 (edited) Irony in Action. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Frye, M. 1983 The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory. The Crossing Press.
Gieryn, T. 1999 Cultural Boundaries of Science: credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Goodwin, P. 1998 ‘Hired hands’ or ‘local voice’: understandings and experience of local participation in conservation.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 23, 481-99.
Harrison, C.M. & Burgess, J. 1994 Social constructions of nature: a case study of conflicts over the development of Rainham
Marshes. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 19, 3, 291-310.
Haskins C. 2003 Rural Delivery Review: A Report on the Delivery of Government Policies in Rural England DEFRA, London.
Heathwaite, L., Sharpley, A. & Gburek, W. 2000 A conceptual approach for integrating phosphorus and nitrogen management
at watershed scales. Journal of Environmental Quality 29, 158-166.
Hickley, P. & Chare, S. (2004) Fisheries for non-native species in England and Wales: angling or the environment? Fisheries
Management and Ecology 11, 203-212.
Ingold, T. 1999 ‘Tools for the hand, language for the face’: an appreciation of Leroi-Gourhan’s Gesture and Speech. Studies
in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science 30: 411-453.
Irwin, A. 1995 Citizen Science Routledge, London.
Irwin, A. & Wynne, B. 1996 (edited) Misunderstanding Science? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jasanoff, S. 2003 Breaking the waves in science studies: comment on HM Collins and Robert Evans, ‘The third wave of
science studies’. Social Studies of Science 33, 3, 389-400.
Kerkvliet, J. & Noewll, C. 2000 Tools for recreation management in parks: the case of Yellowstone’s blue-ribbon fishery.
Ecological Economics 34, 89-100.
Knorr Cetina, K. 1999 Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Lane, S.N., Brookes, C.J. & Kirkby, M.J. 2004 A network-index based version of TOPMODEL for use with high-resolution
digital topographic data. Hydrological Processes 18, 191-201.
Lucas, M.C. & Batley, E. 1996 Seasonal movements and behaviour of adult barbel Barbus barbus, a riverine cyprinid fish:
implications for river management. Journal of Applied Ecology 33, 1345-1358.
Lucas, M.C. & Marmulla, G. 2000 An assessment of anthropogenic damage to freshwater fisheries and of their restoration:
current state and future direction. In Cowx, I.G. (edited) Management and Ecology of River Fisheries. Blackwell, Oxford,
261-278.
Lucas, M.C., Mercer, T., Batley, E., Frear, P.A., Peirson, G., Duncan, A. & Kubecka, J. 1998 Spatio-temporal variations in the
distribution and abundance of fishes in the Yorkshire Ouse system. The Science of the Total Environment 200/201, 243-257
Macnaghten, P. & Urry, J. 1998 Contested Natures. Sage, London.
McDonald, A., Lane, S.N., Haycock, N.E. & Chalk, E.A., 2004 Rivers of dreams: on the gulf between theoretical and practical
aspects of an upland river restoration. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29, 257-81.
McKeown, B. & Thomas, D. 1988 Q Methodology. Sage, London.
McNeill, D., J. Garcia-Godos & A. Gjerdåker 2001 Interdisciplinary Research on Development and the Environment. SUM
Report no. 10. Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo.
Nader, L. 1996 Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. Routledge, New York.
Oughton E., Wheelock J. and Baines S. (2003) Micro-businesses and social inclusion in rural households: a comparative
analysis. Sociologia Ruralis 43, 4:331-348.
Oughton E.A and Birch J. (2004) Integrated Management of European Wetlands (2004) Final Report to DG Research.
European Union..
Pfadenhauer, J., 2001 Some remarks on the socio-cultural background of restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology, 9, 220-9.
Pitcher T.J. & Hollingworth C.E. 2002 (edited) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Pretty, J.L., Harrison, S.S.C, Shepherd, D.J., Smith, C., Hildrew, A.G. & Hey, R.D. 2003 River rehabilitation and the benefit of
instream structures. Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 251-265.
Rabinow, P. 1999 French DNA: Trouble in Purgatory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Radford, A.F., Riddington, G. & Tingley, D. 2001 Economic Evaluation of Inland Fisheries, R&D Project Report W-039/PR/1
(Module A) EA, Bristol.
Raven, P.J. & Boon, P.J. 2002. Editorial preface. Aquatic Conservation, 12, 327-328.
Robbins, P. 2000 The practical politics of knowing: state environmental knowledge and local political economy. Economic
Geographer 76, 2, 126-144.
Sala, O.E. & 18 co-authors 2000 Biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770-1774.
Sear, D.A., 1994 River restoration and geomorphology. Aquatic Conservation, 4, 169-77.
Sen, A. 1993 Capabilities and well-being. In Nussbaum, M. % Sen, A. (edited) The Quality of Life. Clarendon Press, Oxford,
31-53.
Sen, A. 1999 Development as Freedom. Knopf, New York.
Spurgeon, J., Colurullo, G., Radford, A.F. & Tingley, D. 2001 Economic Evaluation of Inland Fisheries, R&D Project Report
W-039/PR/2 (Module B) EA, Bristol .
Swart, J.A.A., van der Windt, H.J., Keulartz, J., 2001. Valuation of nature in conservation and restoration. Restoration
Ecology, 9, 230-8.
The Rhetoric Culture Project. www.rhetoricculture.org, accessed 4 February 2005.
11
Walling, D.E., Collins, A.L. & McMellin, G.K. 2003 A reconnaissance survey of the source of interstitial fine sediment
recovered from salmonid spawning gravels in England and Wales. Hydrobiologia 497, 91-108.
Walling, D.E., Russell, M.A. & Webb, B.W. 2001 Controls on the nutrient content of suspended sediment transported by
British rivers. Science of the Total Environment 266, 113-123.
Walling, D.E., Russell, M.A. & Hodgkinson, R.A. 2002 Establishing sediment budgets for two small lowland agricultural
catchments in the UK. Catena 47, 323-353.
Whitton, B.A.W. & Lucas, M.C. 1997 Biology of the Humber rivers. The Science of the Total Environment 194/195, 247-262.
Wissmar, R.C. & Beschta, R.L. 1998 Restoration and management of riparian ecosystems: a catchment perspective.
Freshwater Biology 40, 571-85.
12